Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Experts Want To Ban Organophosphate Pesticides To Protect Children's Health (theguardian.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the look-at-the-evidence dept.

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Evidence that an entire class of pesticides threatens the health of children and pregnant women is now so arresting that the substances should be banned, an expert panel of toxicologists has said. Exposure to organophosphates (OPs) increases the risk of reduced IQs, memory and attention deficits, and autism for prenatal children, according to the paper, published in Plos Medicine. More than 10,000 tonnes of OP pesticides are sprayed in 24 European countries each year and usage is higher in the US, where the Trump administration is appealing against a federal court ban on chlorpyrifos, one of the most popular agricultural insecticides.

Irva Hertz-Picciotto, the paper's lead author and director of the UC Davis environmental health sciences centre, said: "We have compelling evidence from dozens of human studies that exposures of pregnant women to very low levels of organophosphate pesticides put children and fetuses at risk for developmental problems that may last a lifetime. By law, the EPA cannot ignore such clear findings: It's time for a ban not just on chlorpyrifos, but all organophosphate pesticides." Bruce Lanphear, one of the paper's co-authors, said: "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children. Well before birth, organophosphate pesticides are disrupting the brain in its earliest stages, putting them on track for difficulties in learning, memory and attention, effects which may not appear until they reach school-age. Government officials around the world need to listen to science, not chemical lobbyists."

11 of 71 comments (clear)

  1. Show me the numbers by quenda · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is the magnitude of risk here? Is it an observable epidemiological effect like lead in petroleum, and iodine deficiency?
    Or is it more like the recent hysteria over glyphosate?

    And why should it be totally banned instead of just kept away from pregnant women? I don't believe there is any residual pesticide in fresh food when regulations are followed.
    I rubbed this stuff (malathion) into my kids heads to kill headlice when they were little. They still get strait As. Would not have dreamed of using it on a pregnant Mrs.

    I'd like to see the costs quantified, because a lot more people in 3rd world countries are going to experience famine, without these pesticides.

    1. Re: Show me the numbers by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Seriously though, just because we all grew up riding around in the back of a pickup truck doesn't mean it was safe.

      Doesn't mean it needs to be banned, either.

      Organophosphates (unlike roundup) actually are quite dangerous. It doesn't take a huge ammount to instantly kill you, and repeated exposure to lower doses definitely can lead to health problems. That doesn't mean they're a risk for the consumer, though; only for the agriculutrual workers who come into contact with the stuff. Better safety protocols during aplication/handling may be all that's really needed, as suggested by the fact that (as per the article) 99% of those who die from pesticide poisoning are in the developing world.

      As for the "experts" in this article, when they try to blame autism on organophosphates that's a pretty big red flag. When they further say things like "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children" that pretty much confirms that they're not to be taken seriously. They then go on to tell you to "buy organic" and "wash your food", the latter of which is probably the only truly rational suggestion in the entire article.

    2. Re:Show me the numbers by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What is the magnitude of risk here? Is it an observable epidemiological effect like lead in petroleum, and iodine deficiency? Or is it more like the recent hysteria over glyphosate?

      I've read the data, the numbers are significant and show increasing harm by closer distance to the spraying sites, and coinciding across the locations.

      Observable evidence doesn't mean much, as when people showed concern about tetra ethyl lead in gasoline, an industry exec "proved" it was perfectly safe by washing his hands in gasoline. This was years before the inadvertent experiment where demographics showed that men living near highways were poisoned with lead, leading to violent tendencies.

      And there are still people who whine about banning DDT, lead in gasoline, elimination of Paris Green (arsenic source) from pesticides, and removing arsenic from wallpaper, and dosing children with huge amounts of X-rays in bogus shoe fitting devices.

      The companies hold great sway in these matters.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re: Show me the numbers by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The anecdote is just to express scepticism and call for real evidence.

      Can you give me the citations that prove that the evidence is not real? Well, Ask any ye shall recieve.

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...

      http://depts.washington.edu/op...

      These are just a few of many available citations. Your challenge is to refute them since you appear to know that these reports are not real.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    4. Re: Show me the numbers by AntronArgaiv · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IANAChemist, but I remember once being told that organophosphates are from the same chemical family as modern "a drop will kill 100 people" nerve gasses.

