Bugged by MSN's DEET Article

Before I go off on my rant, let me assure you I'm not a DEET-basher. I own DEET-containing insect repellents and use them in those instances when I plan to be outside for several hours at a time. However, I am peeved that the American Academy of Pediatrics lowered its recommended age limit for DEET from children two years or older down to two months and raised the maximum DEET concentration in mosquito repellent for kids from 10% to 30%.

But I digress... MSN's recent article on repelling mosquitoes doesn't even address the negative side effects of DEET or any of the other mosquito repellents they mention. There is a statement about how 2% soybean oil has been shown to provide 94 minutes of bite protection (it can be reapplied and isn't toxic), whereas 24% DEET provides 5 hours of protection (but it shouldn't be reapplied and you need to wash it off after use and follow other safety directions). In the context of the article, the comparison is supposed to illustrate the weakness of non-DEET products. DEET has its place and mosquito-borne diseases pose a serious health threat, but I don't think the Consumer Specialty Products Group, which represents the interests of product manufacturers, should be who you listen to for objective advice. Are you listening MSN and WebMD? I would hate for some kid to get neurological or eye damage because you neglected to mention certain salient facts.
The Offending DEET Article|DEET Chemistry