Discussion about this post

User's avatar
David Flietner's avatar

I haven't read UC-SD's Dr. Saurez' article in Environmental Health Perspectives (https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP11383) in GREAT detail but of the 9 neurobehavior tests he ran on these Ecuadorian farmworker children, he found a statistically significant (2% chance its chance) on social perception -- affect recognition. I note that herbicide exposure was grouped into terciles and these were statistically analyzed. If you look at Figure 2A showing the purported effect of Roundup on social perception, you'll see that about half the dots are outside of the (basely perceptible) 95% confidence interval.

I use quotation marks here for my emphasis added below.

Citing a review based on two epidemiological and 15 in vivo studies, glyphosate showed "a moderate level of evidence" with an increased risk of ASD in children. Pregnant women within 2 km of heavy pesticide use areas had a 16% higher chance of having kids on the autism spectrum than similar women living more than 2 km from these areas.

How might this be? "Elevated intracellular chloride levels of neurons and neocortical tissue have been observed in autism." -- Maybe a better way to avoid autism is to avoid salt?

Glycine binding of the glycine receptor of neurons "can influence" the rate of calcium influx into neurons during neurodevelopment.

Given "glyphosate’s potential" to be a glycine mimetic, "it could" cause similar patterns of overconcentrated chloride within immature neurons.

I respect science and am sure that Environmental Health Perspectives has reviewers more capable than I, but I wonder if a flawed method of assessment of children's recognition of cues from their interlocutors, a wide net of potential variables in looking for a significant response, (in my M.S. study I found a significant effect at the 5% level when I analyzed 20 variables), and a strained causal linkage should make us a bit more critical of rushing to embrace this finding.

I suspect that few of the people that I encounter who are unalterably opposed to use of Roundup have critically reviewed the scientific literature in coming to their stance. Is it a matter of identifying with the appropriate tribe rather than evaluating the evidence?

Expand full comment
David Flietner's avatar

Other things classified by IARC as probably carcinogens in humans:

Creosotes (from coal tars)

High-temperature frying

Fireplaces [Household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from]

Non-arsenical insecticides (occupational exposures in spraying and application of)

Eating red meat

Drinking hot Mate tea hot

Drinking very hot beverages at above 65 °C.

Not to mention the lethality of getting on the freeway.

So yeah, if you don't fry food, drink tea, or spray for ants not applying Roundup would be an important health factor. Just hire someone who likes to live dangerously to do it.

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts