Muhammad Abdullah, Folio3 Agtech

Muhammad Abdullah, Folio3 Agtech

The Hidden Margin Leak Between Projected and Actual Harvest Dates

Thomas Skernivitz

Thomas Skernivitz

Biofertilizers 101: What Fruit Growers Need To Know

Anthony P. Keinath

Anthony P. Keinath

Powdery Mildew: A Crop Protection Problem That Needs Attention

Carol Miller

Carol Miller

Video: Why Viral Resistance Is the Next Big Hurdle in Melon Breeding

Let’s Set the Record Straight About the Dirty Dozen

Lisa Lochridge By Lisa Lochridge|June 21, 2011

Health issues get an inordinate amount of news coverage these days. Today’s consumers are interested in all things related to health, whether it’s diet, exercise, cooking, or health care. That’s why almost any new study or list gets media attention, regardless of its credibility. One week you’ll see headlines on research showing that caffeine is bad for you. Three months later, a study on the benefits of caffeine makes front-page news. It’s easy to see why consumers can be confused. We have nothing by which to gauge the credibility of one study versus another, and the research isn’t being vetted in newsrooms.

For agriculture, it’s an incredibly frustrating situation. Case in point: The Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) so-called “Dirty Dozen” list that’s issued each year. EWG calls it the “Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides.” It lists fruits and vegetables found to be “highest in pesticides.” There’s even a notebook you can take to the grocery store with you, as well as an app for iPhone users. The list has become a great fundraising tool for EWG, but the result is that people are eating less fresh produce at a time when obesity and related health problems in this country are at an all-time high.

Digesting Data

The shopper’s guide is based on data published by USDA from its Pesticide Data Program, a monitoring initiative designed to determine the levels of pesticide residues in fresh and processed foods. Problem is, misinterpretation of the data by the media and groups like EWG ends up misleading the public, when in fact there is no scientific evidence the residues detected pose any risk to consumers.
Making matters worse, USDA issues the pesticide data without providing context or any emphasis on the strengths of the pesticide regulatory system that ensures the safety of fresh produce. Recently, FFVA signed on to a letter from industry organizations to USDA asking the agency to provide the public with a report providing that much-needed perspective. Although USDA’s not responsible for groups taking the data out of context, it can do more to prevent that from happening.

Figuring Fact And Fiction

The good news is there are tools available to help us counter the EWG’s scare tactics. The website www.safefruitsandveggies.com is a well-organized resource, compliments of the Alliance for Food and Farming, a non-profit organization made up of farmers and farm groups from across the country, for people looking for factual information to debunk some of the so-called “science” out there.
One particularly handy tool is the pesticide calculator. Toxicologists agree the mere presence of pesticide residue on a food item doesn’t mean it’s harmful. What matters is how much you ingest. Enter a produce item into the calculator and it tells you how many servings you could eat before your health would be affected. For example, I entered apples (No. 4 on the “Dirty Dozen” list). The calculator shows I could eat 529 servings with the highest residue recorded by the Pesticide Data Program, and my health would not be harmed. This stuff wasn’t dreamed up by wishful PR people.
The Alliance sought to put the EWG information — or misinformation — to the test. It asked an expert panel of scientists to look at the basis and methodology behind the “Dirty Dozen” rankings and the scientific evidence that links pesticide residues and health effects. Here are some of facts the experts found:
  • The EWG list is not peer-reviewed, nor will the group share its methodology with the public or the scientific community.
  • The list is based on exposure only. It fails to provide information on whether the residues detected actually pose a health risk.
  • It fails to take into account the strength of the EPA’s pesticide evaluation process in protecting public health, which is more rigorous for pesticide use on food than for any other chemical use.

Kudos to the Alliance for taking on this effort. Now it’s up to us to arm ourselves with information to set the record straight on the safety of fresh fruits and vegetables and the need for Americans to be eating more of them, not less.

0

Lisa Lochridge is the former director of public affairs for the Florida Fruit & Vegetable Association and president of the Agriculture Institute of Florida. See all author stories here.