Pesticides in food linked to ADHD in kids

[seventhson]

Pesticides in food linked to ADHD in kids - Health - Children's health - msnbc.com

Not that they've proven the link by any measure, but it always seemed obvious to me that any man-made chemicals (pesticides, preservatives, artificial coloring, artificial flavoring, artificial sweeteners) introduced into the food chain would ultimately be found to be responsible for various ailments after long term exposure.

Just like DDT in the last generation. Or BPH this generation. Why would we think otherwise? Just because various chemical corporations claim (ahem, "unbiasedly") that to "the best of their knowledge these chemicals can not be proven to be harmful"?

You inject your kids with these chemicals with the full support of profit-motived multi-nationals...who ultimately could really care less about the health of your kids.

[colcifer]

I believe it... as much as I believe vaccinations cause Autism. In other words, I call bull and irresponsible journalism on top of it. And, although I fear it might get political, I call bull on DDT being unsafe too. For certain birds, yes, but no danger to humans has been proven. It's far safer than its replacements.

/jadedgeekrant

[jp58]

Originally Posted by colcifer

I believe it... as much as I believe vaccinations cause Autism.

Well Played. Finally someone else who doesn't believe in vaccines causing Autism.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by jp58

Well Played. Finally someone else who doesn't believe in vaccines causing Autism.

Erm....there isn't anybody with a modicum of intelligence that DOES believe that, is there?

[jp58]

Well, the last thread on the subject had a handful of people who were adamant about it being true.

[Munjibunga]

I believe the harm done by pesticides in the U.S. is far offset by the benefit of the availability of enough food.

(How's that for three prepositional phrases in a row?)

[seventhson]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

I believe the harm done by pesticides in the U.S. is far offset by the benefit of the availability of enough food.

And I think that's an excellent counterpoint. And you offer it under the presumption that pesticides could possibly cause long term health effects to kids.

Unfortunately, the counterpoint that's been sold to the general public (by the chemical industry and the politicians that they fund) for decades is that these chemicals are safe. And by implication it would be ludicrous to question their widespread use.

[Tituscrow]

Originally Posted by jp58

Well, the last thread on the subject had a handful of people who were adamant about it being true.

Keyword = 'handful'

[Relic]

Not sure if it's true or not... but given the fact that we're generally living 20-30 years longer now than 200 years ago when all food was natural and pesticide free, I'm not going to worry too much

[steve_rolfeca]

Originally Posted by Relic

...given the fact that we're generally living 20-30 years longer now than 200 years ago when all food was natural and pesticide free, I'm not going to worry too much

Umm, you don't suppose that there might be other factors at play when it comes to longevity? There have been huge advances over the last 200 years in everything from personal prosperity to workplace and transportation safety, medical procedures and new medications. In the food area alone, you've got access to reliable refrigeration, legislated improvements in kitchen hygiene, etc.

Despite all these advances, we've got a raft of new cancers, food allergies, etc., and not all of them are simply the inevitable result of living longer. People may not agree on some of the environmental factors that are involved, but it's pretty obvious that something is going on, and that dietary issues play a large role.

[Tituscrow]

I suspect Relics comment was a little tongue-in-cheek (?). Living longer? Yep. Now having to work longer too. Retirement age in the uk set to rise to 67.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by steve_rolfeca

Umm, you don't suppose that there might be other factors at play when it comes to longevity? There have been huge advances over the last 200 years in everything from personal prosperity to workplace and transportation safety, medical procedures and new medications. In the food area alone, you've got access to reliable refrigeration, legislated improvements in kitchen hygiene, etc.

Despite all these advances, we've got a raft of new cancers, food allergies, etc., and not all of them are simply the inevitable result of living longer. People may not agree on some of the environmental factors that are involved, but it's pretty obvious that something is going on, and that dietary issues play a large role.

Sure. Just looking at the bottom line. In the end that's all that really counts. I mean, there's quality of life and such and we have some work to do in the 3rd world but in the end, we cannot all live forever..

[Jim Nazium]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

I believe the harm done by pesticides in the U.S. is far offset by the benefit of the availability of enough food.

(How's that for three prepositional phrases in a row?)

... and five total! Just make sure you don't use a preposition to end a sentence with. Or start one with a conjunction.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I always take claims like this with a pinch of salt.

For a start, the numbers of people with these disorders is always on the increase, there are new criteria and ways of detecting such problems which have come on leaps and bounds, even in the last 10 or so years. On saying that, I also think there is a massive number of misdiagnosis where as soon as someone has a child who doesn't behave themselves, it has to be ADHD, if someone has a child who can't read as quickly, it must be dyslexia etc etc. Not saying these conditions don't exist, simply saying they are over diagnosed. [/rant]

Major +1 to what Munj points out. Without modern pesticides, we'd struggle to feed the populations we have.

