15 ms·

Thousands of U.S. farmers have Parkinson's. They blame a deadly pesticide

456 points by bikenaga 11mo ago

malfist 11mo ago
[flagged]
- twirlip 11mo ago
  If you actually read the article, it indicated epidemiological studies showing that people living or working near farmland where paraquat is used have a higher incidence of Parkinson's. Additionally, the article cites a leading neuroscientist in Parkinson's research who says that pesticides are one of the "biggest threats" linked to Parkinson's Lastly, I personally discount your sort of arguments because it is the same kind we've witnessed the tobacco industry, the sugar industry, and the gasoline industry use regarding the science showing harmful effects of their products.
- lm28469 11mo ago
  Scientists hate him! Discover how this HNer invalidated all studies with one single weird trick.
JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
"Critics point to research linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s, while the manufacturer pushes back, saying none of it is peer-reviewed." What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"?
- blibble 11mo ago
  in most civilised countries: chemicals added to food are banned until proven safe ... then you have the USA
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > chemicals added to food are banned until proven safe Is that the case here? Paraquat wasn’t banned for any reason, it just hasn’t been approved yet? That doesn’t comport with how the word “banned” is usually used.
    - blibble 11mo ago
      yes, the companies producing it tried getting it approved, and it was for a bit and then the approval was overturned as the evidence was crap so, back to the original state: banned until proven safe
      - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > then the approval was overturned as the evidence was crap Source? I’m curious for this context.
        cess11 11mo ago
        I think they might refer to the EU approving of paraquat, which was appealed by Sweden and other countries and it was a legal process churning on until 2007 when the presumed link with Parkinson's and other factors led to the decision to ban it.
        JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > when the presumed link with Parkinson's and other factors led to the decision to ban it Do you have a link to this decision? I'm having trouble finding it on my own.
        cess11 11mo ago
        First instance: https://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070045en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp07004... ECJ: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0229_SUM https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
- witte 11mo ago
  Chevron clasically has ignored health and safety requirements to the point where there was once the “Chevron Doctrine” which deferred legal interpretations to specialized regulatory agencies which established clearer guidance against murky legislative directives. The Doctrine was recently overturned by the ostensibly rogue SCOTUS as highlighted by the harvard business review: https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-end-of-the-chevron-doctrine-is-bad-for-business https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-end-of-the-chevron-doctrine-is-b...
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - mistrial9 11mo ago
    "Under Chevron, if a judge found that the agency had made a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous congressional directive, they were obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law, effectively ending any substantive review of a challenged rule. The repeal of Chevron is a huge blow to regulators, evidenced by the fact that the decision had been cited more than 18,000 times over 40 years." the Chevron Doctrine is new to me; it appears that the parent comment was not answering "why was it banned internationally" but rather emphasizing weakness in US procedures
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      Did we have a regulation banning paraquat that was overturned when Chevron was overturned? If not, it’s irrelevant.
  - stuffn 11mo ago
    Chevron didn’t establish clearer guidelines. It was weaponized by both parties to create defacto laws without proper legal procedure. It should’ve been unconstitutional from the beginning as only Congress can make laws. Regulatory agencies are far easier to control, generally contain administration-friendly plants, and are not expected to provide any justification for their decisions. The result is laws that change as the wind blows, confusions, and rights restrictions done by people who should have no business doing so. The “reasonable interpretation” rule allowed Congress to completely defer to them and force citizens to spend tremendous capital getting a case to the Supreme Court. Chevron’s overturn was objectively a huge win and hardly a “rogue” decision. That editorialization is not a fair representation of the problems it has caused when regulatory agencies begin attempting to regulate constitutional rights. It was overly vague and gave far too much power to people who cannot be trusted with it. We shouldn’t need Chevron Deference to make laws that protect people from harm done by corporations. Period. If we do, it’s a failure of Congress to do their jobs and a mechanism should be in place to have a “reset button” (like many other countries when they form a government).
- tastyfreeze 11mo ago
  [Edit] The below comment is inaccurate. The pesticide sprayed for gypsy moths was DDT. I am leaving this comment because it should be known that this was a thing even though it is now off topic. P̵a̵r̵a̵q̵u̵a̵t̵ DDT is also linked to the polio pandemic. It was sprayed everywhere gypsy moths were found. Great success at killing moths. Also weakened human children to to where a common disease could get into spines and cause paralysis. Researching this kind of stuff is not for the faint of heart. Its horrible all the way down. Not recommended for the faint of heart.
  - kens 11mo ago
    Paraquat is a herbicide, not an insecticide, so why would it be sprayed for moths? I searched for information linking moths, paraquat, and polio, but couldn't find any. Is this claim a hallucination?
    - nospice 11mo ago
      It is. The polio link was suggested for DDT, which was a controversial insecticide. But it was probably bunk, as were most other concerns about DDT: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-polio-vaccine-ddt-pesticide-480376540979 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-polio-vaccine-ddt-pest...
    - deleted 11mo ago
      [deleted]
    - tastyfreeze 11mo ago
      Well damn... my bad. Comment before coffee. It was DDT. "Moth and the Iron Lung" by Forrest Maready Forrest was interviewed by Bret Weinstein if you are interested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wYUnQUESU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wYUnQUESU)
  - paddleon 11mo ago
    um. My uncle died of polio, and I was a medical researcher (phd) for a while. Polio can cause paralysis just fine on its own, it doesn't need DDT or paraquat to help it. And you are also right that widespread spraying of DDT lead to all kind of problems (killed all the birds, for one, leading to "Silent Spring"), which one reason it was banned. another reason is the mosquitos developed resistance.
- zug_zug 11mo ago
  So assessments of safety of a chemical aren't hard science. They are statistical judgment calls (often based on things like giving a much, much higher dose to a rodent and looking for short-term effects). And the reason that is is because there's no affordable, moral way to give 100,000 farmers [nor consumers] a small dose of a product for 20 years before declaring it safe. So the system guesses, and it guesses wrong, often erring against the side of caution in the US (it's actually quite shocking how many pesticides later get revoked after approval). Europe takes a more "precautionary principle" approach. In those cases of ambiguity (which is most things approved and not), they err to the side of caution. Notice how this claim here is again shifting the burden to the victims (their research doesn't meet standard X, allegedly). Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
  - threethirtytwo 11mo ago
    The US is very capitalist and consumer based. They error on the side of “does it make money?” Or “will I lose money?”
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > assessments of safety of a chemical aren't hard science These are still data. I'm curious for the contexts that lead other countries to actively ban the substance. If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety.
    - zug_zug 11mo ago
      Because of its high toxicity, the European Union withdrew paraquat from its market in July 2007 [1] So it's clearly poisonous to humans in high doses, I guess the argument is that perhaps the smaller doses exposed to farmers may not lead to sufficient ingestion to cause harm. The parkinsons seems like pretty clear evidence against that. > If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety. I don't know why you're trying to defend this with counterfactuals/hypotheticals instead of just googling. Feels like you're bending over backward here. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/
- jdasdf 11mo ago
  >What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"? political pressure. Same reason lots of stuff is banned in the EU even when it's safer than other things that aren't banned.
  - nosianu 11mo ago
    > political pressure. Same reason lots of stuff is banned in the EU even when it's safer than other things that aren't banned. You avoid the question instead of answering it (What caused that "political pressure"? Does such a thing just occur randomly in nature?), following it by an assertion that you don't bother to provide any evidence for.
  - 3D30497420 11mo ago
    I believe the EU tends to follow a precautionary principle, namely a substance generally must be shown to be safe before it’s approved. In contrast, the US follows a risk-based approach where a substance can often be used unless it’s shown to be harmful. So it isn't really that many "safe" things in the EU are banned, rather they have not been approved. Pretty sure this is specific to food additives, though may apply to other areas.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > believe the EU tends to follow a precautionary principle It does, but that isn't relevant here. There were poisoning cases in France that lead to the ban [1]. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/
- _zagj 11mo ago
  There's a synthetic opioid called MPPP, which, if inappropriately synthesized (IIRC, using too much heat in one step), yields MPTP, which is non-toxic in and of itself, but has the ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, where it is then metabolized into MPP+, which is potently neurotoxic to the dopaminergic neurons of the Substantia Nigra, reliably producing a Parkinsonism in those exposed to it (from wikipedia): >The chloride salt of MPP+ found use in the 1970s as an herbicide under the common name cyperquat.[4][3] Though no longer in use as an herbicide, cyperquat's closely related structural analog paraquat still finds widespread usage, raising some safety concerns. EDIT: the neurotoxicity of MPTP was discovered after a number of heroin addicts developed a sudden, irreversible Parkinsonism after injecting bad batches: https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict The doctor featured in that NOVA episdoe summarizes the history of MPTP and its relevance to Parkinson's research and epidemiology here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5345642/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5345642/ > Over the last two centuries the pendulum of opinion has swung widely as to whether the cause of PD was due to genetics or environment causes [69]. While MPTP has not yet been found in the native environment, beginning in the 1980s the pendulum swung dramatically in the direction of the environmental hypothesis, spurred not only by the observation that a simple pyridine (MPTP) could induce so many of the features of PD, but also the striking similarity between its toxic metabolite, MPP+ and paraquat (differing only by one methyl group) [70], an herbicide that is used worldwide. Since that time, a large number of studies have shown pesticide exposure is a risk factor for PD [71]. Interesting, this risk is enhanced by the presence of certain genetic variants [72], consistent to the adage that “genetics load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger”.
