CA has mandatory vaccination/CA Bans Personal Belief Exemp

[Maggie Mae]

The problem I have with GMOs is not that we are genetically modifying the product. Human intervention in farming has happened for centuries. It's the companies that are creating seeds that are patented that concerns me. It is the fact that the spaghetti squash I buy at the supermarket has seeds that do not produce fruit because of profit margins. It's that farmers can't save seeds from year to year. It's that farmers are being sued for reusing previous years crops.

Genetically modified crops could be used for really wonderful things. But the biggest company that produces genetically modified seeds and crops are not concerned with sustainability.

The fact that some companies pass legislation in their own name to "protect" themselves from liability in chance that their products (which are are only tested by their own company and there are no long term studies) harm people or the environment is, well, evil. To me.

How to avoid supporting the largest producer of GMOed products? Shop at farmer's markets. Educate yourself on all the subsidiaries of certain corporations. Plant your own fruits and vegetables. Don't use Round-up and try to educate your neighbors on not using Round-Up.

[bekahdimples]

First, can you please provide your source for the statistics, as these are of interest to me and I want to look it up myself. In particular I'm suspicious of that 3 million acre claim, and also of the acres/square feet (which I think you have conflated here).

Second, I didn't post about GMOs on this thread, but I am indeed opposed to GMOs and pesticides. What am I going to do about it? Well, I grow a garden, I support my local farmer's market and other opportunities to buy local/no-spray food, and I also often buy organic when I must buy non-local. I'm not rigid about it and I'm sure I still eat plenty of "conventional" agriculture food, but I'm working to reduce the proportion of that in my diet.

Oh, and I've never even been in a Whole Foods. (and only into a Trader Joe's once, to get something my mom requested when I was visiting her and taking her shopping)

The main thing that I do is teach my students not to waste food- to compost when appropriate. And we have a garden at my school which we use to provide fresh and pesticide free vegetables when we can. We talk to the children about bees. ( which are dying from pesticide use) Teaching the next generation to respect the planet is the most important step.

I also eat almost no meat. No mamals for sure.

And yes using my $ at farmers market and buying local.

My church supports two local farms which bring produce in boxes for pick up at my church.

The program is called csa. You can Google it.

[bekahdimples]

All bacteria is not bad bacteria!

Some bacteria is good

In fact i was reading a study that seem to find that allergies (i think milk) are higher in csection babies because they dont get the same bacteria. If i recall it looked at brestfeeding vs formula as well. It showed there digestive bacteria compared to the mothers and mothers who brest feed and vag delvered were the most simalar. Next was formula feed and vag delivered.

Next c section babies. Their bacteria looked totally different than their mothers. Something didn't get passed on in the birthing process that should have been passed.

Also as far as not buckling up- in sure I could find statistics for counties who don't have seat belt requirements and make an argument.

Just thinking about school buses which have no seat belts. And kids who in car still need boosters can ride in them with no booster or Anything.

Now Californias seat belt/ car seat laws are on the sticter side of the USA. However they still lack compared to recommendations.

CA law forward face at one.

Usa recommendation forward face at 2

Swedish recommendation ( as far as I could find no law) forward face at 4.

Huge difference.

Swedish have no- low neck injurys in car accidents

Compared to US children.

I'd really like to discuss how some bacteria is good and nessisary and you saying it doesn't just protect against sti it protects against other bacterias as well--- bacterias we need!!!!

[bekahdimples]

The main thing that I do is teach my students not to waste food- to compost when appropriate. And we have a garden at my school which we use to provide fresh and pesticide free vegetables when we can. We talk to the children about bees. ( which are dying from pesticide use) Teaching the next generation to respect the planet is the most important step.

I also eat almost no meat. No mamals for sure.

And yes using my $ at farmers market and buying local.

My church supports two local farms which bring produce in boxes for pick up at my church.

The program is called csa. You can Google it.

If you have more suggestions, suggest them please. I want to make the world a better place not harm it.

I currently boycott Nestlé and Bayer brands.

Their crimes are numerous and horrifying.

I'm sure I have supported thing that are wrong but when I become aware they are wrong I try to avoid them.

[Snarkylark]

I buy local, grass fed beef, pastured pork, chicken, and turkey when I can, support a CSA in my area, farmer's markets, and buy organic when I can. I'm in a rural area do I don't have access to stores like whole foods, etc. With our busy schedule we still eat plenty of crap but try to buy the best when I can. I learned a lot in the last year and a half after my health issue was diagnosed. Being gluten free also helps one to avoid processed foods.

[Petrel]

The problem I have with GMOs is not that we are genetically modifying the product. Human intervention in farming has happened for centuries. It's the companies that are creating seeds that are patented that concerns me. It is the fact that the spaghetti squash I buy at the supermarket has seeds that do not produce fruit because of profit margins. It's that farmers can't save seeds from year to year. It's that farmers are being sued for reusing previous years crops.

I don't believe there are any GMO spaghetti squash. If you can't save the seeds, it's because it's a hybrid and either sterile or will not "breed true".

Most farmers don't save seeds because a lot of their crops are from hybrid seed or it's just plain uneconomical to save seeds when they could buy guaranteed disease-free seed.

A lot of money goes into developing GMOs. There are intellectual property rights involved. The scientists who developed the seeds want to make back some of the investment they put into the crop, and it needs to be profitable so that businesses will continue to invest in future. Trying to prevent companies from protecting their intellectual property rights will lead to a sort of tragedy of the commons, where they put in the resources for development and we pillage the profits.

Genetically modified crops could be used for really wonderful things. But the biggest company that produces genetically modified seeds and crops are not concerned with sustainability.

GMO development is driven by the desire to develop crops that produce better in worse conditions with fewer resources and fewer pesticides than otherwise required. How is that not a concern with sustainability?

The fact that some companies pass legislation in their own name to "protect" themselves from liability in chance that their products (which are are only tested by their own company and there are no long term studies) harm people or the environment is, well, evil. To me.

I'm not sure what legislature you're talking about, or how companies could pass it when they are not in fact legislatures.

As for long-term studies, a study of GMO feed for livestock over 30 years shows no problems.

Don't use Round-up and try to educate your neighbors on not using Round-Up.

Round-up is an effective herbicide with a good safety profile. I don't advocate flinging it around willy-nilly (seriously people your lawn does not need to be a monoculture), but I use it on the poison ivy that tries to invade my yard.

[OkToBeTakei]

Can't find the quote but 'ya' is hilariously funny and pretentious here unless you are from Chelsea :lol:

I wondered about the soap! Anti-bacterial makes sense .... I had visions of Peach scented amoxicillin soap!

[NoShoesSuze]

:) I meant antibacterial soap.

Antibiotic use in animals: I should have been more clear. Currently, the antibiotics used are different, but in the past the same antibiotics were used in both humans/animals. This did contribute to past resistance.

Eye drops vs. good bacteria: There is a blood - ocular barrier, so the drops don't kill all the bacteria in the body. Just bacteria in the eye, one time.

I'm not saying that other countries that don't require the drops are wrong. As others pointed out, there are different factors at play.

[Snarkylark]

Can't find the quote but 'ya' is hilariously funny and pretentious here unless you are from Chelsea :lol:

I wondered about the soap! Anti-bacterial makes sense .... I had visions of Peach scented amoxicillin soap!

It's short for "yeah," fewer letters to type. Didn't know it was such a big deal. Lol

[Mama Mia]

So, I saw people bringing up how awful GMOs, pesticides, etc are and what not -- I forgot who all made those claims, and I'm not going to go back to find someone to quote -- and I want to know what all you are doing besides "not trusting the FDA," shopping at places like Whole Foods (which, hate to break it to you, actually sells conventionally farmed foods, just like every other chain grocer), and demanding new laws. Because if you're not doing anything else, you're contributing to the problem.

