Our Better Health

Diet, Health, Fitness, Lifestyle & Wellness


Leave a comment

EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce

99 Percent of Non-Organic Raisins Tainted With at Least Two Chemicals

Nearly 70 percent of the fresh produce sold in the U.S. contains residues of potentially harmful chemical pesticides, according to EWG’s analysis of the latest test data from the federal Department of Agriculture. But the dirtiest produce commodity, according to the USDA’s Pesticide Data Program, is not a fresh fruit or vegetable but a dried one – raisins.

Traditionally, EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™ has included fresh fruits and vegetables only. But because the USDA tested raisins last year for the first time since 2007, we decided to see how they would fare on the Dirty Dozen, our annual ranking of the fruits and vegetables with the most pesticides.

Almost every sample of non-organic raisins tested – 99 percent – had residues of at least two pesticides. On the 2020 Dirty Dozen, raisins would rank worst of all fruits tested, including strawberries, nectarines, apples and cherries, all of which had residues of two or more pesticides on at least 90 percent of samples.

As with last year’s Shopper’s Guide, kale ranks third on the 2020 Dirty Dozen list. Even as kale’s popularity as a health food rich in vitamins and antioxidants has soared in recent years, the level and type of pesticide residues on kale has expanded significantly.

In USDA’s most recent tests, the pesticide most frequently detected on kale was DCPA, sold under the brand name Dacthal. The Environmental Protection Agency classifies DCPA as a possible human carcinogen, and in 2009 the European Union banned it.

Whether organic or conventionally grown, fruits and vegetables are critical components of a healthy diet. However, many crops contain potentially harmful pesticides, even after washing, peeling or scrubbing, which the USDA does before testing each item. Since pesticide contamination varies by crop, it is important to understand which items are most or least contaminated.

Also important to note is that the USDA does not test for all pesticides used in crop production. Notably, it does not analyze glyphosate, or Roundup, the most heavily used pesticide in the U.S., but high levels can be found in several grains and beans, such as oats and chickpeas, due to its increasing use as a pre-harvest drying agent.

EWG’S DIRTY DOZEN FOR 2020

  • Strawberries
  • Spinach
  • Kale
  • Nectarines
  • Apples
  • Grapes
  • Peaches
  • Cherries
  • Pears
  • Tomatoes
  • Celery
  • Potatoes

Of the 47 items included in our analysis, these Dirty Dozen foods were contaminated with more pesticides than other crops, according to our analysis of USDA data.1 (The rankings are based not only on the percentage of samples with pesticides but also on the number and amount of pesticides on all samples and on individual samples. See Methodology.) Key findings:

  • More than 90 percent of samples of strawberries, apples, cherries, spinach, nectarines, and kale tested positive for residues of two or more pesticides.
  • Multiple samples of kale showed 18 different pesticides.
  • On average, kale and spinach samples had 1.1 to 1.8 times as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop tested.

EWG’S CLEAN FIFTEEN FOR 2020

  • Avocados
  • Sweet corn
  • Pineapple
  • Onions
  • Papaya
  • Sweet peas (frozen)
  • Eggplants
  • Asparagus
  • Cauliflower
  • Cantaloupes
  • Broccoli
  • Mushrooms
  • Cabbage
  • Honeydew melon
  • Kiwi

These 15 items had the lowest amounts of pesticide residues, according to EWG’s analysis of the most recent USDA data.1  Key findings:

  • Avocados and sweet corn were the cleanest. Fewer than 2 percent of samples showed any detectable pesticides
  • With the exception of cabbage, all other products on the Clean Fifteen tested positive for four or fewer pesticides.
  • Almost 70 percent of Clean Fifteen fruit and vegetable samples had no pesticide residues.
  • Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on Clean Fifteen vegetables. Only 7 percent of Clean Fifteen fruit and vegetable samples had two or more pesticides.

HEALTH BENEFITS OF REDUCING DIETARY PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

Eating organic food reduces pesticide exposure and is linked to a variety of health benefits, according to an article published this year in the peer-reviewed journal Nutrients.2 In four separate clinical trials, people who switched from conventional to organic foods saw a rapid and dramatic reduction in their urinary pesticide concentrations, a marker of pesticide exposure. Additional studies have linked higher consumption of organic foods to lower urinary pesticide levels, improved fertility and birth outcomes, reduced incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lower BMI.2,3

Researchers from Harvard University used USDA test data and methods similar to ours to classify produce as having high or low pesticides.4 Remarkably, their lists of high and low pesticide crops largely overlap with our Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen.

spraying pesticides

FERTILITY STUDIES’ CLASSIFICATION OF PESTICIDE RESIDUES

High pesticide residue score

Apples, apple sauces, blueberries, grapes, green beans, leafy greens, pears, peaches, potatoes, plums, spinach, strawberries, raisins, sweet peppers, tomatoes, winter squashes

Low to moderate pesticide residue score

Apple juice, avocados, bananas, beans, broccoli, cabbages, cantaloupes, carrots, cauliflower, celery, corn, eggplants, grapefruits, lentils, lettuce, onions, oranges, orange juices, peas, prunes, summer squashes, sweet potatoes, tofu, tomato sauces, zucchini

These researchers also found that people who consumed greater quantities of crops high in pesticides had higher levels of urinary pesticides and lower fertility.4,5 Alternatively, people who consumed a pro-fertility diet, which included the low pesticide crops, among other foods and nutrients, like whole grains and folic acid, were more likely to have a successful pregnancy.6

From these studies, it is unclear whether the positive effects associated with organic foods are directly and exclusively caused by lower pesticide exposures.

People who consume higher amounts of organic produce tend to be more health-conscious in general, making it difficult to determine the exact cause of an observed health outcome. Clinical trials – in which participants are monitored before and after switching to an organic diet – may be better able to identify cause-and-effect links between diet and outcomes.

But so far, the clinical trials for organic foods have been short-term studies spanning days to months, although health benefits from eating organic foods may take much longer to become evident. Until long-term clinical trials are completed, the published observational studies provide the best evidence in support of eating organic.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued an important report that said children have “unique susceptibilities to [pesticide residues’] potential toxicity.” The academy cited research that linked pesticide exposures in early life to pediatric cancers, decreased cognitive function and behavioral problems. It advised its members to urge parents to consult “reliable resources that provide information on the relative pesticide content of various fruits and vegetables.” A key resource it cited was EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce.7

An EWG investigation published this year found that for most pesticides, the Environmental Protection Agency does not apply additional restrictions to safeguard children’s health. The landmark 1996 Food Quality Protection Act required the EPA to protect children’s health by applying an extra margin of safety to legal limits for pesticides in food. Yet, as the EWG study found, this tenfold margin of safety was not included in the EPA’s allowable limits for almost 90 percent of the most common pesticides.

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CROPS

Genetically engineered crops, or GMOs, are most commonly found in processed foods rather than in fresh produce. Corn syrup and corn oil, produced from predominantly GMO starchy field corn, are commonly found in processed foods. However, you may find genetically modified zucchini, yellow squash, sweet corn, papaya and apples in U.S. markets, though only papayas are predominantly GMO.

Under a law passed in 2016, beginning in 2022, GMO food products in the U.S. must be labeled. However, based on the final rule, released in 2018 by the Trump Administration, these labels may be difficult to interpret, with confusing terms like “bioengineered.” Until the law takes effect, consumers who want to avoid GMOs may choose organic zucchini, yellow squash, sweet corn, papaya, apples and potatoes. Processed goods that are certified organic or bear Non-GMO Project Verified labels can also be trusted to be GMO-free.

EWG provides several resources – including EWG’s Shopper’s Guide To Avoiding GMO Food, the Food Scores database and EWG’s Healthy Living app – to help consumers identify foods likely to contain genetically engineered ingredients.

DIRTY DOZEN PLUS

EWG’s standard criteria do not rank peppers among the Dirty Dozen, but because they test positive for pesticides known to be toxic to the brain, we’ve included them in the Dirty Dozen Plus list.

Between 2010 and 2012, USDA tests found peppers contained acephate, chlorpyrifos and oxamyl – toxic insecticides that are banned from use on some crops but still permitted on hot peppers.

EWG recommends that consumers choose organic peppers in lieu of conventionally grown. Alternatively, if organic peppers are unavailable or too expensive, EWG suggests that you cook conventionally grown peppers before eating them, as heating food can reduce pesticide levels.8

PESTICIDE REGULATIONS

The federal government’s role in protecting our health, farm workers and the environment from harmful pesticides is in urgent need of reform. In the U.S, pesticide regulation, monitoring and enforcement is scattered across multiple federal and state agencies. In 1991 the USDA initiated the Pesticide Data Program and began testing commodities annually for pesticide residues, but we continue to be concerned about pesticide regulation in the U.S.

The USDA states that a goal of its tests is to provide data on pesticide residues in food, with a focus on those most likely consumed by infants and children. Yet there are some commodities that are not tested annually, including baby food (last tested in 2013), oats (last tested in 2014), and baby formula (last tested in 2014).

This is troubling, because tests commissioned by EWG found almost three-fourths of samples of popular oat-based foods, including many consumed by children, had pesticide residue levels higher than what EWG scientists consider protective of children’s health.

The chief responsibility of deciding which pesticides are approved for use in the U.S., including deciding what conditions are placed on their approval and setting the pesticide residue levels on foods and crops, falls to the EPA. But primary enforcement authority for pesticide use on farms is left to states, and the responsibility of testing foods to determine dietary exposures to pesticides is divided between the USDA and the Food and Drug Administration. However, neither the USDA nor the FDA regularly test all commodities for pesticide residues, nor do the programs test for all pesticides commonly used in agriculture.

The pesticide registration process requires companies to submit safety data, proposed uses and product labels to be approved by the EPA. However, the EPA does not conduct its own independent testing of pesticides. Neither does its review fully capture the risks posed by pesticides, because of limitations in available data and failures in risk assessments, such as excluding synergistic effects. This is concerning, because scientists have found that the combination of two or more pesticides can be more potent than the use of the pesticides individually.

The primary pesticide law – the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, or FIFRA – is far less health protective than the laws that protect the safety of our air, food, water and environment. There are many reasons EWG fights for pesticide regulation and reform: registration loopholes, limited public participation, outdated registration and pesticide registration backlogs, to name a few.

These are examples of the potential undermining of marketplace safety, since products with harmful health concerns can remain on the market. Not all pesticides registered under FIFRA adequately protect human health and the environment, and federal food tolerance residue levels often allow for higher exposure levels than public health advocates, including EWG, consider to be safe.

REFERENCES:

  1. USDA, Pesticide Data Program. Agricultural Marketing Service. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/datasets/pdp
  2. Vigar, V., et al., A Systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Nutrients, 2020; 12(1), 7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu12010007. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/12/1/7/htm.
  3. Papadopoulou, E., et al., Diet as a Source of Exposure to Environmental Contaminants for Pregnant Women and Children from Six European Countries. Environmental Health Perspectives, 2019; 127(10). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5324. Available at: https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/full/10.1289/EHP5324.
  4. Chiu, Y.H., et al., Association Between Pesticide Residue Intake from Consumption of Fruits and Vegetables and Pregnancy Outcomes Among Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment With Assistance Reproductive Technology. JAMA Internal Medicine, 2018. DOI: 10.1001/amainternmed.2017.5038. Available at: http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2659557
  5. Chiu, Y.H., et al. Comparison of questionnaire-based estimation of pesticide residue intake from fruits and vegetables with urinary concentrations of pesticide biomarkers. Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology, 2018; 28, 31-39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jes.2017.22. Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/jes201722
  6. Gaskins A.J., et al. Dietary patterns and outcomes of assisted reproduction. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2019; 220:567.e1-18. Doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2019.02.004
  7. American Academy of Pediatrics, Organic Foods: Health and Environmental Advantages and Disadvantages. American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Nutrition and Council on Environmental Health, 2012; e1406 -e1415. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2012-2579. Available at https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/5/e1406
  8. Kaushik, G., et al., Food processing a tool to pesticide residue dissipation – A review. Food Research International, 2009; 42:26-40. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2008.09.009. Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0963996908001907

By EWG Science Team    WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 2020

source: www.ewg.org


Leave a comment

Weedkillers in Cereals: What to Know

In a new round of testing, the nonprofit watchdog Environmental Working Group found the weedkiller glyphosate in all 21 cereal and snack products it sampled.

“All but four contained levels higher than what EWG considers protective for children’s health,” says Alexis Temkin, PhD, an EWG toxicologist and co-author of the new report, issued Wednesday.

Glyphosate is the main ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s weedkiller Roundup.

Monsanto took exception to the report and said its products contain safe levels of chemicals, well below federal limits. The FDA says its standard safe level of glyphosate ranges from 0.1 parts per million to 310 ppm.

The products meet the regulatory standards set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency, Temkin says, but the EWG believes that the feds’ “tolerance limits are too high to adequately protect children’s health.”

The EWG first tested oat-based products in August 2018 and then again in October. It did the latest round to see if there has been any shift in the market or if oat-based foods still contain levels that were present before.

In general, the watchdog group found no differences.

In a statement, General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas says: “General Mills’ top priority is food safety and has been for over 150 years. Most crops grown in fields use some form of pesticides and trace amounts are found in the majority of food we all eat.”

baby_child_cheerios_cereal

 

What the New Tests Found

In the previous testing, including 94 samples of oat-based foods, glyphosate was detected in all but two samples, with 74 samples at levels above the EWG’s benchmark of 160 parts per billion (ppb). In the latest testing, ”we did 21 samples; four we had previously tested and 17 were new,” Temkin says.

Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch, made by General Mills, had the highest levels, with 833 ppb, and regular Cheerios had 729 ppb.

Temkin says the EWG benchmark for children’s health of 160 ppb is calculated on how much of a substance would result in one additional case of cancer in every million people over a lifetime.

Nature Valley Fruit & Nut Chewy Trail Mix Granola Bar, Dark Chocolate & Nut, had the lowest results, with 76 ppb. Among other products sampled, Nature Valley Maple Brown Sugar granola bars had 566 ppb, Nature Valley Almond Butter Granola Cups had 529, and Chocolate Peanut Butter Cheerios had 400 ppb.

Complete results are here.

The EWG bought the products via online retail sites, shipping about 300 grams of each to an independent lab to analyze glyphosate levels.

Cancer-Causing or Not?

Are the levels worrisome or not? Experts disagree. The International Agency for Research on Cancer said in 2015 that glyphosate is ”probably carcinogenic to humans.”

The EPA says the chemical is not likely to cause cancer in people. In April, the EPA, while reviewing glyphosate, said it ”continues to find that there are no risks to public health when glyphosate is used in accordance with its current label and that glyphosate is not a carcinogen.”

Most crops grown in fields use some form of pesticides and trace amounts are found in the majority of food we all eat.
~ General Mills spokesperson Mike Siemienas

Glyphosate is a weedkiller and also helps ready crops for harvest. It promotes even drying so more of the crops can be harvested at the same time.

In recent years, some communities have banned the use of glyphosate. To date, three juries have awarded damages in cases involving the weedkiller and cancer. In May, a California jury ordered Monsanto to pay a couple more than $2 billion in damages.

Parents who are concerned can turn to organic products, Temkin says. “We do know that organic oats are going to have much lower levels, because the use of glyphosate is prohibited,” she says. Still, it’s no guarantee, since organic oats might be grown near fields where the weedkiller is used.

Monsanto Replies

In a statement, Monsanto says: “The glyphosate levels in this report are far below the strict limits established by the Environmental Protection Agency to protect human health. Even at the highest level reported by the EWG (833 ppb), an adult would have to eat 158 pounds of the oat-based food every day for the rest of their life to reach the strict limits set by the EPA.”

General Mills’ Siemienas agrees.

“Experts at the FDA and EPA determine the safe levels for food products,” he says. “These are very strict rules that we follow as do farmers who grow crops. We continue to work closely with farmers, our suppliers and conservation organizations to minimize the use of pesticides on the ingredients we use in our foods.”

The allegations, he says, are the same as those made in previous EWG reports.

Sources
Article: Weedkillers in Cereals: What to Know
Environmental Working Group: “In New Round of Tests, Monsanto’s Weedkiller Still Contaminates Foods Marketed to Children,” June 12, 2019.
News release, EPA: “EPA Takes Next Step in Review Process for Herbicide Glyphosate, Reaffirms No Risk to Public Health,” April 30, 2019.
Alexis Temkin, PhD, toxicologist, Environmental Working Group.
The New York Times: “$2 Billion Verdict Against Monsanto Is Third to Find Roundup Caused Cancer.”
Statement, Monsanto, June 13, 2019.
Mike Siemienas, spokesperson, General Mills. 
FDA.gov: “Questions and Answers on Glyphosate.”
Libby Mills, RDN, spokesperson, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.
Carl Winter, PhD, extension food toxicologist; vice chair, food science and technology, University of California, Davis.
United States Department of Agriculture: “Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010.”
United States Department of Agriculture: “Organic Production and Handling Standards.”
Trewavas, A. Crop Protection, September 2004.
Environmental Protection Agency: “Pesticides and Food.”
United States Department of Agriculture: “Organic Labeling Standards,” “Organic Agriculture,” “Organic Market Overview,” “Labeling Organic Product.”
Environmental Working Group: “EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce,” “FDA Bans Three Toxic Chemicals.”
Winter, C. Journal of Toxicology, May 2011.
North Carolina State University: “Strawberry Disease and Their Control.”
The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station: “Removal of Trace Residues from Produce.”
Krol, W. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, October 2000.
National Potato Commission: “US Per Capita Utilization of Potatoes.”
Srednicka-Tober, D. British Journal of Nutrition, March 2016.
American Cancer Society: “Teflon and PFOA.”
Crop Protection: “A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential benefits of no-till agriculture.”
Journal of Agromedicine: “Pesticide/Environmental Exposures and Parkinson’s Disease in East Texas.”
PLOS: “Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans”
Colorado State University: “Pesticides: Natural Isn’t Always Best.”
British Journal of Nutrition: “Composition differences between organic and conventional meet; A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.”
PBS: “USA to propose standard for organic seafood raised in U.S.”
Food Standards Agency: “Pesticides.”