      Anything that toxic deserves to be treated with respect, even if it's only designed to kill bugs. So, if there's evidence that it is affecting children's brain development, we should be looking very hard at it, and banning is definitely on the table. Seems a lot more likely that organophosphates are a problem than, say, vaccines.

      But, I grew up with _Silent Spring_, Agent Orange , Vietnam, leaded gas and Bhopal. So my trust level for pronouncements that organophosphates are "safe when used as directed" is a bit low. And I'm not convinced that produce gets or can be washed enough to remove all traces of them.

    5. Re: Show me the numbers by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      As for the "experts" in this article, when they try to blame autism on organophosphates that's a pretty big red flag. When they further say things like "We found no evidence of a safe level of organophosphate pesticide exposure for children" that pretty much confirms that they're not to be taken seriously. They then go on to tell you to "buy organic" and "wash your food", the latter of which is probably the only truly rational suggestion in the entire article.

      • Causes neurological issues - check
      • in womb exposure heightens damage - check
      • c6gunner denounces potential autism tie in - check

      Look, I agree more information than just that referenced in TFA is needed to come to a conclusion. But seriously the EU and US have already banned more than 75% of this class of compounds, so they're not just whistling in the wind on their "bad effects". If it turns out that even residual exposure such as residues on fruit can have effects on developing fetuses, we may finally have an explanation for the rise of documented autism cases than just "we recognize and document them more now".

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  2. Other info by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 3, Interesting

    8 Myths About Pesticides That Monsanto Wants You to Believe (Nov. 4, 2015)
    Quote: As of 2008, Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, DuPont, BASF and others had filed 532 patents for 'climate-related genes,' touting the imminent arrival of a new generation of seeds engineered to withstand heat and drought."

    Answer to question on Yahoo: "Organophosphates KILL everything. Good bugs as well as bad. Most growers of any crops are now using something called. I.P.M., integrated pest management."

    1. Re:Other info by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      Most growers of any crops are now using something called. I.P.M., integrated pest management."

      It depends on how you define "most growers". Most crops are grown without IPM, because the big ag cartel doesn't use it. In fact, they prohibit the growing of any other plants around the fields, because they supposedly attract animals which shit on the produce and cause outbreaks which lead to recalls. Of course, what actually causes that is when they don't provide enough toilets, and pickers have to shit between the rows.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. Nonsense by sad_ · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Everybody knows that autism and such things are a result of vaccination!
    And they dare call themselves scientists, phu!

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  4. Risk evaluation by sjbe · · Score: 2

    Seriously though, just because we all grew up riding around in the back of a pickup truck doesn't mean it was safe.

    Doesn't mean it needs to be banned, either.

    So you are arguing in effect that people shouldn't be required to wear seat belts either? Because that's the same argument. Sometimes we need to ban behaviors that are needlessly dangerous because sometimes people don't know better and/or are bad at evaluating risk. A certain percentage of them are going to die unnecessarily and that measurably affects the rest of society in tangible ways. When others have to pay for first responders to scrape you off the highway because you wanted to do something idiotic then we get a vote on whether we permit that behavior. Obviously we can't stop someone from doing something stupid/dangerous if they are determined but we can deter some people and save some lives in the process. There is nothing physically preventing a 12 year old from getting the keys to a car and driving it but we deter them from trying by having consequences for doing so because in most cases it would be needlessly dangerous.

    The question is whether these chemicals are sufficiently dangerous and costly (negative health effects, environmental cost, etc) to justify banning them. Sometimes we have to do something dangerous because the alternatives outcomes are worse or because we have limited alternative options. I'm no expert but I strongly suspect we have alternative options here and are capable of developing more. So if these chemicals are dangerous (and they evidently are) and we have viable alternatives then we're kind of idiots if we don't ban them for use cases where we don't need them.

  5. Acute toxicity to humans is not the only risk by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've known for decades that organophosphates are very dangerous. This is why they developed neonicotinoids that are much safer.

    There is evidence that neonicotinoids hurt pollinators. Just because a few drops applied directly to a person don't result in a trip to the morgue doesn't mean they are "safer". Sometimes the indirect consequences are worse than the direct ones. No pollinators = no food and last I checked famine was pretty dangerous to humans.