Study of pesticides and autism is junk science
CropLife America (CLA) announced it is dismayed by the alleged connection that researchers with the University of California, Davis have made between pesticide applications and neurodevelopmental disorders such as autism among children.
“Neurodevelopmental Disorders and Prenatal Residential Proximity to Agricultural Pesticides: The CHARGE Study” was published in Environmental Health Perspectives on June 23, 2014. The study draws inaccurate and scientifically questionable connections between proximity to pesticides and neurodevelopmental disorders, according to CLA.
Pregnant women up to more than one mile of an agricultural pesticide application were tabulated as the CHARGE study group being denoted as affected in one way or another.
“The authors have created unnecessary fears among parents and contributed nothing to an understanding of the etiology of autism and other developmental disorders in children,” CLA emphatically contends.
CLA points out that a number of elements needed for scientifically robust research results are lacking in the study. The modeling used in this study to measure proximity must be grounded in real measures of exposure such as biomarkers in blood or urine (Chang et al. 20141). The study did not do this. Also, using addresses as a proxy for the location of pregnant women when the pesticide applications occurred assumes the women were at that address and outdoors precisely when the pesticides were being applied. The study did not investigate the possibility that these women may have been away from their residences, indoors or otherwise guarded from potential exposure.
Importantly, “exposure” does not equate to “harm.” Harm can only occur if the exposure, or dose, is sufficiently high to have an effect. Pesticides are rigorously regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that real-life exposure across a variety of situations is not sufficient to cause harm. This includes ensuring pesticides cannot drift beyond the target organism in the field and onto other people at levels that cause harm.
“This study, by equating proximity to exposure, incorrectly assumes the pesticides drifted impossibly far distances and at impossibly high concentrations,” CLA also emphasized.
Study authors neglected to consult experts from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation to better understand real-life pesticide applications, instead choosing to misconstrue publicly available data on pesticide use and create statistical significance out of thin air. The study also fails to reference the vast amount of publicly available regulatory data the EPA requires before it will register a pesticide for use, including data on toxicity and drift.
- Plant health improvement agents help growers do more with less
- Ag markets suffered a general divergence Wednesday
- Scientists throw light on the mechanism of plants’ ticking clock
- Stress-tolerant tomato relative sequenced
- Ag markets diverged Wednesday morning
- Farmer community forum focused on farmer data