6 ms·

Common pesticides in food reducing sperm count worldwide, study says

87 points by clouddrover 3y ago

cantSpellSober 3y ago
Link to study: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP12678 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP12678 > the pooled effect [...] remained negative in direction across all meta-analyses > the strength of evidence of an association between higher adult [organophosphates] and [N-methyl carbamates] insecticide exposure and lower sperm concentration is sufficient enough to warrant concern
andrewstuart 3y ago
How did the world get convinced it was OK and normal to spray our foods with poisons? And we are still super OK with it today, mostly.
- jvanderbot 3y ago
  The world doesn't think about it. The large farms were convinced it was ok because of competitive pressures.
- irjustin 3y ago
  > How did the world get convinced it was OK and normal to spray our foods with poisons? If this isn't a rhetorical question, farmers didn't want to lose their crops to bugs. Honestly, it's a pretty reasonable request. > And we are still super OK with it today, mostly. The problem of course is the farmer doesn't care about your or the worldwide sperm count, at least not yet. So we desperately need gov to step in and raise the bar.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- dexwiz 3y ago
  Because revolutions happen on empty stomachs. Food security is key for a stable government. So governments push for policies that maximize food output like fertilizers and pesticides. You can blame farmers all you want but national policies heavily shape farmer behavior. Look at Sri Lanka. They banned fertilizer and they have partially collapsed.
  - flashback2199 3y ago
    You do realize we export crops right? It's not about preventing a revolution? It's about money lol
    - Turing_Machine 3y ago
      You do realize that unrest in the rest of the world leads to problems here, right? It's both about money and about keeping a couple of billion people from starving to death. lol indeed.
    - dexwiz 3y ago
      The USA has long concerned itself with the politics of other countries. And it uses food exports as a tool of financial influence. Money is always a key part of influence, but it’s not the only. Food and weapons are also high on that list.
    - Nevermark 3y ago
      Companies like Cargill (the biggest) that manage food supply chains across the world are deeply intertwined with governments and food production businesses, with a level of seriousness only matched by how quiet they aim to be. Maintaining food security, availability and price stability involves handling the complexities of weather, farming businesses, a global network of every kind of transport service, technology, politics and finance, and comes before military security. Any change in practice that hampers food production will face an uphill battle, given the significant downsides to any food instability or price expansion.
- sargun 3y ago
  We've been doing it for thousands of years. Probably far before we've knew the negative side effects of it.
- killingtime74 3y ago
  Some of us are not and eat organic
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  Let me tell you a story about famine…
chr1 3y ago
The most promising way to reduce the use of pesticides is development of gene drive to eliminate common pest species, and precise genetic editing of crops transplanting existing pest resistance features from one variety to others. Sadly both are slowed down due to irrational fear of GMOs and overregulation.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- mistrial9 3y ago
  > precise genetic editing of crops transplanting most promising of returns to investors?
  - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
    We really need to do something about Monsanto/whoever owns their stuff now. Maybe change patent law for grown food modifications. Imagine if they were forced to research and reverse the sterilization of the seed crop, and 15 years after patented the science becomes public information. Being able to then selectively breed our own plants with fertile GMO plants so we get whatever benefits we need. Roundup resistance is hot button these days but I'm sure there are plenty of genes that should be public for the good of humanity.
    - pkaye 3y ago
      GMO crops are not sterile because terminator technology was never commercialized. However there maybe contractual agreements that many prevent replanting. Also many farmers choose not to replant seeds because the next generation may of plants may not be uniform in desired characteristics. I think the situation is worse for the seeds of hybrid plants.
      - I_Am_Nous 3y ago
golergka 3y ago
How does reducing sperm by 50% affect chance to have kids? If it can be compensated by having 2 times as many attempts, then it won't be a major problem for stable families trying for a kid in most cases. Seems like a good tradeoff for having modern agriculture — being able to feed whole 8 billion of people with just about 1% of them working on food production is a true modern marvel.
- malfist 3y ago
  I am not an expert on this so if someone informed replies disregard me. But from what I understand, reduced sperm counts have very little impact on reproduction until it falls under a certain threshold. It probably depends on the individual baseline if a 50% reduction is enough to cause problems or not
  - XorNot 3y ago
    That's completely correct. The average ranges from 40 million per mL to 300 million per mL[1]. Actual infertility has to have quite a few markers before it's likely - according to this[2] one measure was a count lower then 13.5 million/mL, motility less then 32 percent and less then 9 percent normal morphology. Cutting a low sperm count by 50%, but with no degradation of motility or morphology for example, is quite likely not to make you infertile at all (remembering too: people who don't have trouble conceiving don't seek sperm analysis). [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323736#outlook https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323736#outlook [2] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0315/p1189.html https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0315/p1189.html
koheripbal 3y ago
As an aside, my wife and i were having trouble conceiving, so i bought a cheap microscope just to sanity check that my sperm were alive and kicking. Of all the things my kids and i have looked at under the microscope, sperm is some of the most entertaining to watch. While it's obviously not a definitive measure of fertility, you can tell a lot by just observing them, and seeing at seemingly millions of sperm going crazy took the stress out of trying and we became pregnant soon after.
- bm3719 3y ago
  > Of all the things my kids and i have looked at under the microscope, sperm is some of the most entertaining to watch. Nothing like the wholesome family activity of looking at your father's sperm. Maybe you should print a picture for over the fireplace or get t-shirts made?
  - koolba 3y ago
    > Maybe you should print a picture for over the fireplace or get t-shirts made? Or maybe an educational “how to” video for the rest of the world. Though you’d probably have to pick a different site than YouTube to host it.
  - kridsdale3 3y ago
    "Hey kids! That used to be you! HA HA HA!"
- rtev 3y ago
  This is the most sus thing I’ve read in a long time
WalterBright 3y ago
It would be nice to see a push for biodegradable pesticides and herbicides.
- cantSpellSober 3y ago
  It's not that simple, glyphosate is biodegradable, dependent heavily on conditions. The term you're looking for is biopesticides. > currently, there are 299 registered biopesticide active ingredients and 1401 active biopesticide product registrations And they have limitations, typically they work more slowly, only in very specific applications, and the surviving pests can acquire tolerance to them; meaning stronger pesticides are needed in such cases. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/what-are-biopesticides https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/what...
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- cultofmetatron 3y ago
  > It would be nice to see a push for biodegradable pesticides and herbicides. most mordern pesicides and herbicides (including glycophosphate) are tecnically biodegradable. the real question is under what conditions?
LARPing4Jesus 3y ago
Even the headline itself is rather gaslighting. Those of us who have kept up with the progress in the GMO agriculture field have been stumbling on reports like this for over 2 decades. The lower spermcount, lower testosterone and lower fertility were in fact noticed in science beginning in the 1950s, but since then we have found its even worst than simply "GMOs", rather these are effects of numerous endocrine disrupting chemicals which we are exposed to from purified tap water, and contact with BPT(?) containing plastic, which is just recently beginning a slow phase-out process that will take years. GMOs mostly only exist due to patent law, which is used as a monopoly instrument, by denaturing the plant genes synthetically, it becomes non natural, patentable product. So to keep bugs off, they are embedding genes of ...insects into plant? Wait... Seem a bit fishy, wonder why they would do something so absurd? Lastly, if plants become products after gene therapy, it raises an important bioethical question regarding the billions of ppl who received gene therapies the last 3 years. Could that be related to the Human Genome Project? Are you a human or a product? Thought for food.

