[Variance]

>I would love to see links to human studies that prove pesticides have no effects on the human reproductive system

What you're looking for doesn't exist, since you can't prove a negative. But the FDA, which exerts a very high level of scrutiny over the food industry, has a very large database of studies if you look at their website under "food". Specifically, their pesticides page [1], and their Residue Monitoring Report, a very comprehensive analysis on pesticide levels consumed by the population and their effects [2].

[1]http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulterat...

[2]http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodSafety/FoodContaminantsAdulterat...

But to make it easy, I quote:

>Results in these reports continue to demonstrate that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards.

The FDA and EPA establish these standards, so if you want the science supporting those standards, you'll have to ask them. I'm aware that you're referring to a specific study about birth defects, which is why you requested studies specifically referring to the reproductive system; but I defer again to the FDA and EPA. They monitor these things very closely, and if there is sufficient scientific support for pesticide-borne issues, they will have taken appropriate action. If not, that just means that the science is inconclusive, as is usually the case when one or two outlier studies make new or exotic claims. In this case, I also wouldn't be surprised if there was some strong selection bias in choosing the studies commonly presented due to the alarmism of news media, and the industry/FDA will be aware of further subtleties.

[ericb]

Right but your point amounts to an argument from authority, and animal models show specific harm from these chemicals. We share very similar endocrine systems. I don't think you can blanket say that there is 'no evidence"--it is far too early.

[Variance]

Deferring to a body that knows far more about these topics than either you or I is hardly an authority fallacy. The FDA will be aware of the animal models and birth defect studies, and I trust in them to adequately regulate pesticide use in response--and they will regulate infinitely more accurately and thoroughly than I would if I were left to literally analyzing scientific studies to find what I should and shouldn't buy at the supermarket.

Similarly, most people haven't read Einstein's paper on general relativity, but it's prudent to still take stock in GR because the physics community has read the research and come to a conclusion. I also don't think that there's "no evidence" of pesticide harm--there definitely is evidence that the pesticide levels that we consume are harmful. It just isn't sufficient evidence to be significant enough that we should assume it to be true that we need to eat organic. Every field has fringe studies that provide evidence for unique claims; the claims just don't become meaningful until that evidence becomes piled up enough to be significant. In this case, the evidence against pesticide residue levels being harmful is insignificant as judged by the FDA, and the evidence of pesticide levels being safe is judged significant.

[ericb]

I fundamentally lack respect for bureaucracies because although they may be made up of minds far brighter than mine, they are subject to organizational dysfunctions and well documented psychological failings like group-think. The Peter Principal is another problem, as well as the influence of outside money. Additionally, the incentives are wrong for individual scientists--making bold calls is a career risk. Going with the flow is career enhancing.

Further, the FDA doesn't operate on the precautionary principle.

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide

Distorting effects of authority (this applies both within the FDA, and regarding listening to the FDA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

Conformity and group-think: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments