Food Politics

Speaking of the environment, here’s a mixed message that basically states: Don’t pollute the Earth, but your body: Go for it! http://bit.ly/liOEDk

The EWG report is worse than useless, it is almost deliberately misleading. The dose response of these chemicals is far better understood than the toxicological effects of the naturally occurring pesticides produced within the plant, which are consumed at thousands of times the concentration. See anything written by Bruce Ames. Here is a different take from Steve Savage:

http://blog.sustainablog.org/dont-let-the-environmental-working-group-diminish-your-quality-of-life/

“Let the produce trade associations know that you don’t like their defense of potentially harmful chemicals and that you much prefer organic.”

This is ironic considering we just witnessed the most deadly e. coli outbreak in history that was caused by organic sprouts.

See also as an example of the organic mindset toward microbial contamination:
http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/bill-bagby-and-tiny-greens-sprout-farm-are-full-of-well-a-fecal-bacteria-salmonella—sprouts-are-ki/

Of Bill Marler’s 15 ‘key cases’ of microbial contamination, 3 were from organic operations. Organic food makes up 2-3% of food consumed, it appears to punch above its weight when it comes to making us sick.

What about washing with hot water (to help rinse waxes away?), scrubbing, and peeling? Any solid info on how much any of that helps?

@Issacschumann

You seemed to have strayed a bit off subject, from pesticides to pathogens. As it is, perhaps you could clarify a few points.

1. What relevance do you believe the German sprouts organic certification had on the outbreak? What organic practice has had the outbreak attributed to it? What would conventional practices have done differently?

2. Of Mr. Marler’s ‘key cases’, how many of the organic sources were raw milk, and not produce? How many cases of illnesses are involved? Not outbreaks, but number of ill.

The German E. Coli outbreak is devastating and tragic. It should not be used to further agendas if no practical connection can be made.

Mr. Schumann probably made the assumption that readers would realize that organic fertiziler, made from manure (among other things), is a known vector for e.coli, especially and specifically if it is not handled and prepared properly.

Michael,

Thanks for the response, the discussion was on the safety of foods, my opinion is that pesticides present a rather low risk in comparison to pathogens. As to:

1. This is not yet known. I did not state that the outbreak was a direct result of practices unique to organic, just that it occurred on an organic farm. The sprout outbreak at tiny greens farm was attributed to improper handling of compost as well as other safety violations. I would suspect similar findings in Germany.

http://www.marlerblog.com/legal-cases/german-sprout-farmers-bad-luck—i-say-e-coli/

2. 2 of 3, point taken. This, however, does not include the recent tiny greens outbreak. “Not outbreaks, but number of ill.” you are right, this would be the most relevant metric. Are you aware of any analysis done on this?

I would not consider organic to be any more or less safe than conventional foods in general, the essay and EWG report suggest that they are; I was disagreeing. The sprout farm has been conclusively identified as a major vector in the spread of the pathogen, I would consider this a practical connection. I am not crusading against organic, I am disagreeing that it should continue to be viewed as a significantly safer and more healthy solution. The outbreak is relevant to that argument. However, it was inappropriate at this time, thanks for the criticism.

Back to the topic, I consider the EWG ‘dirty dozen’ report to be a misleading presentation of publicly available information intended to create undue fear of produce. I would appreciate your opinions on the report as well as Steve Savages critique linked in my comment above.(if you have time, of course) Cheers.

For all of you who think pesticides are not a problem, why don’t you just dose up a meal of pesticides? Where do you think all these new diseases come from – such as autism? These babies are polluted in the womb.

Laura,
1) Your hyperbole is counterproductive to valid debate.
2) Pesticide intoxication is a highly controversial and yet unproved theory as to the cause of Autism.

Certainly it is true that there is little evidence of negative health effects for the consumer from eating pesticide-contaminated produce. However, many people are more concerned with the harm to farm workers exposed to the chemicals and the effects on the soil and wildlife. Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, the first and most notable indictment of pesticides, focused on the effects on birds, insects, soil, and people exposed to large quantities. These effects were enough to lead the US to ban DDT, and it is these effects that should concern produce shoppers.
For this reason, it might be better to know which non-organic foods are most likely to be treated with pesticides, not just which ones have the highest amounts of residue. For example, I would feel much more comfortable buying non-organic onions if I knew there was only a 10% percent chance that they had been grown with pesticides.

