Ban organophosphate pesticides to protect children's health, experts say

And what about safety to farmers?<p>I&#x27;ve used phosmet, an organophosphate insecticide, and I don&#x27;t like to use it. You can know it&#x27;s around in the warehouse, still in the original sealed packages, just by smelling it. A feeling of dry mouth and eyes usually follows.<p>And it&#x27;s not because it&#x27;s a dangerous substance - most pesticides with very few exceptions are dangerous - but because it is very hard to handle.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;multimedia.3m.com&#x2F;mws&#x2F;media&#x2F;463742O&#x2F;facial-hair-and-respirators.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;multimedia.3m.com&#x2F;mws&#x2F;media&#x2F;463742O&#x2F;facial-hair-and-r...</a>

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;production&#x2F;files&#x2F;documents&#x2F;rmpp_6thed_ch5_organophosphates.pdf" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.epa.gov&#x2F;sites&#x2F;production&#x2F;files&#x2F;documents&#x2F;rmpp_6t...</a><p>EPA has this little chapter on organophosphates. Seems like this class of pesticides is well known to be toxic to humans.

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.

Organophosphates are like the primary insecticide used worldwide. How do you replace it? I don&#x27;t see anywhere where they propose an alternative.

I think the journalism results from this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosmedicine&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;journal.pmed.1002671" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;journals.plos.org&#x2F;plosmedicine&#x2F;article?id=10.1371&#x2F;jo...</a><p>If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I think it&#x27;s worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian article).<p>If you live in a developed country where people aren&#x27;t repeatedly killing themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above appears to be:<p>&quot;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.&quot;<p>The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it&#x27;s worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.regulations.gov&#x2F;document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-0454" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.regulations.gov&#x2F;document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-...</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1093&#x2F;toxsci&#x2F;kfx266" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1093&#x2F;toxsci&#x2F;kfx266</a> <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1016&#x2F;j.neuro.2013.09.003" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;doi.org&#x2F;10.1016&#x2F;j.neuro.2013.09.003</a>

&gt; 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.<p>So roughly 35% of deaths from pesticides are suicides.<p>On the other hand in 2012, 64% of all gun-related deaths in the U.S. were suicides.<p>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.

The autism link appears very dubious and casts doubt on everything else - it doesn&#x27;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&#x27;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.

It would help if they could explain why there aren&#x27;t more autism clusters[1] in California&#x27;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.<p>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;Maps&#x2F;autism_cluster.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ucdmc.ucdavis.edu&#x2F;newsroom&#x2F;Maps&#x2F;autism_cluster.h...</a>

Anyone know of a QUALY-based analysis of the costs and benefits of using these fertilizers?<p>The headline is quite hard to argue with (&quot;think of the children!&quot;) 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.

Would diatomaceous earth be a cost effective replacement?

Since this is a nerve disrupting chemical, could this lead to higher rates of alzheimer&#x27;s and dementia? Any studies that looks at the correlation?

Let&#x27;s &quot;kill 2 birds with one stone&quot; and also fight the obesity crisis by having children pick weeds. Call it a &quot;Synergy class between botany science and physical education&quot;.<p>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?