Does Pet Shampoo Cause Autism? Let's Hope Not...
Tracy Morgan/Getty Images
There are a few theories.
In addition to the more prominent possibilities - genetics, vaccines, and environmental heavy metals - there seem to be an incredible range of potential culprits. In the past two years I've heard and/or read that autism could be caused by... Prenatal ultrasound. Pitocin. Tuna. Food dyes. Wifi. Cable television. Cell phones. Plastic baby bottles. Pesticides. Alcohol. Sleep apnea. Airplane exhaust. And that's just a start.
Today, a major news story appears to associate autism with... pet shampoo. According to this story on the ABC News website:
A preliminary study out of California might have uncovered at least one chemical worthy of investigation: pyrenthrin, a type of pesticide found in common products, from pet shampoos to household bug killers.Just to clarify: this is a preliminary study. This preliminary study has not been replicated. This preliminary study shows an ASSOCIATION between pyrenthrin and autism - not a causal connection. That means that people who shampooed their dogs with pyrenthrin may be at higher risk for reasons completely unrelated to the pyrenthrin. Or it may be that they really aren't at higher risk at all, but just appear to be because of an oddity related to this particular study.Mothers of more than 500 young children (some autistic, some not) participated in the study, reporting long lists of products they remembered using from a few months before conception until their child turned 1.
Mothers of the 138 children with autism were twice as likely to report using pet shampoos and other household products containing pyrenthrins than other mothers.
But while the findings in the study seem strong, lead author Irva Hertz-Picciotto, professor in the Department of Public Health Sciences at University of California, Davis, and other autism experts agree that there is a lot of work left to make sure pyrenthrin isn't a red herring [bold mine].
Does that mean parents should stop shampooing their dogs? If I had a choice, I'd select a less chemically potent option for my pup's pelt... and I'd certainly avoid using pesticides on objects likely to be handled by my toddler. But surely most parents are aware that pesticides are, in fact, poison - and that the warnings on the back of the spray can mean what they say!
Meanwhile, though, let's hope that we don't have to add yet another item to the list of "could cause autism" possibles. At a certain point, I worry that we'll wind up having to live on nothing but roots, berries and pure spring water ... and communicate with cans and string!
Comments
Let’s not forget baby bottles, toothpaste and drinking water- one wonders how they’ll ever pin-point it all per every single child’s or mother’s exposure.
Combinations of environmental’s I suppose can cause many things. I never had a dog just prior to conception or was around any pets a whole lot at all. We do have a dog now and I can say she get’s washed with the same shampoo I use
Just to clarify: this is a preliminary study. This preliminary study has not been replicated. This preliminary study shows an ASSOCIATION between pyrenthrin and autism - not a causal connection.
Causation is a ‘conclusion’ when it comes to epidemiology. That is to say it’s the way you let the data influence your opinion. It’s exactly the same with those who claim that certain studies support vaccinations as causal.
I’m starting to suspect that there’s some ‘balance bias’ at about.com. Similar to Al Gore in “An Inconvenient Truth” where he mentioned how the argument for CO2 as a mechanism for global warming was represented in newspapers was significantly different than it was represented in scientific literature. That newspapers (unwittingly?!) produced a bad representation of the research in an attempt to “show both sides”. Clearly objections to the body of scientific evidence should be stated but lets not misrepresent what the majority of work shows.
John - if you read some of the many articles I’ve written on causes of autism, autism treatments, etc., you’ll see that I’m careful to cite references, and that I consistently state that biomedical interventions are controversial… that the vast majority of mainstream research does NOT support the idea that vaccines cause autism… and so forth.
In the context of this blog, however, I am following the news… raising questions and awareness… and generally hoping to engage readers in interesting, provocative and/or helpful conversations.
In short, the blog and the website are connected, but don’t have identical purposes or perspectives.
Hope this makes sense!
Lisa (autism guide)
Respectfully, offering the article is offering information and if one wants to research it further, at least they have a bases for a start. Articles are in the paper every minute of the day and people will always have varying opinions of them. A blog site is no different- and all I see is an opinion generously offered. There can be no biased when it’s ones own opinion, of which one has a right to have and then share. There is no rule that states ones opinion has to be shared by the majority. I’m sure there are other bloggers out there if that’s what anyone is looking for, the majority.
“In the context of this blog, however, I am following the news… raising questions and awareness… and generally hoping to engage readers in interesting, provocative and/or helpful conversations.”
This site has been doing exactly that for as long as I’ve been reading here. This is a far better place for conversation of a news article than at a local coffee shop. News papers get things wrong all the time, point it out and lets chat about it.
I’m sure Dr. Hertz-Picciotto did a good job with this study, controlling for variables that should be controlled, and so on. From what I hear, though, one thing that she couldn’t have controlled for is recall bias. That is, parents of autistic children will be more self-conscious about the chemicals they have used and so forth.
Plus there’s always the issue that children in the study are not necessarily representative of all autistic children. They are likely children diagnosed with autism, and autism diagnoses are more common in some places compared to others, probably for reasons that are mostly not environmental.
Those are basically the concerns that will need to get clarified in follow-ups.
Joseph - since all of these families are physically located in the same area (southern Calif., I believe), wouldn’t that also need to be taken into consideration when replicating the study?
And what about the fact that they are all dog owners? I mean - the fact that they all used a particular type of pet shampoo on their dogs suggests that they are all dog owners… all likely to have been exposed to, for example, vets’ offices/chemicals; dog dander and poo; and a variety of other common elements.
Given that moms-to-be are warned NOT to change cat litter boxes for fear of an infection that can harm a fetus, might this not be an issue as well?
Just playing a bit of devil’s advocate -but it seems awfully easy to find holes in almost any finding…
Best,
Lisa (autism guide)
I don’t have the full text to be able to properly comment on methodology. But generally speaking, even if you look at a relatively small region, autistic children will tend to come from parts where autism is diagnosed more often. How this might confound things depends on what you’re looking at.
And you’re right, dogs themselves could be the confounding factor, in who knows what manner. But they can control for that. We’ll have to see if Dr. H-P did that.
While it might be given a bum wrap
Pyrethrin is not just used in homes. It’s also used in some hospitals, schools and commercial kitchens
I consistently state that biomedical interventions are controversial… that the vast majority of mainstream research does NOT support the idea that vaccines cause autism… and so forth.
In the context of this blog, however, I am following the news… raising questions and awareness… and generally hoping to engage readers in interesting, provocative and/or helpful conversations.
You know what else is interesting, controversial, and unproven? Exorcism. Some parents are using it, and given absence of a control group, and enough time, some parents will report their kids are “getting better”. So why aren’t you covering it? Would it help if a celebrity spokesperson signed on to Exorcise Autism Today! Maybe OJ is available.
Maybe it was a topic when it happened, the WI death of a boy with autism who died of suffication during an Exorcism? Maybe kids are getting better, but maybe some are dying as a result.
If it’s current in the news, this blog generally has it. Maybe when Exorcism’s make the media frenzy as a intervention choice, we’ll see more of it.
Well, Ken, it sounds to me like this is an all or nothing proposition - that you feel I’m either with you or against you. If that’s the case, then I guess we agree to disagree.
I really do think it’s perfectly possible that some children may be negatively impacted by any one of a variety of toxins in the environment … so I guess we’re in disagreement on that point. And I honestly feel it makes sense to hold an open mind as much as is consistent with reason and research. So far, I don’t think we have many definitive answers when it comes to autism.
All the best,
Lisa (Autism Guide)