Yes, happens all the time. they do this because it works.
Even legit research is bad. I left medical research because it was so corrupt. I just was not made to lie. So I didn't fit in. i worked in a hospital after that and man was that depressing. I left there too, because I was not built to take the emotional stress. You would get to know patients, then they died. When a 7 year old I talked to daily died, that was it, I could not take it. I took it to heart. I still think of her. My wife does fine with it. Over 35 years of ER, ICU and critical care nursing. I bought a restaurant instead. I have since sold it and retired.
Medical falsehoods are fairly common. I gave up trying to educate people, they believe what they want to believe. Facts do not matter. I'll give you one anyway. Autism is on the rise, but the major reason is they changed the definition of what is considered autistic. So the huge increase was mostly because of the new definition. It covers many conditions not considred autistic in the past. Heck even Jerry Seinfeld said he was autistic, he just realized it! Ha!
So anyways this really makes it hard to determine what really is going on, it very well could be increasing, I have no idea? It depends more on the direction of the politcal wind than facts.

I read somewhere (couldn't say where) that autism is not actually increasing at all, rather the diagnosis of autism is. Conditions that before had another name (or no name) are now autism, thus the appearance of the sudden increase of autism.

Bad science, regardless. Correlation is NOT causation.

"The first red flag which should be recognized is that it appears on a fringe Website. A Website which talks of conspiracy theories generally = red flag."

I do not agree with this at all. An idea is either valid or not, where it is discussed is irrelevant. After all, when the first ideas about a correlation between lung cancer and smoking were discussed, may did not believe what was said.

But I do agree that more compelling research is needed before giving credence to a proposition such as this one.

>> Conditions that before had another name (or no name) are now autismYep, when I was at school there wasn't anyone with autism, there was just a "weird kid" or two. And no kids with ADD, just kids who wouldn't settle down. A bit tongue in cheek, but true all the same.

"I do not agree with this at all. An idea is either valid or not, where it is discussed is irrelevant."

I am familiar with logical fallacies and can spot them. That is why I said conspiracy theories generally = red flag (fairly soft language). In other words caution (i.e. more investigation) would be a good idea.

I don't think this commits genetic fallacy. It's simply intended as advice for a pop culture to do a little more fact checking before they post it on Facebook.

I suppose one could also argue discussing Dr. Seneff's credentials commits genetic fallacy. My point is that the Website subtly tries to hold Dr. Seneff credentials as a sort of validation of her claims (see headline) when she doesn't have any recognized expertise in autistic spectrum disorder, or even anatomy and physiology.

Likewise when I implied "half of all children will be born with autism" is a fantastic claim, it doesn't automatically repudiate the argument itself (some extraordinary claims have turned out to be true). But I simply mentioned it more in the context of Sagan's popularized rule, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". In other words, do some more digging rather than merely accepting it and passing it on to others.

Again none of these discussion points invalidate the scientific claims of Dr. Seneff (although it's apparent she didn't construct her own claims very scientifically) by themselves, but they are all "red flags".

olpea, the article in your link debunking that claim also mentions Dr. Gorski. His post directly addressing this issue can be found here: http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/12/31/oh-no-gmos-are-going-to-make-everyone-autistic/

His other blogging home can be found in the link below. Everyone should be reading both sites on a daily basis.
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

Olpea, all the points you call red flags are fair enough, but there are two things I would take issue with.

First of all, you started this thread, apparently to cast suspicion on positions you broadly oppose. We all have our biases and underlying philosophies, and that's fine and good (and inevitable), but basically I think drawing attention to something that isn't worth attention is something of a red flag. It's one thing to point out the problems in weak arguments that have been brought up; it's another to bring them up. I definitely don't mean to accuse you of anything I wouldn't do in other ways myself, but I just mean to point out that the world is full of red flags which very appropriately sway our understanding and interpretation (cautiousness, hesitancy, "more digging" ...) of everything that's billed as objective science.

The second point I'd make is to point out another set of red flags. Surely the dollar trail should raise some red flags for us. Surely there's more money to prove why we ought to buy products of big companies than to prove why we shouldn't. Surely dollar realities have an effect on what science gets done and how it gets published. Meanwhile most of us generally expect the government to provide for or oversee our main safety checks and to generally curtail would-be reckless activities of corporations, and there's surely no denying the role that money plays throughout government. Just to say that these are some major red flags to the scientific arguments for glyphosphate or any other products of chemical and pharmaceutical companies.

Seneff's "research" consists of using computer software to search published papers ...

It's been clear for quite a while that organic food consumption causes autism.

Look at the graph!!!!!!

{{gwi:2117963}}

The dollar trail does raise flags. If a teacher feels her poorly performing student is autistic, she suggest the poorly performing student see a specialist. There, the teacher, student, and parent fills out a questionaire. Based on how the questions are answered, the student is determined autistic. The poorly performing student no longer counts against teacher or school because he has a learning disability. Plus, the school will get paid several thousand dollars more per year. No medical test is needed to determine a student is autistic.

Autoimmune disease is a different story. It has risen dramatically. I do believe it is caused by Americans change in diet.

Considering this thread title to be the peanut...it is kind of funny to see Olpea throw the peanut out on the lawn and watch the squirrels run around like crazy! haha

"I do not agree with this at all. An idea is either valid or not, where it is discussed is irrelevant"

No, where it is discussed is not irrelevant. The sort of people who set up websites that push conspiracy theories don't have the critical thinking skills to tell whether or not an idea is valid.

They misrepresent things, outright lie, and hide details that run counter to their agenda.

"First of all, you started this thread, apparently to cast suspicion on positions you broadly oppose."

Cousin,

I started this thread because Dr. Seneff comments at the GMO conference are a recent news event which has circulated all over the internet. You can Google to verify.

Pesticides are of interest to fruit growers on this forum and there seems to be some interest in this thread.

I did not start this thread just to cast suspicion on positions I oppose. I don't oppose the use of glyphosate, or those who choose not to use it. I also don't oppose research into any potential link between glyphosate and autism.

I did offer a critique of the article in question, but would have done the same if the science was good. You may feel "drawing attention to something that isn't worth attention is something of a red flag", but unfortunately a lot people take Dr Seneff's comments seriously, and are unable to discern good science from bad science. I'm not sure how posting or commenting on this somehow generates a red flag, or even what red flag it would generate.

Olpea, I don't doubt anything you just said. Please forgive me if I suggested otherwise. The position I assume you oppose is the position that the overall safety of glyphosphate is suspect. It's one thing to say you don't oppose those who choose not to use it. It's another to recognize any legitimate basis for that choice, especially as it would bear on others including yourself.

As far as how bringing up particularly weak arguments of an opposing viewpoint raises red flags, isn't that pretty close to a straw man argument? With any topic like this there will always be a broad range of people and arguments on all sides. It would be silly to use the worst examples from any side as a reason to reject that side, so I think it's a red flag when one side's position is defined by its opponents. If you can pick and choose what will represent your opponent's position, it won't be hard to make that position out to be ridiculous. The kind of ridicule represented by the chart above, for example, is hardly conducive of constructive discussion. I feel like I know you from this forum well enough, Olpea, to think that you wouldn't intentionally "preach to the choir" just for the sake of ridiculing and having fun at the expense of reasonable people that hold different views, but bringing in the worst arguments for another view can pretty quickly lead to that.

" It's one thing to say you don't oppose those who choose not to use it. It's another to recognize any legitimate basis for that choice, especially as it would bear on others including yourself."

"As far as how bringing up particularly weak arguments of an opposing viewpoint raises red flags, isn't that pretty close to a straw man argument? With any topic like this there will always be a broad range of people and arguments on all sides. It would be silly to use the worst examples from any side as a reason to reject that side, so I think it's a red flag when one side's position is defined by its opponents."

Cousin,

Your posts continue to judge my motives, which I think is unfair. First you indicated I posted to cast suspicion on positions I broadly oppose.

Then you imply I'm posting straw man arguments as a basis for discrediting some larger movement.

It's a risky thing to judge someone's motives, and you've judged mine incorrectly.

I already mentioned my rationale for starting this thread and it was not some subversive attempt to discredit those who don't believe in using glyphosate for a legitimate basis. I'm quite willing to discuss any legitimate basis for using or not using glyphosate.

Edit:

I also mentioned the chart you refer to above, but (as you say) not to ridicule anyone on this forum, rather as an illustration that correlation of glyphosate usage and autism, does not equal causation. I think it's a legitimate illustration because not all people either understand the point, or they fail to remember it, as appears to be the case with Dr. Seneff.

This post was edited by olpea on Fri, Jan 9, 15 at 13:28

Olpea, I don't mean to suggest anything extreme, but surely you have feelings/inclinations about glyphosphate (as anyone with any knowledge of glyphosphate would have to), and surely those inclinations had something to do with your starting this thread. Would you start a thread and comment critically about a weak argument someone made for the safety of glyphosphate? Wouldn't that be like Harvestman starting a thread about how some argument attempting to prove climate change was really bunk? I just don't see that happening (even though every position on every issue has bunk arguments made in support of it.) Maybe you'd be an exception but people very rarely attack or ridicule their own side, especially in forums that include opposing sides of an issue (and in this case you're following the norm of criticizing opposing views.) That's nothing extreme -- it's perfectly normal -- and I don't intend to put you in a bad light in any way, but people simply have their viewpoints, and those viewpoints affect what stories they choose to comment on and how.

As to straw man arguments, surely there's a similarity to bringing up opposition arguments that you find particularly weak, no? Surely you started this thread about this story because you think the story has some broader significance, that it represents some "larger movement." And that's a larger movement you disagree with, right?

Olpea...your post is interesting and well written as always. I think your point was to illustrate the use of bad science and it's effectiveness on the general public. It's a good post because this seems to be the fashionable way groups forward their agendas these days. They count on the unwillingness of the American public to use their heads to think a bit. Actually I'm being too nice...they count on American stupidity plain and simple. Why not?...it's there for the taking.
Fox News has created an empire doing exactly this and all other "news" agencies now follow in suit.

Cousinfloyd does however make a good point and I don't think he's accusing you of anything. I totally get what he's saying, The climate change/global cooling thread was a prime example of what he's talking about.
Drawing attention to a bad attempt at proving something with poor science could be viewed as an attempt to prove the opposite.
That's not what you are doing (I don't think so), but that IS the way it goes.
That was Cousinfloyd's point I think.

I agree with everyone else...the increase in Autism is most likely related to increased diagnosis of it and also BS diagnosis as well. Like colleenoz, when I was in grade scholl in the mid-early 70's I do not remember a single person having any of these disabilities. I DO however remember kids who wouldn't settle down or could not (or refused to) pay attention in class etc. Today those kids would get a diagnosis. I also agree with the poster that suggested the reasons for this (money, aptitude test scores etc).
I now have kids in pre-school and you would simply not believe all the letters we get from school concerning this stuff. Everybody has something or is allergic to something..and on and on. Thank heaven my kids haven't been diagnosed with anything.....yet.

"Olpea...your post is interesting and well written as always. I think your point was to illustrate the use of bad science and it's effectiveness on the general public."

Thank you Apple. I was somewhat frustrated people I know who should know better, were repeating this story on Facebook. Because it dealt with glyphosate, I thought it fitting to post it on this forum and mention some possible "markers" to look for, before blindly accepting propositions and passing them on without any further investigation.

"surely you have feelings/inclinations about glyphosphate (as anyone with any knowledge of glyphosphate would have to), and surely those inclinations had something to do with your starting this thread. Would you start a thread and comment critically about a weak argument someone made for the safety of glyphosphate?"

Cousin, I hardly know what else to say. I'm not going to repeat myself over and over about my own motivations for starting this thread. And yes, I do believe under the same circumstances I would post and comment if the situation were reversed.

To wit:

1. If a prominent MIT scientist featured a bogus study showing the safety of glyphosate.
2. Said scientist's comments were featured in articles all over the Internet giving credibility to his statements.
3. People were blindly accepting the statements and reposting on Facebook.

Then yes, it deserves to be debunked.

I tire of defending myself in this regard, and shouldn't have to for my intent for what I wrote. You don't know me as well as I know myself. You only know me through this written medium, and I can assure you there is more to me than what I write here.

I frequently discuss faulty reasoning and arguments about issues I care about with my own family. As an example, when we go to church and hear a sermon w/ weak logic or poor scriptural application, I discuss it over lunch with my kids. I may agree with the larger point (frequently I do) and explain why, but I've made it clear to my children why the sermon had bad application. This has helped to produce a daughter with a very clear mind (She's a junior in college in a science field and has never received anything less than an A in all of her education. She loves science.)

In the same way if I posted about some bad science I found regarding the safety of glyphosate, I may comment why I think it's safe, but wouldn't be afraid to post about the bad science.

I don't agree w/ the analogy that posting a thread debunking some bad science about the safety of glyphosate by me, would be akin to Hman starting a thread to prove climate change was bunk. It might be comparable to Hman posting about some bad science being promulgated by scientists in favor of the UN position, but that's not the same as trying to disprove global warming. Either way, he is not me. I'd be very surprised if he started another thread on global warming anyway, as he's made it clear he's completely disgusted with the discussion of it, as it applies to this forum.

"As to straw man arguments, surely there's a similarity to bringing up opposition arguments that you find particularly weak, no? Surely you started this thread about this story because you think the story has some broader significance, that it represents some "larger movement."

Again the answer is no. And stop calling me Surely.

Edit:
That last part was a joke.

This post was edited by olpea on Fri, Jan 9, 15 at 17:30

This is a strange discussion. Olpea merely was bringing up something he thought was interesting to share and other people are second guessing his motives instead of talking about the subject of his post. Seems unnecessarily sticky. Let's keep it simple.

Roger, Roger.

Olpea, I think you're misinterpreting my comments if you're taking them personally. And I really can't see how you can claim that you're not making any broader point, especially when you talk about red flags "generally," but even apart from your generalizations (which I think have some validity) I can't believe you are (or anyone is) Dr. Spock. I believe your own beliefs and practices and viewpoints with regards to glyphosphate (as with anyone in a comparable position on any side of the debate) must affect your interest in these stories. Regardless of whatever conclusions you might want to see people come to (or even if you completely don't care what conclusions anyone else comes to), I think the red flags are there for anyone else reading this. So to Harvestman's point, my comments are about the same subject Olpea began with, namely red flags in the debate over glyphosphate.

I think he hit a raw nerve.

The whole discipline of science is about trying to overcome gut reactions and prejudice that is a constant and inevitable aspect of our reasoning process. It is what controlled experiments are all about. This is something that educated people must have been aware of well before cognitive scientists put human logic to scientific study.

The point Olpea seems to be making is that the media, in it's attempt to create product, does a poor job of representing scientific research. Encouraged by a public that responds to sensational headlines and that is generally unaware of the limitations of any given body of data, the media tends to swing from one incredible new finding to another, often exaggerating the significance of any given study.

When a member of the public finds a body of data or study that agrees with their gut they graft it to their belief system for enforcement. Meanwhile the science goes on and evolves, answering some questions while finding some previous answers to be false leads. The false leads provides the public with ammunition to reject research that fails to meet their beliefs or own peculiar logic.