By Kathleen Doheny        June 14, 2019 
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Neha Pathak, MD on June 14, 2019


6 Comments

Kale Is a Surprise on 2019’s ‘Dirty Dozen’ List

While it may still be considered a super food, kale took third place on this year’s “Dirty Dozen” list of fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide residue. Once again, strawberries and spinach took first and second, as they did on last year’s list.

The Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit organization focused on human health and the environment, has produced the report annually since 2004.

This year, more than 92% of kale samples tested had two or more pesticide residues detected, and a single sample could have up to 18 different residues, EWG found. The most frequently detected pesticide, found on about 60% of the kale samples, was Dacthal, also called DCPA. It has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a possible human carcinogen, based on animal studies.

The EWG researchers analyzed test data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the report, and kale had not been tested in more than 10 years, says Nneka Leiba, MPH, director of healthy living science at EWG and a co-author of the report. “The percent of [kale] samples with residue increased from 76% to 98%,” she says, citing the difference between the testing in 2007 and in 2017, the data used for this year’s report. “The average number of residues on a single sample increased from two to more than five.”

Leiba stresses that the report should not discourage people from eating fruits and vegetables, although she does suggest people choose organic produce when possible as even washing produce does not remove all pesticides.

Other experts who viewed the report say the amount of pesticides found is not high enough to be a health hazard.

2019’s Dirty Dozen

After adding kale, this year’s list repeats all the entries on last year’s list except for sweet bell peppers, in 12th place last year. This year’s Dirty Dozen:

  1. Strawberries
  2. Spinach
  3. Kale
  4. Nectarines
  5. Apples
  6. Grapes
  7. Peaches
  8. Cherries
  9. Pears
  10. Tomatoes
  11. Celery
  12. Potatoes
Dirty_12_2019

Dirty Dozen Plus

The researchers also call out hot peppers, which they say don’t meet their traditional ranking criteria but ”were found to be contaminated with insecticides toxic to the human nervous system.” They found insecticides that are banned on some crops but still allowed for use on hot peppers: acephate, chlorpyrifos, and oxamyl. The EWG recommends buying organic hot peppers or cooking them, as the heat decreases pesticide levels.

Clean 15 List for 2019

The researchers also produce a Clean 15 list — produce least likely to have pesticide residue. Much of this year’s list also repeats last year’s. For 2019, mushrooms made the list, while mangoes dropped off. Overall, more than 70% of the fruit and vegetable samples on the Clean 15 list had no pesticide residues, the researchers found. If they did have residues, only 6% had two or more pesticide types.
  1. Avocados (less than 1% of samples showed detectable levels of pesticides)
  2. Sweet corn (less than 1% of samples showed detectable levels)
  3. Pineapples
  4. Frozen sweet peas
  5. Onions
  6. Papayas
  7. Eggplants
  8. Asparagus
  9. Kiwis
  10. Cabbages
  11. Cauliflower
  12. Cantaloupes
  13. Broccoli
  14. Mushrooms
  15. Honeydew melons
Clean_15_2019





Study Methods, Health Concerns

For the report, researchers ranked pesticide contamination of 47 fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of more than 40,000 samples taken by the USDA and FDA.  The researchers looked at the percent tested with detectable pesticides, the percent with two or more, average number on a single sample, average amount of pesticides found, maximum number found on a single sample, and total found on the crop.
EWG researchers point to the value of a diet low in pesticide residues, citing research such as a recent report finding that people with the highest frequency of organic food consumption had a 25% lower risk of cancers of various types than those who had the lowest intake. Another study found a link between eating foods high in pesticide residues and fertility issues.
A Toxicologist Weighs In
Carl Winter, PhD, a food toxicologist at the University of California Davis, is familiar with the EWG reports. He calls the rankings “arbitrary and of dubious value for consumers.”
When considering the risk of pesticides in food, he says, the actual amount of pesticide detected, the amount of that food eaten by a person, and the toxicity of the pesticide must all be evaluated, and he says the EWG research does not do this.
A Dietitian’s Viewpoint

“As a registered dietitian, the concept of ‘dirty’ and ‘clean’ foods is concerning, unless food is truly dirty,” says Connie Diekman, a registered dietitian and director of university nutrition at Washington University in St. Louis.

She reviewed the report. “The USDA, FDA, and EPA all work to develop guidelines for safe food, setting limits of additives, preservatives, and pesticides at levels that are significantly below levels that might be a concern,” she says. She cautions consumers not to fear certain produce.
The amount of pesticides used is small, she says, ”and the quantity of food we would need to eat for any potential health risk exceeds what people do [eat].”

“If you are more comfortable and can afford to, buy organic, but know it can have organic pesticide residue,” Diekman says.

Growers’ Views
Teresa Thorne is executive director of the Alliance for Food and Farming, an industry group representing farmers who grow both organic and conventional produce. She fears that the report will create ”unfounded and unnecessary fears.” She notes that few Americans eat enough fruits and vegetable daily as is.
The Alliance maintains a pesticide calculator on its companion site, www.safefruitsandveggies.com. According to its calculations, a child could eat 7,446 servings of kale in one day without ill effect, even if it had the highest pesticide residue recorded by the USDA.
EWG Responds

While the levels on individual produce may seem low, ”the overall burden is high,” Leiba says, adding that people are also eating other foods with chemicals and pesticides. “We are talking about a synergistic effect.”

Editor’s note: Connie Diekman is on the Bayer LEAD Network, Leaders Engaged in Advancing Dialogue.
WebMD Article Reviewed by Hansa D. Bhargava, MD
March 20, 2019
Sources:
Libby Mills, RDN, spokesperson, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.Carl Winter, PhD, extension food toxicologist; vice chair, food science and technology, University of California, Davis.United States Department of Agriculture: “Changes in Retail Organic Price Premiums from 2004 to 2010.”United States Department of Agriculture: “Organic Production and Handling Standards.”Trewavas, A. Crop Protection, September 2004.Environmental Protection Agency: “Pesticides and Food.”United States Department of Agriculture: “Organic Labeling Standards,” “Organic Agriculture,” “Organic Market Overview,” “Labeling Organic Product.”Environmental Working Group: “EWG’s Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce,” “FDA Bans Three Toxic Chemicals.”Winter, C. Journal of Toxicology, May 2011.North Carolina State University: “Strawberry Disease and Their Control.”The Connecticut Agricultural Experiment Station: “Removal of Trace Residues from Produce.”Krol, W. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, October 2000.National Potato Commission: “US Per Capita Utilization of Potatoes.”Srednicka-Tober, D. British Journal of Nutrition, March 2016.American Cancer Society: “Teflon and PFOA.”Crop Protection: “A critical assessment of organic farming-and-food assertions with particular respect to the UK and the potential benefits of no-till agriculture.”Journal of Agromedicine: “Pesticide/Environmental Exposures and Parkinson’s Disease in East Texas.”PLOS: “Choosing Organic Pesticides over Synthetic Pesticides May Not Effectively Mitigate Environmental Risk in Soybeans”Colorado State University: “Pesticides: Natural Isn’t Always Best.”British Journal of Nutrition: “Composition differences between organic and conventional meet; A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.”PBS: “USA to propose standard for organic seafood raised in U.S.”Food Standards Agency: “Pesticides.”Environmental Working Group’s 2019 Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, March 20, 2019.Nneka Leiba, MPH, director of healthy living science, Environmental Working Group.Connie Diekman, MEd, RD, director of university nutrition, Washington University in St. Louis; former president, Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics.Carl Winter, PhD, food toxicologist, University of California, Davis.Teresa Thorne, executive director, Alliance for Food and Farming.JAMA Internal Medicine, December 2018.
www.webmd.com 

We’re Already Seeing The Health Effects Of Pesticides – Just Not Where You’d Expect

The risk of pesticides to the health of consumers is disputed but there is another group of people already seeing severe impacts.
When you bite into a strawberry or tuck into some spinach or kale you may be congratulating yourself on your healthy food choice. Most people won’t even think about the pesticides they’re likely ingesting.
A list published last week noted that almost all of the samples of strawberries from the most recent tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture contained residues of at least one pesticide, even after washing. Nearly 60 percent of the sampled kale — frequently championed as a nutritious health food — had pesticide residues.
In all, around 70 percent of produce sold in the U.S. has pesticide residues, according to the annual “Dirty Dozen” report by nonprofit group The Environmental Working Group (EWG), which lists the foods with the highest and lowest levels of pesticide residues. It says we may be exposed to worrying amounts of pesticides.

“Studies have shown that eating fruits and vegetables free of pesticides benefits health, and this is especially important for pregnant women and children,” said Carla Burns, of the EWG.

This is one of a number of recent studies about the pesticides we consume through our fresh food, which are fueling a debate about whether consumers should be worried and how they can reduce exposure.
When it comes to the impact of pesticides on consumer health, the science is far from clear.
Government health experts say we do not need to worry as the levels of pesticide exposure from food are below the levels that could pose a risk to consumers’ health. Carl K. Winter, a food toxicologist at U.C. Davis, specifically analyzed the EWG list in a 2011 study and concluded that the quantities of pesticides mean that risks to consumers were negligible and that moving to organic versions — as the EWG suggests — was unlikely to bring people any measurable health benefits.
Organic produce is farmed to strict federal standards but it is not necessarily pesticide-free — the food just tends to be free from any synthetic pesticides. Also, for many people, buying organic may be prohibitively expensive. A Consumer Reports study found on average organic food was 47 percent more expensive than conventional produce.
The EWG acknowledges that a bigger risk than pesticides, as far as consumers are concerned, is not having enough fruit and vegetables in your diet, full-stop. The same point was echoed by public health researchers.

“It’s not healthy for people to be scared of their food,” said Asa Bradman, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Public Health. “There are a few articles that hint at the benefits of organic versus conventional, but at this point, the information is only limited and the benefits of eating a healthy diet and a good selection of fruit and vegetables means I would not want to discourage consumption of those foods by people.”

As science continues to seek a clearer picture on pesticides and consumer health, one thing that does seem clear is that there’s a swath of people who are much more clearly affected but tend to get ignored: The farmworkers who bring the food to our plates.

“My personal view is that the risk to consumers is low compared to the potential risk to agricultural workers,” said Bradman.

Thousands of farmworkers experience the effects of acute pesticide poisoning including headaches, nausea, shortness of breath or seizures, according to the nonprofit Farmworker Justice. Long-term exposure can lead to chronic health problems, such as infertility, neurological disorders and cancer, says the NGO, which has been documenting pesticide poisoning among workers.
spraying pesticides
One of the starkest examples came from Caldwell in Idaho. A crew of 29 farmworkers began weeding a field of onions and noticed that their clothes were getting wet, but they just assumed it was dew. What they didn’t realize — because no warning signs had been placed on the field — was that a contractor had applied three pesticides to the field during the night without notifying the farm owner.
By lunchtime, some of the workers were vomiting and had headaches and diarrhea. Twenty-two of them were hospitalized, with two in need of critical care. The farm was later fined for its failure to train employees properly and to provide proper safety information on the farm.
These incidents are sadly not uncommon, said Farmworker Justice, yet largely go unreported by national media, which focuses on the more disputed risk of pesticides to consumers.
Not only are farmworkers subjected to these risks, but their families — who live in nearby communities and attend schools neighboring the fields — face similar dangers. Pesticides can be brought into the home on clothing or through the air from neighboring farmland.
The effects are especially worrying in children working with or in close proximity to pesticides, who are particularly vulnerable, according to research. Pesticide exposure has been linked to neurological and behavioral problems in children. A 2010 study, for example, that looked specifically at children living in farming regions of California found a link between pesticide exposure and attention problems.
Farmworkers Justice has called for better and compulsory pesticide training for farmworkers, who are mostly low-income immigrants with limited formal education. It says regulators should ensure Spanish translations of pesticide labels (88 percent of farmworkers are Hispanic), buffer zones around schools and residential areas to protect families being exposed to pesticides through aerial drift, and funding to research the health effects of pesticide exposure.
Virginia Ruiz, from Farmworkers Justice, said little progress has been made on any of these requests. Although there are rules in California for small buffer zones around schools during certain hours of the day, nothing has changed at a national level. There have also been no new funding initiatives to research the health effects of pesticide exposure on people working or living near where they are used, she said.

Alex Chensheng, a professor of environmental exposure at Harvard, blames a strong farming lobby for blocking reform. It is very tough to make any significant policy progress on pesticides, he said, “If we can’t eliminate the conflict of interest, no true progress will be made.”

As well as stricter regulation and better safety measures, there is a safer solution for reducing pesticide risks to both farmworkers and consumers, say campaigners. And that solution is to encourage more farmers to shift away from using pesticides.
There are more than 14,000 certified organic farms in the U.S, according to the most recently available data, with more than 2,500 of them in California. Although organic farms still only make up 1 percent of America’s farmland acres.

“We have nominal programs to support farmers converting to organic and that should be expanded, and we should be prioritizing research on organic farming,” said Kendra Klein, a scientific advisor for environmental organization Friends of the Earth.  She doesn’t suggest all farmers need to convert to organic, but rather that the U.S. should look to move away from a pesticide-intensive system. ″We need to change the system so none of us is exposed,” she said.

HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com
By Tom Levitt, HuffPost US      03/29/2019


1 Comment

Everyday Items That May Be Hindering Your Health

Everyday items could be causing everything from mood swings to infertility and even cancer.

Chemicals found in plastic water bottles, lipsticks, tampons, receipts and even tap water are wreaking havoc on people’s hormones, which is linked to a growing number of health problems.

Research published earlier this week reveals more than 90 percent of receipts contain the so-called ‘gender-bending’ chemical Bisphenol A (BPA) and its ‘healthier alternative’ Bisphenol S (BPS), which are associated with autism, ADHD, type 2 diabetes, premature births and early onset of puberty, reports the Daily Mail.

Researchers from the Michigan-based non-profit organisation The Ecology Center analyzed 207 paper receipts from a variety of businesses collected between January and April 2017.

However despite their health concerns, such chemicals are frequently added to day-to-day products to provide scent and extend their shelf life.

In a piece for Healthista, editor Anna Magee speaks to reproductive experts, nutritional therapists and dentists on how to avoid such chemicals and detox your life.

Most of us take the mood swings, grumpiness and weight gain of fluctuating hormones for granted.

Yet toxic chemicals in our everyday lives could be making things worse.

Known as ‘xenoestrogens’, these substances, which are found in plastics, cosmetics, sanitary products, receipts and even tap water can mimic the hormone oestrogen and are linked not only to middle-aged spread but also reproductive problems, learning difficulties and even cancer.

Dr Channa Jayasena, a clinical senior lecturer and consultant in reproductive endocrinology at Imperial College London, said: ‘We know little about such hormone altering chemicals but our increasing exposure to them is a cause for concern.

“The risk of these endocrine-disrupting chemicals is enormous and we’re just at the start of learning what they do.
“My concern is that by the time we work out what they actually do, they might be causing diseases we don’t know about.”

So, what can you do? Start by identifying the sources of fake oestrogens in your life and take simple steps to detox them.

Water bottles and other plastics

Dr Jayasena said: “Chemicals in plastics behave like oestrogen in our systems when they reach our bloodstream.”

Chief offender is BPA found in plastic containers, water bottles and linings for tinned foods and drinks. A 2016 study revealed that two out of three canned foods tested positive for BPA.

A survey by the US Centers for Disease Control found that 93 per cent of the population had measurable amounts of BPA in their systems.

According to the Food Standards Agency, there is European legislation in place which sets a maximum limit on BPA from plastics, however, such risks are being re-evaluated by European authorities due to new scientific information emerging on the dangers of such exposure.

BPA and other xenoestrogens not only effect our waistlines but also our reproductive systems.

Dr Jayasena said: “Men’s sperm counts have decreased dramatically in the last decade and we’re now looking at the part hormone disrupting chemicals in our packaging, food and water play in this.”

Dr Sara Gottfried, a US gynaecologist and author of “The Hormone Cure” and new book, “Younger: The Breakthrough Programme to Reset our Genes and Reverse Ageing”, added: “Many problems are co-related with BPA from weight gain to endometriosis and breast cancer.

“This and other xenoestrogen chemicals build up in the body, accelerating ageing and hindering weight loss.”

While some companies market plastic products as “BPA-free”, substitute chemicals, known as BPS and BPF, may be just as dangerous.

