Pesticides as bad as smoking for some cancers
July 29, 2024 1:54 PM Subscribe
An ecological/epidemiological assessment of pesticide use patterns and cancer risks suggests that pesticides exposure ranks as dangerous as smoking for some cancer types (via, healthline, forbes). As a bonus, pesticides increasingly contain PFAS aka forever chemicals., and so does drinking water.
As some highlights..
"Our findings demonstrated an association between pesticide use and increased incidence of leukemia; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancer; and all cancers combined that are comparable to smoking for some cancer types."
"14% of all US pesticide active ingredients are PFAS, including nearly one-third .. approved in the past decade." Inactive ingredients are not required to be disclosed on labels, even though they maybe toxic. Teflon turns up among the inactive ingredients being used, which causes low birth weight babies.
As Kristine Vike says in Hidden Chemicals in your Clothes, all the PFAS problems were "chemically predictable".
Also, it's possible much of the glyphosate in European rivers comes from souirces besides farming.
As some highlights..
"Our findings demonstrated an association between pesticide use and increased incidence of leukemia; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma; bladder, colon, lung, and pancreatic cancer; and all cancers combined that are comparable to smoking for some cancer types."
"14% of all US pesticide active ingredients are PFAS, including nearly one-third .. approved in the past decade." Inactive ingredients are not required to be disclosed on labels, even though they maybe toxic. Teflon turns up among the inactive ingredients being used, which causes low birth weight babies.
As Kristine Vike says in Hidden Chemicals in your Clothes, all the PFAS problems were "chemically predictable".
Also, it's possible much of the glyphosate in European rivers comes from souirces besides farming.
If the alternative is being forced to carry a pregnancy to term I think I'd rather risk the cancer.
posted by phunniemee at 2:47 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 2:47 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
...hmm maybe that should go in the thread where people were spitballing campaign slogans
posted by phunniemee at 2:48 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 2:48 PM on July 29 [2 favorites]
Eek! Thank you! I was avoiding pesticides in my yard for bees, but I'd never considered clothing.
posted by esoteric things at 3:41 PM on July 29
posted by esoteric things at 3:41 PM on July 29
I’m generally meh on a lot of things and just can’t be bothered to do stuff. Another word for this is lazy. My husband (not crunchy in any way) is super picky on specific things, especially when it relates to the kids: we always wash their clothes before wearing, only organic strawberries, organic apples and organic grapes, no reheating food in plastic containers and very picky about which plastics are manufactured where like Tupperware, dishes and kids cups. 10 years ago I was annoyed by all these things he insisted on because ugh there were no organic strawberries at the shop this week and “oh I’m sure it’s fiiiiiine” but every few years another comes up and he’s validated. At this point I don’t really question it he’s been right so many times. (This is the guy who would almost always vote eat it on those “should I eat it?” askmes by the way)
By the way he’s also super picky about indoor air quality (and monitors outdoor air quality) just in case you want to be ahead of the curve. Runs these special air filters, run the fan when cooking, prefer non-gas stove, always vacuuming etc.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:06 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]
By the way he’s also super picky about indoor air quality (and monitors outdoor air quality) just in case you want to be ahead of the curve. Runs these special air filters, run the fan when cooking, prefer non-gas stove, always vacuuming etc.
posted by St. Peepsburg at 4:06 PM on July 29 [5 favorites]
I'm gonna leave it to statisticians who will pick apart this paper in the next few days, but before linking this kind of trash, look to the source.
i) a frontiers article - frontiers is a essentially fraudulent publisher. the signal to noise is fuckin awful, and they have participated in way too many paper mill scams, retractions and bullshit to deserve generalized respect without evidence to the contrary.
look for example at the peer reviewers who read this article: is their expertise in large scale cancer epidemiology ? no ; a random covid epidemiologist postdoc and a masters student in fucking molecular science.
ii) breathless generalizations "“In our study we found that for some cancers, the effect of agricultural pesticide usage is comparable in magnitude to the effect of smoking,”
anyone who makes this kind of statement who is a "statistician" should have their tenure revoked and sent to the fucking mines. what the fuck does this kind of assertion even MEAN. it has such a range of power as to be meaningless. smoking - how frequent? 'effect of pesticide usage' - in what fucking class of person?
iii) Generalist who ranges over a large range of material using "big data" without requsite expertise.
Dr. Zapata is a data analyst interested in the development of biostatistical approaches that can be more efficient for comparative biology and biomarker discovery. This interest incorporates the development of big data comprehensive analyses that are relevant to public health and epidemiology. He is interested in follows directions that are unconventional, that merge....
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/995141/publications
published in dozens of fields.
--
look: pesticides and PFAS are grim for the environment and for us. this article is not the way to show it.
posted by lalochezia at 4:18 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
i) a frontiers article - frontiers is a essentially fraudulent publisher. the signal to noise is fuckin awful, and they have participated in way too many paper mill scams, retractions and bullshit to deserve generalized respect without evidence to the contrary.
look for example at the peer reviewers who read this article: is their expertise in large scale cancer epidemiology ? no ; a random covid epidemiologist postdoc and a masters student in fucking molecular science.
ii) breathless generalizations "“In our study we found that for some cancers, the effect of agricultural pesticide usage is comparable in magnitude to the effect of smoking,”
anyone who makes this kind of statement who is a "statistician" should have their tenure revoked and sent to the fucking mines. what the fuck does this kind of assertion even MEAN. it has such a range of power as to be meaningless. smoking - how frequent? 'effect of pesticide usage' - in what fucking class of person?
iii) Generalist who ranges over a large range of material using "big data" without requsite expertise.