Obviously, scientists are wired to program information with the same emotional prejudice as the rest of us, but the community as a whole does a good job of eventually getting it right, although there's plenty of gum in the machinery.

And, unfortunately, the extent of the scientific background and understanding of most 'journalists' is the earth science or general biology course they had back in middle school or freshman year of high school...
I usually cringe when I see/hear reports on TV about anything medical/scientific on the news, because they usually get it SO WRONG - or wittingly/unwittingly merely serve as shills for folks with an agenda playing on emotion rather than evidence.

A cursory inspection of geneticliteracyproject.org reveals everything I need to know about its agenda. It is an NGO (non-governmental organization) set up by industry to pretend to be a grassroots movement supporting biotech, genetic modification of plants and animals, and transhumanism. Its enemies are naturalnews.com and anyone else who sounds the alarm about seed contamination or poorly nourishing foods.

Consider the following link having to do with glyphosate and breast cancer.

Here is a link that might be useful: glyphosate is an endocrine disruptor

Transhumanism (abbreviated as H+ or h+) is an international cultural and intellectual movement with an eventual goal of fundamentally transforming the human condition by developing and making widely available technologies to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

Had to look that one up. What does that have to do with GMO's?

As far as dangers of pesticides, as I've often stated here, it seems like concerns in our culture far exceeds any actual evidence. We have plenty of data to compare the health of folks who spray roundup and other pesticides for a living, and their cancer rates tend to be less than the wide populations based on very broad studies.

Here is just one example for you to mull over.

