Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16393651›Full record

ReviewEnvironmental health perspectives2006

A case for revisiting the safety of pesticides: a closer look at neurodevelopment.

Theo Colborn

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Environmental health perspectives, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Prenatal pyrethroid exposure, placental gene network modules, and neonatal neurobehavior.International journal of hygiene and environmental health · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. The Impact of Prenatal Organophosphate Pesticide Exposures on Thai Infant Neurodevelopment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2017
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Theo ColbornUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, and TEDX (The Endocrine Disruption Exchange) Inc., Paonia, Colorado 81428, USA. colborn@tds.net

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The quality and quantity of the data about the risk posed to humans by individual pesticides vary considerably. Unlike obvious birth defects, most developmental effects cannot be seen at birth or even later in life. Instead, brain and nervous system disturbances are expressed in terms of how an individual behaves and functions, which can vary considerably from birth through adulthood. In this article I challenge the protective value of current pesticide risk assessment strategies in light of the vast numbers of pesticides on the market and the vast number of possible target tissues and end points that often differ depending upon timing of exposure. Using the insecticide chlorpyrifos as a model, I reinforce the need for a new approach to determine the safety of all pesticide classes. Because of the uncertainty that will continue to exist about the safety of pesticides, it is apparent that a new regulatory approach to protect human health is needed.

Indexed as

Environmental ExposureEnvironmental PollutantsFemaleFetal DevelopmentHumansMaternal ExposureNervous SystemPesticide ResiduesPesticidesPregnancyPrenatal Exposure Delayed EffectsRisk AssessmentEnvironmental PollutantsPesticide ResiduesPesticides

Identifiers

PMID16393651
PMCPMC1332649

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.