By Sydney Nguyen
Peer-Reviewed Study: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2025.123027
News Article: Scientists
uncover troubling factor linked to childhood cancer: 'It's hard to stay on top
of something that changes so fast'
Background
Pesticides have long been used to control insects, weeds, fungi, and other factors that may threaten crop production. The prominent usage of pesticides incidentally leads to the increased possibility of direct and indirect exposure. This could pertain to residues that remain on food, leaching into water supplies, or accumulation in the environment. A significant issue associated with pesticides is bioaccumulation in which pesticides could build up in the body over time leading to severe health problems.1
Long-term exposure to pesticides
have been found to be linked to several chronic diseases, birth defects, and
cancers.2 In particular, neuroblastomas,
accounting for 15% of pediatric cancer-related deaths in the United States, has
been increasing in incidence and may have a strong linkage to the increasing
usage of pesticides.3
Peer-Reviewed Article
The article’s primary focus was to assess
whether prenatal exposure to specific agricultural pesticides increased the risk
of neuroblastoma in children. To do this, neuroblastoma cases were identified
in the California Cancer Registry between 1988 and 2016. Population controls
were selected from California birth records, frequency, or individually matched
to cases on factors like birth year and sex. To avoid any exposure misclassification
resulting from constrained pesticide recording approaches, the study’s sample
was limited to mothers residing within 4000 m of a location where at least one
pesticide was agriculturally applied on any date within their pregnancy period.
After applying some exclusions, their final analytic sample consisted of 199
neuroblastoma cases with 202,796 controls.
Their GIS-based Residential Ambient
Pesticide Estimation System (GRAPES) was able to map the Pesticide Usage Report
data onto a PLSS grid. Of the 213 preselected pesticides classified as possibly
carcinogenic, 192 were listed in the PUR data within the study period. Out
of these 192, the risk estimates were generated for 68 pesticides with at least
five exposed neuroblastoma cases.
Using their 4000m distance buffer analysis,
they estimated the timing of pregnancy using the date of the last menstrual
period and date of birth, determining the likelihood of each mother being exposed
to a specific pesticide during gestation. For each pesticide, an exposure score
of 0 was designated to mothers that did not receive any reported pesticide use
within 4000m of their residence. A score of 1 was given to those at or below
the median within 4000m. Exposure levels above the median between 2000 and
4000m were assigned a score of 2. Lastly, a score of 3 was assigned to those who
were exposed to pesticide usage within 2000m of the residence.
For their statistical analysis, the
authors applied logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios for neuroblastoma
associated with prenatal exposure to each pesticide. They adjusted for potential
confounders such as maternal age, parity, socioeconomic indicators, and child
sex. They also conducted a sensitivity analysis and highlighted pesticides with
consisted, statistically elevated risks such as flonicamid, benomyl,
cypermethrin, and permethrin.
The overall findings of the article
showed that, in hierarchical models that were co-adjusted for all pesticides, prenatal
exposure above the median application density was associated with elevated odds
of neuroblastoma for four against: flonicamid, benomyl, cypermethrin, and
permethrin. The elevated adjust odds ratios (aORs) for these pesticides
suggested roughly a 20-50% higher risk of neuroblastoma in children with
estimated prenatal ambient exposure compared with unexposed children. The
authors did not observe consistent associations or trends amongst the pesticides
examined except for the subset of pyrethroid insecticides and the fungicide
benomyl.
News Article
The news article by Kristen Lawrence
brings about awareness of these findings. She summarizes the background and significance
of studying the relation between these pesticides and neuroblastoma. Lawrence references
Dr. Julia Heck and her examinations of over 200,000 children born from 1998 to
2016 at the University of Texas. Lawrence points out the four main pesticides
with their respective increased risk percentages for neuroblastoma. After all
of this, she explains the reason as to why these findings are concerning,
citing many sources that add to the “growing body of evidence” that links childhood
cancer such as leukemia and brain tumors to pesticide exposure. However, she
also makes it clear that, as these pesticides are categorized as having suggestive
evidence of carcinogenicity, further studies need to be conducted to determine
their effects and health risks. Lawrence also cites other studies talking about
the toxic weedkiller dicamba and pesticide contamination in around 40% of baby
food sold by major brands. The article concludes with an interview with Dr.