Only 3 million acres in the United States is used to produce fruits and vegetables. There are 318.9 million people in the country. That's 409.78 sq feet per person. But then, 1 out of ever 3 acres of every type of agriculture is exported. So, really, it's 2 acres for 318.9 million people in the country. That's 273.19 sq feet per person. To produce enough fruits and vegetables to make up 2300 calories a day (this does not include corn and it does not include any grains) per person, you need 19166.5 acres when farmed in a traditional way. Farmers have to find a way to increase their yields to make up for the 18893.31 acres they DON'T have to work with. That means genetically modifying foods to increase the amount of food they produce, use pesticides, work with less variety, etc.

Furthermore, consumer waste is a huge problem. Just look at the meat industry. In 2012, 103.6 lbs of red meat and 80.3 lbs of poultry was retailed per capita in America. 49.6% of the red meat and 50.8% of the poultry is lost yearly because of waste. That's 51.39 lbs of red meat and 40.79 lbs of poultry lost yearly PER PERSON in America. That's at least 359.729999 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for red meat production and at least 81.58 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for poultry. And this doesn't count eggs, dairy products, animal fibers, or any other form of animal product, nor does it count the loses those products face; nor does it take into account the amount of fruits and vegetables wasted every year, which adds even more to the strain those farmers are under to meet demands.

Unless you're making sure not to waste your foods, unless you're working to produce your own foods, etc, you're going to contribute to the need farmers feel to turn towards GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.

When you're done spouting a bunch of Faux News talking points, maybe you could get around to addressing the antibacterial soap question that I've asked you about numerous times. I'm sure there's a cut and paste page of numbers siomewhere for you that will " prove" what a dandy idea they are :roll:

For myself, I don't shop at Whole Foods because they are ridiculously over priced. Since I became too disabled too cook, I unfortunately do very, very little regarding well, anything and food on a nutritional OR political basis.

However, I've never in my life eaten anywhere near half that much meat on a regular basis. When my kids were growing up I didn't feed them that much meat. As soon as I learned about the issues with antibiotics and hormones in animal products I avoided them - not as much as I should of. I was broke and busy - and like with most things- quality of life is cost prohibitive for many. But I certainly kept an eye out and cut down / bought organic antibiotic/ hormone free .

Even as a kid growing up - and I'm in my early 50's - my mother used organic methods of gardening. My grandmother even knew the benefits of breastfeeding and food as medicine. And my parents actively campaigned to improve air, water and food quality - because none of these concerns are new. In fact I took a class in high school that addressed food supply, waste, pesticide use etc. so I'm kind of surprised at the level of gullibility and blind acceptance seen here. It's really very depressing.

[Mama Mia]

Can't find the quote but 'ya' is hilariously funny and pretentious here unless you are from Chelsea :lol:

I wondered about the soap! Anti-bacterial makes sense .... I had visions of Peach scented amoxicillin soap!

That's really interesting. I would bet I'm not the only one here who was completely baffled at why you were going off on the use of " ya" . If there's anything associated with it in the U.S., that I know of, is that it's kind of text speakish. Or the opposite of pretentious :lol: . Just proves the whole world just spins around until it meets itself. ;)

[Petrel]

It's a question that I was contemplating. I'm not trying to cause fear. I'm just asking if that were the case do you think they'd admit it?

Yes. Because do you think the FDA has this mystical control over the global population of scientists such that they could prevent the news from getting out? Your analogy to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions is not accurate because their position on blood transfusions was not based upon science but upon religion. The FDA did not declare vaccination a religious rite, it said that based upon the science it's a foundation of public health. If science suddenly discovers vaccination causes cancer, the FDA will take that into account, just like everyone else in the scientific and medical community.

Note that if this did happen, I wouldn't anticipate much change in vaccination recommendations, because based upon what we observe around us the risk would have to be very small and removed by decades from the original vaccination (i.e. "getting X vaccination when you're 2 months old leads to increased risk of cancer at 60, after a long life free from X disease"), and the risk/benefit analysis would come down on the side of vaccination. In that situation we would just look for ways to improve vaccines such that they did not contribute to cancer and ways to improve cancer treatment further.

[Snarkylark]

Yes. Because do you think the FDA has this mystical control over the global population of scientists such that they could prevent the news from getting out? Your analogy to Jehovah's Witnesses and blood transfusions is not accurate because their position on blood transfusions was not based upon science but upon religion. The FDA did not declare vaccination a religious rite, it said that based upon the science it's a foundation of public health. If science suddenly discovers vaccination causes cancer, the FDA will take that into account, just like everyone else in the scientific and medical community.

Note that if this did happen, I wouldn't anticipate much change in vaccination recommendations, because based upon what we observe around us the risk would have to be very small and removed by decades from the original vaccination (i.e. "getting X vaccination when you're 2 months old leads to increased risk of cancer at 60, after a long life free from X disease"), and the risk/benefit analysis would come down on the side of vaccination. In that situation we would just look for ways to improve vaccines such that they did not contribute to cancer and ways to improve cancer treatment further.

Right. But other countries use different formulas and ingredients and a different schedule (not so many.) the JW example was just that, an example. I'm not saying it's the same thing.

[Mama Mia]

So, I saw people bringing up how awful GMOs, pesticides, etc are and what not -- I forgot who all made those claims, and I'm not going to go back to find someone to quote -- and I want to know what all you are doing besides "not trusting the FDA," shopping at places like Whole Foods (which, hate to break it to you, actually sells conventionally farmed foods, just like every other chain grocer), and demanding new laws. Because if you're not doing anything else, you're contributing to the problem.

Only 3 million acres in the United States is used to produce fruits and vegetables. There are 318.9 million people in the country. That's 409.78 sq feet per person. But then, 1 out of ever 3 acres of every type of agriculture is exported. So, really, it's 2 acres for 318.9 million people in the country. That's 273.19 sq feet per person. To produce enough fruits and vegetables to make up 2300 calories a day (this does not include corn and it does not include any grains) per person, you need 19166.5 acres when farmed in a traditional way. Farmers have to find a way to increase their yields to make up for the 18893.31 acres they DON'T have to work with. That means genetically modifying foods to increase the amount of food they produce, use pesticides, work with less variety, etc.

Furthermore, consumer waste is a huge problem. Just look at the meat industry. In 2012, 103.6 lbs of red meat and 80.3 lbs of poultry was retailed per capita in America. 49.6% of the red meat and 50.8% of the poultry is lost yearly because of waste. That's 51.39 lbs of red meat and 40.79 lbs of poultry lost yearly PER PERSON in America. That's at least 359.729999 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for red meat production and at least 81.58 pounds of feed wasted every year PER PERSON for poultry. And this doesn't count eggs, dairy products, animal fibers, or any other form of animal product, nor does it count the loses those products face; nor does it take into account the amount of fruits and vegetables wasted every year, which adds even more to the strain those farmers are under to meet demands.

Unless you're making sure not to waste your foods, unless you're working to produce your own foods, etc, you're going to contribute to the need farmers feel to turn towards GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics, hormones, etc.

Good thing those farm worker kids who are exposed to all those pesticides don't " count". Otherwise you might need to acknowledge all their remarkably high rates of cancer , neurological issues and generally horrible health. But I'm sure that's just coincidence . Nothing to do with poison.

[Petrel]

Can you provide a source? I'm not finding that.

[sense and nonsense]

Being gluten free also helps one to avoid processed foods.

Oh.

You're one of THEM.

[ShepherdontheRock]

I buy local, grass fed beef, pastured pork, chicken, and turkey when I can, support a CSA in my area, farmer's markets, and buy organic when I can. I'm in a rural area do I don't have access to stores like whole foods, etc. With our busy schedule we still eat plenty of crap but try to buy the best when I can. I learned a lot in the last year and a half after my health issue was diagnosed. Being gluten free also helps one to avoid processed foods.

You mean like most alcohols, ketchup, mayonnaise, potato chips, tortilla chips, spaghetti sauce, soda, gluten-free baked goods...

