Pesticides and ADHD acronymmy things
Well, this is shocking…by which I mean, “THIS IS COMPLETELY UN-SHOCKING!”
(Line courtesy of Dr. Doofenschmirtz, for those of you in households where your children do not clamor to watch “Phineas and Ferb” every waking hour of the day…)
On Non-Toxic Kids (love her blog, by the way–when I have 936 pending messages in my Google Reader, she’s one of the ones I go to first to actually read, while my Grist and Tree-Hugger feeds just pile up more and more…)
This is the kind of thing that, to me, makes perfect sense, and is a really good reason to not necessarily assume because someone’s marketing department–or even the FDA, CDC, or whatever government acronym you choose–says it’s safe. Because the marketing departments have a vested interest in it, and the goverment organizations can’t say a damn thing unless the unsafety has been scientifically proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Which is to say, unless someone has been willing to pay large amounts of money (which the government doesn’t have or spend) to do transparent and obvious studies and come to undeniable conclusions that are so undeniable that the marketers can’t refute them with their own studies “proving” the safety of the product, they can’t say a damn thing. When the government says “this is safe,” they usually mean “our studies haven’t proved that it’s unsafe.” Which, to me, is a completely different thing.
Like bug repellents–last summer I remember being aghast that the government was able to say with certitude that Picaridin, an ingredient currently used in a lot of DEET-free bug sprays, has not been demonstrated to be unsafe–but that there haven’t been enough studies on lemon eucalyptus oil to say the same thing.
So…anyway…if pesticides work by disrupting the insects’ neurological systems, how huge a stretch is it anyway to wonder if long-term exposure, in utero and out, to similar pesticides might possibly have some vague connection to neurological disruption in humans? Hmm?