87 points by clouddrover 3y ago

Link to study: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP12678 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP12678 > the pooled effect [...] remained negative in direction across all meta-analyses > the strength of evidence of an association between higher adult [organophosphates] and [N-methyl carbamates] insecticide exposure and lower sperm concentration is sufficient enough to warrant concern

andrewstuart 3y ago

How did the world get convinced it was OK and normal to spray our foods with poisons? And we are still super OK with it today, mostly.

jvanderbot 3y ago
The world doesn't think about it. The large farms were convinced it was ok because of competitive pressures.
irjustin 3y ago
> How did the world get convinced it was OK and normal to spray our foods with poisons? If this isn't a rhetorical question, farmers didn't want to lose their crops to bugs. Honestly, it's a pretty reasonable request. > And we are still super OK with it today, mostly. The problem of course is the farmer doesn't care about your or the worldwide sperm count, at least not yet. So we desperately need gov to step in and raise the bar.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dexwiz 3y ago
Because revolutions happen on empty stomachs. Food security is key for a stable government. So governments push for policies that maximize food output like fertilizers and pesticides. You can blame farmers all you want but national policies heavily shape farmer behavior. Look at Sri Lanka. They banned fertilizer and they have partially collapsed.
- flashback2199 3y ago
  You do realize we export crops right? It's not about preventing a revolution? It's about money lol
  - Turing_Machine 3y ago
    You do realize that unrest in the rest of the world leads to problems here, right? It's both about money and about keeping a couple of billion people from starving to death. lol indeed.
  - dexwiz 3y ago
    The USA has long concerned itself with the politics of other countries. And it uses food exports as a tool of financial influence. Money is always a key part of influence, but it’s not the only. Food and weapons are also high on that list.
  - Nevermark 3y ago
    Companies like Cargill (the biggest) that manage food supply chains across the world are deeply intertwined with governments and food production businesses, with a level of seriousness only matched by how quiet they aim to be. Maintaining food security, availability and price stability involves handling the complexities of weather, farming businesses, a global network of every kind of transport service, technology, politics and finance, and comes before military security. Any change in practice that hampers food production will face an uphill battle, given the significant downsides to any food instability or price expansion.
sargun 3y ago
We've been doing it for thousands of years. Probably far before we've knew the negative side effects of it.
killingtime74 3y ago
Some of us are not and eat organic
mensetmanusman 3y ago
Let me tell you a story about famine…

