New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Study Bolsters Link between Pesticides and Parkinson's

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

People who have been exposed to pesticides are 70 percent more likely to develop Parkinson's disease than those who haven't, according to a new study. The results suggest that any pesticide exposure, whether occupationally related or not, will increase a person's risk of the disease. This means that using pesticides in the home or garden may have similarly harmful effects as working with the chemicals on a farm or as a pest controller.

The research, published in the July issue of Annals of Neurology, provides the strongest evidence to date of the link between pesticide exposure and Parkinson's. The study included over 143,000 men and women who completed extensive lifestyle questionnaires beginning in 1982, and follow-up surveys through 2001. All subjects were symptom-free at the beginning of the project, when they were asked about their occupation and exposure to potentially hazardous materials. Since then, 413 of them have developed confirmed cases of Parkinson's, with a greater incidence of the disease in those who spent time around pesticides. "Low- dose pesticide exposure was associated with a significant increase in risk for Parkinson's disease," says lead author Alberto Ascherio of the Harvard School for Public Health. "I think this is one reason to be careful about using pesticides in general."

Although the causes of Parkinson's are not well understood, it has long been suspected that environmental factors play a large role. Animal studies have shown that chemical compounds commonly used as pesticides can cause a degeneration of dopamine-producing neurons. In Parkinson's, a shortage of dopamine causes the disease's characteristic motor abnormalities, including muscle tremors and muscle rigidity. Previous small-scale human studies had suggested a link between pesticides and Parkinson's, but this new study is the first to establish a clear correlation in a large patient population.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The researchers also looked for links between Parkinson's and other environmental contaminants, including asbestos, coal dust, exhaust, formaldehyde and radioactive material. They found no correlation between the disease and any of the materials besides pesticides, however. Because of the design of the questionnaires, the study was not able to determine how the frequency, duration, or intensity of pesticide exposure affected the incidence of Parkinson's. The next step, according to Ascherio, is to figure out which class of chemicals is actually causing the disease, so that people can reduce their exposure.

About Karen Schrock

Kate Schrock has been an editor of Scientific American MIND since 2007, where she edits feature articles and runs Head Lines, the magazine's news department. After studying astronomy and physics at the University of Southern California, she worked in the Laboratory of Neuro Imaging at the University of California, Los Angeles, studying the brain structure of people with schizophrenia. She then enrolled in the Science, Health and Environmental Reporting program at New York University, where she earned a master's degree in journalism.

More by Karen Schrock

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe