Skip to main content

Frog brain development inhibited by low dose pesticide

New research published in Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry reveals that low doses of a commonly used pesticide potentially harm the Northern Leopard frog by inhibiting their brain development.

Case against chlorpyrifos stacks up

The pesticide,  chlorpyrifos, which has been used since 1965 in both agricultural and non-agricultural areas, had clear effects on Northern Leopard tadpoles’ neurodevelopment, even in situations where the pesticide did not cause a decline in the amphibians’ food source.

Diagram by Sara McClelland.

Developmental exposure to chlorpyrifos

The leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens) tadpoles were reared through metamorphosis in artificial ponds containing either 0 or 1 µg/L chlorpyrifos and either chlorpyrifos‐resistant or chlorpyrifos‐sensitive Daphnia pulexzooplankton. 

Developmental exposure to chlorpyrifos resulted in metamorphs with a relatively wider optic tectum, medulla, and diencephalon compared with controls, and this result was found regardless of the zooplankton population of the pond.

Organophosphorous pesticides contaminate surface waters throughout the USA. exposing both animals and humans to these chemicals, often at very low levels.

Lead author Sara McClelland of Duquesne University, in Pittsburgh tells us

this study demonstrates that exposure to these contaminants, even at these low concentrations, impacts vertebrate neurodevelopment.



Subscribe to The Thin End

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba
7 comments
Read more

The unethical language of 'welfare dependency'

It is unethical to stigmatise people without foundation. Creating a stereotype, a generalised brand, in order to  demonize a group regardless of the individual and without regard for the potential harm it may do is unfair and prejudicial. It is one reason, and a major one, why racism is unethical; it fails to give a fair consideration of interest to a group of people simply because they are branded in this way. They are not worthy of equal consideration because they are different.  It seeks also to influence the attitudes of others to those stereotyped. If I said 'the Irish are lazy'; you would rightly respond that this is a ridiculous and unfounded stereotype. It brands all Irish on the basis of a prejudice. It is harmful certainly; but it is worse if I intend it to be harmful. If I intend to influence the attitude of others. And so it is with 'the unemployed'. All I need do is substitute 'work-shy' and use it in an injudicious way; to imply that it applies to
2 comments
Read more

The Thin End account of COVID Lockdown

Post a Comment
Read more