This analysis of the Agricultural Health Study cohort assesses the mortality experience of licensed pesticide applicators and their spouses.
Methods
This report is based on 52,393 private applicators (who are mostly farmers) and 32,345 spouses of farmers in Iowa and North Carolina. At enrollment, each pesticide applicator completed a 21-page enrollment questionnaire. Mortality assessment from enrollment (1994�"1997) through 2000 provided an average follow-up of about 5.3 years, 447,154 person-years, and 2055 deaths.
Results
Compared with the general population in the two states, the cohort experienced a very low mortality rate. Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) for total mortality, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, COPD, total cancer, and cancers of the esophagus, stomach, and lung were 0.6 or lower for both farmers and spouses. These deficits varied little by farm size, type of crops or livestock on the farm, years of handling pesticides, holding a non-farm job, or length of follow up. SMRs among ever smokers were not as low as among never smokers, but were still less than 1.0 for all smoking-related causes of death. No statistically significant excesses occurred, but slightly elevated SMRs, or those near 1.0, were noted for diseases that have been associated with farming in previous studies.
Conclusions
Several factors may contribute to the low mortality observed in this population, including the healthy worker effect typically seen in cohorts of working populations (which may decline in future years), a short follow-up interval, and a healthier lifestyle manifested through lower cigarette use and an occupation that has traditionally required high levels of physical activity.
Key words: Farmers, Mortality, Pesticides, Agriculture, Cancer
Back to Article Outline
Introduction
A number of studies and reviews have documented a unique pattern of mortality among farmers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Compared with the general population, farmers appear to have a remarkable deficit in total mortality, total cancer, heart disease, lung cancer, and a number of other major causes of death. Excess mortality has been reported for accidents (7), for non-malignant respiratory conditions (8), and for a few cancers (lip, stomach, skin, eye, prostate, brain, soft-tissue sarcoma and leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma) by some 2, 3, 6, but not others 5, 9.
Although certain lifestyle factors undoubtedly contribute to some of these mortality deficits and excesses, they may not provide a full explanation. The favorable total mortality and mortality for tobacco-related diseases is heavily influenced by lower smoking rates among farmers. Farmers, however, may have contact with a number of potentially hazardous substances (10). High rates of non-malignant respiratory diseases may be due to contact with dusts, chemicals, and engine exhausts 8, 11. Excesses for certain cancers could be due to sunlight, pesticides, other chemicals, and microbes 3, 10. Fatal accidents are associated with use of machinery and working with large animals 7, 12. Because of this mixture of positive and negative risk factors, farmers and their families offer a population that may provide unique insights into disease causation and prevention. Most previous investigations, however, have used data collected for administrative rather than epidemiologic purposes, that is, death certificates, census records, tumor registries, and may have included non-farmers. Few were based on populations of farmers specifically assembled for epidemiologic investigation (13).
To more fully explain cancer and other disease patterns in agricultural populations and to identify lifestyle, occupational, and environmental factors associated with various health outcomes, we assembled a cohort of private and commercial pesticide applicators and spouses of private applicators in Iowa and North Carolina (14) with detailed information on lifestyle, medical, and agricultural exposures. Although we have already published on the cancer incidence of this cohort (15), this article on mortality provides an evaluation of death from cancer and non-malignant diseases.
Back to Article Outline
Methods
The Agricultural Health Study (http://www.aghealth.org/) is a prospective study of agricultural populations in Iowa and North Carolina (14). It is composed of 57,309 licensed pesticide applicators, including 52,393 private applicators (who are almost entirely farmers), and 4916 commercial applicators from Iowa only (not included in these analyses), and 32,345 spouses of private applicators for a total of 89,654 individuals (Table 1). The applicators are mostly men (97%) and the spouses mostly women (99%). The study protocol was approved by the Human Subject's Review Boards of each collaborating agency and informed consent was obtained from study participants prior to data collection.
Table 1. Persons and person-years of follow up through 2000 by enrollment category and gender for private applicators and their spouses
Category Gender Number of persons Average age at entry Person-years Average years of follow-up Average age at death Number of deaths
Private applicators Male 51,034 47.6 282,407 5.5 65.9 1529
Female 1359 48.2 7680 5.6 65.2 29
Spouses Male 219 50.8 1211 5.5 65.4 15
Female 32,126 47.4 155,855 4.8 64.3 482
Total 84,738 47.5 447,154 5.3 64.5 2055
All applicators were eligible. Enrollment of applicators took place at county licensing facilities when each pesticide applicator was asked to complete a 21-page, enrollment questionnaire. Over 80% of the applicators completed the enrollment questionnaire. Participating applicators were given a second questionnaire covering aspects of lifestyle, pesticide application, and other agricultural activities to complete at home. Private applicators were also given a Spouse Questionnaire, used to enroll the spouse, and a Female and Family Health Questionnaire to be completed by the spouse or the occasional female applicator. Recruitment started in December 1994 and was completed in December 1997.
The applicator enrollment questionnaire sought information on crops, livestock, pesticides, pesticide application methods, use of personal protective equipment, tobacco use, alcohol consumption, fruit and vegetable intake, medical conditions, diseases among first-degree relatives, and basic demographic information. Applicator take-home questionnaires sought more detailed information on some pesticides, personal protective equipment use, various agricultural practices and tasks, diet, cooking practices, non-pesticide agricultural exposures, and jobs held off the farm. Take-home questionnaires completed by the spouses covered basic demographic and lifestyle information and included questions on pesticide use, occupations outside the home, alcohol and tobacco use, leisure-time physical activity, drinking water source, pesticide use in the home, dietary and cooking practices, and medical history. The Female and Family Health Questionnaire covered reproductive history, and some information about their children. Methodologic studies have found the reliability of reporting on lifestyle and exposure factors to be quite good 16, 17, 18.
Deaths among cohort members were identified through the National Death Index (NDI) and state mortality databases for Iowa and North Carolina from time of enrollment through 2000. Underlying causes of death, provided by the NDI, were coded according to the International Classification of Diseases rules in effect at the time of death and assigned rubrics according to the 9th revision. Less than 1% of the cohort has been lost to mortality follow up.
Standardized mortality ratios (SMRs) were calculated to compare deaths among private applicators and spouses with mortality patterns in the general population in each state. SMRs were calculated for major causes of death and selected cancers, including those previously associated with farming. Causes with less than three deaths are not presented, unless they represent diseases of special importance to farming. Commercial applicators are not included in these analyses because of the small size of this sub-cohort, the relative short follow-up period, and the younger age of this group. Expected numbers of deaths for the SMRs were developed from 5-year age and calendar-time, race, and gender-specific mortality rates for the Iowa and North Carolina populations from 1990 through 1999. Mortality rates for 2000 for Iowa and North Carolina were not available and those for 1999 were assumed to apply. Statistical significance of the SMRs was based on exact Poisson 95% confidence intervals according to Breslow and Day (19). Person-year accumulation began on date of enrollment into the cohort (date of completion of the enrollment questionnaire) and ended on the closing date of this follow-up (December 31, 2000), if alive, or date of death, if deceased.
Back to Article Outline
Results
The average age at entry was about 48 years. The average follow-up time was 5.3 years for this analysis (Table 1) with 447,154 person-years accumulated and 2055 deaths.
The private applicators and their spouses have mortality rates for most causes that were significantly lower than the general populations in Iowa and North Carolina (Table 2). The SMR for all-cause mortality was 0.5. Statistically significant deficits were observed for all causes, all cancers combined, and many individual causes of death including diabetes, cardiovascular disease, COPD, nephritis, suicide, and cancers of the buccal cavity and pharynx, esophagus, pancreas, lung, prostate, and bladder. No statistically significant excesses occurred. Causes of death with SMRs greater than 1.0 (and with at least three deaths) included Hodgkin's disease, and cancers of the gallbladder, eye, and thyroid. Mortality patterns were largely similar for applicators and spouses, but spouses had slight excesses of NHL, leukemia, and cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, soft tissue, and brain. Applicators had nonsignificant excesses for Hodgkin's disease, and cancers of the thyroid and female genital organs that did not occur among spouses.
Table 2. Mortality in the AHS cohort through 2000 for selected causes of death by enrollment category (expected based on general population mortality rates in Iowa and North Carolina)
Private applicators Spouses Total
Cause of death Deaths SMR (95 % CI) Deaths SMR (95% CI) Deaths SMR (95% CI)
All causes 1558 0.5 (0.4�"0.5) 497 0.6 (0.5�"0.6) 2,055 0.5 (0.5�"0.5)
All cancers 514 0.6 (0.5�"0.6) 239 0.7 (0.6�"0.8) 753 0.6 (0.6�"0.7)
Buccal cavity and pharynx 5 0.3 (0.1�"0.7) 0 0 (0�"25.4) 5 0.3 (0.1�"0.6)
Digestive system 145 0.7 (0.6�"0.8) 56 0.9 (0.7�"1.2) 201 0.7 (0.6�"0.8)
Esophagus 16 0.5 (0.3�"0.9) 1 0.3 (0.1�"1.9) 17 0.5 (0.3�"0.8)
Stomach 10 0.5 (0.2�"1.0) 4 1.1 (0.3�"2.8) 14 0.6 (0.3�"1.0)
Colon 56 0.7 (0.6�"1.0) 31 1.2 (0.8�"1.6) 87 0.8 (0.7�"1.0)
Liver 8 0.6 (0.2�"1.1) 4 1.7 (0.4�"4.3) 12 0.7 (0.4�"1.3)
Gallbladder 3 2.0 (0.4�"5.7) 2 1.3 (0.1�"4.6) 5 1.6 (0.5�"3.8)
Pancreas 29 0.6 (0.4�"0.9) 10 0.7 (0.3�"1.2) 39 0.7 (0.5�"0.9)
Lung 129 0.4 (0.3�"0.4) 29 0.3 (0.2�"0.5) 158 0.4 (0.3�"0.4)
Soft tissue 4 0.7 (0.2�"1.8) 3 1.4 (0.3�"4.1) 7 0.9 (0.4�"1.8)
Melanoma 13 0.7 (0.4�"1.3) 2 0.4 (0.1�"1.6) 15 0.7 (0.4�"1.1)
Breast 3 0.9 (0.2�"2.7) 54 0.9 (0.7�"1.1) 57 0.9 (0.7�"1.2)
Female genital 4 2.1 (0.6�"5.5) 25 0.7 (0.5�"1.1) 29 0.8 (0.5�"1.2)
Ovary 4 3.9 (1.1�"10.1) 13 0.7 (0.4�"1.2) 17 0.9 (0.5�"1.4)
Prostate 48 0.7 (0.5�"0.8) 0 0 (0�"1.6) 48 0.7 (0.5�"0.9)
Bladder 7 0.4 (0.1�"0.7) 2 0.8 (0.1�"2.7) 9 0.4 (0.2�"0.8)
Eye 2 2.1 (0.2�"7.6) 1 3.7 (0.1�"20) 3 2.5 (0.5�"7.2)
Brain 19 0.7 (0.4�"1.1) 11 1.1 (0.5�"1.8) 30 0.8 (0.5�"1.1)
Thyroid 3 1.8 (0.4�"5.3) 0 0 (0�"2.2) 3 1.3 (0.2�"3.7)
NHL 33 0.9 (0.6�"1.2) 16 1.2 (0.7�"2.0) 49 1.0 (0.7�"1.3)
Hodgkin's disease 3 1.7 (0.3�"4.8) 0 0 (0�"2.5) 3 1.1 (0.2�"3.3)
Myeloma 11 0.6 (0.3�"1.2) 5 0.9 (0.3�"2.1) 16 0.7 (0.4�"1.2)
Leukemia 27 0.8 (0.5�"1.1) 14 1.4 (0.8�"2.4) 41 0.9 (0.6�"1.2)
Diabetes 26 0.3 (0.2�"0.5) 18 0.6 (0.4�"1.0) 44 0.4 (0.3�"0.6)
Cardiovascular disease 537 0.5 (0.5�"0.6) 82 0.4 (0.3�"0.5) 619 0.5 (0.5�"0.6)
COPD 35 0.2 (0.1�"0.3) 15 0.3 (0.2�"0.7) 50 0.2 (0.2�"0.3)
Nephritis 9 0.4 (0.2�"0.7) 6 0.9 (0.3�"2.0) 15 0.5 (0.3�"0.8)
Motor vehicle accidents 56 0.8 (0.2�"1.0) 14 0.8 (0.4�"1.3) 70 0.8 (0.6�"1.0)
Non-motor vehicle accidents 74 1.0 (0.8�"1.2) 8 0.6 (0.3�"1.2) 82 0.9 (0.7�"1.1)
Suicide 46 0.6 (0.5�"0.9) 7 0.7 (0.3�"1.5) 53 0.6 (0.5�"0.8)
SMRs adjusted for calendar year of death, age, state, race, and gender.