As a former ‘organic’ farmer, I agree with Isaac Schumann and Steve Savage.

The EWG is guilty of creating a huge misinformation campaign in order to scare people into buying ‘organic.’

When I worked at an ‘organic’ farm, I had to undergo pesticides application training. That was just one of a number of WTF? moments I had while working under the ‘organic’ regime.

Bottom line: “organics” makes claims that are unscientific, absurd, contradictory, and dishonest.

http://www.skepdic.com/organic.html

By the way, Christie Wilcox has written one of the best articles about the myths of organic farming:

http://nutritionwonderland.com/2009/12/the-truth-about-organic-farming/

What happened to Blueberrys?
Last year they were all kinds of “Dirty”, but then the data was skewed for some reason and a complete fabrication. There aren’t even as many chemicals as claimed on them, labeled for use on Blueberrys.

Now apples?
Swell.

The same Morons that damn GMO crops that produce BT’s, are advocating the use of BT’s as safe and wholesome pesticides, and all others are somehow unsafe.

The Hype and fear mongering works on the ignorant, weak minded, kneejerk reactionarys it seems.

No Farmer got into the business of farming intending to harm anyone.

Catie,

Excellent point, I would like this information as well. Some pesticides are a very real danger to farm workers and are tightly regulated. This regulation can always be improved. I would point out, however, that pesticides can be applied to minimize this harm to the environment, or genetically engineered into the plant to reduce their negative impact even further. Not using pesticides at all (which neither conventional or organic farmers do) would carry its own costs as well.

I would not object to the EWG report if it was centered on the impact of pesticide harm to farm workers instead of consumers. As Mike points out above, certification is required to handle dangerous chemicals, naturally occurring or synthetic. I would like to know who is skirting regulation and harming their workers.

@Michael and Isaacschumann

Thanks for the links. These views are steadily supporting what I have been finding out for myself over the years. People don’t believe me when I tell them that organic farms use pesticides; if they do, they always respond with the predictable, “but they’re NATURAL pesticides”. Well, as I tell anyone who comes at me with the “natural” argument, poop is natural and it can harbor and spread e-coli.

I buy organic when the price is reasonable because I like to support the parts of organic farming that are good for the land, but I buy conventional as well. I would rather buy locally produced conventional (where I can find out the actual practices of the producer) than buy from a “big organic” mega farm that is bastardizing the whole concept of organic. I buy dairy from a local family farm supplier that does organic and conventional–I’ve been there and know their practices so I buy the cheaper conventional product as I don’t see that they are doing anything dangerous and the two pastures are on the same land.

Thanks very much for contributing to this discussion.

@Issac

Thank you for the reasonable response. First off, it is looking like the sprouts were contaminated with a strain that has a human reservoir.

http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/06/scientists-shed-light-on-germanys-lethal-pathogen/

When discussing pathogens and organic food safety, it is important to note that more acres of conventional agriculture, rather than organic, are treated with livestock manure here in the U.S.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ap/ap037/ap037.pdf

Further, the stricter regulation of raw manure use in organic certification, and the outright ban on the use of human sewage, would be expected to make organic agriculture more safe, not less. Keep in mind that these two practices are not restricted in conventional farming.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/nop

I think it is impractical is to highlight the organic nature of the sprout farm, when such an outbreak would have impacted a conventional just as easily, if not more so.

That being said, no system of farming is 100% safe. Both organic and conventional agriculture are vulnerable to contamination. This is especially true when regulations and proper management are not observed. It bothers me that some people would assume that organic food does not have to be treated with the same care during preparation and cooking. An organic label is far from a guarantee that the food is free of bad bacteria.

As for pesticide residues, I agree that the levels on US veggies and fruits are not thought to be harmful. I don’t worry much about pesticide residues when buying my produce. Still, I wouldn’t choose to eat any level of residue, at all. Why take the risk that they accumulate or combine with one another?