A study in April this year by the Endocrine Society in the US found that exposure to BPS could increase the aggressiveness of breast cancer, while a paper published in Environmental Health Perspectives in 2015 reviewed 32 studies on the subject and found that all three chemicals are hormone disruptors linked to problems such as weight gain and reproductive issues.

• How to detox

Dr Gottfried said: “Heat, microwave use, dishwasher use or leaving a plastic water bottle in the sun can all release such chemicals.

“Avoid microwaving your food with cling film over it or while it’s in plastic containers.
“Use stainless steel water bottles where you can, cook and store food in glass, ceramic or stainless steel, and use glass or microwave-safe ceramics for microwaving.
“If you must use plastic containers, don’t heat them up”.

She also recommends people try and avoid tinned food or rinse their contents carefully before eating.

BPA is found in plastic water bottles, containers, and linings for tinned food and drinks.

Tap water, fruit and vegetables

Dr Jayasena said: “Xenoestrogen chemicals are in our water supply, fruit and vegetables thanks to their use in farming.”

For example, while DDT, a pesticide with proven hormone-disrupting effects, has been banned, glyphosate, a similar xenostrogen chemical linked to breast cancer and obesity, which is found in the common garden weedkiller Round Up, is still commonly available.

Round Up is one of many pesticides used in Britain that is made from chemicals with endocrine-disrupting effects, the residues of which leech into our tap water and rivers, and remains on the skin of fruit and vegetables.

• How to detox

Dr Gottfried recommends people drink filtered water, using carbon to absorb impurities and contaminants. Reverse osmosis filters can remove more chemicals but require fitting to taps at home and can be expensive.

Nutritional therapist Daniel O’Shannessy, who is also director of Bodhimaya Health Centre, says people can remove pesticides from the skin of fruit and vegetables by soaking them in water and a tablespoon of apple cider vinegar before cooking.

They can also check websites such as the Environmental Working Group (ewg.org) for their “dirty dozen” and “clean fifteen”; lists of the most and least contaminated produce.

More than 90 percent of receipts contain the so-called ‘gender-bending’ chemical BP.

Receipts, sanitary products and napkins

Dr Gottfried said: “The shiny coating on receipts is giving you a dose of BPA every time you touch it and we know the skin absorbs such chemicals almost as well as when we ingest them.”
France is seeking an EU-wide ban on till receipts containing BPA, with most of its receipts being marked “sans BPA”.

Such sources of synthetic oestrogens contribute to your overall toxic load, increasing your risk of oestrogen dominance.

Other paper sources of synthetic oestrogens include sanitary towels and tampons, which contains xenoestrogens called dioxins – and are linked to fertility, immune issues and endometriosis – as well as table napkins, which may be coated in BPA.

• How to detox

Try and go receipt free, and look for organic or dioxin-free sanitary products that have not been bleached or dyed. Also opt for unbleached, uncoated napkins.

Dental fillings

BPA is used in plastics, with the resins making composite fillings.

A 2010 study published in the Journal of Dental Hygiene found that BPA was found in the saliva of all 30 dental patients surveyed, while further research in 2012, published in the journal Paediatrics, found that children fitted with fillings made from a substance containing BPA show more behavioural problems compared to their peers.

• How to detox

Dentist James Goolnik of Bow Lane Dental Group, said: “Composite fillings are the least expensive [around £200 a tooth (NZD $380)] of all fillings after mercury and, as mercury has so many confirmed dangers, many people opt for composite.

“But while many contain synthetic oestrogen chemicals such as BPA, it’s now possible to ask for BPA-free composite fillings”.
“Alternatively, porcelain won’t contain toxic chemicals, is tooth coloured, more durable than composite and is about £500 (NZD $952) a tooth.
“If the filling isn’t visible, the best option is gold as it virtually lasts forever, is kinder to your tooth and also contains no toxic chemicals but at around £800 (NZD $1,523) a filling, it’s pricey.
“I still wouldn’t recommend having plastic fillings removed because of the BPA effect as the removal process not only leads to more tooth tissue being damaged it can aggravate the release of more chemicals into the system.”

Cosmetics

That lipstick you cannot live without could be adding to your ostrogen load.

In the 1990s, chemicals known as parabens in body creams, lipsticks, scrubs, shampoos and more were identified as xenoestrogens, while in 2004, British researcher Philippa Darbre found them in breast cancer cells.

Likewise, a family of chemicals known as sulphates also have an oestrogen-like effect on the body and are responsible for create lathers in shampoos, body washes, detergents and soaps.

• How to detox

Dr Gottfried said: “Ignore labels such as chemical-free, ‘natural’ or ‘for sensitive skin’ as these have no regulated meaning.

Instead, opt for organic skincare and make-up, or products that are sulphate- and paraben-free.

Perfumes and scented candles

Dr Gottfried said: “Many commercial perfumes and scented candles contain phthalates, a class of chemicals found in a surprising number of common household products such as shampoos, deodorants, body washes, hair gels and nail polishes.
“There’s little doubt phthalate chemicals are a key contributor to the inability to lose weight caused by oestrogen dominance.
“Research into the effects of phthalate is ongoing but we know they cause birth defects in male foetuses, are associated with poor egg quality and early menopause in women, and may also be linked to breast cancer and type-2 diabetes”.

• How to detox

Look for phthalate-free cosmetics and unscented candles, ideally made from soya wax.

High-grade essential oils in water used with an oil burner are also a great alternative to scented candles.

Three ways to detox excess oestrogen

Simple lifestyle measures can help, according Daniel O’Shaunnessy, a nutritional therapist at the Bodhimaya Health Centre.

• Eat flaxseeds

Constipation can lead to hormonal imbalances by slowing down the passing of hormones from food and water through the gut. Flaxseeds contain fibre that helps ease this.

Try a tablespoon soaked overnight in a glass of water and then added to smoothies, porridge or taken neat.

• Eat broccoli

Cruciferous vegetables, such as broccoli and cauliflower, help detoxify fake oestrogen from the liver.

