
Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say - ItsMe000001
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/24/entire-pesticide-class-should-be-banned-for-effect-on-childrens-health
======
chicob
And what about safety to farmers?

I've used phosmet, an organophosphate insecticide, and I don't like to use it.
You can know it's around in the warehouse, still in the original sealed
packages, just by smelling it. A feeling of dry mouth and eyes usually
follows.

And it's not because it's a dangerous substance - most pesticides with very
few exceptions are dangerous - but because it is very hard to handle.

Phosmet is usually sold as a fine powder, and as it is the case of most
soluble powders, it disperses in air easily. I always ask for liquid
insecticides, but these are not always available.

Masks are not particularly useful: cotton masks are of little to no use,
filters are compromised by facial hair[1] and air supply masks are crazy
expensive.

If farmers respect the required safety intervals, harm to consumers is
considerably minimized. The main hazard comes to people that come in contact
with larger concentrations of pesticides: manufacturers, sellers and farmers.

Now I just open the package carefully underwater, if the sprayer is full
enough and the package is to be completely emptied. This minimizes dispersion
considerably.

[1] [http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/463742O/facial-hair-
and-r...](http://multimedia.3m.com/mws/media/463742O/facial-hair-and-
respirators.pdf)

------
dragontamer
[https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rmpp_6t...](https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/rmpp_6thed_ch5_organophosphates.pdf)

EPA has this little chapter on organophosphates. Seems like this class of
pesticides is well known to be toxic to humans.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think there will be a time in the future when we'll look back and think how
crazy people were in 2018 pumping all kinds of known toxins into the
environment. It will probably be the same incredulity we have when we look at
people using radium toothpaste in 1920 or the mad hatters working with mercury
the whole day and going crazy.

~~~
vixen99
Or in 2050, wondering why in 2018, mercury amalgam (Hg is an established
neurotoxin) was still in significant use (except in Norway, Sweden and
Denmark) as a dental filler.

~~~
amanaplanacanal
Other people appear to be down-voting you, so I'll comment instead: The
standard defense is that the mercury is locked in place inside the amalgam,
and does not migrate. I've never looked at the evidence either way.

~~~
maxxxxx
I remember in Germany there were lots of studies that showed mercury leaking
out. Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use
anymore. I got my amalgam fillings taken out in the 90s and replaced with
plastic and ceramic.

~~~
markdown
> Dentists fought for quite a while but I don't think they are in use anymore.

The anti-dentites won.

~~~
maxxxxx
I think the dentists are still in use :-)

------
torpfactory
People spend a lot of time talking about what happens to humans when exposed
to organophosphates. Humans aren’t even meant to be the target of these
chemicals. What about the long term consequences to the environment that is
actually the intended target? How much are we losing by applying these
chemicals year after year after year.

~~~
empath75
[https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/insect_numbers_declining_why_it_matters)

------
jugg1es
Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you
replace it? I don't see anywhere where they propose an alternative.

~~~
dragontamer
I mean, its sorta why GMOs exist. To reduce the need of pesticides that are
sprayed on farms. I've always considered GMOs to be the lesser evil when
compared to standard pesticide usage.

Not all produce have a insect-resistant type however. So pesticides are still
needed to protect certain plants.

~~~
ptero
I do not agree with the current bout of GMO scaremongering, but I think your
first sentence is off the mark. I heard from the friends on the biotech side
(and sorry, do not have a citation) that many current GMO cultures are
engineered specifically for _high_ pesticide tolerance so farms can pump in
pesticides to kill all other flora and fauna without killing specific crops.

So, GMO good (or allows for significant benefits), current products kind-of
pretty bad. My 2c.

~~~
nostromo
Yes this is common now. For example Monsanto has Roundup Ready GMO crops &
Roundup:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roundup_Ready)

The crops are designed to withstand Roundup, while weeds are not, so farmers
can use Roundup to control weeds with crops that would normally be killed by
the herbicide.

~~~
cmrdporcupine
Roundup (glyphosate) ready is baby stuff compared to the newer stuff that is
resistant to 2,4d/Dicamba. Mostly because the weeds have outsmarted the
glyphosate.