SMRs for applicators were based primarily on mortality among men and for spouses primarily among women. There were only 29 deaths among female applicators and they resulted in SMRs of 0.5 (95% CI, 0.3�"0.7) for all causes, 0.7 (95% CI, 0.4�"1.2 based on 12 deaths) for all cancer, 3.9 (95% CI, 1.1�"10.1, based on four deaths) for ovarian cancer, 2.8 (95% CI, 0.3�"10.1 based on two deaths) for NHL, and 2.2 (95% CI, 0.2�"7.8, based on two deaths) for non-motor vehicle accidents. Male spouses experienced 15 deaths and resulted in SMRs of 0.9 (95% CI, 0.5�"1.5 based on 15 deaths) for all causes, 1.0 (95% CI, 0.3�"2.4 based on five deaths) for all cancers, and 1.6 (95% CI, 0.3�"4.7 based on three deaths) for lung cancer.
The mortality for most causes of death was quite similar in the two states with large deficits for all causes, all cancers, lung cancer and cardiovascular disease (data not shown).
Table 3 displays SMRs for selected causes of death among private applicators stratified by presence of livestock or corn on the farm, farm size, and duration of handling pesticides. There were no obvious mortality differences across these strata, although the numbers of events were small for many categories. Table 4 shows SMRs for selected causes of death by cigarette use, strenuous non-occupational summer exercise, off-farm employment, and follow-up period.The lower SMRs among never smokers than ever smokers for many causes of death were to be expected. For example, all-cause and all-cancer SMRs were less than one for both nonsmokers and ever smokers, but the deficits are considerably larger among nonsmokers. Individuals who reported they engaged in strenuous leisure-time exercise for more than 1 hour per week had lower SMRs for all causes combined, cancers of the colon, breast, prostate, and brain, and cardiovascular disease than those who exercised for less than 1 hour per week. Holding a non-farm job did not appear to impact the mortality from any disease. The SMRs for the first 2 years of follow-up and most recent 2 years were similar for most causes, although there might be a slight increase in the recent period.
Table 3. Mortality among private applicators in the AHS cohort through 2000 by type of farm and exposure (expected based on general population rates in Iowa and North Carolina)
Grew corn Had animals (Other than poultry) Farm size (Acres) Years handled pesticides
No Yes No Yes Cause of death Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR
All causes 669 0.6∗
889 0.4∗
946 0.6∗
612 0.4∗
610 0.5∗
541 0.4∗
313 0.5∗
1010 0.5∗

All cancers 220 0.7∗
294 0.5∗
308 0.6∗
206 0.5∗
203 0.6∗
183 0.5∗
99 0.6∗
337 0.5∗

Colon 13 0.5∗
43 0.8 30 0.8 26 0.7 18 0.7 22 0.7 8 0.6 39 0.7∗

Pancreas 8 0.5 21 0.7 15 0.6 14 0.6 9 0.6 16 0.8 26 0.4∗
26 0.8
Lung 67 0.5∗
62 0.3∗
87 0.5∗
42 0.3∗
46 0.3∗
40 0.3∗
25 0.4∗
80 0.3∗

Prostate 24 0.8 24 0.6∗
29 0.7 19 0.6 21 0.7 13 0.5∗
10 0.7 30 0.6∗

Brain 8 0.9 11 0.6 11 0.8 8 0.6 9 1.0 6 0.4∗
5 0.9 12 0.6
NHL 14 1.0 19 0.8 17 0.9 16 0.9 14 1.0 15 0.9 10 1.4 22 0.8
Myeloma 5 0.8 6 0.6 8 0.9 3 0.4 4 0.6 4 0.6 1 0.3 1 0.6
Leukemia 11 0.9 16 0.7 19 1.0 8 0.5∗
13 1.0 9 0.6 7 1.0 22 0.8
Cardiovascular dis. 222 0.6∗
315 0.5∗
322 0.6∗
215 0.5∗
219 0.6∗
184 0.5∗
106 0.6∗
355 0.5∗

COPD 17 0.2∗
18 0.2∗
30 0.3∗
5 0.1∗
14 0.2∗
7 0.2∗
8 0.2∗
23 0.2∗

Non-motor vehicle accidents 18 0.9 56 1.1 29 0.8 45 1.2 22 0.9 39 1.1 17 0.9 48 1.0
SMRs adjusted for calendar year of death, age, state, race, and gender.

∗95% confidence interval does not include 1.0.

Table 4. Mortality among private applicators and spouses in the AHS cohort through 2000 by lifestyle characteristics and follow-up period (expected based on general population rates in Iowa and North Carolina)
Ever used cigarettes Strenuous leisure time summer exercise Ever held non-farm job Follow-up period
No Yes ≤1 Hour >1 Hour No Yes Through 1998 1999�"2000
Cause of death Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR Deaths SMR
All causes 748 0.4∗
1131 0.6∗
637 0.6∗
446 0.4∗
348 0.5∗
838 0.5∗
1157 0.5∗
898 0.6∗

All cancers 296 0.5∗
405 0.7∗
247 0.7∗
197 0.6∗
140 0.6∗
351 0.6∗
415 0.6∗
338 0.7∗

Colon 45 0.9 35 0.8 31 1.0 23 0.8 19 0.9 42 0.9 47 0.8 40 1.0
Pancreas 16 0.5∗
23 0.8 11 0.6 14 0.8 7 0.6 22 0.9 25 0.7 14 0.6∗

Lung 14 0.1∗
134 0.6∗
45 0.4∗
35 0.3∗
24 0.3∗
59 0.3∗
90 0.4∗
68 0.4∗

Breast 35 0.7 16 1.0 27 1.2 18 0.7 6 0.6 46 0.9 39 1.1 18 0.7
Prostate 17 0.6∗
27 0.7 15 0.7 9 0.5∗
11 0.7 14 0.6 29 0.7∗
19 0.6∗

Brain 21 1.1 5 0.3∗
10 0.9 4 0.4∗
6 0.9 11 0.6 15 0.6 12 0.6
NHL 27 1.1 22 1.0 12 0.8 17 1.2 8 0.8 24 1.1 29 1.0 20 1.0
Myeloma 7 0.6 7 0.7 5 0.8 3 0.5 1 0.2 7 0.7 12 0.9 4 0.4
Leukemia 20 0.9 18 0.9 13 1.0 13 1.0 7 0.8 21 1.1 21 0.8 20 1.1
Cardiovascular disease 210 0.4∗
352 0.6∗
185 0.5∗
109 0.3∗
106 0.4∗
204 0.4∗
359 0.5∗
260 0.5∗

Non-motor vehicle accidents 34 0.8 43 1.1 19 0.9 18 0.8 12 0.8 27 0.8 57 1.0 25 0.7
SMRs adjusted for calendar year of death, age, state, race, and gender.

∗95% confidence interval does not include 1.0.

Back to Article Outline
Discussion
This initial evaluation of the deaths among private pesticide applicators (almost entirely farmers) and their spouses participating in the Agricultural Health Study indicates they experience a very favorable mortality compared with the general populations of Iowa and North Carolina. This is consistent with the published literature on farmers 1, 2, 3, 5. The deficits for overall mortality and a number of selected diseases in this cohort, however, are somewhat greater than previously reported. The mortality pattern was similar in the two states and did not vary much by farm size, type of farm operation, years of handling pesticides, or holding non-farm jobs. Although nonsmoking participants had lower SMRs than smokers for tobacco-related causes of death, it is striking that even smokers had lower mortality rates for these diseases than the general population. Those engaging in more frequent strenuous leisure-time physical activity tended to have lower SMRs for a number of causes than those with lesser activity, although these differences were not statistically significant. Leisure-time exercise may be a poor measure of physical activity for farmers who traditionally perform many physically demanding tasks associated with their farm activities.
Some of the observed deficits are undoubtedly due to the well-documented healthy worker effect observed when working cohorts are compared with the mortality experience of the general population 20, 21. This is likely to contribute to the mortality deficits among the applicators, but might be less important among the spouses. The healthy worker effect, however, complicates interpretation and without some adjustment means that true excesses could be entirely missed and others diminished against this back drop of low mortality. We chose not to make a formal adjustment, such as dividing cause-specific SMRs by the total mortality SMR, but we do recognize that SMRs for some individual causes of death may be artificially low. It would be preferable to have another working population from these two states for comparison, but no such group is available. The healthy worker effect is typically the strongest during the early years of cohort follow-up and moderates over time 21, 22. Such moderation may occur in the Agricultural Health Study cohort as follow-up continues. We calculated SMRs for follow up through 1998 and for 1999 to 2000. Although the SMRs for all causes of death rose from 0.5 to 0.6 and all cancer from 0.6 to 0.7, these differences are small and the follow-up is really too short to draw meaningful comparisons at the present time. The major objective of the AHS, however, is to evaluate the impact of specific agricultural practices, exposures, and lifestyle factors on disease risk and this can be accomplished using internal comparisons, for example, comparing exposed and unexposed farmers, which largely removes the healthy worker effect present in comparisons with the general population. The purpose of this article, however, was to provide data on the mortality experience relative to the general population, rather than identify risk factors for specific diseases.
Farm families engage in a number of positive health habits that have a beneficial impact on mortality rates. Many of these traits are found in rural populations whether engaged in farming or not. Stiernstrom et al. (23) found that for several causes of death among farmers and non-farming rural residents, mortality rates were similar and considerably lower than urban residents. Non-farming rural residents did have a slightly higher mortality rate than farmers for all tumors combined. Tobacco use among farmers is less than for urban populations (3). Only 15% of farmers in the cohort and 10% of their spouses were tobacco users at the time of enrollment (14). Smoking rates were low even in North Carolina where tobacco is an important crop. This compares to 26% of the men and 21% of the women who are smokers in the general population in Iowa and 28% among men and 21% among women from North Carolina (24). These differences, however, would not explain why smokers in the AHS cohort have lower mortality for many tobacco-related causes of death than the general population, which is a combination of rates among smokers and nonsmokers. Other factors must be involved. Alcohol use did not appear fundamentally different among the cohort and general population. Thirty-four percent of the farmers and 44% of their spouses reported they had not used alcohol during the past year compared with 31% among men and 44% among women in the United States (25). Farmers may, however, be more physically active than individuals in other occupations. Physical activity is known to be protective against a number of chronic diseases, including coronary heart disease, diabetes, cancers of the colon and breast, and perhaps other malignancies (26). Farming typically requires a considerable amount of physical activity and was the explanation for the lower levels of heart disease observed among farmers in studies in Georgia and Iowa 27, 28. The low prevalence of smoking, alcohol use, and physical inactivity would lead to lower mortality rates for several major causes of death including cardiovascular disease, stroke, and cancers of the lung, colon, mouth and throat, liver, pancreas, bladder, and kidney 26, 29, 30.
Several previous incidence and mortality studies of farmers have reported excesses for cancers of the lip, stomach, skin, brain, and prostate and lymphatic and hematopoietic system 1, 2, 3, 9, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37. We observed no statistically significant mortality excesses for any cancer in the Agricultural Health Study cohort after 5.3 years of follow-up and there were only a few SMRs of 1.0 or larger, including cancers of the gallbladder and eye among applicators and spouses; non-motor vehicle accidents, Hodgkin's disease and cancers of the thyroid, and female genital organs among applicators; and NHL, leukemia, soft tissue sarcoma and cancers of the stomach, colon, liver, and brain among spouses. Some of the cancers with small excesses were cancer sites (i.e., eye, stomach, NHL, myeloma, soft-tissue sarcoma, and leukemia) that have been reported as excessive in previous investigations of farming populations 3, 31, 32, 33. These small excesses are somewhat more impressive when considered in light of the very low overall mortality for this cohort. As with mortality, cancer incidence rates among applicators and spouses in this cohort are generally lower than the general population (15).
Historically, rates of injuries and accidental death rates among farmers are among the highest for any occupational group 3, 7, 38 and farmers rank number 12 among the 50 highest rate occupations for fatal injury (39). It is not clear why we found an SMR of only 1.0 for non-motor vehicle accidents among applicators and an SMR of 0.6 among spouses, although Acquavella and Olsen (5) did not see an excess in their meta-analysis of mortality among farmers. It could be that Iowa and North Carolina farmers have lower accident rates than farmers elsewhere. Zwerling et al. (40), however, found excess mortality from accidents among Iowa farmers in the 1980s and agriculture ranked high for fatal occupational injuries among self-employed workers in North Carolina (41). There is some evidence that rates of fatal occupational injuries are declining in the agricultural sector 42, 43 and this study of mortality in the late 1990s may reflect this pattern.
In summary, private applicators (mostly farmers) and farmers' spouses participating in the Agricultural Health Study have a very low overall mortality. A more careful evaluation of this population is warranted to identify environmental and lifestyle factors in the agricultural environment that may contribute to these deficits. There are a few causes of death with slight excesses that deserve attention as the cohort ages when there will be larger numbers for analysis and the impact of the healthy worker effect moderates. The combination of very low mortality for many causes of death and possible excesses for a few causes of death make this a valuable cohort to identify factors associated with good and ill health.
Back to Article Outline
References
1. Blair A, Zahm SH, Pearce NE, Heineman EF, Fraumeni JF. Clues to cancer etiology from studies of farmers. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1992;18:209�"215
• View In Article
• MEDLINE

2. Pearce N, Reif JS. Epidemiologic studies of cancer in agricultural workers. Am J Ind Med. 1990;18:133�"142
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

3. Blair A, Dosemeci M, Heineman EF. Cancer and other causes of death among male and female farmers from twenty-three states. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23:729�"742
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

4. Blair A, Zahm SH. Cancer among farmers. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. 1991;6(3):335�"354
• View In Article

5. Acquavella J, Olsen G. Cancer among farmers: A meta-analysis. Ann Epidemiol. 1998;8:64�"74
• View In Article
• Abstract
• Full Text
• Full-Text PDF (159 KB)
• CrossRef

6. Fleming LE, Gomez-Marin O, Zheng D, Ma F, Lee D. National Health Interview Survey mortality among US farmers and pesticide applicators. Am J Ind Med. 2003;43:227�"233
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

7. Merchant JA. Agricultural injuries. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. 1991;6(3):529�"540
• View In Article

8. Schenker MB, Christiani D, Cormier Y, Dimich-Ward H, Doekes G, Dosman J, et al. Respiratory hazards in agriculture. Am J Respirat Crit Care Med. 1998;158:S1�"S76
• View In Article

9. Wiklund K, Dich J. Cancer risks among male farmers in Sweden. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1995;4:81�"90
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

10. Shaver CS, Tong T. Chemical hazards to agricultural workers. Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews. 1991;6(3):391�"414
• View In Article

11. Hoppin JA, Umbach DM, London SJ, Alavanja MCR, Sandler SP. Chemical predictors of wheeze among farmer pesticide applicators in the Agricultural Health Study. Am J Respir Cit Care Med. 2002;165:683�"689
• View In Article

12. Sprince NL, Zwerling C, Lynch CF, Whitten PS, Thu K, Logsden-Sackett N, et al. Risk factors for agricultural injury; a case�"control analysis of Iowa farmers in the Agricultural Health Study. J Agric Safety Health. 2003;9:5�"18
• View In Article

13. Stark AD, Chang H, Fitzgerald EF, Riccardi K, Stone RR. A retrospective cohort study of mortality among New York state farm bureau members. Arch Environ Health. 1987;42:204�"212
• View In Article
• MEDLINE

14. Alavanja MCR, Sandler DP, McMaster SB, Zahm SH, McDonnell CJ, Lynch CF, et al. The Agricultural Health Study. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:362�"369
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

15. Alavanja MCR, Sandler DP, Knott C, Lubin JH, Tarone R, Thomas K, et al. Cancer incidence in the Agricultural Health Study. Scand J Work Environ Health (in press).
• View In Article

16. Tarone RE, Alavanja MC, Zahm SH, Lubin JH, Sandler DP, McMaster SB, et al. The Agricultural Health Study: Factors affecting completion and return of self-administered questionnaires in a large prospective cohort study of pesticide applicators. Am J Ind Med. 1997;31:233�"242
• View In Article
• MEDLINE
• CrossRef

17. Blair

"The whole discipline of science is about trying to overcome gut reactions and prejudice that is a constant and inevitable aspect of our reasoning process. It is what controlled experiments are all about. This is something that educated people must have been aware of well before cognitive scientists put human logic to scientific study."