They've all been somehow processed.

In fact, unless you're eating meat completely raw, it was "processed."

[Mama Mia]

Can you provide a source? I'm not finding that.

I don't know if you were referring to what I said in the previous post regarding far workers, since you didn't specify what you weren't finding. But I'll go with that.

This report gives a very, very basic breakdown of some of the issues. I'm including it because if you go to the appendix there are a large number of studies cited that you could review.

://farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20singles%20compressed.pdf

Here are a couple of other things that came up quickly. Frankly, I've had a loooooonnngggg couple of days so only spent a minute looking, if one of these doesn't make sense I'll find something better tomorrow. Just didn't want to forget about this topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241933/

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... ultclick=1

[FundieFarmer]

Oh.

You're one of THEM.

I mean no...it doesn't. I have to eat g-free, and that's not really how it goes. There are plenty of processed foods that are gluten free, and significantly more now than there used to be since manufacturers are pandering to the trend.

[Snarkylark]

Yes, but not happily;) I did tons of research when I had all those hives. Wheat is a cause of leaky gut and can cause AI issues too. So I cut it out hoping to heal and be able to go off meds some day. Yes, I get that meat is "processed" but it's not the same as packaged foods with ingredients you can't pronounce. I try not to do too many substitutions for the same reason. Outside aisles of the grocery store as much as possible. Paleo diet. "Wheat belly" has a lot of info from what I've heard.

[Snarkylark]

Believe me, I am not doing it because it's trendy. This girl loves her cake, cookies, donuts, etc. It's been 18 months.

[FundieFarmer]

Yes, but not happily;) I did tons of research when I had all those hives. Wheat is a cause of leaky gut and can cause AI issues too. So I cut it out hoping to heal and be able to go off meds some day. Yes, I get that meat is "processed" but it's not the same as packaged foods with ingredients you can't pronounce. I try not to do too many substitutions for the same reason. Outside aisles of the grocery store as much as possible. Paleo diet. "Wheat belly" has a lot of info from what I've heard.

My parents were really into Wheat Belly, though I didn't read it. I didn't bother since I didn't have a choice going g-free. :lol:

It looks like you're eating more Paleo, especially if you're trying to avoid substitutions for packaged foods- which is great. Paleo pretty much includes g-free, while g-free doesn't always look like Paleo. A lot of g-free people will eat the processed pastas, breads, cookies, etc etc etc because the options are there, though in some cases they're actually very unhealthy, sometimes more so than their gluten counterparts (minus the gluten part!).

Congrats on 18 months! It's a weird change to get used to but once you're in, it's awesome. I started back in 2012, and there were a lot less options then. But good on you for avoiding those substitutions anyway! I was just confused because when you said g-free equals less processed foods, I was thinking about all of those weird processed snacks and candies that qualify as g-free.

[Petrel]

I don't know if you were referring to what I said in the previous post regarding far workers, since you didn't specify what you weren't finding. But I'll go with that.

This report gives a very, very basic breakdown of some of the issues. I'm including it because if you go to the appendix there are a large number of studies cited that you could review.

://farmworkerjustice.org/sites/default/files/aExposed%20and%20Ignored%20by%20Farmworker%20Justice%20singles%20compressed.pdf

I skimmed this because it seemed to be related to worker's protections, not health problems in their children. I read the appendix and did not find any relevant articles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1241933/

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.asp ... ultclick=1

I found the first article before I asked you for some sources. First of all, I am not an epidemiologist, so I just don't know enough to evaluate some aspects of this study. However, from my reading it suggests an association between parental pesticide exposure and a moderate increase in cancer in offspring. There were some oddities in the findings that suggest the results are not entirely reliable.

In 17,357 children they found 50 cases of cancer vs. the ~37 they expected to find. This comes out to a standardized incidence ratio of 1.36, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.03 to 1.79. That means there were 36% more cases of childhood cancer than expected, and the researchers estimate a 19 in 20 chance that the actual value is between 3% and 79%. So it's possible the true value could be 0% (no effect of pesticide exposure), or, alternatively, it's possible that the effect is actually larger than measured.

