The epidemiological evidence isn't much better the studies it comes from are usually based on low-quality exposure data, for example, questionnaires completed by people who already have the disease in question. What the AAP never bothered to mention is that the doses in those animal studies are massive, often hundreds or thousands of times higher than any exposure children actually face. For instance, the organization pointed to dosing experiments in animals and epidemiological studies which supposedly link pesticide exposure to “adverse birth outcomes including preterm birth, low birth weight, and congenital anomalies, pediatric cancers, neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, and asthma.” The AAP is a generally reliable source of medical information, but on this point, they are just wrong. Yet, a decade little, our regulators have virtually ignored this plea. In 2012, The American Academy of Pediatrics urged policymakers to do more to protect children from pesticides. , Purcell tried to make the case that our children are unnecessarily exposed to toxic pesticides, because corrupt regulators can't be bothered to ban them. Authored by Lendri Purcell, founder of the adorably named Families Advocating for Chemical and Toxics Safety, the article is as inaccurate as it is shameless. This sort of activism is evil, plain and simple.Ĭonsider this recent story from the New Lede titled Prioritize children’s health above agribusiness profits. The groups that dishonestly warn about the carcinogenic potential of pizza and baby food use parents' protective instincts against them. Most parents no doubt share this sentiment, which is why I find attempts by anti-chemical activists to scare moms and dads so despicable. I want to protect him from danger, raise him with the right values, and, more basically, feed him safe, nutritious food. As a new dad, there's no one I love more than my son.

Red herring fallacy reddit