Thanks, Henry. News on the TV last night was that the State of CA has just approved some horrid pesticide that will be sprayed on the strawberry crop that is REALLY toxic - so much that the state is coming out with regulations that are very precise, complicated about exactly when, where, etc it can be used. So complicated that they will no doubt be broken. I'm sticking to organic strawberries from now on! (This new horror is to replace one that they say is bad for global warming - the climate fascists will kill us all yet!)

Jackie

The study Henry links to has always been the unanswered question regarding modern insecticides. Those insecticides have typically been nerve poisons of various sorts, and while the acute toxicity of them (ie., the risk of immediate harm to health and survival they present) has gone down over the decades as chemical companies have found new ones to offer that were less acutely toxic, always the unanswered question was, "But what about the long term, chronic effects?"

That was a question that I'm not aware has ever really been answered. This study suggests there is indeed a real problem with these insecticides' chronic toxic effects.

It would certainly be nice if the article made it clear whether we are talking about insecticides, fungicides, miticides, or all three. All can be considered pesticides. I'm assuming they are talking about insecticides, but the comment about grapes made me wonder.

I stopped using all insecticides years ago. The bugs just don't do that much damage (except for Japanese Beetles, of course). I regularly spray fungicides, and I might spray a miticide once a year, but that's about it. The additional rewards from using insecticides just aren't worth the risk.

"The Phytoner study investigated a possible association between neuropsychologic performances and long-term exposure to pesticides in Bordeaux vineyard workers, most of whom use fungicides."

Here is a link that might be useful: link for above quote

worsening of cognitive function

I am always rather skeptical about this sort of conclusions, as human mind is very complex thing and it is not that easy to measure things like cognitive functions. Of course if you swim in chemicals for 20 years, that is not likely to add to the general health, all functions included, but then again, since it is unknown what exactly causes many forms of dementia (also in people who never were exposed to anything like that), it is a bit vague.

Interesting. I use no pesticides at all, but when I hear about cognitive function, I think about children. I also think about pregnant women who are carrying and nurturing children.

I don't know how we can expect a straight answer about these chemicals when it took so long for us to hear about the dangers of hormone replacement after the companies had proof that they were dangerous. Once something has been approved, it is very difficult to get it off the market -- aspirin for instance.

I don't know if there are many jobs around that hire people to prove that chemicals are dangerous -- just to prove that they are safe. All you have to do to find out how safe they are is to call the company and ask. Don't ask about yourself, but ask about exposure to a baby or pregnant woman. If it is dangerous for them, it is too dangerous for me.

Sammy

Well sammy, normally children and pregnant women are not working in the fields for 20 years, to get same levels of exposure.

Besides that, there are many natural things that are dangerous for the baby, but safe for adult - honey is one example (because of botulism).