  - _zagj 11mo ago
    Actually, surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly, given the interesting history and a large chunk of HNers being functional drug addicts--albeit not necessarily of opioids), MPPP was discussed here just last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41053383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41053383
- downrightmike 11mo ago
  The other thing you should know is that they use it to help the plants grow, but they use larger amounts to kill the plants at the same time so they can uniformly harvest. So we eat more of this crap than you'd expect, because they are using it beyond expected ways
- Aloisius 11mo ago
  > What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"? Almost everyone who banned it did so because of acute toxicity - it requires careful handling to use safely. Unfortunately, it was commonly used to commit suicide in many countries. In other countries, it was deaths from accidental ingestion, lung damage from unsafe handling, etc. I don't know of any country that banned it because of a purported link to Parkinson's.
calebm 11mo ago
"With evidence of its harms stacking up, it’s already been banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China, where it’s made. Yet last year, its manufacturer Syngenta, a subsidiary of a company owned by the Chinese government, continued selling paraquat in the United States and other nations that haven’t banned it."
zug_zug 11mo ago
Reminds me of "cancer alley" [1]. As somebody who's looked in to this a bit, the deeper I dug the more I ultimately moved toward the conclusion (reluctantly) that indeed big corporations are the baddies. I have an instinct to steel-math both sides, but not every issue has two compelling sides to it... One example of them clearly being the baddies is them paying people to social media astroturf to defend the roundup pesticide online [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley 2. https://galiherlaw.com/media-manipulation-comes-out-during-monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/#:~:text=Monsanto%20Kept%20Watch%20Lists%20on%20Pesticide%20Friends,including%20journalists%2C%20politicians%2C%20and%20certain%20interest%20groups. https://galiherlaw.com/media-manipulation-comes-out-during-m...
- peppersghost93 11mo ago
  You should consider dropping that instinct. If you look into how corporations have behaved historically you'd assume evil until proven innocent. Especially US corps.
  - Permit 11mo ago
    > You should consider dropping that instinct. This is the reason we have people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities. If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic. Edit: By the way, I also don't think we should trust big companies indiscriminately. Like, we could have a system for pesticide approval that errs on the side of caution: We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc.
    - christophilus 11mo ago
      Your edit was a good one. It's a rational default position to say, "I'll default to distrusting large corporate scientific literature that tells me neurotoxins on my food aren't a problem." As with any rule of thumb, that one will sometimes land you on the wrong side of history, but my guess is that it will more often than not guide you well if you don't have the time to dive deeper into a subject. I'm not saying all corporations are evil. I'm not saying all corporate science is bad or bunk. But, corporations have a poor track record with this sort of thing, and it's the kind of thing that could obviously have large, negative societal consequences if we get it wrong. This is the category of problem for which the science needs to be clear and overwhelming in favor of a thing before we should allow it.
chasil 11mo ago
https://archive.ph/YVt2I https://archive.ph/YVt2I
- SavioMak 11mo ago
  or ublock origin `www.mlive.com##+js(rc, article__paragraph--blur)`
SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago
A related, recent story: "Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water" Highlighting the role of environmental pollution in causing Parkinson’s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46216422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46216422 https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa... https://archive.is/ZvjZH https://archive.is/ZvjZH
jtbayly 11mo ago
Am I the only one that thinks it's weird to call a weed killer a pesticide?
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  Herbicides are a pesticide [1]. (Alongside insecticides, fungicides and fumigants, among others.) [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pe...
  - lordswork 11mo ago
    Technically, yes, but it's a similar relationship of humans being animals. If you say animals, the audience will assume you're not talking about humans.
    - connicpu 11mo ago
      Scientific terminology should be precise, not based on colloquial usages
    - rcMgD2BwE72F 11mo ago
      Did you mean "beast" or "creature"?
mathgradthrow 11mo ago
1 in 400 US citizens is diagnosed with parkinsons, if by "thousands", this headline means 5000, then 1 in 2000 US farmers has Parkinson's. Stop it.
- zamadatix 11mo ago
  The article already talks to the numbers they mean and what scale they believe it to be: > More than 6,400 lawsuits against Syngenta and Chevron that allege a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s are pending in the U.S. District Court of Southern Illinois. Another 1,300 cases have been brought in Pennsylvania, 450 in California and more are scattered throughout state courts. > “I do think it’s important to be clear that number is probably not even close to representative of how many people have been impacted by this,” said Christian Simmons, a legal expert for Drugwatch.
  - mathgradthrow 11mo ago
    There are hundreds of pictures of the Loch Ness monster.
    - zamadatix 11mo ago
      I'm not saying you have to believe it, just that rhetorically asking if it's more than 5,000 in the US is redundant when the article already says there are more than that many individual cases about it in a single district court.
      - mathgradthrow 11mo ago
        I drastically underestimated the number of farmers, who skew older. This is very unlikely to be anything.
        zamadatix 11mo ago
        Is that just stating a hunch or do you have new data outside the 2 narratives presented in the article driving that?
MarkMarine 11mo ago
I just read another article about this, but the affected group is military from Camp Legume. The water in Legume was contaminated, and its actually given a control group test for the incidence of Parkinson’s with Camp Pendleton, where the water was not contaminated. Spoiler: it looks like the farmers are right https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa... Amazing thing is TCE was banned by the Biden EPA in 2024 and Trump’s EPA stopped its ban.
- Infernal 11mo ago
  For anyone stopping by looking for more info, it’s Camp Lejeune not Legume.
  - krustyburger 11mo ago
    Camp Legume may be a reference to this scene from the film Blazing Saddles: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0
  - MarkMarine 11mo ago
    Good lord. Thank you. Served in Pendleton and I should know better.
    - lapetitejort 11mo ago
      The EPA should check crayons for brain-eating chemicals
- brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
  Minor correction: it's Camp Lejeune. I just had to chime in because Camp Legume is both very funny and kind of an appropriate typo for the topic.
keiferski 11mo ago
An excellent movie on basically the same topic is Michael Clayton, with George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton in IMO each of their best career performances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton
- losthobbies 11mo ago
  One of my favourite movies. Everyone in it is so good.
- jamestimmins 11mo ago
  Excellent movie. Worth noting that it was written by Tony Gilroy, who created Andor and cowrote The Bourne Identity, so if you enjoyed those you're likely to enjoy this.
stickfigure 11mo ago
Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtUGoGZtI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtUGoGZtI8 ChubbyEmu video for "A Farmer Mistakenly Drank His Own Herbicide. This Is What Happened To His Brain."
deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
jmclnx 11mo ago
>Chevron, which never manufactured paraquat and hasn’t sold it since 1986 ... should not be liable I think Chevron may have a point, no one knew back then and they stopped selling it ~40 years ago. But --- To me, if the US had a real Health Care System, people would not have to file lawsuits to get the care they need. But in the US, this is how things work. The care these people need is unaffordable by everyone in the US except for the very rich. So they will be waiting probably 10 to 20 years for relief as the lawsuit works it way through the courts and appeals.
juujian 11mo ago
Meanwhile, RFK is too busy talking vaccines and beef tallow...
- forgetfreeman 11mo ago
  I know I'm going to regret this but...beef tallow? What?
  - bombcar 11mo ago
    Fries used to be fried in beef tallow oil basically everywhere. Most fast-food chains went to vegetable oils for various reasons (vegan, subsidized, cheaper, supposedly healthier, etc). Many perceive a noticeable taste difference.
    - m000 11mo ago
      Have there been any blind tastings for that? I mean, if people swear by beef tallow's taste, they should be able to also prove it experimentally. This would also set a level field between beef tallow and other oils. I would expect that a lot have changed in the fast food industry supply chain since the "good old days". Frying oil is only one of the factors that may have affected the taste of fries. Not to mention that everything tastes better when one is young.
      - forgetfreeman 11mo ago
        I assure you if you'd been alive and consuming fast food french fries before and after the change you wouldn't think a blind test was required. The difference between whatever the hell McDonalds was using before the switch and after was jarring.
      - phantasmish 11mo ago
        The difference wasn’t subtle, and they cooked differently after the switch, too. Plenty of folks had the experience of noticing that they’d had a run of bad batches of fries before finding out the recipe had change (so now all batches were bad) and effectively did do a blind taste test.
clivestaples 11mo ago
I got shingles-ish rash after sitting in an outdoor jacuzzi in Salinas, California. Visited the urgent care and the Standard-trained doctor of immigrant farm laborers said it was related to the pesticides. Said he lost both parents in their 40s and suspects it was the indiscriminate spraying from the air in the 70/80/90s. Eye-opening and thought-provoking.
- bloomingeek 11mo ago
  <indiscriminate spraying from the air> As a city dweller, I used to use Roundup along my fence line. Then I read an article in a newspaper about spraying chemicals when there is a breeze. So I read the label on the Roundup bottle and it said absolutely do not spray in any windy conditions. Next I polled my coworkers about this and they all said they just stay upwind! The bottle label also said Roundup is active for up to 30 days, then I thought about my dogs. I no longer use any chemical for lawn care. As to the plight of the farmers: I wonder if most of them bothered to used proper personal protection gear when spraying? Even if they had enclosed cabs, the chemical would still coat the tractor and tank surfaces which can be rubbed against at any time.
  - stef25 11mo ago
    My dad used Roundup extensively in the garden in the 80s and 90s. Both he and a gardener he hired to help died from dementia. The scientist in me wants to see definitive proof from validated studies.
    - bloomingeek 11mo ago
      Monsanto has muddied the waters on many studies and was caught. They are currently involved in many lawsuits and have lost most.
  - phantasmish 11mo ago
    In many parts of the country whole counties smell of pesticide for a few days every year (and pig-shit another few days, but that’s a different issue) I’ve lived in some of them, and my mom did a lot of by-hand weed-killer spraying (big plastic refillable jug with sprayer hose & wand) along a mile-plus of fence line, for years. Her generation didn’t really do PPE, so no respirator. Died relatively young of a Parkinson’s-adjacent dementia a little while back. No history of any of that in the family. Hm.
francisofascii 11mo ago
Isn't this old news? If you are a Vietnam vet who were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides, and you get Parkinson's, the VA assumes it was from Vietnam. My grandfather had Parkinson's a long time ago it was always said it was due to pesticides they used while farming.
- downrightmike 11mo ago
  First acknowledge AO death was in 2015, they gaslighted entire generations. Had Nixon not sent his campaign manager to Vietnam in 1969, and promised the VietCong a better deal later when he was president, we wouldn't have spent those five unneeded years there and wouldn't have used AO.
- 01100011 11mo ago
  IIRC the issue with AO was the dioxins present as a side-product of the synthesis, not the herbicide itself. Dioxins are nasty.
phendrenad2 11mo ago
Are the migrant workers getting Parkinson's, or only the white males who can pull the heartstrings of MAGA folks?
Nasrudith 11mo ago
Paraquat seems like it should be banned on its acute toxicity grounds alone, but the Parkinson's link as phrased doesn't stand out given the article's statistics. A thousand out of a million is a thousandth. A baseline rate or Parkinsons would be a good addition to the article. I have seen figures of 1 out of 331 for total or apparently about 1.1M total. Farmers make up about 2% of the population. Doing rough back of envelope math shows that you would expect 22K farmers to have Parkinsons assuming even distribution by population. The numbers aren't precise but if the article's thousands was taken literally it would ironically suggest paraquat has a protective effect against Parkinsons which is obviously absurd thing to assume from a known neurotoxin. Not every farmer with Parkinsons is suing though. If we assume 1% of farmers are involved in lawsuits then thousands is alarming because it would imply 10x rates. 10% suing though and it is expected. 100% suing would be 1/10th the general rate which would fit with the absurd counterfactual hypothesis that non-lethal paraquat exposure prevents Parkinsons.
jtrn 11mo ago
The chance this is a trustworthy source for me is close to 0. This just sound like fantastic pseudology: “Even secondary exposure can be dangerous. One case published in the Rhode Island Medical Journal described an instance where a 50-year-old man accidentally ingested paraquat, and the nurse treating him was burned by his urine that splashed onto her forearms. Within a day, her skin blistered and sloughed off.
- LPisGood 11mo ago
  I agree. If merely being splashed by his corrosive urine sloughed off her skin, I think he would not be alive to urinate.
  - phainopepla2 11mo ago
    It seems unlikely but possible that she was highly sensitive or allergic to the substance in a way that he wasn't
- JKCalhoun 11mo ago
  "Paraquat, a heavily regulated weed killer, is banned in more than 70 countries…" Seventy countries kind of suggested to me that something is up with this chemical.
  - cm2012 11mo ago
    GMOs are harmless but also widely banned.
    - kstrauser 11mo ago
      I was on that train, too, but... harmless according to whom? The same ag lobbyists who claimed Roundup was harmless? I'm pretty freaking far from a conspiracy theorist, but I've lived through: * Tobacco companies claiming it was safe. * Alcohol companies claiming it was safe. * Food companies claiming trans fats were safe. * Oil companies claiming leaded gasoline was safe. * Mining companies claiming asbestos was safe. ...and a gazillion similar episodes. At this point, it seems absolutely insane to trust any large industry's claims that their products are safe.
IlikeKitties 11mo ago
Here in Germany, farmers are regularly complaining about all the bureaucracy and "unnecessary" safety requirements in regards to pesticides and over-fertilization . But they also complain when nothing grows anymore because they killed the top soil with too much fertilizer, poisoned the groundwater and then die of Parkinson because, who would have thought, all those regulations and safety requirements had a point after all. I don't know how to help those people, I really don't.
ltbarcly3 11mo ago
It's a herbicide, not a pesticide. I clicked the article because I was surprised that any current pesticides are that harmful to humans. Pesticides are, generally, safe to humans. Herbicides are, generally, not at all safe to humans. Roundup is probably the most safe outside of per-emergents like corn husks or whatever, but it's not a free ride either.
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > Pesticides are, generally, safe to humans Out of curiosity, why?
  - steviedotboston 11mo ago
    they are designed to target specific aspects of the insects nervous systems that humans dont have and are used in small doses/by the time any residue reaches a human its diluted. herbicides are very different.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      Why can't we be similarly selective with plants?
- neogodless 11mo ago
  https://kagi.com/search?q=Pesticide https://kagi.com/search?q=Pesticide > Pesticides are substances that are used to control pests. They include herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, fungicides, and many others (see table). The most common of these are herbicides, which account for approximately 50% of all pesticide use globally.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide You're trying to be pedantic, but you're actually wrong. If you think about it, from the perspective of anyone trying to raise crops, weeds are pests. (They are pests to lots of non-farmers, too.) Similarly... > A pest is any organism harmful to humans or human concerns. The term is particularly used for creatures that damage crops, livestock, and forestry or cause a nuisance to people, especially in their homes. > Plants may be considered pests, for example, if they are invasive species or weeds.
bikenaga 11mo ago
Here's some of the research linked in the article. "Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s Disease" - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114824/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114824/ "In 110 PD cases and 358 controls, PD was associated with use of a group of pesticides that inhibit mitochondrial complex I [odds ratio (OR) = 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0–2.8] including rotenone (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3–4.7) and with use of a group of pesticides that cause oxidative stress (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2–3.6), including paraquat (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4–4.7)." "Agricultural paraquat dichloride use and Parkinson's disease in California's Central Valley" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38309714/#full-view-affiliation-1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38309714/#full-view-affiliat... "Ambient paraquat exposure assessed at both residence and workplace was associated with PD, based on several different exposure measures. The PD patients both lived and worked near agricultural facilities applying greater amounts of the herbicide than community controls. For workplace proximity to commercial applications since 1974, working near paraquat applications every year in the window [odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.46, 3.19] and a higher average intensity of exposure [per 10 pounds (4.54 kilograms), OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.31, 3.38] were both associated with an increased odds of PD. Similar associations were observed for residential proximity (duration: OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.30, 2.83; average intensity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.99, 3.04). Risk estimates were comparable for men and women, and the strongest odds were observed for those diagnosed at ≤60 years of age." "Department of Pesticide Regulation Releases Preliminary Findings from Review of Environmental and Human Health Studies Related to the Use of the Pesticide Paraquat" - https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2024/12/30/department-of-pesticide-regulation-releases-preliminary-findings-from-review-of-environmental-and-human-health-studies-related-to-the-use-of-the-pesticide-paraquat/ https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2024/12/30/department-of-pesticide-r... "DPR’s preliminary scientific evaluation found that the current registered uses of paraquat in California may adversely affect non-target organisms, including birds, mammals and aquatic organisms, with the most significant risks to birds. Additional mitigation measures, beyond current restrictions on paraquat use currently in effect, may not feasibly reduce these environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Consistent with United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) 2019 review, DPR’s review of existing human health studies does not indicate a causal association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease."
kamaal 11mo ago
I was casually chatting with my uncle who is a doctor, he says something along the lines that if a chemical can kill a rat or a mosquito, to assume it won't do any damage to humans is kind of hilarious. Of course humans who inhale this thing in small quantities won't die, but you can be sure they will kill some tissues that they go into. Now comes another problem of regular exposure, and these chemicals having an entry, but no exit path. That just means there are tissues, that are likely dying out every time there is a exposure. Again none of this might kill you at the first exposure, but if there are enough dead tissues, there sure is likely to be things like Parkinson's or may be even diabetes. Im guessing combined with this, if you already some bad genetics it could cause issues like these.
georgeburdell 11mo ago
One of my relatives owned an animal farm for a couple of decades and got a very rare muscle wasting disease. A high school friend of his, who was also a farmer, got the same disease. I imagine there were innumerable harmful chemicals on the land and in the water from decades of use before he bought it in the 90s.
krautburglar 11mo ago
Many medical preparations are oil rather than water soluble. Seed oils tend to be the cheapest choice, and probably still have trace amounts of pesticides/herbicides/fungicide--even after processing. Under such conditions, one must wonder how many of our modern neurodegenerative conditions are iatrogenic. Genetics may load the chamber, but environment pulls the trigger.
