[regeland]

It's interesting that not one sentence in the article is from scientists or epidemiologists who published or reviewed the study itself. The scientific evidence that the ban was based on is shockingly weak - a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans that weren't even substantiated by clinical findings in those very same patients in the same study.

The quoted study design has well understood flaws from selection, observation, and publication biases. And until the findings are independently replicated, this can't really be called "science" but rather a "single scientific publication" http://www.pnas.org/content/109/20/7871.abstract.

The economic effects of banning organophosphates based on a single observational study would be undoubtedly horrendous to the third world. The NYT article adds little careful review and seems to simply draw on the "chemicals are ruining the earth" narrative. Taken to its logical conclusion, although popular and on its surface appealing, basing policy simply on a "fear of chemicals" has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984095/

[randomthoughtss]

This is about chlorpyrifos, not all pesticides or organophosphates. I don't see any generalization in the article.

And that's not the only study they referenced:

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-...

"D. Drew et al., Chlorpyrifos: Revised Human Health Risk Assessment for Registration Review, December 29, 2014, D424485; 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Literature Review on Neurodevelopment Effects & FQPA Safety Factor Determination for the Organophosphate Pesticides, September 15, 2015, D331251; 

R. Bohaty and J. Hetrick. Chlorpyrifos Registration Review Drinking Water Assessment, April 14, 2016, D432921 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chlorpyrifos Issue Paper: Evaluation of Biomonitoring Data from Epidemiology Studies, March 11, 2016 and supporting analyses presented to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel’s (SAP) meeting on April 1921, 2016, (EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0062). "

[russdill]

I'm confused, this pesticide has been around since 1965. There has been a lot more research on it than just a single study with 20 patients. The key phrase is "based in part"

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Chlorpyrifos

[russdill]

Oh, and "replicated"? It can't be in the US because household use has been banned since 2000. Are you suggesting that we must intentionally expose pregnant women?

[adamsea]

Let's be clear that the elephant in the room is that the current head of the EPA denies that the global warming we are seeing is caused by people and, potentially, a threat to our own existence, and will definitely cause lots of suffering and death and ecosystem collapse/damage. And that the current President of the United States also denies these things.

I think it's disingenuous to discuss the EPA's decision without acknowledging this context.

[aisofteng]

That context is irrelevant to the points raised in the comment you responded to.

[drzaiusapelord]

The rational move would be to err on the side of caution instead of potentially creating another asbestos, DDT, or thalidomide risk here. The EPA's previous decision was a 100% rational public policy decision based on solid science, regardless of how partisans try to spin it.

>a 20 patient, retrospective, observational study of MRI scans

Well, that's certainly a lot more evidence than most Trump 'scientific' policies like climate change being a "Chinese hoax." Funny how Trump supporters ignore how terrible he is on science yet somehow find nitpicking justifiable on legitimate studies to defend his odious views.

Also its a lie to say there's only one study on chlorpyrifos's effect on humans and the environment. Heck the article even states based 'partly' on the study you are criticizing. Did you actually bother reading it or are you just copy and pasting some talking points? Because I'm seeing almost the exact same questionable points on other sites.

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+human&btnG...

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Chlorpyrifos+harmful&bt...

>has potential catastrophic implications that would disproportionately harm those in poverty

The DDT or asbestos or lead ban wasn't good for some parts of society either, yet it was the greater good that mattered. There are other pesticides and the targeted economic sectors can handle changes from regulations by migrating to different chemicals and processes. The oil and automotive industries didn't collapse when we told them to stop putting lead in gas, for example.

Lastly, Dow has been running a disinformation campaign on this product for their own financial self-interest. Beware the astroturfing and political corruption at work here.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/jennifer-sass/highly-hazardous-...

[unethical_ban]

randomthoughtss, you are dead.

[stouset]

Apologies. I misread your comment thinking you were threatening the other user and downvoted you.

[dmoy]

I think you can invite now. I can't remember how.