Drift from 2,4d will wipe out plants (like your garden, or my vineyard, or
like, endangered native plants) many kilometres away.

------
sambe
I think the journalism results from this:

[https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...](https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002671)

If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I
think it's worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian
article).

If you live in a developed country where people aren't repeatedly killing
themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above
appears to be:

"The US EPA concluded in 2016 that the existing epidemiologic literature
provided “sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects
occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required to cause
acetylcholinesterase inhibition” [11]. Such chronic, low-level exposures are
often overlooked or dismissed as benign because neither the pregnant woman nor
the fetus shows clinically visible signs or symptoms. Furthermore, the
developmental deficits do not manifest until months or years later. Indeed,
the scientific consensus is that AChE inhibition is uninformative with regard
to neurodevelopmental effects in children and that the toxic effects from
chronic, low-level exposure occur at concentrations too low to inhibit
cholinesterase [1,9]. The evidence thus indicates that OP pesticides can
interfere with brain development at levels previously thought to be safe or
inconsequential."

The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it's
worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are:

[https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPP-2015-0653-...](https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-
OPP-2015-0653-0454)
[https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266](https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266)
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003)

~~~
amyjess
PLOS One is also extremely lax when it comes to peer review. They've gotten
into trouble for publishing spurious articles using unscientific methodology
before because of their lack of quality control.

They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an
article.

------
scotty79
> However, 200,000 people still die each year from pesticide poisonings,
> according to UN estimates, about 99% of them in the developing world. A
> further 110,000 suicides using pesticides take place each year.

So roughly 35% of deaths from pesticides are suicides.

On the other hand in 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were
suicides.

I wonder if you could get from that some kind of safety estimate, of how easy
it is to die from a thing accidentally in realtion of how easy it is to die
intentionally.... Probably not.

------
Nasrudith
The autism link appears very dubious and casts doubt on everything else - it
doesn't map to organophosphate usage in the timeline and frankly it shows
heavy signs of being genetic. Not to mention if the effects are that strong
organic fanatics should show significant differences in performance - but that
doesn't seem to be the case. While I doubt that even the still used
organophosphates are healthy to be exposed to this has smells of poor science.

~~~
molotovbliss
As someone with a son diagnosed officially by a professional, myself & older
brother believe we are both on the spectrum but not as much as my son. He is
verbal, but has quirks commonly called stimming. He hums a lot and will flap
his arms when being visually or audibly stimulated.

My brother & I have read up on it quite a bit, and think that it's a combo of
genetics triggered by environmental sources. There is a similar gene that is
related to ADD, Bi-polar & Schizophrenia. Which we all have the first 2 of the
3.

My father, & his father were both mechanics, with my father's brother who
showed the most signs of being possible autistic as well.

It does appear to skip around. I've a younger son also who was born way early
in my life at 19. He doesn't show much signs of it. My younger brother doesn't
either nor younger half sister.

It's a strong correleation for me personally that it's definitely genetic but
seems to vary on some triggering factor in gestation or the tech environment
of today's constant barrage of stimulation. The rise in diagnosis correlates
to mass farming also on large scales. But also correlation doesn't mean
causation.

I'd agree it's genetic, but with multifaceted triggers which is like cancer
that _could_ cause or trigger either.

I've also considered it's just our evolutionary path to a more tech geared
world. I would be curious to see the rates of autism in 3rd world or outside
untainted tribes.

Some reading, \- [https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2018/suspect-
mole...](https://www.nimh.nih.gov/news/science-news/2018/suspect-molecules-
overlap-in-autism-schizophrenia-bipolar-disorder.shtml)