[Strohsx]

Nah, mixture of crappy parenting and too much television, mixed with our instant gratification consumerism.

At least I know that's where mine comes from.

[Relic]

Originally Posted by Tituscrow

I suspect Relics comment was a little tongue-in-cheek (?). Living longer? Yep. Now having to work longer too. Retirement age in the uk set to rise to 67.

Yeah I'm not fully serious, I'm more just throwing it there for discussion but I do believe that there's more than a little shred of truth to it.

Look at the world's population - we've never had so many people on the planet and we've never lived as long (with the exception of a lot of the 3rd world).. so where's the "great tragedy" of preservatives/vaccines/etc killing us and turning our brains to mush...? There might be problems and issues with chemicals in our food but is it really that bad if our standard of life is the best it's ever been?
I would say that our focus should maybe be on getting those without proper food and healthcare up to our (collective "our") standards, before we try to invent the "immortality" machine for those who can afford it...

But yeah - working longer sucks! But it's all relative...we live longer we work longer. Man, it'd be great to live longer but work shorter though!!

[Longhair]

The simplest way to cure about 99.9% of the ADHD cases would be to prescribe the following:

• Substitue the junk food for a balanced meal found in the Betty Crocker Cook Book. Replace sweets with fresh fruits.
• Turn off all electronic devices - computers, video games, cell phones, tv, etc. Gather friends in the neighborhood and play games such as tag, hide & seek, kick ball, etc.
• Read a book - one made out of actual paper.

[Smokin' Toaster]

Not too many years ago, there was no cancer at all, but there was a nasty ailment called comsumption. Nowdays you don't hear much of consumption, but you do hear about cancer.

Gee, I wonder what chemicals and vaccines caused consumption? Maybe Cancer was the cure for consumption?

I'm not going to condemn the chemical industry, because I think they have mostly good people trying to come up with safe chemicals to make life better. Same with Drug companies. Do they go too far sometimes when the evidence says they have a very profitable product with some undesirable results? Probably so. Are they all trying to make a buck over all of our dead bodies? I doubt it. They are pretty closely regulated, and the chemical companies and their regulators try to completely vet a product, but when something is there that doesn't show up until the product has been used for 2 or 5 or 10 years, how can you condemn them for something they couldn't possibly know? What are you going to do, use no chemicals or drugs and die at 45 like they did a couple of hundred years ago?

Just like everywhere, there are good people in the industry and a$$hats in the industry. Conspiracy theorists generally have an "us vs. them" mentality that will not let them see this.

[i_got_a_mohawk]

I agree with that ^, when I was growing up, you used to always hear of people dying of "natural causes".

IMO, cancer is becoming more prolific for two main reasons:

1 - We have cured most other forms of disease, infections aren't as much of a killer as they once were.
2 - We can actually detect more forms of cancer now.


With the pharmaceutical industry, it generally takes over 15 years to get a product from initial design to the shelf. The problem is, you need to patent it right at the start, and the patent only lasts for 20 years.

Throw in the huge number of rejections (products that are useless or unsafe/don't make it through the various testing stages), and you have a huge amount of money going out the window for R&D.

Generally a pharmaceutical company will only have a window of 2 to 3 years to make a profit on a product, taking into account that they need to recoup all the years of R&D that went into it, plus all the research into products that never made it. After that few year window, they can still try to make a profit, but can be undercut by companies producing it generically.

Originally Posted by Longhair

The simplest way to cure about 99.9% of the ADHD cases would be to prescribe the following:

• Substitue the junk food for a balanced meal found in the Betty Crocker Cook Book. Replace sweets with fresh fruits.
• Turn off all electronic devices - computers, video games, cell phones, tv, etc. Gather friends in the neighborhood and play games such as tag, hide & seek, kick ball, etc.
• Read a book - one made out of actual paper.

I don't know if I could agree with the number there, but I agree that it could certainly help the majority, especially in the cases I saw at school . . .

[Tituscrow]

It's not like we are all being secretly fed weedkiller or anything. The main worry about pesticides should be the environmental impact on natural food chains. And whilst yes, it isn't perfect, the vast majority of pesticide use is done within a safe tolerance I'd suspect. People who fret about this probably also worry about GM foods and think they'll grow another head or start glowing green or something. Pharmacists have been playing with plant genes and cross pollination programs for decades. As soon as the scaremongers decide to go all publicly frantic about 'Franken-foods', a lot of people get sucked in and believe any old tripe.

Read Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science' series for some really good articles about this stuff.