Heck who expresses the need for more evidence and information to push the EPA
and WHO to take action. Lawrence also provides a link to the Environmental
Working Group’s guides on produce which lists produce pesticide residues.
Assessment
I would rate the news article a 7/10.
I felt that the author could have gone into more detail about the study. Although
I do not think the author needed to delve into the analytical methods the paper
talked about, I do wish the news article had not been so short. The shortness
of the article, I felt, failed to convey the severity of the issue. I also feel that the author could have taken
on a more political perspective and addressed the need for governments and
organizations to take action aside from the comment given by Dr. Heck. Aside from
that, I think the author was straight to the point and conveyed the main
findings of research article.
References
(1) Shekhar, C.; Khosya, R.; Thakur, K.;
Mahajan, D.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, A. K. A Systematic Review of
Pesticide Exposure, Associated Risks, and Long-Term Human Health Impacts. Toxicology
Reports 2024, 13, 101840.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.toxrep.2024.101840.
(2) Mostafalou, S.;
Abdollahi, M. Pesticides and Human Chronic Diseases: Evidences, Mechanisms, and
Perspectives. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology 2013, 268
(2), 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2013.01.025.
(3) Van Deventer, D.;
Ritz, B.; Cockburn, M.; Heck, J. E. Prenatal Pesticide Exposure and
Neuroblastoma – A Statewide Case-Control Study in California. Environmental
Research 2025, 287, 123027.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2025.123027.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGood job, Sydney! I agree with you that the article was a little too short to convey the full severity of the issue. It mentioned neuroblastomas, but it didn't explicitly explain what they were. Overall, this topic was very interesting. I was wondering what about those pesticides make the risk for neuroblastoma in children increase? Do all pesticides increase risk, and the study just examined those 4? This seems like a difficult issue to solve because farmers love using pesticides. Is there a viable action the EPA could take to help alleviate the issue?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteHi Lanna, thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, the authors did not touch upon how these pesticides induce neuroblastomas. I would have loved to see more of that. In their study, they had not seen a strong correlation amongst all other pesticides as much as the 4 that were mentioned after testing on various pesticides. The news article seems to suggest that, for now, raising enough awareness to do more thorough testing could help to push the EPA to set up regulations for this issue. I would imagine this could come in the form of regulating which products and how they are used. However, aside from that, I cannot think of a strong solution as of this moment due to the fact that you mentioned, farmers love using pesticides. Additionally, with how the agricultural industry currently is, farmers are not inherently encouraged to do anything but use these pesticides.
Nice job on your analysis. I agree with your rating of 7/10. I agree that the shortness of the article limited its ability to convey the seriousness of the study’s findings. However I did feel it gave a nice overview of the findings in a relatively easy to understand way without catastrophizing the results. I also liked your comment that the author could have expanded on the political side of pesticide regulation. I think it is very important in the news to bring up the roles government agencies or international organizations should have and it would have given the news article a stronger call to action.
ReplyDeleteOne part that stood out to me was your emphasis on the need for more detailed coverage of the study itself. Given how significant the links between pesticide exposure and childhood cancers may be, a deeper explanation of the methods or sample size could have helped readers better understand the weight of the findings. I am curious though on how much detail you think is appropriate for the general public when reporting on complex health studies? I also wonder what there is to be done about this issue, given the widespread use of pesticides.
Hi Sarea, thank you for the reply. Personally, I would have appreciated more examples from the author of pesticide effects on human health. Towards the general public, I think that would have conveyed the severity of the issue a lot better. Additionally, from scientific literature, I personally think giving a slight overview on how the authors set parameters and analyzed their samples would be useful. Often times, we may lose out on key details like the influence of sex and age which can lead to misunderstandings or narrowed perspectives. A great example would be like a study that reports on cavities and oral health but does not mention that the sample was made up of only male participants which inevitably led to the idea that saliva was always a certain pH. However, newer studies found that, in female participants, their saliva was more acidic than what was originally assumed. As for any solutions that can be implemented for this issue, there are not currently many that I believe could make as much of a difference as just simply developing the pesticides to be safer for humans. That, in of itself, is a very difficult task since we can only truly ascertain the effects of these pesticides after a certain amount of time. However, for now, these effects could be mitigated by regulating which products are used and how they are used. This can always change over time as we continue to study the effects of newer pesticides on human health.
DeleteGreat analysis Sydney! I agree that the author of the news article gave a general summary of the research article. I noticed the title of the news article was referencing the idea that the pesticides being sprayed change often. This idea was then included as a quote from Heck, an author of the research paper. Was this a major idea from the study or was it more used to be eye-catching? How would the chemical changes in pesticides use impact a research study like this and are there things that can be done to still connect the pesticides to health issues?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
Delete
DeleteHi Ava, thank you for the reply. The title itself, I assume, is more to summarize one of the primary concerns in using these pesticides. As far as I know, the title only relates to the news article itself since the overall scientific study really homed in on investigating the relationship between the development of neuroblastomas in prenatal babies and the use of pesticides. The scientific paper itself did not really mention this sort of perspective. However, I do believe it is one of the reasons as to why Dr. Heck and her team felt the need to conduct this study. Her quotes emphasize the need to 1) have a reliable method to study these effects and 2) conduct these studies as frequently as possible to keep policies updated on which pesticides should or should not be allowed. As pesticides continue to be developed, their modes of exposure or contact may change. As a result, this may affect some studies like this that use distance as a buffer. If some chemicals are found to not travel as far or vice versa, that would most definitely affect the overall results of the study. In my personal opinion, the best way to prevent these misinterpretations from happening is to observe the effects of pesticides more thoroughly using various scientific methods.
Hi Sydney, thanks for sharing your analysis of the study and the news article! I agree that the author of the news article could have more directly suggested some actions that the government could take to protect people. I liked how the author suggested actions individuals can take, but I agree that this probably isn't enough to actually address the harm these pesticides may cause. I liked that the article was concise. I felt it was accessible since it summarized the key findings and important aspects of the study without going into too much detail. I think it will reach more people and hopefully encourage them to learn more about the problems pesticides can cause.
ReplyDeleteHi Sophie, thank you for the reply. I most definitely agree with you. Although the article was rather short, I always appreciate when articles are concise and to the point making it easier for readers to understand. I also hope that, with its conciseness, more readers will be encouraged to learn more about pesticides which could lead to a greater collective of public opinion. Incidentally, I hope that the upsurge of public opinion on this matter will encourage the government and agricultural corporations to take action.
DeleteHi Sydney, thanks for sharing these articles! I also felt that the news article somewhat overlooked the broader implications of the research findings and could have more thoroughly discussed other routes of exposure beyond agriculture. Another weak point in the news article, in my opinion, was that the author didn't make it clear that the study investigated 68 pesticides and not just the four that were found to be linked to neuroblastomas. It was interesting to me that the author cited The New Lede when introducing the study, rather than just the study itself. Do you think this choice might have affected how the author discussed the research? Also, I was curious about benomyl, which the study says has not been used in the US since 2001 but was still linked to neuroblastomas – do you know roughly what the lifetimes are on these pesticides?
ReplyDeleteHi Claire, thank you for the reply! I agree with you that the mention of only four pesticides would definitely mislead readers into thinking that only four were studied. I think, to some extent, The New Lede did have influence on the authors perspective in writing this article, but I do not think it had a major influence. The reason being the article mostly focused on the key findings and overall health effects of the pesticides but does not criticize the lack of accounting for certain factors like The New Lede. With benomyl, I also had the same question and found that it actually is relatively short-lived. However, its degradation products have been found to persist in soil and water for months to years.
DeleteGreat analysis Sydney! I agree with your analysis and how the shortness of the article does not convey the true severity of the issue. On that same note, I didn't agree with the statement that the author makes about how further studies are required to determine if pesticides have negative health effects. Further studies would definitely help determine the extent of those negative effects, but there is much conclusive evidence that they have numerous negative health impacts. This study reminded me of the blog presentation that was done on the impact of living near golf courses on Parkinson's disease: It is clear that there is a huge issue around the far-reaching and deadly impacts of widespread pesticide use in the U.S. I'm curious if pregnancy makes people more susceptible to pesticides than others? I would be interested if the study compared the health records of people living in the same areas as the women in the study, or if pregnancy increases vulnerability to pesticides.
ReplyDeleteGreat reading your analysis Sydney. I definitely think there is much reason for there to be longer articles with more info in them as well as the fact it needs to be clearer and easier to get to the main point. I do have to respect that case studies are much more difficult to conduct as it is impossible to perfectly determine every exposure a person could have had during their pregnancy. Although only tangentially related, I wonder if a pregnant woman's chosen prenatal vitamins also affect such, especially since a type of the capsules are, to my knowledge, plant-based.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great analysis and thanks for sharing this article. I agree with your rating on the news; When discussing something as devastating as neuroblastoma, brevity in a news article can feel dismissive. I was particularly struck by the specific pesticides identified: cypermethrin and permethrin. These are pyrethroids, which are often marketed to consumers as 'safer' alternatives to older organophosphates. Finding them linked to a 20-50% higher risk is concerning. Did the original paper mention if the 4000m buffer accounted for wind direction, or was it purely a radius-based distance calculation?
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great analysis! You said that you wished that the news article had some type of call to action from the government or organization but did the research article give a call to action? I feel like both should have a call to action and especially the research article as they would be more informed on future steps that should be made (based on expertise) vs a journalists opinion.
ReplyDeleteHello, it is nice to see a news article ask or quote the senior researcher of the peer-reviewed article for once. I especially like that it expands on the article with just their general knowledge being in the field and citing further research to support their claims of carcinogen risks. I also like how they mention that likely the next step would be to verify which products use these pesticides or at risk for these discovered adverse health effects, although I do agree they could have had more of a call to action for the EPA to push for this. Since benomyl was banned by the EPA in 2001 is it seeing these high levels of risk associated as people are still using it despite the ban or just because of its lingering effects on soils/farms? Also I'm honestly a little confused on why of the 192 pesticides in the database only 68 had risk assessments. Was it because the other ones were just used in such small quantities, not near residential areas, or some other factor?
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great analysis of news article and scientific paper! I agree with your rating of the article. I also think that the title of the news article could be edited to be more representative and the quote included in the title could be substituted to be more representative of the study (or removed all together). I did like that the news article had clear sections like "what's being done to help." However, I agree that the news article is a bit short and lacking a call to action. I think that inclusion of more background information about the pesticides (about the users of these pesticides and the policies that allow for the use of these pesticides) would remedy this issue and would tie well with a call to action.
ReplyDeleteHey sydney, I think you did a good job analyzing this article. I think this a very interesting topic and you did a good job summarizing it. I do think the article did a pretty good job summarizing the results of the paper though. This was an interesting topic to me because the idea of linking pesticides to childhood cancer. I wonder if these pesticides can be linked to other kinds of cancer as well.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, thanks so much for your analysis of the article. I think your critique of the length of the news article is a really interesting one, given the varying lengths of news articles we have covered in class. I agree with you that childhood cancer is a serious issue that deserves a more in-depth discussion. However, I think the short news article makes it more accessible, as most people are more enticed to read a shorter article than a longer one. I think including figures or even photos would make the news article more engaging and better emphasize the study.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, thank you for sharing this research. I found the study both informative and unsettling. The authors used a very large sample and a detailed exposure mapping system, which makes their findings feel credible and concerning. The elevated risks they reported for certain pesticides during pregnancy stood out to me, especially since neuroblastoma is already such a serious childhood cancer. I appreciate that the news article brings attention to the issue, but I also felt that it was too brief for how important this topic is. The article touched on the key findings, but I agree with you in that I wish it had provided more depth and more of a sense of urgency. What you think the biggest barrier is to translating these findings into meaningful change?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney! Great post! I thought this study was particularly interesting, as I grew up in a rural area. This study makes me wonder what kind of pesticides my family and I may have been exposed to from surrounding farms. I love that this study uses GIS to determine residential pesticide exposure. I think GIS is a really powerful tool for geospatial analyses. I am curious why the buffer around the mothers’ homes was restricted to 4000 m. How was this distance determined? Does the supporting information include any of these maps? I am also curious about how pesticides interact in the body to cause neuroblastoma. What makes the pesticides with statistically elevated risks more toxic and carcinogenic than other pesticides? What biochemical reactions are occurring?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney! Great analysis overall!
ReplyDeleteBased on the findings from this study most pesticides did not show clear links to neuroblastoma, except for a pyrethroids and benomyl which may suggest further investigation as potential prenatal environmental risk factors. Did the authors provide any possible biological mechanisms that could explain why prenatal exposure for these two pesticides might increase neuroblastoma risk? Why might only these pesticides show consistent associations while others did not? Also did the authors provide any contextualization on what the reported elevated odds ratio of 20–50% actually mean in terms of public health? Could these findings be utilized push the EPA and WHO to take action as the news-article author suggests?
Hi Sydney! I think you did well with analyzing the study. Did the study ever mention which crops flonicamid, benomyl, cypermethrin, and permethrin were used on? Are these pesticides isolated to a certain area, or are they pretty widely used? I agree that this is a very important study with significant findings. Although I think it was great that the news article included Dr. Heck, having a variety of interviews can definitely strengthen the effect of the article. If the news article called for political and government action, what are some actions you'd hope to see now knowing the results of the study?
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that the article specifically looked at how different pesticides could be related to pediatric cancer deaths.I wonder if there was any particular motivation for choosing to investigate this specifically, since in the news article it mentions how there are only between 600 and 800 cases in the U.S. per year, though I do understand the inherent dangerous that infants can face if exposed to even small amounts. I actually thought that the news article did a pretty good job giving good background about the issue and summarizing the research findings, and that its length is pretty sufficient considering the intended audience.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great analysis. I have one question regarding the article. Given the study’s findings that prenatal exposure to certain pesticides may increase the risk of neuroblastoma, what ethical and regulatory responsibilities should agricultural agencies and government bodies have in monitoring and limiting pesticide use near residential areas?
ReplyDeleteThis was a great analysis and I agree with your score! The article did a great job summarizing the findings, but it could have gone into more details in some areas. I am curious to see this study repeated in other areas to see both how the pesticides could have reacted with each other and with elements in the atmosphere in the area. Was there any discussion of expanding this research to other areas and looking at other pesticides? I also want to know more about the studies regarding the pesticides in baby food because that seems very important and because I'd be curious to know how the pesticides got into the baby food.
ReplyDeleteGreat analysis, Sydney! I really appreciated your analysis. You clearly explained the design of the study. I thought the research into the risk of neuroblastomas in children stemming from exposure from agricultural pesticides. This research highlights the importance of the environment in human disease. The 20-50% increase in risk with exposure makes the findings more significant. I agree with your rating of 7/10; it is important that these news sources thoroughly discuss the findings to the audience and make the science accessible. A stronger discussion of policy implications would have helped the new article communicate the severity of the carcinogenicity of pesticides. I was curious why the researchers chose to test pregnant women for this study?
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great analysis. Of particular interest to me was the chemical composition of the different pesticides of concern highlighted by this study. The cypermethrin and permethrin are from that same family of pyrethroids, but between that family, the flonicamid, and the benomyl, the structures are incredibly diverse. Did the study discuss any need to look into the biochemical pathways these chemicals traverse? What specific elements of these chemicals cause cancer? We seem to run into this issue again and again that pesticides cause health issues (which makes sense considering they're designed to be toxic to specific types of life). I would be curious to see in depth studies looking into the mechanism that is employed to cause cancer in humans, thus more responsible design may be employed.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, great job on your analysis. This type of exploratory research into the effects of pesticides is crucial for understanding the health implications, especially in communities with heavy pesticide use. Given that the existing research shows relatively strong evidence of a carcinogenic effect of pesticides, I am curious if there is an extent of risk that could be shown that would be sufficient to motivate substantial cultural/policy change. When considering the usage of other insecticide pollutants like DDT in class, evidence of harm to other organisms was sufficient to motivate this shift, so it raises concerns about what degree of risk we may be ignoring today.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, thank you for this discussion. I think in conjunction with the previous blog post on pesticide usage on golf courses linked to Parkinson's disease, as well as the harmful pesticide usage we've discussed in class, the growing number of impacts from such a wide range of different pesticides is essential to keep track of. Due to their widespread usage and the nature of chemicals being sprayed into the air, they can also travel far from their original locations, such as by polluting waterways. I think this investigation into pesticide-caused cancer is very eye-opening. I am curious about the biochemical side and how exactly the pesticides act in the body to potentially cause the neuroblastoma in children. I also wonder about the impact of these four pesticides mentioned in the study, and how impactful they are in older age-ranges, not just due to prenatal exposure.
ReplyDeleteGreat job! The peer reviewed article mentioned that the sample population for study was rural households within 4000m of active pesticide usage. I was wondering if the effects of these carcinogenic pesticides can effect larger population centers, farther away from the pesticide usage, and why was 4000m chosen to be the radius for their research? I agree with your analysis of the news article. While a solid summary of the findings was present, I found the news article lacking in important background information that would allow the audience to grasp the severity of this issue. I did like how the news article included resources to look at if you live in an area with heightened pesticide exposure.
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney, thank you for sharing this very interesting article with us and for your thoughtful analysis of it. I had two questions:
ReplyDelete1. Is there a specific threshold that the researchers used to define an exposure level? I understand they relied on agricultural pesticide application records, but what about pesticide use that occurs on a smaller scale and therefore would not appear in these records? For example, from my quick research, at least permethrin is commonly used by homeowners in their backyards or home gardens, and its use is not restricted to large-scale agriculture. If backyard use isn’t captured in the Pesticide Use Report (PUR) data, how do the researchers account for this type of exposure? Or is this considered negligible or outside the intended scope of the study?
2. I also wonder about the role of paternal exposure. Even though the study focuses on maternal residential exposure during gestation, could exposure of the father - either before conception (affecting sperm quality or DNA) or after the child is born - also influence neuroblastoma risk? I’m curious whether the literature has explored paternal occupational or residential pesticide exposure as a possible factor.
Hi Sydney! Great work. This was a clear and thoughtful summary that highlights both the scientific rigor of the study and the broader public-health implications. I like how you emphasized the bioaccumulation issue and the potential long-term health effects, which helps frame why prenatal exposure is such a concern. Your description of the GRAPES system and exposure scoring shows how carefully the researchers worked to avoid misclassification. You also give a balanced evaluation of the news article, noting that it raises awareness but lacks depth compared with the peer-reviewed study. It’s especially useful that you pointed out the gap between scientific findings and policy action, something that often slows protective regulations. Do you think the article should have explained more about how proximity-based exposure estimates work? And what kinds of policy changes do you think would be most justified based on the study’s findings?
ReplyDeleteHi Sydney this was a super great analysis of the article, I do agree with your take that the news article was a bit too brief. I do wonder what the threshold used within the study was, and what the effects of paternal exposure are on neuroblastoma development. Further a higher risk of 20-50% is a huge amount, and definitely a point of concern.I do wonder what chemical variations exists between the 68 pesticides that were identified as harmful?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the article could have been improved by talking more about how these pesticides/insecticides impact human health. Particular focus on the organs/processes they effect could help highlight the importance to the public better than just describing how they are involved in an increase in a condition. Although this would have to be balanced to still be understandable by the general public I do think it would increase interest and awareness if done well.
ReplyDelete