Common Pesticide Linked To Widespread Brain Abnormalities In Children (sciencealert.com)
- Reference: 0178986178
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/09/03/0210212/common-pesticide-linked-to-widespread-brain-abnormalities-in-children
- Source link: https://www.sciencealert.com/common-pesticide-linked-to-widespread-brain-abnormalities-in-children
> The insecticide chlorpyrifos is a powerful tool for controlling various pests, making it one of the most widely used pesticides during the latter half of the 20th century. Like many pesticides, however, chlorpyrifos lacks precision. In addition to harming non-target insects like bees, it has also been linked to health risks for much larger animals -- including us. Now, a new US study suggests those risks may begin before birth. Humans exposed to chlorpyrifos prenatally are [2]more likely to exhibit structural brain abnormalities and reduced motor functions in childhood and adolescence .
>
> Progressively higher prenatal exposure to chlorpyrifos was associated with incrementally greater deviations in brain structure, function, and metabolism in children and teens, the researchers found, along with poorer measures of motor speed and motor programming. [...] This supports [3]previous research linking chlorpyrifos with impaired cognitive function and brain development, but these findings are the first evidence of widespread and long-lasting molecular, cellular, and metabolic effects in the brain.
"The disturbances in brain tissue and metabolism that we observed with prenatal exposure to this one pesticide were remarkably widespread throughout the brain," says first author Bradley Peterson, a developmental neuroscientist at the University of Southern California's Keck School of Medicine. Senior author Virginia Rauh added: "It is vitally important that we continue to monitor the levels of exposure in potentially vulnerable populations, especially in pregnant women in agricultural communities, as their infants continue to be at risk."
The report notes that the EPA banned residential use of chlorpyrifos in 2001 but the pesticide is still used in agriculture around the world.
The findings have been [4]published in the journal JAMA Neurology .
[1] https://slashdot.org/~alternative_right
[2] https://www.sciencealert.com/common-pesticide-linked-to-widespread-brain-abnormalities-in-children
[3] https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/07/08/0152223/weedkiller-ingredient-widely-used-in-us-can-damage-organs-and-gut-bacteria-research-shows
[4] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaneurology/fullarticle/2837712
This is why I hated the rush to ban neonicotinoids (Score:5, Informative)
Particularly due to Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) concerns - except that neonicotinoids appear to at worst be be a weak factor (if one at all) in CCD (CCD appears to be multifactor, but the strongest factor appears to be varroa; there's little correlation between neonicotinoid use trends and bans vs. CCD).
If you ban neonicotinoids, farmers tend to switch to organophosphates, and I have WAY more concerns about them. Neonicotinoids at least tend to be far more specific to insects, whereas organophosphates also tend to strongly affect mammals. [1]Organophosphate-Induced Delayed Neuropathy (OPIDN) [wikipedia.org] is very much a real problem.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organophosphate-induced_delayed_neuropathy
Re: (Score:2)
(And it should go without saying, but organophosphates also are extremely effective at killing bees)
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately mass production factory style single crop agriculture + pesticides and nature don't mix. Its like antibiotics - eventually something becomes resistent and we go around the circle again so a new antibiotic/pesticide has to be created. There are natural alternatives for some pesticides and while they'll inevitably lead to a lower yield but thats a better outcome than destroying the entire ecosystem and poisoning ourselves in the process.
Re: (Score:1)
There's good and bad ways to use antibiotics.
I grew up on a dairy farm and every so often it was time to dehorn the heifers, that's literally sawing the horns off their heads so there is less chance of them hurting people, other cattle, and themselves. There's a decent blood supply to the horns and so there would be efforts to best close the wound and prevent infection. That included a big shot of antibiotics. Unless the heifer got especially sick later as a milking cow then that could be the first and l
Re: This is why I hated the rush to ban neonicotin (Score:1)
Is anyone else thinking "poor cows"?
Re: (Score:2)
They are WAY less antibiotics used in farm animals in europe than in the US, mainly because they're banned from being in the meat, yet our herds seem pretty healthy. Seems to me antibiotics on US farms are done routinely on a just-in-case basis whereas in the EU they're used when needed, ie when an animal is actually ill.
Re: (Score:2)
I expect humans to be terrible in accounting for long tailed risk, even worse when there is tragedy of the commons. Until it was banned those aware farmers were using prophylactic antibiotics as growth promoters.
Re: (Score:2)
I have read about some success with leaving sufficient amounts of wild areas near farms, essentially as a population reservoir of susceptible weeds so the selective pressure in the crop area is attenuated. I'm not sure anyone has done enough to know what an optimal setup might be, though.
Re: (Score:2)
As a farmer I partially agree with you. The rush to ban neonics was definitely not done with any kind of scientific rigor. Certain forms of neonics such as seed treatments are incredibly beneficial without harming bees and other insects. We regularly use neonic seed treatments in Canada still (will be banned eventually unfortunately), and we also heavily rely on pollinators and they do just fine with such limited use of neonics.
However foliar application of neonics later in season is problematic. If I'm
Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitor (Score:2)
OK, I looked it up.
Yes, mammals need acetylcholinesterase too.
Re: (Score:2)
> Yes, mammals need acetylcholinesterase too.
They do indeed. Most nerve agents, including Sarin and VX, work as acetylcholinesterase inhibitors, causing acetylcholine to accumulate in neuron synapses.
Atropine, the active ingredient in belladonna nightshade toxin, has the opposite effect of breaking down acetylcholine. It will normally kill you too, but it is an antidote to nerve agents.
App(roach)ing the problem (Score:2)
Start by doing away with soft language like "controlling pests". No, this (really any) poison "...kills living things, possibly small animals, possibly harming humans, too." My sister likely lost a pet bird by spraying insecticide for ants on the floor beneath the bird (think "coal mine birds").
Does it make you Orange? (Score:1)
This would explain a few things.
Banned in Canada a few years ago. (Score:2)
I always have to look up the trade names so I know what they are are talking about. Seems that this particular insecticide was banned in Canada a few years ago. It went under the trade name of "Lorsban." I used it once on a crop on recommendation, but it certainly wasn't a chemical I wanted to be exposed to on a regular basis. Never found a need to use it again after that. As insecticides go, it is one of the more toxic ones.
Guess I've been lucky in recent years. The only insecticide I've needed to use w
RFKjr will fix it (Score:2)
right?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm ok with him banning artificial red food dyes but he has zero basis or understanding as to why.
Finally, an explanation for all those Trump voters (Score:2)
Where are pesticides used? Rural areas. Where are all the Trump voters? Rural areas.
One can only hope... (Score:3)
... that the c-suites who rushed this sort of crap onto the market without proper testing because $Profit , suffer some of these effects themselves. I wouldn't wish it on their kids as I don't believe in the whole sins of the father thing.
Re: One can only hope... (Score:3)
Hahaha, not a chance. Theyâ(TM)ve run off with the cash, had a fun life, died and handed the problem on to someone else already. And frankly, even if they were still around, the chances of a C suiter being made to accept the consequences of their own actions is near zero
Re: (Score:3)
> ... that the c-suites who rushed this sort of crap onto the market without proper testing because $Profit , suffer some of these effects themselves. I wouldn't wish it on their kids as I don't believe in the whole sins of the father thing.
A lot of these harsher pesticides were developed in the 50's, and frankly coming out of the famine era of WWII the priorities were different. We also didn't have quite the safety culture in that era.
I remember as a kid growing up on a farm being warned to be very careful around any insecticide. The logic was something along the lines of: "While herbicides can be hazardous, by and large they're tailored to plants and you aren't much like a plant. So generically the risks are more minimal. But you are, fundam
Re: (Score:1)
Dr.: Who's brain was it?
Assistant: Abby someone.
Dr.: Abby someone? Abby who?
Assistant: Abby... Normal. I'm almost certain that was the name.
I had that skit in my head since I read the headline, I had to share or I'd have a tick all day. With that out of the way...
I recall similar warnings about insecticides. More specifically the active ingredient in the mix was a kind of muscle relaxant, if I think long enough I might recall the specific chemical. I guess in small doses it can help people with certain
Re: (Score:2)
The skit is from Mel Brooks' "Young Frankenstein" told (I believe) between Gene Wilder and Marty Feldman; twas a great movie.
Re: (Score:2)
We may not have had the safety culture to the same degree; but, given the number of insecticides that are acetylcholinesterase inhibitors not miles off the efficacy of their more alarmingly named colleagues among the g-series and v-series nerve agents; it seems pretty likely that 50s chemists knew full well that they were poking some very, very, troublesome compounds.
Probably not in a position to tease out some of the more subtle neuroanatomical changes at low prenatal doses or the like given medical ima
Re: (Score:2)
back when i frequented WattsUpWithThat there were quite a few who thought Rachel Carson was the worst woman to have ever existed
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt if many of the C?Os from 1966 are still around to face the consequences.
Besides, it was likely an improvement over the pesticides it replaced. DDT wasn't banned for residential and agricultural use until 1972.
Re: (Score:2)
> ... that the c-suites who rushed this sort of crap onto the market without proper testing because $Profit , suffer some of these effects themselves. I wouldn't wish it on their kids as I don't believe in the whole sins of the father thing.
According to Wikipedia, chlorpyrifos was patented in 1966. It seems unlikely that back then they had any clue about its prenatal effects.
I hate to find myself defending CEOs - I recommend imprisonment for them all the time, and occasionally even lynching. And I guess I'm not really defending them here, because they likely continued to push the product after they knew of its health effects. But if they're going to be jailed or lynched, let's make sure the charges are factual and accurate.