Exactly. This subject is near to my heart because of personal experience, which I'll share in the interest of this discussion. As a disclaimer, the rest of this post is completely off topic for fruit, or glyphosate. It's really about a personal journey, so please skip it if it doesn't interest you. I'm just explaining why this subject is important to me, and why I reject Cousin's accusation I'm trying to make some broader point, under the radar. My point of the original post was borne out of frustration people accept something which has the "label of science", but really isn't science. Cousin has chosen not to believe my stated motive. That's OK.

At one time I believed the earth was less than 10,000 years old. I'm ashamed to admit this. At the time, it seemed to conform with my religion. After reading considerable "supposed" scientific literature I was convinced the earth had to be young. The young earth "experts" seemed to have a scientific answer for every piece of evidence for an old earth (i.e. radiometric dating, cosmological models, etc)

However, evidence for a planet billions of years started to become overwhelming to me. Additionally, I started recognizing some of the answers I was receiving from the young earth side, were just plain dumb. Some of their tactics were even a bit underhanded.

In the next evolution of my thought process, I came to conclude the only way to reconcile my belief about the young age of the earth and the overwhelming evidence it was old, was that a Creator (I am a theist) simply created everything with an appearance of age, but that earth was really young.

This may look like a complete cop out, but at the time it seemed rational. For anything to have usefulness it must have age. For soil to grow plants, it must go through a lengthy time consuming process to become soil. Assuming a Creator would want to create a functioning planet, it make sense to create it with an appearance of age to be useful, even if it was created instantaneously.

I eventually realized this was weak, and realized I'd been duped. I further understood there are a lot of people who take a very narrow interpretation of a book to which I ascribe.

(As an aside, I came to the conclusion there is nothing in that book which would preclude an earth 4 bil. years old, evolution, or even the possibility of other life forms on other planets/galaxies. In my view, it's a larger view to understand a Creator is not bound in our own mental constraints, that he somehow created the universe solely for mankind. Great thinkers, such as C.S. Lewis understood this as well.)

I'm still a little bit angry I was taken in by people who put on a face of science but really were just using science as a whore for their own philosophical beliefs.

Science can't discover all truth, but for what truth it can discover, we should hold tightly to it's principles.

I'll conclude this post by quoting how it started. It's so well said, and part of my own journey.

"The whole discipline of science is about trying to overcome gut reactions and prejudice that is a constant and inevitable aspect of our reasoning process."

Swamps,
I have only read the abstract of your link, so I'm not endorsing it, but on the surface, that's a better example of the things people should be reading to formulate opinions, rather than the sensationalized claims of Dr. Seneff.

Welcome to the age of enlightenment Olpea. As I understand the history, our nations forefathers, for the most part, would celebrate your journey.

The newspapers made a big deal of Pope Francis stating that God was no bearded magician with a magic wand and that the theory of evolution is valid. When I looked further I found this has been the official position of the Catholic church for decades, but not of some Catholics I know.

If folks can find comfort in unscientific beliefs, more power to them, just please don't kill me for telling a joke about it.

according to the national institute of health's Pubmed.gov, glyphosate easily forms metal complexes (compounds) by pulling metals out of the soil and is shown to reach groundwater intact. Remember that it is the metals that are linked to autism - specifically mercury but probably others. Here is one of the NIH's abstracts addressing a cluster of kidney disease where glyphosate is used on rice farms in sri lanka.

Here is a link that might be useful: cluster of toxic nephropathy in sri lanka

As far as I can tell, the biggest possible issue with glyphosate is with affecting our gut biology. The problem with this is that we are just barely beginning to understand how this affects us. Could it affect autism? Yes. Do we know that it does? Not yet. Cancer rates are astronomically higher than 100 years ago. Is that something made up by bad science? No. That's real. We have to ask the questions carefully to find out if glyphosate is affecting autism or cancer directly, through some other means, or not at all. Clearly, we have way more cancer, diabetes, and obesity than 100 years ago. These aren't just made up by overdiagnosis. We have some real problems, but we have to check carefully to find out why.
John S
PDX OR

I think Dr. Seneff's observation that glyphosate kills the beneficial bacterias in our body "allowing pathogens to grow interferes with the synthesis of amino acids including methionine, which leads to shortages in critical neurotransmitters and folates etc..." has a lot of merit and should be taken seriously. Even healthy soil needs beneficial bacterias and fungi to break down organic matters into nutrients that plants can use, the human body as complex as it is certainly requires the beneficial bacterias to perform similar work(breaking down complex substance into forms that the body can use). I wonder if there is any study done on this relationship and autism.

" I wonder if there is any study done on this relationship and autism?"

Apparently so.

Here is a link from Dr. Eric Hall, like Dr. Seneff, he is not an Autism Spectum Disorder authority, has no training in medicine or anatomy and physiology. So just as with Dr. Seneff, one should take his conclusions with a grain of salt. Still he offers some links which may be useful.

http://skeptoid.com/blog/2013/05/04/roundup-and-gut-bacteria/

The following article is written by Dr. Steven Novella a neurologist at Yale (a more credible and objective source to evaluate research of glyphosate and autism in my opinion):

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/glyphosate-the-new-bogeyman/

From that article they quote the following research, which may be relevant to your question, since autism is a genetic or developmental disease.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21798302

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22202229

As far as I can tell, the biggest possible issue with glyphosate is with affecting our gut biology. The problem with this is that we are just barely beginning to understand how this affects us. Could it affect autism? Yes. Do we know that it does? Not yet.

The answer is no, not "not yet". That shows extreme bias.

Cancer rates are astronomically higher than 100 years ago. Is that something made up by bad science? No

Not bad science but great spin! Most people died before that got cancer, so yes the rates are a lot higher now, we are living longer. We will all get cancer if we can live long enough. Our cell replication eventually malfunctions. One can argue high cancer rates are a sign of a very healthy society. Everybody seems to forget today, right now, nobody has ever lived as long as we do. It is absolutely amazing.

Drew,

Your post codifies what I've believed for a long time. Namely, there is a "built in" bias in statistics regarding human ailments and causes of death. I don't mean anything conspiratorial, but a built in bias that longer life spans would seem to change the matrix of this question.

Another way of looking at it would be that there is always a number one cause of death, no matter how long or healthy a population lives. That cause of death will always be focused on as a problem (because it's the number one cause) even though it may be the least likely treatable do to old age.

And if pesticides were an important contributor to cancer rates, it stands to reason that folks who apply them for a living would get much higher rates than the general public. MUCH HIGHER.

I would check the autism rates of children raised near fields that are saturated with glyphosate annually compared to those raised in environments where it is rarely used if I was studying the issue. You could probably pull data right off the internet.

I've long felt that it is more a health of the planet issue than health of humans when it comes to the dangers of modern, massive agriculture. Even if this is the case, modern chemistry most likely can be used for a less environmentally disruptive agriculture, partially because of the potential to greatly increase yields. But there are other reasons.

For instance, if you give up glyphosphosate you have to manage weeds with gas operated roto-tillers or other means that are generally considered environmentally harmful.