mring33621 11mo ago
Huh. Poisons are poison! And they sprayed this shit all over themselves and people nearby.
kevin061 11mo ago
I looked up this pesticide. It is banned in EU. Not exactly surprising.
- reboot81 11mo ago
  They did that in 2007. Some countries banned it as early as 1983. Remind me, what year is it now?
neilv 11mo ago
> While Chinese companies supply paraquat to American farmers, the report points out China is also a big purchaser of crops, like soybeans, that are grown with help from the pesticide. > “In these two ways, China economically benefits from the application of paraquat in the U.S., where it outsources many of its associated health hazards,” the report said. There would arguably be a poetic justice to the US taking a turn at bearing health and environmental costs to benefit other nations, but it's not right for that to happen to any country.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- gradientsrneat 11mo ago
  "poetic justice" is the same mentality as people writing articles glorifying rich Chinese criminals for using South America's drug trade for money laundering because something something Opium War. In either case, it's not the same. The United States benefits greatly in the short term from larger agricultural output, and herbicide manufacturing centers still create significant health risks for their local communities wherever they are located. So, whether you're the buyer or the seller, you're losing.
bilsbie 11mo ago
Same issue as living near golf courses?
- DudeOpotomus 11mo ago
  Except the data doesnt back up that assertion. Golf course employees and golfers have no higher rates of than the public at large. So what gives? If the very people who spend most of their waking lives on the grounds and among those fertilizers and pesticides do not have any great instance, maybe just maybe its something else. Like the gallons of unregulated chemicals that are in those tract houses that were all built around the same time... one example is the drywall was used extensively in the 90's. Its makeup banned in the country of origin, China but its product was used all throughout the US for decades.
  - misja111 11mo ago
    Data does back up this assertion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 The correlation seems to point to usage ground water that is contaminated with pesticides. So people living close to the golf courses have higher Parkinson risk. Probably golfers and employees less so.
    - DudeOpotomus 11mo ago
      There is no causation. Your bias is showing. What else uses massive amounts of pesticides and herbicides and is consumed by people every day?
- francisofascii 11mo ago
  I know a guy who had a weird habit of using his mouth to clean his golf ball. He eventually got oral cancer.
alex_young 11mo ago
https://archive.ph/YVt2I https://archive.ph/YVt2I
ck2 11mo ago
propublica.org has endless great articles on this and other horrors in the US but if we aren't going to change a damn thing with daily mass shooting we sure aren't going to fix poisoning the environment, fracking is 100x worse than this and "sacrifice zones" are a real thing follow the money, sue before current administration makes it illegal to sue https://www.propublica.org/series/sacrifice-zones https://www.propublica.org/series/sacrifice-zones
josefritzishere 11mo ago
This reminded me that the current administration has approved PFAS pesticides aka forever chemicals which are linked to certain cancers. What could possibly go wrong. https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/ https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/
reducesuffering 11mo ago
The chemical manufacturer, Syngenta, is the same one involved in the creation of atrazine, the chemical notorious for preliminary evidence of the whole frog sex-changing while it's been sprayed all over the US but banned in most other countries.
dontlikeyoueith 11mo ago
Too bad they voted to eliminate accountability for businesses that poison people. Now they get to find out.
misja111 11mo ago
There is so much evidence of this connection piling up .. E.g.: Proximity to golf courses where pesticides are used -> Parkinson: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 Farmers using pesticides have 60% higher Parkinson risk (2019): https://nos.nl/artikel/2302396-landbouwgif-kan-kans-op-parkinson-verhogen https://nos.nl/artikel/2302396-landbouwgif-kan-kans-op-parki... (Dutch) Parkinson should be labeled as profession-linked disease for farmers(Swiss): https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pestizide-als-krankmacher-parkinson-soll-bei-bauern-als-berufskrankheit-anerkannt-werden https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pestizide-als-krankmacher-pa...
- Aloisius 11mo ago
  You're conflating different chemicals together. Paraquat (what this article is about), isn't used by any people in the links you gave (golf courses, Dutch or Swiss farmers).
  - m463 11mo ago
    parkinsons might have multiple causes. https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa...
    - IAmBroom 11mo ago
      Each of which must be studied, and legislated, on its own.
OutOfHere 11mo ago
The government absolutely cannot be trusted to protect the individual, whether a farmer or a consumer. It is coming down to each individual protecting himself by assessing the safety of the ingredients, sometimes also the purity.
sixothree 11mo ago
I honestly think there's a technology / robotics solution to the pesticide, and especially herbicide, problems. I'm in completely the wrong space to see it happen, but I'm still hopeful someone smart can do it.
hereme888 11mo ago
So the U.S. is still using 11-17 lbs/yr despite warnings and bans really since 1986, a re-authorization in 2021 by the EPA, and known elevated risk near use sites, which corporations have fought against claiming "no definitive proof". So if the U.S. allows its use "as directed", who can be legally accountable for all this?
thelittlenag 11mo ago
My father is a data point in this. He was a farmer all his life and ultimately it was Parkinson's that did him in. While we took some precautions, I have no doubt that the herbicides we used should have been handled more carefully.
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- biddit 11mo ago
  Sorry for your loss - it's a terrible disease. My mother is also data point - grew up on a farm where her father used it. She was diagnosed with Parkinson's 2018.
MPSFounder 11mo ago
Under Trump, so many regulations have been setback. It will only get worse. I think the answer has to be on the community level, pushing back against industrial use that has not been rigorously tested. However, many believe that job creation is more important than the right of individuals (innocents) to a life free of health issues.
01100011 11mo ago
There are plenty of things that can lead to Parkinson's. Recently we learned even copper salts carry a risk: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X23000232 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618... (Unfortunate for many like me who considered them relatively safe for years and did a lot of chemistry with them.) Farmers use many chemicals for a variety of tasks and it wouldn't surprise me if there were multiple chemicals involved, perhaps even synergistically. Maybe a farmer exposed to paraquat is fine, but one who is exposed to both paraquat and a copper-based antifungal or fumes from a welding repair become more damaged. Hard to say.
expedition32 11mo ago
In the Netherlands there is a discussion about agriculture impact on public health. Each pesticide individually is safe but nobody knows what happens when you mix fifty chemicals and put them in the ground water. On a positive note you have to die from something and ignorance is bliss.
ashwinne 11mo ago
How can consumers avoid/reduce risk of ingesting this from the produce we buy at the store?
senectus1 11mo ago
Dammit, this is one thats allowed in Australia.
RataNova 11mo ago
The "safe when used as directed" line also feels hollow when the real-world data includes spills, inhalation, secondary exposure, and long-term low-dose contact
mapt 11mo ago
Paraquat is something that can cause acute toxicity to the point of death. Glyphosate is a teddy bear by comparison. Many chemicals that cause acute toxicity at high doses also have poorly studied chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity issues, either from bioaccumulation or from cumulative low-grade damage. These issues are much less well-studied than chronic effects of less harmful chemicals, specifically because acute toxicity and attempts to avoid it makes objective testing difficult.
dommakravosec 11mo ago
I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a year ago at the age of 67. For several months I had noticed tremors in my right hand and the shaking of my right foot when I was sitting. My normally beautiful cursive writing was now small, cramped printing. And I tended to lose my balance. The neurologist had me walk down the hall and said I didn't swing my right arm. I had never noticed! I was in denial for a while, as there is no history in my family of parents and five older siblings, but I had to accept I had classic symptoms. I was taking amantadine and carbidopa/levodopa and was about to start physical therapy to strengthen muscles. I used different supplements that didn't work, so last July, I tried the PD-5 protocol—the best decision ever! My tremors eased, my energy returned, and I sleep soundly. I feel like a new woman, and I can walk and exercise again. I got the PD-5 from limitlesshealthcenter. com
knowitnone3 10mo ago
These farmers reap the benefits using pesticides and then sue so they get double pay. They knew what they were getting. Who would have thunk chemicals cause disease. And who do the consumers sue having eaten all this pesticide laden produce for all these years?
Donnakravo 10mo ago
I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a year ago at the age of 67. For several months I had noticed tremors in my right hand and the shaking of my right foot when I was sitting. My normally beautiful cursive writing was now small, cramped printing. And I tended to lose my balance. The neurologist had me walk down the hall and said I didn't swing my right arm. I had never noticed! I was in denial for a while, as there is no history in my family of parents and five older siblings, but I had to accept I had classic symptoms. I was taking amantadine and carbidopa/levodopa and was about to start physical therapy to strengthen muscles. I used different supplements that didn't work, so last July, I tried the PD-5 protocol—the best decision ever! My tremors eased, my energy returned, and I sleep soundly. I feel like a new woman, and I can walk and exercise again. I got the PD-5 from ww w. limitlesshealthcenter. com
Eliza33 10mo ago
I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease four years ago. For over two years, I relied on Levodopa and several other medications, but unfortunately, the symptoms kept getting worse. The tremors became more noticeable, and my balance and mobility started to decline quickly. Last year, out of desperation and hope, I decided to try a herbal treatment program from NaturePath Herbal Clinic. Honestly, I was skeptical at first, but within a few months of starting the treatment, I began to notice real changes. My movements became smoother, the tremors subsided, and I felt steadier on my feet. Incredibly, I also regained much of my energy and confidence. It’s been a life-changing experience I feel more like myself again, better than I’ve felt in years.If you or a loved one is struggling with Parkinson’s disease, I truly recommend looking into their natural approach. You can visit their website at www.naturepathherbalclinic.com. info@naturepathherbalclinic.com