Going to the data, they found 9 cases of lymphoma where ~4 were expected (SIR 2.18, 95% CI 1.13-4.19). The rest of the childhood cancers could not be associated with pesticide exposure, with more cases occurring than expected but 95% CI's overlapping 1, meaning that they could not exclude this just being due to chance. I did find it suggestive that out of all of the childhood cancers they observed a few cases more than expected for each, rather than, for instance, expecting ~2 cases of a particular cancer and finding only 1 or 0.

Curious things: They did not find an association between leukemia and pesticide exposure, which has been reported in previous studies. There was no dose response, that is, children whose parents were exposed more frequently to pesticides did not experience a higher risk of cancer than children whose parents were exposed less frequently. When they broke down the pesticides applied by class/compound, they could not find an association for any of them except for aldrin (paternal prenatal exposure only), which they say is probably due to chance (not broken because xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/) and not a true association because other studies show aldrin is not carcinogenic.

Because of some of these oddities, they mention some other factors as possible contributors, saying it may be the excess risk for lymphoma is due to an unknown factor such as early Epstein Barr virus infection in this population, or an unknown factor associated with exposure to certain farm animals (they found an increased risk of lymphoma for children exposed to cattle). The possible association with livestock is interesting because I read another paper that found an association, iirc, between cancer and exposure to swine and chickens, which is intriguing since both carry some diseases that humans can catch (flu definitely springs to mind, but I know of no association between flu and cancer).

So, suggestive of an association between parental exposure to pesticides and a moderate increased risk of cancer in their children, but not definitive. As always, "more study required". :cracking-up:

This does not rise to the level of "remarkably high rates of cancer". If you have other sources that do support this claim I would definitely be interested in seeing them. If not, perhaps you should retract your accusation that DuggarsTheEndIsNear is callously disregarding the hordes of children dying of cancer so she/he can eat her/his non-organic produce.

The other study was actually reported in http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... l.pdf+html

They found the highest levels of metabolites of certain organophosphates in urine were correlated with an about 2x risk of ADHD. They state causation is plausible but not confirmed. As always, "more study required". :cracking-up:

I advise organic farmers not to throw too many stones where kids and ADHD is concerned. Pyrethrin is used in organic farming, and this class of compounds is associated with ADHD as well.

[Petrel]

Yes, but not happily;) I did tons of research when I had all those hives. Wheat is a cause of leaky gut and can cause AI issues too. So I cut it out hoping to heal and be able to go off meds some day. Yes, I get that meat is "processed" but it's not the same as packaged foods with ingredients you can't pronounce. I try not to do too many substitutions for the same reason. Outside aisles of the grocery store as much as possible. Paleo diet. "Wheat belly" has a lot of info from what I've heard.

"Leaky gut" is a myth.

What is wrong with ingredients you can't pronounce? Is it ok for me to eat these foods because I can pronounce the ingredients? https://jameskennedymonash.wordpress.co ... emophobia/ (Not fundie, not broken.)

[Mama Mia]

I skimmed this because it seemed to be related to worker's protections, not health problems in their children. I read the appendix and did not find any relevant articles.

I found the first article before I asked you for some sources. First of all, I am not an epidemiologist, so I just don't know enough to evaluate some aspects of this study. However, from my reading it suggests an association between parental pesticide exposure and a moderate increase in cancer in offspring. There were some oddities in the findings that suggest the results are not entirely reliable.

In 17,357 children they found 50 cases of cancer vs. the ~37 they expected to find. This comes out to a standardized incidence ratio of 1.36, with a 95% confidence interval of 1.03 to 1.79. That means there were 36% more cases of childhood cancer than expected, and the researchers estimate a 19 in 20 chance that the actual value is between 3% and 79%. So it's possible the true value could be 0% (no effect of pesticide exposure), or, alternatively, it's possible that the effect is actually larger than measured.