The NOSB’s National List of approved treatments takes a more precautionary approach, and considers human health, environment, and sustainability. Natural controls, such as beneficial insects and crops, are the primary means encouraged through the organic program.

I agree with EWG, in that I think it important that people eat enough fruits and vegetables, conventional or organic. The “Dirty Dozen” does make for an easily misunderstood headline, and I hope people continue to eat their veggies.

However small the risk of pesticide residue is today, customers still want to consume as few as possible. Many of us would also prefer to not support the exposure of farm workers, the environmental pollution at the farm, and the resource and environmental costs of producing these chemicals. If the produce industry is concerned about people not wanting to purchase their products, they should work to lessen pesticide application.

Did the EWG test organic produce for “natural” pesticide residue?

Good point, Loren. I’d be interested in seeing those results, too. What do you think the results would look like, comparatively?

“Natural” pesticides are not used by the vast majority of organic farmers. I wonder how much might drift in from neighboring non-organic farms.

http://www.extension.org/pages/18532/an-organic-weed-control-toolbox

http://donlotter.net/lotter_organicag.pdf

I agree with Steve Savage. Eat your fruits and vegetables. The EPA and a phalanx of scientists say the pesticide residue so so tiny that it poses no threat to human health. The EWG report is misleading because it ignores a lot of valuable data that must be considered in a risk assessment.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention a huge source of pesticide in our diets. Cows eat corn… a lot of corn. That corn is heavily coated in Round Up herbicide and other really dangerous pesticides. The cow eats the pesticide, stores it in it’s fat, and we eat the cow.

Considering most people eat pounds of beef for every apple they consume, it’s a huge issue.

Michael,

Thanks for the informative response, I agree with most of what you write. All foods are susceptible to microbial contamination, conventional or organic. My disagreement is that I consider the risk from pathogens to be much larger than from pesticides, I cannot think of a case of pesticide harm to consumers off of the top of my head. (farm workers are another matter, my mother is an NP at a rural cash clinic and sees pesticide injuries to ag workers quite often) Unfortunately there has just been another tragic e. coli outbreak in France effecting children, the source is likely ground beef.(conventional)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_ecoli_france

Fretting about pesticides is not productive, IMO. I perceive far more fear of ‘chemicals’ and ‘toxins’ in food among my friends and family than of pathogens, which, to me, is a sign of misinformation. Part of the problem is reports like the dirty dozen.

Furthermore, if these low doses of pesticides should be taken seriously, we should not be eating any plants, period. The vast majority of the pesticides we will consume will be naturally produced by the plant. They have been shown to be just as harmful, and less is known about their relative toxicities, which is a common complaint against the conventional variety.

http://www.pnas.org/content/87/19/7777.full.pdf

If you are aware of studies that refute the one linked above, I would appreciate seeing them.

You are almost certainly right that, overall, more manure is applied by conventional farmers, however, I think that is not the appropriate metric; per capita manure use would be more informative. My guess is that this would be higher in organic, but I have not seen too much on this topic, so it is just a hunch. This study is only looking at produce in Minnesota, so is of course quite limited, but I think it is a start:

http://www.biofortified.org/2011/05/what-europeans-should-have-read-about-pathogenic-e-coli-in-2007-to-have-helped-avoid-the-current-food-safety-crisis/

If the EWG wants to inform the public on the harm caused by pesticides, I would personally appreciate an analysis showing which types of foods and/or companies harm workers the most. The ‘dirty dozen’, misinforms the public debate on food safety, and distracts us from real areas of risk. Thanks for engaging, Cheers.

Manure is used by the majority of soybean and corn growers in the United States. I grew up in a farm town in Indiana where the crops of choice were corn and soybeans and ALL the farmers manured their fields twice a year. It’s cheaper than commercial fertilizers and works just as well. Most of the time, but not all, the manure used is composted first to break down weed seeds, dissipate ammonia (which “burns” young seedlings), kill off bacteria, and make it less stinky. Manure has been used since the dawn of agriculture as fertilizer. Why is this a problem?