456 points by bikenaga 11mo ago

malfist 11mo ago

[flagged]

twirlip 11mo ago
If you actually read the article, it indicated epidemiological studies showing that people living or working near farmland where paraquat is used have a higher incidence of Parkinson's. Additionally, the article cites a leading neuroscientist in Parkinson's research who says that pesticides are one of the "biggest threats" linked to Parkinson's Lastly, I personally discount your sort of arguments because it is the same kind we've witnessed the tobacco industry, the sugar industry, and the gasoline industry use regarding the science showing harmful effects of their products.
lm28469 11mo ago
Scientists hate him! Discover how this HNer invalidated all studies with one single weird trick.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago

"Critics point to research linking paraquat exposure to Parkinson’s, while the manufacturer pushes back, saying none of it is peer-reviewed." What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"?

blibble 11mo ago
in most civilised countries: chemicals added to food are banned until proven safe ... then you have the USA
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > chemicals added to food are banned until proven safe Is that the case here? Paraquat wasn’t banned for any reason, it just hasn’t been approved yet? That doesn’t comport with how the word “banned” is usually used.
  - blibble 11mo ago
    yes, the companies producing it tried getting it approved, and it was for a bit and then the approval was overturned as the evidence was crap so, back to the original state: banned until proven safe
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > then the approval was overturned as the evidence was crap Source? I’m curious for this context.
      - cess11 11mo ago
        I think they might refer to the EU approving of paraquat, which was appealed by Sweden and other countries and it was a legal process churning on until 2007 when the presumed link with Parkinson's and other factors led to the decision to ban it.
        JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
        > when the presumed link with Parkinson's and other factors led to the decision to ban it Do you have a link to this decision? I'm having trouble finding it on my own.
        cess11 11mo ago
        First instance: https://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp070045en.pdf https://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp07/aff/cp07004... ECJ: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62004TJ0229_SUM https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELE...
witte 11mo ago
Chevron clasically has ignored health and safety requirements to the point where there was once the “Chevron Doctrine” which deferred legal interpretations to specialized regulatory agencies which established clearer guidance against murky legislative directives. The Doctrine was recently overturned by the ostensibly rogue SCOTUS as highlighted by the harvard business review: https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-end-of-the-chevron-doctrine-is-bad-for-business https://hbr.org/2024/09/the-end-of-the-chevron-doctrine-is-b...
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- mistrial9 11mo ago
  "Under Chevron, if a judge found that the agency had made a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous congressional directive, they were obliged to defer to the agency’s interpretation of the law, effectively ending any substantive review of a challenged rule. The repeal of Chevron is a huge blow to regulators, evidenced by the fact that the decision had been cited more than 18,000 times over 40 years." the Chevron Doctrine is new to me; it appears that the parent comment was not answering "why was it banned internationally" but rather emphasizing weakness in US procedures
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    Did we have a regulation banning paraquat that was overturned when Chevron was overturned? If not, it’s irrelevant.
- stuffn 11mo ago
  Chevron didn’t establish clearer guidelines. It was weaponized by both parties to create defacto laws without proper legal procedure. It should’ve been unconstitutional from the beginning as only Congress can make laws. Regulatory agencies are far easier to control, generally contain administration-friendly plants, and are not expected to provide any justification for their decisions. The result is laws that change as the wind blows, confusions, and rights restrictions done by people who should have no business doing so. The “reasonable interpretation” rule allowed Congress to completely defer to them and force citizens to spend tremendous capital getting a case to the Supreme Court. Chevron’s overturn was objectively a huge win and hardly a “rogue” decision. That editorialization is not a fair representation of the problems it has caused when regulatory agencies begin attempting to regulate constitutional rights. It was overly vague and gave far too much power to people who cannot be trusted with it. We shouldn’t need Chevron Deference to make laws that protect people from harm done by corporations. Period. If we do, it’s a failure of Congress to do their jobs and a mechanism should be in place to have a “reset button” (like many other countries when they form a government).
tastyfreeze 11mo ago
[Edit] The below comment is inaccurate. The pesticide sprayed for gypsy moths was DDT. I am leaving this comment because it should be known that this was a thing even though it is now off topic. P̵a̵r̵a̵q̵u̵a̵t̵ DDT is also linked to the polio pandemic. It was sprayed everywhere gypsy moths were found. Great success at killing moths. Also weakened human children to to where a common disease could get into spines and cause paralysis. Researching this kind of stuff is not for the faint of heart. Its horrible all the way down. Not recommended for the faint of heart.
- kens 11mo ago
  Paraquat is a herbicide, not an insecticide, so why would it be sprayed for moths? I searched for information linking moths, paraquat, and polio, but couldn't find any. Is this claim a hallucination?
  - nospice 11mo ago
    It is. The polio link was suggested for DDT, which was a controversial insecticide. But it was probably bunk, as were most other concerns about DDT: https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-polio-vaccine-ddt-pesticide-480376540979 https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-polio-vaccine-ddt-pest...
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - tastyfreeze 11mo ago
    Well damn... my bad. Comment before coffee. It was DDT. "Moth and the Iron Lung" by Forrest Maready Forrest was interviewed by Bret Weinstein if you are interested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wYUnQUESU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7wYUnQUESU)
- paddleon 11mo ago
  um. My uncle died of polio, and I was a medical researcher (phd) for a while. Polio can cause paralysis just fine on its own, it doesn't need DDT or paraquat to help it. And you are also right that widespread spraying of DDT lead to all kind of problems (killed all the birds, for one, leading to "Silent Spring"), which one reason it was banned. another reason is the mosquitos developed resistance.
zug_zug 11mo ago
So assessments of safety of a chemical aren't hard science. They are statistical judgment calls (often based on things like giving a much, much higher dose to a rodent and looking for short-term effects). And the reason that is is because there's no affordable, moral way to give 100,000 farmers [nor consumers] a small dose of a product for 20 years before declaring it safe. So the system guesses, and it guesses wrong, often erring against the side of caution in the US (it's actually quite shocking how many pesticides later get revoked after approval). Europe takes a more "precautionary principle" approach. In those cases of ambiguity (which is most things approved and not), they err to the side of caution. Notice how this claim here is again shifting the burden to the victims (their research doesn't meet standard X, allegedly). Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
- threethirtytwo 11mo ago
  The US is very capitalist and consumer based. They error on the side of “does it make money?” Or “will I lose money?”
- JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
  > assessments of safety of a chemical aren't hard science These are still data. I'm curious for the contexts that lead other countries to actively ban the substance. If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety.
  - zug_zug 11mo ago
    Because of its high toxicity, the European Union withdrew paraquat from its market in July 2007 [1] So it's clearly poisonous to humans in high doses, I guess the argument is that perhaps the smaller doses exposed to farmers may not lead to sufficient ingestion to cause harm. The parkinsons seems like pretty clear evidence against that. > If it simply hasn't been approved in other countries, one can't use that information to infer about its safety. I don't know why you're trying to defend this with counterfactuals/hypotheticals instead of just googling. Feels like you're bending over backward here. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/
jdasdf 11mo ago
>What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"? political pressure. Same reason lots of stuff is banned in the EU even when it's safer than other things that aren't banned.
- nosianu 11mo ago
  > political pressure. Same reason lots of stuff is banned in the EU even when it's safer than other things that aren't banned. You avoid the question instead of answering it (What caused that "political pressure"? Does such a thing just occur randomly in nature?), following it by an assertion that you don't bother to provide any evidence for.
- 3D30497420 11mo ago
  I believe the EU tends to follow a precautionary principle, namely a substance generally must be shown to be safe before it’s approved. In contrast, the US follows a risk-based approach where a substance can often be used unless it’s shown to be harmful. So it isn't really that many "safe" things in the EU are banned, rather they have not been approved. Pretty sure this is specific to food additives, though may apply to other areas.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > believe the EU tends to follow a precautionary principle It does, but that isn't relevant here. There were poisoning cases in France that lead to the ban [1]. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3657034/
_zagj 11mo ago
There's a synthetic opioid called MPPP, which, if inappropriately synthesized (IIRC, using too much heat in one step), yields MPTP, which is non-toxic in and of itself, but has the ability to penetrate the blood-brain barrier, where it is then metabolized into MPP+, which is potently neurotoxic to the dopaminergic neurons of the Substantia Nigra, reliably producing a Parkinsonism in those exposed to it (from wikipedia): >The chloride salt of MPP+ found use in the 1970s as an herbicide under the common name cyperquat.[4][3] Though no longer in use as an herbicide, cyperquat's closely related structural analog paraquat still finds widespread usage, raising some safety concerns. EDIT: the neurotoxicity of MPTP was discovered after a number of heroin addicts developed a sudden, irreversible Parkinsonism after injecting bad batches: https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict https://archive.org/details/TheCaseoftheFrozenAddict The doctor featured in that NOVA episdoe summarizes the history of MPTP and its relevance to Parkinson's research and epidemiology here: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5345642/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5345642/ > Over the last two centuries the pendulum of opinion has swung widely as to whether the cause of PD was due to genetics or environment causes [69]. While MPTP has not yet been found in the native environment, beginning in the 1980s the pendulum swung dramatically in the direction of the environmental hypothesis, spurred not only by the observation that a simple pyridine (MPTP) could induce so many of the features of PD, but also the striking similarity between its toxic metabolite, MPP+ and paraquat (differing only by one methyl group) [70], an herbicide that is used worldwide. Since that time, a large number of studies have shown pesticide exposure is a risk factor for PD [71]. Interesting, this risk is enhanced by the presence of certain genetic variants [72], consistent to the adage that “genetics load the gun, but environment pulls the trigger”.
- _zagj 11mo ago
  Actually, surprisingly (or perhaps unsurprisingly, given the interesting history and a large chunk of HNers being functional drug addicts--albeit not necessarily of opioids), MPPP was discussed here just last year: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41053383 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41053383
downrightmike 11mo ago
The other thing you should know is that they use it to help the plants grow, but they use larger amounts to kill the plants at the same time so they can uniformly harvest. So we eat more of this crap than you'd expect, because they are using it beyond expected ways
Aloisius 11mo ago
> What lead it to being "banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China"? Almost everyone who banned it did so because of acute toxicity - it requires careful handling to use safely. Unfortunately, it was commonly used to commit suicide in many countries. In other countries, it was deaths from accidental ingestion, lung damage from unsafe handling, etc. I don't know of any country that banned it because of a purported link to Parkinson's.