Dr. Zapata is a data analyst interested in the development of biostatistical approaches that can be more efficient for comparative biology and biomarker discovery. This interest incorporates the development of big data comprehensive analyses that are relevant to public health and epidemiology. He is interested in follows directions that are unconventional, that merge....
https://loop.frontiersin.org/people/995141/publications
published in dozens of fields.
--
look: pesticides and PFAS are grim for the environment and for us. this article is not the way to show it.
posted by lalochezia at 4:18 PM on July 29 [4 favorites]
To be clear, "for some cancers, the effect of agricultural pesticide usage is comparable in magnitude to the effect of smoking" means "for cancers that are not the ones where smoking has the biggest effect." For instance, here's a quote from the paper:
Pesticides have been linked to an increased risk of colon cancer (45, 54–56), which concurs with the results we present. Our findings demonstrate an effect of pesticides that is not on par with smoking but is not negligible either and provides epidemiological evidence for their relationship. Finally, lung cancer and pesticide exposure (17, 57) have previously been linked; our study agrees with the existing literature presenting a non-negligible effect but acknowledges that smoking is by far the primary concern.
posted by escabeche at 4:47 PM on July 29
Pesticides have been linked to an increased risk of colon cancer (45, 54–56), which concurs with the results we present. Our findings demonstrate an effect of pesticides that is not on par with smoking but is not negligible either and provides epidemiological evidence for their relationship. Finally, lung cancer and pesticide exposure (17, 57) have previously been linked; our study agrees with the existing literature presenting a non-negligible effect but acknowledges that smoking is by far the primary concern.
posted by escabeche at 4:47 PM on July 29
I’m a little wary of the “active ingredients are PFAS” thing, too, because PFAS is potentially a very large category depending on the definition, and there are several definitions. A lot of pesticides are PFAS in the same way that, say Prozac is - they have a trifluoromethyl somewhere - but that doesn’t necessarily imply that they have exactly the same health effects as PFOA.
(I would think the main concern that is inherent to the broad category is environmental persistence, because of the stability of the C-F bond?)
posted by atoxyl at 4:51 PM on July 29
(I would think the main concern that is inherent to the broad category is environmental persistence, because of the stability of the C-F bond?)
posted by atoxyl at 4:51 PM on July 29
Pesticides as bad as smoking for some cancers
Great, then let's give those cancers more pesticides!
posted by star gentle uterus at 4:51 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
Great, then let's give those cancers more pesticides!
posted by star gentle uterus at 4:51 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
I mean it's a glib comment to phys.org and other credulous news sites that can be taken entirely out of context and used to drive eyeballs and imply understanding that isn't there. My issue with statements like "for some cancers, the effect of agricultural pesticide usage is comparable in magnitude to the effect of smoking"
- in what populations
- at what exposure levels (to both smoke/pesticide)
- over what time ranges
- with what other cofactors
even if the study actually controlled for them well.....
if pesticide exposure comes predominantly from eating, say, a bag of lettuce daily in a region in the US that uses pesticides heavily. Let's say the risk is the the same as smoking 1 cigarette a year, then who cares given the benefits of lettuce eating. But if the risk is the same as smoking a pack a week, then we should care!
NONE OF THAT is clear at all with that kind of quantity-free assertion.
posted by lalochezia at 4:56 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
- in what populations
- at what exposure levels (to both smoke/pesticide)
- over what time ranges
- with what other cofactors
even if the study actually controlled for them well.....
if pesticide exposure comes predominantly from eating, say, a bag of lettuce daily in a region in the US that uses pesticides heavily. Let's say the risk is the the same as smoking 1 cigarette a year, then who cares given the benefits of lettuce eating. But if the risk is the same as smoking a pack a week, then we should care!
NONE OF THAT is clear at all with that kind of quantity-free assertion.
posted by lalochezia at 4:56 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
Yes, these scare terms like "forever chemicals" represnt some push towards the precautionary principle, atoxyl. Yes, it's overkill in some sense, but we scale up "novel entities" far faster than we analyze them, including teflon.
At least biodiversity could be improved by legal protocols that limited agricultural scale, but "novel entities" demand fewer better analyized targets.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:46 PM on July 29
At least biodiversity could be improved by legal protocols that limited agricultural scale, but "novel entities" demand fewer better analyized targets.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:46 PM on July 29
For the nth time, correlation is not causation. This is the same bullshit that might get through an undergrad stats class but provides no meaningful information. Cancers are higher in areas with higher pesticide use. So what? But we control for "confounding variables such as county-specific rates of smoking, socioeconomic vulnerability, and agricultural land." Oh yeah, that should cover it.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:18 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 8:18 PM on July 29 [1 favorite]
« Older give your head a wobble | Kirkland uber alles Newer »
posted by jeffburdges at 1:56 PM on July 29