Going to the data, they found 9 cases of lymphoma where ~4 were expected (SIR 2.18, 95% CI 1.13-4.19). The rest of the childhood cancers could not be associated with pesticide exposure, with more cases occurring than expected but 95% CI's overlapping 1, meaning that they could not exclude this just being due to chance. I did find it suggestive that out of all of the childhood cancers they observed a few cases more than expected for each, rather than, for instance, expecting ~2 cases of a particular cancer and finding only 1 or 0.

Curious things: They did not find an association between leukemia and pesticide exposure, which has been reported in previous studies. There was no dose response, that is, children whose parents were exposed more frequently to pesticides did not experience a higher risk of cancer than children whose parents were exposed less frequently. When they broke down the pesticides applied by class/compound, they could not find an association for any of them except for aldrin (paternal prenatal exposure only), which they say is probably due to chance (not broken because xkcd: https://xkcd.com/882/) and not a true association because other studies show aldrin is not carcinogenic.

Because of some of these oddities, they mention some other factors as possible contributors, saying it may be the excess risk for lymphoma is due to an unknown factor such as early Epstein Barr virus infection in this population, or an unknown factor associated with exposure to certain farm animals (they found an increased risk of lymphoma for children exposed to cattle). The possible association with livestock is interesting because I read another paper that found an association, iirc, between cancer and exposure to swine and chickens, which is intriguing since both carry some diseases that humans can catch (flu definitely springs to mind, but I know of no association between flu and cancer).

So, suggestive of an association between parental exposure to pesticides and a moderate increased risk of cancer in their children, but not definitive. As always, "more study required". :cracking-up:

This does not rise to the level of "remarkably high rates of cancer". If you have other sources that do support this claim I would definitely be interested in seeing them. If not, perhaps you should retract your accusation that DuggarsTheEndIsNear is callously disregarding the hordes of children dying of cancer so she/he can eat her/his non-organic produce.

The other study was actually reported in http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/c ... l.pdf+html

They found the highest levels of metabolites of certain organophosphates in urine were correlated with an about 2x risk of ADHD. They state causation is plausible but not confirmed. As always, "more study required". :cracking-up:

I advise organic farmers not to throw too many stones where kids and ADHD is concerned. Pyrethrin is used in organic farming, and this class of compounds is associated with ADHD as well.

If you read the first report, didn't manage to note the many references to children's health, or the many studies linked in the appendix, I really can't help your reading comprehension issues. And it seems like a huge waste of energy to try to walk you through each page, or how to use an appendix.

If you were unable to do a simple search to find the tons of information related to health problems for children who are exposed to pesticides I can't help you there either.

The ADHD and pesticides information was actually covered extensively a couple of years ago and was pretty big news. In mainstream news and medical journals. I'll get to the cancer reports later, maybe. But I'm not inclined to waste my time with someone so enmeshed in their own agenda they can't read a simple report.

And , simply, anyone who is so brainwashed they can't acknowledge that , yes, exposure to high amounts of poison might just cause problems in children :roll: -- well, you're just beyond hope.

Eta: Also, I worked with a large number of farm worker children when I worked in social services. I don't care if it's anecdotal. I don't care if it's a " moderately increased risk that requires further study" -- these are actual human children with actual lives. The number of families who needed our services because they had lost everything due to their children having cancer was staggering. The number of babies with birth defects was appalling. The number of children with serious health issues was grossly disproportionate to the rest of the population we worked with. Their parents also suffered from cancer and serious health problems at disproportionate rates. As did my coworkers who had come from that experience - and their families.

I am assuming your go to response will be " poverty". Or " unknown causes requiring further study" . Or whatever ridiculous brush- off answer you have for people whose lives don't count. And no, I will not retract my accusation that people are dismissive of the issues of children ( and adults) on the bottom rung. But I will add that your dismissive attitude of actual human beings who have their lives wrecked by " moderately increased risk" , or school and life made much more difficult by double the rate of ADHD - --- maybe you should try to find your moral compass.

Edited to be somewhat less judgmental.