\-
[https://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/](https://www.wired.com/2001/12/aspergers/)

~~~
Nasrudith
The funny thing is that it may have also been an advantage of sorts in hunter
gatherer days - as in actually able to survive alone in the wilderness without
plenty of prepared tools which is actually a very hard task long term. Bands
of people cooperating boost it ensure survival. Given what I know of sensory
capabilities in addition to things like lost autistic children in the woods
being extra hard to find - while not being prepared to survive.

Given that it is on a spectrum and a slow learning process of coping occurs
underdiagnosis is likely - especially among women and girls.

I suspect the case in Silicon valley is a higher degree of traits converging
and the social masking being less imbued in addition to concentration.
Although if pollution was a provoking factor it would.

Tech is a pretty good setting although people with autism and they may thrive
there I think it is way too fast for evolutionary impacts short of massive
selective pressure - like the Black Death or pretreatment endemic malaria.

------
ChuckMcM
It would help if they could explain why there aren't more autism clusters[1]
in California's central valley if they want to make a stronger case. In the
central valley you have 10x the exposure to organophosphate pesticides given
the agricultural activity. So an a per-capita basis I would expect that to
show up in the clusters.

[1]
[https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.h...](https://www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu/newsroom/Maps/autism_cluster.html)

------
theptip
Anyone know of a QUALY-based analysis of the costs and benefits of using these
fertilizers?

The headline is quite hard to argue with ("think of the children!") but it
would be interesting to know how much it would cost to use alternatives, and
how much harm is being done by the current level of use.

~~~
ip26
You reference the logical fallacy of "think of the children", but in this case
it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are literally poisoning
the children.

For comparative example, lead abatement is not a fallacious "think of the
children" argument- actual children are routinely poisoned by lead.

~~~
theptip
In the case of lead poisoning, it's widely believed to have been the cause of
a significant and measurable increase in homicide rates in the second half of
last century. There's a lot of data supporting that hypothesis, e.g.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead%E2%80%93crime_hypothesis)
has:

> between 1992 and 2002 the phase-out of lead from gasoline in the U.S. "was
> responsible for approximately a 56% decline in violent crime".

In the case of organophosphates, I am open to the idea that that there could
be a big win by changing regulations. But without knowing the magnitude of the
harm and cost, we really have no basis for prioritization. For example perhaps
the time and money we'd spend changing these laws in the US would be better
spent on removing lead to prevent even more poisoning of children. Or perhaps
we should stop what we're doing and redirect all of our resources to removing
organophosphates. Depending on even the order of magnitude of the effect, I
hope you'd accept that different magnitudes of responses would be warranted.

> in this case it doesn't really seem like a logical fallacy, if we are
> literally poisoning the children.

This is precisely the "think of the children" fallacy. The fallacy doesn't
refer to claiming children will be harmed when in reality they won't; that
would be a factual error, not a logical fallacy. (And to be clear, I'm not
making the claim that children won't be harmed by this family of chemicals).
The fallacy refers to making an emotional argument based imagery of harm to
children, instead of making a logical argument.

------
mitchtbaum
Would diatomaceous earth be a cost effective replacement?

~~~
pvaldes
There are different grades of quality in diatomaceous earth, some are safer,
other not so. Is a "fosil stone", so is not unlimited. Diatom skeletons are
tiny silica boxes, and breathing silica dust regularly leads to silicose.
Would also change the soil structure and increase the damage in the machines
needed for harvest.

In the other hand spiders and bats are the perfect insecticide without any bad
side effect for plants. Its numbers would increase filling the gap, at least
partially.

~~~
pvaldes
silicose -> silicosis

------
leptoniscool
Since this is a nerve disrupting chemical, could this lead to higher rates of
alzheimer's and dementia? Any studies that looks at the correlation?

~~~
Amygaz
The strongest association with AD and PD is obesity. Now, in itself obesity is
often the results of lifestyle habits. So, is one of those habits the culprit?
Or is does more body fat leads to more bio-accumulated toxins?

------
stephengillie
Let's "kill 2 birds with one stone" and also fight the obesity crisis by
having children pick weeds. Call it a "Synergy class between botany science
and physical education".

Edit: The suggestion that children learn a basic trade, while getting
exercise, and providing economic benefit, seems very unpopular. Please suggest
a better solution for these problems - maybe you think adults would benefit
more from this?

~~~
gwbas1c
I upvoted... Because I hope this was a joke with tounge planted firmly in
cheek.

~~~
projektfu
Perhaps the children could feed off the insects they pick from the plants. /s

~~~
RankingMember
Maybe we could train the insects to raise the children for us too!