calebm 11mo ago

"With evidence of its harms stacking up, it’s already been banned in dozens of countries all over the world, including the United Kingdom and China, where it’s made. Yet last year, its manufacturer Syngenta, a subsidiary of a company owned by the Chinese government, continued selling paraquat in the United States and other nations that haven’t banned it."

zug_zug 11mo ago

Reminds me of "cancer alley" [1]. As somebody who's looked in to this a bit, the deeper I dug the more I ultimately moved toward the conclusion (reluctantly) that indeed big corporations are the baddies. I have an instinct to steel-math both sides, but not every issue has two compelling sides to it... One example of them clearly being the baddies is them paying people to social media astroturf to defend the roundup pesticide online [2]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_Alley 2. https://galiherlaw.com/media-manipulation-comes-out-during-monsanto-roundup-lawsuit/#:~:text=Monsanto%20Kept%20Watch%20Lists%20on%20Pesticide%20Friends,including%20journalists%2C%20politicians%2C%20and%20certain%20interest%20groups. https://galiherlaw.com/media-manipulation-comes-out-during-m...

peppersghost93 11mo ago
You should consider dropping that instinct. If you look into how corporations have behaved historically you'd assume evil until proven innocent. Especially US corps.
- Permit 11mo ago
  > You should consider dropping that instinct. This is the reason we have people mistakenly repeating the conclusion that AI consumes huge amounts of water comparable to that of entire cities. If you make any other assumption than "I don't know what's happening here and need to learn more" you'll constantly be making these kind of errors. You don't have to have an opinion on every topic. Edit: By the way, I also don't think we should trust big companies indiscriminately. Like, we could have a system for pesticide approval that errs on the side of caution: We only permit pesticides for which there is undisputed evidence that the chemicals do not cause problems for humans/animals/other plants etc.
  - christophilus 11mo ago
    Your edit was a good one. It's a rational default position to say, "I'll default to distrusting large corporate scientific literature that tells me neurotoxins on my food aren't a problem." As with any rule of thumb, that one will sometimes land you on the wrong side of history, but my guess is that it will more often than not guide you well if you don't have the time to dive deeper into a subject. I'm not saying all corporations are evil. I'm not saying all corporate science is bad or bunk. But, corporations have a poor track record with this sort of thing, and it's the kind of thing that could obviously have large, negative societal consequences if we get it wrong. This is the category of problem for which the science needs to be clear and overwhelming in favor of a thing before we should allow it.

chasil 11mo ago

https://archive.ph/YVt2I https://archive.ph/YVt2I

SavioMak 11mo ago
or ublock origin `www.mlive.com##+js(rc, article__paragraph--blur)`

SideburnsOfDoom 11mo ago

A related, recent story: "Scientists Thought Parkinson’s Was in Our Genes. It Might Be in the Water" Highlighting the role of environmental pollution in causing Parkinson’s. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46216422 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46216422 https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa... https://archive.is/ZvjZH https://archive.is/ZvjZH

jtbayly 11mo ago

Am I the only one that thinks it's weird to call a weed killer a pesticide?

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
Herbicides are a pesticide [1]. (Alongside insecticides, fungicides and fumigants, among others.) [1] https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2017-01/documents/pe...
- lordswork 11mo ago
  Technically, yes, but it's a similar relationship of humans being animals. If you say animals, the audience will assume you're not talking about humans.
  - connicpu 11mo ago
    Scientific terminology should be precise, not based on colloquial usages
  - rcMgD2BwE72F 11mo ago
    Did you mean "beast" or "creature"?

mathgradthrow 11mo ago

1 in 400 US citizens is diagnosed with parkinsons, if by "thousands", this headline means 5000, then 1 in 2000 US farmers has Parkinson's. Stop it.

zamadatix 11mo ago
The article already talks to the numbers they mean and what scale they believe it to be: > More than 6,400 lawsuits against Syngenta and Chevron that allege a link between paraquat and Parkinson’s are pending in the U.S. District Court of Southern Illinois. Another 1,300 cases have been brought in Pennsylvania, 450 in California and more are scattered throughout state courts. > “I do think it’s important to be clear that number is probably not even close to representative of how many people have been impacted by this,” said Christian Simmons, a legal expert for Drugwatch.
- mathgradthrow 11mo ago
  There are hundreds of pictures of the Loch Ness monster.
  - zamadatix 11mo ago
    I'm not saying you have to believe it, just that rhetorically asking if it's more than 5,000 in the US is redundant when the article already says there are more than that many individual cases about it in a single district court.
    - mathgradthrow 11mo ago
      I drastically underestimated the number of farmers, who skew older. This is very unlikely to be anything.
      - zamadatix 11mo ago
        Is that just stating a hunch or do you have new data outside the 2 narratives presented in the article driving that?

MarkMarine 11mo ago

I just read another article about this, but the affected group is military from Camp Legume. The water in Legume was contaminated, and its actually given a control group test for the incidence of Parkinson’s with Camp Pendleton, where the water was not contaminated. Spoiler: it looks like the farmers are right https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa... Amazing thing is TCE was banned by the Biden EPA in 2024 and Trump’s EPA stopped its ban.

Infernal 11mo ago
For anyone stopping by looking for more info, it’s Camp Lejeune not Legume.
- krustyburger 11mo ago
  Camp Legume may be a reference to this scene from the film Blazing Saddles: https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0 https://youtube.com/watch?v=VPIP9KXdmO0
- MarkMarine 11mo ago
  Good lord. Thank you. Served in Pendleton and I should know better.
  - lapetitejort 11mo ago
    The EPA should check crayons for brain-eating chemicals
brendoelfrendo 11mo ago
Minor correction: it's Camp Lejeune. I just had to chime in because Camp Legume is both very funny and kind of an appropriate typo for the topic.

keiferski 11mo ago

An excellent movie on basically the same topic is Michael Clayton, with George Clooney, Tom Wilkinson, and Tilda Swinton in IMO each of their best career performances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Clayton

losthobbies 11mo ago
One of my favourite movies. Everyone in it is so good.
jamestimmins 11mo ago
Excellent movie. Worth noting that it was written by Tony Gilroy, who created Andor and cowrote The Bourne Identity, so if you enjoyed those you're likely to enjoy this.

stickfigure 11mo ago

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtUGoGZtI8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VtUGoGZtI8 ChubbyEmu video for "A Farmer Mistakenly Drank His Own Herbicide. This Is What Happened To His Brain."

deleted 11mo ago

[deleted]

jmclnx 11mo ago

>Chevron, which never manufactured paraquat and hasn’t sold it since 1986 ... should not be liable I think Chevron may have a point, no one knew back then and they stopped selling it ~40 years ago. But --- To me, if the US had a real Health Care System, people would not have to file lawsuits to get the care they need. But in the US, this is how things work. The care these people need is unaffordable by everyone in the US except for the very rich. So they will be waiting probably 10 to 20 years for relief as the lawsuit works it way through the courts and appeals.

juujian 11mo ago

Meanwhile, RFK is too busy talking vaccines and beef tallow...

forgetfreeman 11mo ago
I know I'm going to regret this but...beef tallow? What?
- bombcar 11mo ago
  Fries used to be fried in beef tallow oil basically everywhere. Most fast-food chains went to vegetable oils for various reasons (vegan, subsidized, cheaper, supposedly healthier, etc). Many perceive a noticeable taste difference.
  - m000 11mo ago
    Have there been any blind tastings for that? I mean, if people swear by beef tallow's taste, they should be able to also prove it experimentally. This would also set a level field between beef tallow and other oils. I would expect that a lot have changed in the fast food industry supply chain since the "good old days". Frying oil is only one of the factors that may have affected the taste of fries. Not to mention that everything tastes better when one is young.
    - forgetfreeman 11mo ago
      I assure you if you'd been alive and consuming fast food french fries before and after the change you wouldn't think a blind test was required. The difference between whatever the hell McDonalds was using before the switch and after was jarring.
    - phantasmish 11mo ago
      The difference wasn’t subtle, and they cooked differently after the switch, too. Plenty of folks had the experience of noticing that they’d had a run of bad batches of fries before finding out the recipe had change (so now all batches were bad) and effectively did do a blind taste test.

clivestaples 11mo ago

I got shingles-ish rash after sitting in an outdoor jacuzzi in Salinas, California. Visited the urgent care and the Standard-trained doctor of immigrant farm laborers said it was related to the pesticides. Said he lost both parents in their 40s and suspects it was the indiscriminate spraying from the air in the 70/80/90s. Eye-opening and thought-provoking.

