| I think the journalism results from this: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo... If so, it appears to be neither original research nor a systematic review. I think it's worth being sceptical (especially given the wording of the Guardian article). If you live in a developed country where people aren't repeatedly killing themselves through acute exposure the relevant section of the link above appears to be: "The US EPA concluded in 2016 that the existing epidemiologic literature provided “sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required to cause acetylcholinesterase inhibition” [11]. Such chronic, low-level exposures are often overlooked or dismissed as benign because neither the pregnant woman nor the fetus shows clinically visible signs or symptoms. Furthermore, the developmental deficits do not manifest until months or years later. Indeed, the scientific consensus is that AChE inhibition is uninformative with regard to neurodevelopmental effects in children and that the toxic effects from chronic, low-level exposure occur at concentrations too low to inhibit cholinesterase [1,9]. The evidence thus indicates that OP pesticides can interfere with brain development at levels previously thought to be safe or inconsequential." The following paragraphs rely on this conclusion or speculate. I think it's worth reviewing those references, which I have not yet done. They are: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0653-...
https://doi.org/10.1093/toxsci/kfx266
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuro.2013.09.003 |
They might as well be ArXiv. Except I don't think ArXiv charges $1500 an article.