I’ve not seen one study that links composted manure to bacterial outbreaks. Ecoli outbreaks in produce are often caused by contaminated wash water in processing or contaminated ground water caused by run-off from nearby animal farms.

Isaac,

The University of Minnesota study found that organic farmers were more likely to use composted manure than conventional farmers, while the lower percentage of conventional farmers who used manure were more likely to use it raw.

Interestingly, the organic farms in this study had a higher rate of contamination, but they were also clustered geographically in the southern and southeastern parts of Minnesota. The conventional farms were almost all further North.

The authors of the study were clear in their report: “These results suggest a geographical effect, but because of the limited nature of this study they should not be extrapolated to other regions.”

You might be interested in this University of Minnesota page on the bigger picture.

http://www.misa.umn.edu/Search_and_Ask/FAQ/OrganicVegetableSafety/index.htm

Their position is that the results of the study have been “misrepresented in the media as proving that organic vegetables are more contaminated than conventional vegetables.”

One of the multiple points that complicate the results is that the organic and semi-organic farms in this study were much more likely to grow leafy greens and other vegetables that come in contact with the soil. Therefore, the risk of any contamination was already significantly higher for these farms, and based on factors that were independent of organic status.

According to UMN, “Organically grown vegetables are no more likely to be contaminated than conventional vegetables.”

In my experience, the folks who run biofortified.org are not exactly discerning when it comes to evaluating research on organic agriculture. They more skilled in the field of genetic engineering.

“Hot peppers had been treated with as many as 97 pesticides, followed by cucumbers (68) and greens (66).”

This begs a similar question to “is it better to forego fruit and veg than risk pesticide exposure?” (to which I think the answer is clearly the latter).

– Is it better to have small exposure to many pesticides or a larger exposure to few?

Given “the poison is in the dose” I suspect if the large number of pesticides means a smaller dose of each, the higher number might be the wrong index to being “dirty.”

Nevertheless, the science is insufficient to give a meaningful answer.

Michael,

I agree, the study could be easily misinterpreted, it was incredibly limited and should not be used to draw wider conclusions. My hypothesis would be that organic farmers use more manure per capita, I stress the hypothesis part. My reason for posting the study was the question it was asking, not its conclusions. Many many studies like this would have to be performed in many regions followed by meta studies for me to conclude anything meaningful.

I completely agree that organic and conventional produce are equally safe when it comes to pathogens. My main point was that pathogens are a far greater risk than pesticides to the consumer, human error can happen anywhere. For the record, I regret posting the study, your criticisms of its use in this context were fair. It is too limited to draw any conclusions and it has re-directed the debate to the relative safety of organic and conventional; I also dislike when people use limited studies out of context, that was not my intention.

The original post seemed to endorse organic foods as the preferable option for consumers on safety grounds. I think that they are relatively equal, you seem to agree.

Chemophobes continue to outsmart themselves; EWG is barking up the wrong tree, again, still.

One organic farm in Gemany has killed more than twice as many people as perished in the Fukushima nuclear disaster and the BP gulf oil calamity combined.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/8/dead-bodies-demand-organic-food-moratorium/?page=all

[...] The EWG 2011 information is now available, and Marion Nestle has a great summary of the project here. I refer to this list often, and there were still a few things that stuck out to me from [...]

Thanks for the discussion, Isaac. A good exchange always leads to learning something new. I’d also be interested in more data on how much manure is used, how long it might be composted, and how those numbers relate to farm type, certification, or lack thereof.

Enjoy what is left of the weekend.

[...] you in making smart, informed decisions. Being aware of the pesticide content of everyday foods helps you to know what to look for — and how to get thecleanest and healthiest bang for your [...]

[...] Marion Nestle recently outlined how EWG came up with its statistics and it’s pretty interesting. Here’s how they rate fruits and vegetables: [...]

Why not inform citizens on proper cleaning?
Another possible option is encouraging people to raise thier oown fruits and vegtables whenever possible.
pestisides are much worse than dirt. ( I remember picking garden produce and cleaning it myself. My opinion is that the EWG is fairly one sided.