bloomingeek 11mo ago
<indiscriminate spraying from the air> As a city dweller, I used to use Roundup along my fence line. Then I read an article in a newspaper about spraying chemicals when there is a breeze. So I read the label on the Roundup bottle and it said absolutely do not spray in any windy conditions. Next I polled my coworkers about this and they all said they just stay upwind! The bottle label also said Roundup is active for up to 30 days, then I thought about my dogs. I no longer use any chemical for lawn care. As to the plight of the farmers: I wonder if most of them bothered to used proper personal protection gear when spraying? Even if they had enclosed cabs, the chemical would still coat the tractor and tank surfaces which can be rubbed against at any time.
- stef25 11mo ago
  My dad used Roundup extensively in the garden in the 80s and 90s. Both he and a gardener he hired to help died from dementia. The scientist in me wants to see definitive proof from validated studies.
  - bloomingeek 11mo ago
    Monsanto has muddied the waters on many studies and was caught. They are currently involved in many lawsuits and have lost most.
- phantasmish 11mo ago
  In many parts of the country whole counties smell of pesticide for a few days every year (and pig-shit another few days, but that’s a different issue) I’ve lived in some of them, and my mom did a lot of by-hand weed-killer spraying (big plastic refillable jug with sprayer hose & wand) along a mile-plus of fence line, for years. Her generation didn’t really do PPE, so no respirator. Died relatively young of a Parkinson’s-adjacent dementia a little while back. No history of any of that in the family. Hm.

francisofascii 11mo ago

Isn't this old news? If you are a Vietnam vet who were exposed to Agent Orange or other herbicides, and you get Parkinson's, the VA assumes it was from Vietnam. My grandfather had Parkinson's a long time ago it was always said it was due to pesticides they used while farming.

downrightmike 11mo ago
First acknowledge AO death was in 2015, they gaslighted entire generations. Had Nixon not sent his campaign manager to Vietnam in 1969, and promised the VietCong a better deal later when he was president, we wouldn't have spent those five unneeded years there and wouldn't have used AO.
01100011 11mo ago
IIRC the issue with AO was the dioxins present as a side-product of the synthesis, not the herbicide itself. Dioxins are nasty.

phendrenad2 11mo ago

Are the migrant workers getting Parkinson's, or only the white males who can pull the heartstrings of MAGA folks?

Nasrudith 11mo ago

Paraquat seems like it should be banned on its acute toxicity grounds alone, but the Parkinson's link as phrased doesn't stand out given the article's statistics. A thousand out of a million is a thousandth. A baseline rate or Parkinsons would be a good addition to the article. I have seen figures of 1 out of 331 for total or apparently about 1.1M total. Farmers make up about 2% of the population. Doing rough back of envelope math shows that you would expect 22K farmers to have Parkinsons assuming even distribution by population. The numbers aren't precise but if the article's thousands was taken literally it would ironically suggest paraquat has a protective effect against Parkinsons which is obviously absurd thing to assume from a known neurotoxin. Not every farmer with Parkinsons is suing though. If we assume 1% of farmers are involved in lawsuits then thousands is alarming because it would imply 10x rates. 10% suing though and it is expected. 100% suing would be 1/10th the general rate which would fit with the absurd counterfactual hypothesis that non-lethal paraquat exposure prevents Parkinsons.

jtrn 11mo ago

The chance this is a trustworthy source for me is close to 0. This just sound like fantastic pseudology: “Even secondary exposure can be dangerous. One case published in the Rhode Island Medical Journal described an instance where a 50-year-old man accidentally ingested paraquat, and the nurse treating him was burned by his urine that splashed onto her forearms. Within a day, her skin blistered and sloughed off.

LPisGood 11mo ago
I agree. If merely being splashed by his corrosive urine sloughed off her skin, I think he would not be alive to urinate.
- phainopepla2 11mo ago
  It seems unlikely but possible that she was highly sensitive or allergic to the substance in a way that he wasn't
JKCalhoun 11mo ago
"Paraquat, a heavily regulated weed killer, is banned in more than 70 countries…" Seventy countries kind of suggested to me that something is up with this chemical.
- cm2012 11mo ago
  GMOs are harmless but also widely banned.
  - kstrauser 11mo ago
    I was on that train, too, but... harmless according to whom? The same ag lobbyists who claimed Roundup was harmless? I'm pretty freaking far from a conspiracy theorist, but I've lived through: * Tobacco companies claiming it was safe. * Alcohol companies claiming it was safe. * Food companies claiming trans fats were safe. * Oil companies claiming leaded gasoline was safe. * Mining companies claiming asbestos was safe. ...and a gazillion similar episodes. At this point, it seems absolutely insane to trust any large industry's claims that their products are safe.

IlikeKitties 11mo ago

Here in Germany, farmers are regularly complaining about all the bureaucracy and "unnecessary" safety requirements in regards to pesticides and over-fertilization . But they also complain when nothing grows anymore because they killed the top soil with too much fertilizer, poisoned the groundwater and then die of Parkinson because, who would have thought, all those regulations and safety requirements had a point after all. I don't know how to help those people, I really don't.

ltbarcly3 11mo ago

It's a herbicide, not a pesticide. I clicked the article because I was surprised that any current pesticides are that harmful to humans. Pesticides are, generally, safe to humans. Herbicides are, generally, not at all safe to humans. Roundup is probably the most safe outside of per-emergents like corn husks or whatever, but it's not a free ride either.

JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
> Pesticides are, generally, safe to humans Out of curiosity, why?
- steviedotboston 11mo ago
  they are designed to target specific aspects of the insects nervous systems that humans dont have and are used in small doses/by the time any residue reaches a human its diluted. herbicides are very different.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    Why can't we be similarly selective with plants?
neogodless 11mo ago
https://kagi.com/search?q=Pesticide https://kagi.com/search?q=Pesticide > Pesticides are substances that are used to control pests. They include herbicides, insecticides, nematicides, fungicides, and many others (see table). The most common of these are herbicides, which account for approximately 50% of all pesticide use globally.[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide You're trying to be pedantic, but you're actually wrong. If you think about it, from the perspective of anyone trying to raise crops, weeds are pests. (They are pests to lots of non-farmers, too.) Similarly... > A pest is any organism harmful to humans or human concerns. The term is particularly used for creatures that damage crops, livestock, and forestry or cause a nuisance to people, especially in their homes. > Plants may be considered pests, for example, if they are invasive species or weeds.

bikenaga 11mo ago

Here's some of the research linked in the article. "Rotenone, Paraquat, and Parkinson’s Disease" - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114824/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3114824/ "In 110 PD cases and 358 controls, PD was associated with use of a group of pesticides that inhibit mitochondrial complex I [odds ratio (OR) = 1.7; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.0–2.8] including rotenone (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.3–4.7) and with use of a group of pesticides that cause oxidative stress (OR = 2.0; 95% CI, 1.2–3.6), including paraquat (OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.4–4.7)." "Agricultural paraquat dichloride use and Parkinson's disease in California's Central Valley" - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38309714/#full-view-affiliation-1 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38309714/#full-view-affiliat... "Ambient paraquat exposure assessed at both residence and workplace was associated with PD, based on several different exposure measures. The PD patients both lived and worked near agricultural facilities applying greater amounts of the herbicide than community controls. For workplace proximity to commercial applications since 1974, working near paraquat applications every year in the window [odds ratio (OR) = 2.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.46, 3.19] and a higher average intensity of exposure [per 10 pounds (4.54 kilograms), OR = 2.08, 95% CI = 1.31, 3.38] were both associated with an increased odds of PD. Similar associations were observed for residential proximity (duration: OR = 1.91, 95% CI = 1.30, 2.83; average intensity: OR = 1.72, 95% CI = 0.99, 3.04). Risk estimates were comparable for men and women, and the strongest odds were observed for those diagnosed at ≤60 years of age." "Department of Pesticide Regulation Releases Preliminary Findings from Review of Environmental and Human Health Studies Related to the Use of the Pesticide Paraquat" - https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2024/12/30/department-of-pesticide-regulation-releases-preliminary-findings-from-review-of-environmental-and-human-health-studies-related-to-the-use-of-the-pesticide-paraquat/ https://www.cdpr.ca.gov/2024/12/30/department-of-pesticide-r... "DPR’s preliminary scientific evaluation found that the current registered uses of paraquat in California may adversely affect non-target organisms, including birds, mammals and aquatic organisms, with the most significant risks to birds. Additional mitigation measures, beyond current restrictions on paraquat use currently in effect, may not feasibly reduce these environmental impacts to acceptable levels. Consistent with United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA) 2019 review, DPR’s review of existing human health studies does not indicate a causal association between paraquat exposure and Parkinson’s disease."

kamaal 11mo ago

I was casually chatting with my uncle who is a doctor, he says something along the lines that if a chemical can kill a rat or a mosquito, to assume it won't do any damage to humans is kind of hilarious. Of course humans who inhale this thing in small quantities won't die, but you can be sure they will kill some tissues that they go into. Now comes another problem of regular exposure, and these chemicals having an entry, but no exit path. That just means there are tissues, that are likely dying out every time there is a exposure. Again none of this might kill you at the first exposure, but if there are enough dead tissues, there sure is likely to be things like Parkinson's or may be even diabetes. Im guessing combined with this, if you already some bad genetics it could cause issues like these.

georgeburdell 11mo ago

One of my relatives owned an animal farm for a couple of decades and got a very rare muscle wasting disease. A high school friend of his, who was also a farmer, got the same disease. I imagine there were innumerable harmful chemicals on the land and in the water from decades of use before he bought it in the 90s.

krautburglar 11mo ago

Many medical preparations are oil rather than water soluble. Seed oils tend to be the cheapest choice, and probably still have trace amounts of pesticides/herbicides/fungicide--even after processing. Under such conditions, one must wonder how many of our modern neurodegenerative conditions are iatrogenic. Genetics may load the chamber, but environment pulls the trigger.

mring33621 11mo ago

Huh. Poisons are poison! And they sprayed this shit all over themselves and people nearby.

kevin061 11mo ago

I looked up this pesticide. It is banned in EU. Not exactly surprising.

reboot81 11mo ago
They did that in 2007. Some countries banned it as early as 1983. Remind me, what year is it now?

neilv 11mo ago

> While Chinese companies supply paraquat to American farmers, the report points out China is also a big purchaser of crops, like soybeans, that are grown with help from the pesticide. > “In these two ways, China economically benefits from the application of paraquat in the U.S., where it outsources many of its associated health hazards,” the report said. There would arguably be a poetic justice to the US taking a turn at bearing health and environmental costs to benefit other nations, but it's not right for that to happen to any country.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
gradientsrneat 11mo ago
"poetic justice" is the same mentality as people writing articles glorifying rich Chinese criminals for using South America's drug trade for money laundering because something something Opium War. In either case, it's not the same. The United States benefits greatly in the short term from larger agricultural output, and herbicide manufacturing centers still create significant health risks for their local communities wherever they are located. So, whether you're the buyer or the seller, you're losing.

bilsbie 11mo ago

Same issue as living near golf courses?

DudeOpotomus 11mo ago
Except the data doesnt back up that assertion. Golf course employees and golfers have no higher rates of than the public at large. So what gives? If the very people who spend most of their waking lives on the grounds and among those fertilizers and pesticides do not have any great instance, maybe just maybe its something else. Like the gallons of unregulated chemicals that are in those tract houses that were all built around the same time... one example is the drywall was used extensively in the 90's. Its makeup banned in the country of origin, China but its product was used all throughout the US for decades.
- misja111 11mo ago
  Data does back up this assertion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 The correlation seems to point to usage ground water that is contaminated with pesticides. So people living close to the golf courses have higher Parkinson risk. Probably golfers and employees less so.
  - DudeOpotomus 11mo ago
    There is no causation. Your bias is showing. What else uses massive amounts of pesticides and herbicides and is consumed by people every day?
francisofascii 11mo ago
I know a guy who had a weird habit of using his mouth to clean his golf ball. He eventually got oral cancer.

alex_young 11mo ago

https://archive.ph/YVt2I https://archive.ph/YVt2I

ck2 11mo ago

propublica.org has endless great articles on this and other horrors in the US but if we aren't going to change a damn thing with daily mass shooting we sure aren't going to fix poisoning the environment, fracking is 100x worse than this and "sacrifice zones" are a real thing follow the money, sue before current administration makes it illegal to sue https://www.propublica.org/series/sacrifice-zones https://www.propublica.org/series/sacrifice-zones

josefritzishere 11mo ago

This reminded me that the current administration has approved PFAS pesticides aka forever chemicals which are linked to certain cancers. What could possibly go wrong. https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/ https://time.com/7336883/epa-pfas-pesticides-health-risks/

reducesuffering 11mo ago

The chemical manufacturer, Syngenta, is the same one involved in the creation of atrazine, the chemical notorious for preliminary evidence of the whole frog sex-changing while it's been sprayed all over the US but banned in most other countries.

dontlikeyoueith 11mo ago

Too bad they voted to eliminate accountability for businesses that poison people. Now they get to find out.

misja111 11mo ago

There is so much evidence of this connection piling up .. E.g.: Proximity to golf courses where pesticides are used -> Parkinson: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43933580 Farmers using pesticides have 60% higher Parkinson risk (2019): https://nos.nl/artikel/2302396-landbouwgif-kan-kans-op-parkinson-verhogen https://nos.nl/artikel/2302396-landbouwgif-kan-kans-op-parki... (Dutch) Parkinson should be labeled as profession-linked disease for farmers(Swiss): https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pestizide-als-krankmacher-parkinson-soll-bei-bauern-als-berufskrankheit-anerkannt-werden https://www.srf.ch/news/schweiz/pestizide-als-krankmacher-pa...

Aloisius 11mo ago
You're conflating different chemicals together. Paraquat (what this article is about), isn't used by any people in the links you gave (golf courses, Dutch or Swiss farmers).
- m463 11mo ago
  parkinsons might have multiple causes. https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-was-in-our-genes-it-might-be-in-the-water/ https://www.wired.com/story/scientists-thought-parkinsons-wa...
  - IAmBroom 11mo ago
    Each of which must be studied, and legislated, on its own.

OutOfHere 11mo ago

The government absolutely cannot be trusted to protect the individual, whether a farmer or a consumer. It is coming down to each individual protecting himself by assessing the safety of the ingredients, sometimes also the purity.

sixothree 11mo ago

I honestly think there's a technology / robotics solution to the pesticide, and especially herbicide, problems. I'm in completely the wrong space to see it happen, but I'm still hopeful someone smart can do it.

hereme888 11mo ago

So the U.S. is still using 11-17 lbs/yr despite warnings and bans really since 1986, a re-authorization in 2021 by the EPA, and known elevated risk near use sites, which corporations have fought against claiming "no definitive proof". So if the U.S. allows its use "as directed", who can be legally accountable for all this?

thelittlenag 11mo ago

My father is a data point in this. He was a farmer all his life and ultimately it was Parkinson's that did him in. While we took some precautions, I have no doubt that the herbicides we used should have been handled more carefully.

deleted 11mo ago
[deleted]
biddit 11mo ago
Sorry for your loss - it's a terrible disease. My mother is also data point - grew up on a farm where her father used it. She was diagnosed with Parkinson's 2018.

MPSFounder 11mo ago

Under Trump, so many regulations have been setback. It will only get worse. I think the answer has to be on the community level, pushing back against industrial use that has not been rigorously tested. However, many believe that job creation is more important than the right of individuals (innocents) to a life free of health issues.

01100011 11mo ago

There are plenty of things that can lead to Parkinson's. Recently we learned even copper salts carry a risk: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0161813X23000232 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01618... (Unfortunate for many like me who considered them relatively safe for years and did a lot of chemistry with them.) Farmers use many chemicals for a variety of tasks and it wouldn't surprise me if there were multiple chemicals involved, perhaps even synergistically. Maybe a farmer exposed to paraquat is fine, but one who is exposed to both paraquat and a copper-based antifungal or fumes from a welding repair become more damaged. Hard to say.

expedition32 11mo ago

In the Netherlands there is a discussion about agriculture impact on public health. Each pesticide individually is safe but nobody knows what happens when you mix fifty chemicals and put them in the ground water. On a positive note you have to die from something and ignorance is bliss.

ashwinne 11mo ago

How can consumers avoid/reduce risk of ingesting this from the produce we buy at the store?

senectus1 11mo ago

Dammit, this is one thats allowed in Australia.

RataNova 11mo ago

The "safe when used as directed" line also feels hollow when the real-world data includes spills, inhalation, secondary exposure, and long-term low-dose contact

mapt 11mo ago

Paraquat is something that can cause acute toxicity to the point of death. Glyphosate is a teddy bear by comparison. Many chemicals that cause acute toxicity at high doses also have poorly studied chronic toxicity or carcinogenicity issues, either from bioaccumulation or from cumulative low-grade damage. These issues are much less well-studied than chronic effects of less harmful chemicals, specifically because acute toxicity and attempts to avoid it makes objective testing difficult.

dommakravosec 11mo ago

I was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease a year ago at the age of 67. For several months I had noticed tremors in my right hand and the shaking of my right foot when I was sitting. My normally beautiful cursive writing was now small, cramped printing. And I tended to lose my balance. The neurologist had me walk down the hall and said I didn't swing my right arm. I had never noticed! I was in denial for a while, as there is no history in my family of parents and five older siblings, but I had to accept I had classic symptoms. I was taking amantadine and carbidopa/levodopa and was about to start physical therapy to strengthen muscles. I used different supplements that didn't work, so last July, I tried the PD-5 protocol—the best decision ever! My tremors eased, my energy returned, and I sleep soundly. I feel like a new woman, and I can walk and exercise again. I got the PD-5 from limitlesshealthcenter. com

knowitnone3 10mo ago

These farmers reap the benefits using pesticides and then sue so they get double pay. They knew what they were getting. Who would have thunk chemicals cause disease. And who do the consumers sue having eaten all this pesticide laden produce for all these years?

Donnakravo 10mo ago

Eliza33 10mo ago

I was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease four years ago. For over two years, I relied on Levodopa and several other medications, but unfortunately, the symptoms kept getting worse. The tremors became more noticeable, and my balance and mobility started to decline quickly. Last year, out of desperation and hope, I decided to try a herbal treatment program from NaturePath Herbal Clinic. Honestly, I was skeptical at first, but within a few months of starting the treatment, I began to notice real changes. My movements became smoother, the tremors subsided, and I felt steadier on my feet. Incredibly, I also regained much of my energy and confidence. It’s been a life-changing experience I feel more like myself again, better than I’ve felt in years.If you or a loved one is struggling with Parkinson’s disease, I truly recommend looking into their natural approach. You can visit their website at www.naturepathherbalclinic.com. info@naturepathherbalclinic.com