Maybe Drew. But there has also been an astronomical increase in childhood cancers. What's your excuse there? Those kids aren't living longer.

steve333:

It's not so simple:

Here is a link that might be useful: Cancer

Trebruchet, indeed it isn't that simple. Here's another site which shows somewhat higher rates of childhood cancers:

http://www.curesearch.org/Incidence-Rates-Over-Time/

Roughly up 64 percent in 39 years. And that is an average, with some specific types up more (and to be fair, some less).

With cancer, which can have environmental factors, it would be good to know what is driving that increase. Change in reporting, better diagnoses, or perhaps a change in the environment or the resiliency of the gene pool? A lot of possibilities. One thing for sure, it isn't because kids are living longer nowadays.

As for people who are exposed to pesticides getting more cancer, there are quite a few studies out there. Some do indicate that there is an increased risk of some cancers with some pesticides.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/farm-pesticides-linked-to-skin-cancer/

Again, not every pesticide is dangerous as far as cancer goes, but some certainly are, including some common ones. The information is out there (as far as it goes). Or you can just continue to believe whatever you want, good or bad about pesticides.

Both glycophosphate and fluorophosphate (often used in toothpaste) have chemical structural similarities to nerve gas.

I have suspected there might be some extremely small toxicity associated with these phosphate analogs, perhaps manifesting after chronic long-term exposure. This is all just conjecture though.

Steve, did you look at the study I posted? To me the question isn't about specific cancers so much as overall health. If a population that receives 100 times or more the exposure to a wide range of pesticides than the general public has significantly lower mortality (longer and healthier lives) than the general public it seems logical that we spend the millions on research looking elsewhere first for ways to reduce cancer.

For instance, coal fueled power plants and auto emmissions are known threats to human health with the epidemilogical data to support it.

We know that exercise shows clear correlation to lower cancer rates and children are not getting as much as they used to for a variety of correctable reasons.

We seem predisposed to looking at agricultural chemicals first but when we look at the plastics our foods are stored in and all of our industrial exposures the pay dirt is much more rapidly found. But we (or our politicians) don't want to put pressure on big industry.

Hman, I did look at your post (admittedly briefly), and I think your point is valid, but could be used to miss other important things to consider.

Overall lifespan and health is definitely important, can't argue against that. But that does not mean that details about things that you may come into contact with are not important too, even if overall you're doing well.

There are a lot of factors which go into overall health. And its good to know that Ag workers are generally more healthy than the average population (although not sure I would hold that out as a great standard). It does not mean they couldn't be healthier or that there aren't risks in their jobs that they perhaps would want to minimize. Certainly if I were a spray operator I'd want to know about those pesticides that are linked to increased skin cancer and take appropriate precautions when/if I was using them.

It's a very complex subject, with too many generalities. And it's too simplistic to look only at cancer data, there are a bunch of other health issues which can be caused by pesticides. Remember rotenone, that old organic insecticide (since lost its organic approval). It is used in labs to induce Parkinson like neurological symptoms in lab animals for studies; it definitely has side effects which is why it was dropped from the organic list (not to pick on organics here, just to point out that any pesticide, organic or synthetic, can have unwanted side effects).

It is especially hard to design studies that find subtle effects over long term exposure. There is a lot we don't know about the "stuff" we put on and in our food supply, and to be frank, likely never will (just too many details and not enough effort to studying them). When you throw in the economic prejudice, that is companies are out to show their new product is safe, not to find all of its subtle flaws, our safety testing has some huge gaps.

Normally I refrain from jumping into these sorts of threads, as I don't think very much real reading or discussion goes on. But I am irked by the simple (and inaccurate) platitudes that get thrown around. Certainly the original post pointed out one from one side, and then others jumped in with more from varying directions.

This is a complex subject, and waving hands and gross generalities do nothing to explain/understand the real factors and causes here.

I found the study Steve posted interesting. It doesn't seem necessarily contradictory to the study Hman posted, although I understand Hman's point was overall health.

From other studies I've read skin cancer (and other cancers) are higher for applicators (farmers) but overall cancer rates are lower.

What I found erroneous about the skin cancer study was that the researchers assumed farmers use PPE. They don't. I've read surveys where most farmers admit the only "PPE" they wear is sun glasses, leather gloves and a ball cap.

I know several commercial apple or peach growers in my area and none of them wear any PPE. Of course we talk about these things.

You have to picture what it's really like. Yes, everyone can quote what's required, but the reality is there's a million things to do and PPE takes extra time and gets in the way. Most people aren't going to drag out all the PPE to get the spray on.

PPE is hot. Even nitrile gloves are hot and sweaty compared to leather gloves. Even leather gloves are a problem because you can't get the "tamper proof" seals off with leather gloves, so you have to take them off bare handed (which gets the "concentrate" on your hands-concentrate much more concentrated than homeowner products). I measure the product out with a digital scale and can't work the buttons with gloves. Respirators are also hot and uncomfortable to wear. They have respirators which continually feed you air with a fan, but those are bulky and heavy.

For most farmer's it's much easier just to be "careful" mixing, loading and applying, rather than wear the PPE. You just want to get the spray on before the weather changes and the wind picks up.

Really it's consistent with the way farmer's have always approached occupational safety. Farmer's are still in the top 10 list of most dangerous occupations, largely because of equipment accidents. They approach equipment safety the same way. Equipment safety shields get in the way, so they take them off. If there is a grain screen to keep one's clothes/limbs out of an auger, and that screen gets plugged up a few times, the farmer's going to torch that screen off with his cutting torch.

As this relates to skin cancer, for my part, I know I'm high risk, being largely of Scandinavian descent. I've had one death in my extended family due to melanoma. It wouldn't at all surprise me if that's my cause of death. I try to be careful as I get older with sunscreen, but the truth is I still get badly burned several times a summer because forget to put it on. Sometimes I get blistered from welding because I'm in a hurry and don't cover up enough. I'm not different from the way most farmers approach occupational safety.

I think the study regarding skin cancer and pesticides may have some merit, but causative correlation of skin cancer by pesticides, or sun exposure is the real question. According to the article, there isn't complete consensus on this. I'm not dismissing the role pesticides could possibly play in skin cancer because it does get all over your skin, but because of all the variables, it would seem difficult to isolate them in the study.

Steve, I appreciate your measured approach to this topic, which is my goal. Sounds like you and I may think similar in this regard.

"Steve, I appreciate your measured approach to this topic, which is my goal. Sounds like you and I may think similar in this regard."

My sentiments as well.

I am a certified sprayer who once believed that the use of any synthetic materials was, at the very least, "bad Karma". When I started my business I thought I could grow fruit in the NE organically and advertised the claim to get customers. I wasn't lying, just believing that the Rodale folks must be honest and their publications indicated that it wouldn't be so hard to do. I was already growing amazing vegetables organically.

Fruit turned out to be another animal entirely and this was years before Surround became available. I simply couldn't produce much useable tree fruit using organic approved materials.

I learned about false claims to sell merchandise- I was originally naive enough to believe that folks in the "Organic Community" must be ethical because the people I knew with my general belief system tended to be. But business people are business people and ethics can be hard to profit on.

So Olpea's disillusionment with fundamentalist Christianity pretty much mirrors mine with the back to nature purists.

As I started my business I also went back to school to get a greater academic background in horticulture. The little bit of chemistry I learned while studying plant biology started to make me look at synthetics differently. Things like the realization that synthetic nitrogen was identical to nitrogen derived organically once it became available to plants.

When I found out that only a couple of synthetic sprays could completely turn around my orchards from non-productive to trees being loaded with sound fruit I made my peace with them.

I still hate to spray and find using poisons repugnant, but life is full of compromises. I make my living by providing people with amazing fruit from their own trees but I'd be using these materials just for the pleasure of being able to grow the varieties of fruit I want in my own orchard.