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/
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). "
I think it's disingenuous to discuss the EPA's decision without acknowledging this context.
>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-...
The elided references are:
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). "
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos
https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide- products/revised-human-health-risk-assessment-chlorpyrifos
If the facts say the risk is 0.000001% in the presence of a pesticide Fred may judge that it should be banned. If the facts say the risk is 50%, Sally may judge no action is required.
Fred and Sally are both making judgements based on science; but may have different goals, priorities, etc. that cause them to arrive at different conclusions.
That is not the title of the article, and the article itself makes no mention of Autism. Please do not editorialize in the submissions, especially about flamebait topics like Autism and Trump's new EPA head. It's like this was specifically crafted to mess with people.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/autism-risk-highe...
Just because the article doesn't mention it, doesn't mean its not true.
A comment here pointing out the link with a reference is the appropriate place for that.
