Insecticides May Harm Female Immune System

Study Shows Insecticides Might Raise Risk of Autoimmune Diseases Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis for Women

(WebMD)  Women who spray their homes and gardens with insecticides may be placing themselves at risk for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus, a study shows.

In a study of more than 75,000 women, those who used insecticides six or more times a year had nearly two-and-a-half times the risk of developing the autoimmune diseases than women who adopted a live-and-let-live attitude toward bugs.

Similarly, the risk more than doubled if bug sprays were used in the home for 20 or more years.

Hiring a gardener or commercial company to apply insecticides also resulted in a doubling of risk, but only if they were used long-term, said Christine G. Parks, an epidemiologist with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences in Research Triangle Park, N.C.

"Our new results provide support for the idea that environmental factors may increase susceptibility or trigger the development of autoimmune diseases in some individuals," she said.

Although the study doesn't prove cause and effect, "we need to start thinking about what chemicals or other factors related to insecticide use could explain these findings," Parks told WebMD.

The researchers used data from the Women's Health Initiative Observational Study of 76,861 postmenopausal, predominantly white women ages 50 to 79. Of the total, 178 of them had rheumatoid arthritis and 27 had lupus. An additional eight women had both disorders. As part of the study, the women were asked a number of questions relating to farming and insecticide use.

"Importantly, the relationships we observed were not explained by other factors that we considered, including farm history, age, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic factors such as education and occupation, smoking and other risk factors for disease," Parks said.

Interestingly, a history of working or living on a farm did not appear to increase risk of rheumatoid arthritis or lupus in the study, she adds. Previous studies have linked farming and agricultural pesticide exposure to the disorders.

The findings were presented at the annual meeting of the American College of Rheumatology.

Studies show that as many as three-fourths of U.S. households have reported using insecticides in the home or garden, and 20 percent of households have applied insecticides in the last month, according to Parks.

"Insecticide exposure in the home can be quite persistent because they don't break down in the home environment," Parks said.

"The findings are fairly compelling" because they show the greater and longer the exposure, the greater the risk, said Dr. Darcy Majka, assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine.

"Now we have to go back to the bench. Which products pose a risk? Is skin exposure [to blame], or inhaling?" she said.

For now, Majka told WebMD, "The important thing is to follow the directions [on the product] and take other measures to limit chemical exposure."

[vophsi]

There are many herbal and natural remedies that are not toxic or harmful to animals and humans that are not being used such as diatomaceous earth which is excellent for roaches, ants and other common household pests. It kills fleas, etc. and is not harmful. CBS or someone should do a follow up on this story to list the healthy alternatives.

[cidaia]

How many times do we have to go through science reassuring us that something is perfectly safe then - oops! It isn't! It causes disease! Well, gee! Who woulda thought?

When are we going to start assuming that if common sense suggests that something might be really bad for you, then we should maybe assume it probably is?

Today we continue to do the same thing we did to the people who once protested insecticides: we ridicule and marginalize those who think maybe something might be dangerous just cuz common sense suggests it looks and smells and feels dangerous.

And those who think maybe scientists could be just plain WRONG when they say "we're experts and you can trust us: this is perfectly safe!"....because after all, they're always saying that, but then when it turns out they're wrong they explain very patiently to us that the scientific method is all about being wrong.

So either we should recognize that the scientific method is BUILT on being wrong - and therefore they have NO credibility when it comes to saying a thing is "safe" (they can't really know, can they?) - or we should hold scientists accountable when they are wrong and people get hurt. If they are trustworthy, if they are experts, if they know enough to be advising the rest of us on what is safe and what isn't, then there's no reason they should be excused from being held responsible when it turns out their "expert" advice is ignorant.

[displeased]

Is it scientists that make these claims of false safety or the government or corporate "scientists" promoting their products?

My suggestion is, if you can survive without the product, then don't use it.

You bring in the scientific method into this which has nothing to do with poisonous products, and I disagree the scientific method is based on being wrong. The scientific method acquires knowledge from observable, empirical, and measurable evidence. They develop hypothesis to determine explanations of phenomena.

It doesn't take a scientist to determine a poison that kills insects or animals is bad for humans. But a corporation pushing their product will certainly overlook the dangers and try to convince you otherwise.

[incog-nito]

It depends where the study comes from. The scientists who claim "it's perfectly safe" tend to be either working for the industry in question, or whose study was funded by them. Whenever there is a study questioning the safety of something, you can sure that the industry will fund a counter study claiming the opposite.

[cidaia]

The scientific method has everything to do with poisonous products.

We approve these things because we have replaced common sense experience as a method of knowing, with "scientific" methods of knowing.

Common sense, right now, says that we should assume that if a significant number of people question the safety and efficacy of vaccines, there's reason to get more information before concluding that vaccines are safe (pick your controversy: vaccines? bio-engineered seeds? thalidomide? giving antidepressants to teenagers? etc)

But the "scientific method" teaches us that lack of proof that something is harmful, should be construed as proof that there's no harm until and unless more evidence changes the situation.

That's fatal in the real world.

[incog-nito]

This is a no brainer. When you spray poison around the house there's going to be some negative effects. This applies to herbicides as well. Many chemical weapons that kill humans came out of research on insecticides. Yet I see people liberally spray all kinds of poisons in and around their house on a regularly basis.

[jackp32]

I used Frontline on my 2 dogs and they both lived 15 yrs. These scientists are overblowing this in order to get gov't grants to pad their resumes and enhance their prospects to obtain tenure. These researchers have learned their tricks well from the global warming fanatics who are expert at running scams. I worked for years at a University Medical Center and saw the scams first hand.

[displeased]

Even without this report, I wouldn't consider insecticides harmless.

I've never used insecticides in my home or garden. I'm not sure why people feel they need them. I have had trouble with bugs when growing broccoli and eggplants, but I tried using row covers over them during the first half of the season and that seems to work.

[nancyjvanwyk]

This article makes me wonder about the insecticides that we use on our pets all of the time such as front line?? Talk about coming into contact with it every day!!