chr1 3y ago

The most promising way to reduce the use of pesticides is development of gene drive to eliminate common pest species, and precise genetic editing of crops transplanting existing pest resistance features from one variety to others. Sadly both are slowed down due to irrational fear of GMOs and overregulation.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
mistrial9 3y ago
> precise genetic editing of crops transplanting most promising of returns to investors?
- I_Am_Nous 3y ago
  We really need to do something about Monsanto/whoever owns their stuff now. Maybe change patent law for grown food modifications. Imagine if they were forced to research and reverse the sterilization of the seed crop, and 15 years after patented the science becomes public information. Being able to then selectively breed our own plants with fertile GMO plants so we get whatever benefits we need. Roundup resistance is hot button these days but I'm sure there are plenty of genes that should be public for the good of humanity.
  - pkaye 3y ago
    GMO crops are not sterile because terminator technology was never commercialized. However there maybe contractual agreements that many prevent replanting. Also many farmers choose not to replant seeds because the next generation may of plants may not be uniform in desired characteristics. I think the situation is worse for the seeds of hybrid plants.
    - I_Am_Nous 3y ago

golergka 3y ago

How does reducing sperm by 50% affect chance to have kids? If it can be compensated by having 2 times as many attempts, then it won't be a major problem for stable families trying for a kid in most cases. Seems like a good tradeoff for having modern agriculture — being able to feed whole 8 billion of people with just about 1% of them working on food production is a true modern marvel.

malfist 3y ago
I am not an expert on this so if someone informed replies disregard me. But from what I understand, reduced sperm counts have very little impact on reproduction until it falls under a certain threshold. It probably depends on the individual baseline if a 50% reduction is enough to cause problems or not
- XorNot 3y ago
  That's completely correct. The average ranges from 40 million per mL to 300 million per mL[1]. Actual infertility has to have quite a few markers before it's likely - according to this[2] one measure was a count lower then 13.5 million/mL, motility less then 32 percent and less then 9 percent normal morphology. Cutting a low sperm count by 50%, but with no degradation of motility or morphology for example, is quite likely not to make you infertile at all (remembering too: people who don't have trouble conceiving don't seek sperm analysis). [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323736#outlook https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/323736#outlook [2] https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0315/p1189.html https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0315/p1189.html

koheripbal 3y ago

As an aside, my wife and i were having trouble conceiving, so i bought a cheap microscope just to sanity check that my sperm were alive and kicking. Of all the things my kids and i have looked at under the microscope, sperm is some of the most entertaining to watch. While it's obviously not a definitive measure of fertility, you can tell a lot by just observing them, and seeing at seemingly millions of sperm going crazy took the stress out of trying and we became pregnant soon after.

bm3719 3y ago
> Of all the things my kids and i have looked at under the microscope, sperm is some of the most entertaining to watch. Nothing like the wholesome family activity of looking at your father's sperm. Maybe you should print a picture for over the fireplace or get t-shirts made?
- koolba 3y ago
  > Maybe you should print a picture for over the fireplace or get t-shirts made? Or maybe an educational “how to” video for the rest of the world. Though you’d probably have to pick a different site than YouTube to host it.
- kridsdale3 3y ago
  "Hey kids! That used to be you! HA HA HA!"
rtev 3y ago
This is the most sus thing I’ve read in a long time

WalterBright 3y ago

It would be nice to see a push for biodegradable pesticides and herbicides.

cantSpellSober 3y ago
It's not that simple, glyphosate is biodegradable, dependent heavily on conditions. The term you're looking for is biopesticides. > currently, there are 299 registered biopesticide active ingredients and 1401 active biopesticide product registrations And they have limitations, typically they work more slowly, only in very specific applications, and the surviving pests can acquire tolerance to them; meaning stronger pesticides are needed in such cases. https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/what-are-biopesticides https://www.epa.gov/ingredients-used-pesticide-products/what...
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cultofmetatron 3y ago
> It would be nice to see a push for biodegradable pesticides and herbicides. most mordern pesicides and herbicides (including glycophosphate) are tecnically biodegradable. the real question is under what conditions?

LARPing4Jesus 3y ago

Even the headline itself is rather gaslighting. Those of us who have kept up with the progress in the GMO agriculture field have been stumbling on reports like this for over 2 decades. The lower spermcount, lower testosterone and lower fertility were in fact noticed in science beginning in the 1950s, but since then we have found its even worst than simply "GMOs", rather these are effects of numerous endocrine disrupting chemicals which we are exposed to from purified tap water, and contact with BPT(?) containing plastic, which is just recently beginning a slow phase-out process that will take years. GMOs mostly only exist due to patent law, which is used as a monopoly instrument, by denaturing the plant genes synthetically, it becomes non natural, patentable product. So to keep bugs off, they are embedding genes of ...insects into plant? Wait... Seem a bit fishy, wonder why they would do something so absurd? Lastly, if plants become products after gene therapy, it raises an important bioethical question regarding the billions of ppl who received gene therapies the last 3 years. Could that be related to the Human Genome Project? Are you a human or a product? Thought for food.