• Take a probiotic

This will help balance the beneficial microflora in your gut, which can help increase motility, meaning you eliminate toxins faster.

By: Anna Magee, Alexandra Thompson       Daily Mail      21 Jan, 2018 
 


3 Comments

We Have To Roll Back The Tide of Pesticide Use Before It’s Too Late

An anthropogenic mass extinction is underway that will affect all life on the planet and humans will struggle to survive the phenomenon. So says Rosemary Mason in a 2015 paper in the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry. Loss of biodiversity is the most urgent of the environmental problems because this type of diversity is critical to ecosystem services and human health. Mason argues that the modern chemical-intensive industrialized system of food and agriculture is the main culprit.

New research conducted in Germany supports the contention that we are heading for an “ecological Armageddon” — similar to the situation described by Mason. The study shows the abundance of flying insects has plunged by three-quarters over the past 25 years. The research data was gathered in nature reserves across Germany and has implications for all landscapes dominated by agriculture as it seems likely that the widespread use of pesticides is an important factor.

Cited in The Guardian, Sussex University professor Dave Goulson, who is part of the team behind the new study, says, “We appear to be making vast tracts of land inhospitable to most forms of life… If we lose the insects then everything is going to collapse.”

In the same piece, it is noted that flying insects are vital because they pollinate flowers. Moreover, many, not least bees, are important for pollinating key food crops. Most fruit crops are insect-pollinated and insects also provide food for many animals, including birds, bats, some mammals, fish, reptiles and amphibians. Flies, beetles and wasps are also predators and important decomposers, breaking down dead plants and animals, and insects form the base of thousands of food chains.

The blatant disregard over the use of these substances by regulatory agencies around the world is apparent.

Rosemary Mason has been providing detailed accounts of massive insect declines on her own nature reserve in South Wales for some time. She has published first-hand accounts of the destruction of biodiversity on the reserve in various books and documents that have been submitted to relevant officials and pesticide regulation authorities in the U.K. and beyond. The research from Germany validates her findings.

Mason has written numerous open letters to officials citing reams of statistical data to support the contention that agrochemicals, especially Monsanto’s glyphosate-based Roundup, have devastated the natural environment and have also led to spiralling rates of illness and disease, especially among children.

She indicates how the widespread use on agricultural crops of neonicotinoid insecticides and the herbicide glyphosate, both of which cause immune suppression, make species vulnerable to emerging infectious pathogens, driving large-scale wildlife extinctions, including essential pollinators.

Providing evidence to show how human disease patterns correlate remarkably well with the rate of glyphosate usage on corn, soy and wheat crops, which has increased due to ‘Roundup Ready’ crops, Mason indicates how our over-reliance on chemicals in agriculture is causing irreparable harm to all beings on this planet.

The global pesticides industry has created chemicals of mass destruction and succeeded in getting many of their poisons on the commercial market by highly questionable means:

“The EPA has been routinely lying about the safety of pesticides since it took over pesticide registrations in 1970,” writes Carol Van Strum.

Van Strum highlights the faked data and fraudulent tests that led to many highly toxic agrochemicals reaching the market — and they still remain in use, regardless of the devastating impacts on wildlife and human health.

The blatant disregard over the use of these substances by regulatory agencies around the world is apparent.

The research from Germany follows a warning by a chief scientific adviser to the U.K. government who claimed that regulators around the world have falsely assumed that it is safe to use pesticides at industrial scales across landscapes and the “effects of dosing whole landscapes with chemicals have been largely ignored.”

And prior to that particular warning, there was a report delivered to the UN Human Rights Council saying that pesticides have catastrophic impacts on the environment, human health and society as a whole. Authored by Hilal Elver, special rapporteur on the right to food, and Baskut Tuncak, special rapporteur on toxics, the report states, “Chronic exposure to pesticides has been linked to cancer, Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s diseases, hormone disruption, developmental disorders and sterility.”

Elver says:

“The power of the corporations over governments and over the scientific community is extremely important. If you want to deal with pesticides, you have to deal with the companies.”

The report recommends a move towards a global treaty to govern the use of pesticides and (like many other official reports) a shift to sustainable practice based on natural methods of suppressing pests and crop rotation and organically produced food.

Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962) raised the red flag about the use of harmful synthetic pesticides, yet, despite the warnings, the agrochemical giants have ever since been conning us with snake oil under the pretense of “feeding the world.” When you drench soil with proprietary synthetic chemicals, introduce company-patented genetically tampered crops or continuously monocrop as part of a corporate-controlled industrial farming system, you kill essential microbes, upset soil balance and end up feeding soil a limited “doughnut diet” of unhealthy inputs.

In their arrogance (and ignorance), these companies claim to know what they are doing and attempt to get the public and various agencies to bow before the altar of corporate ‘science’ and its scientific priesthood.

Modern farming is in effect a principal source of global toxification and soil degradation.

Chemical-intensive Green Revolution technology and ideology has effectively uprooted indigenous/traditional agriculture across the planet and has recast farming according to the needs of global agribusiness and its supply chains. This has had devastating effects on regions, rural communities, diets, soils, health and water pollution. However, this financially lucrative venture for transnational corporations continues apace, spearheaded by the Gates Foundation in Africa and the World Bank’s “enabling the business of agriculture.”

It took a long time to curtail the activities of big tobacco. Tackling big agribusiness and its entrenchment within the heart of governments and international institutions is urgent. Unfortunately, given the scale of the problem and what is at stake, time is not on our side.

10/26/2017    Colin Todhunter    Independent Writer/Analyst
 


Leave a comment

9 Pesticide-filled Teas You Should Never Buy (and the Kind You Should!)

Tea is one of the most popular drinks enjoyed around the world.

Americans drink up to 80 billion cups of tea a year while their Canadian neighbors drink almost 10 billion cups of tea a year (1,2).

Since tea is often praised as a healthy drink, The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) decided to investigate whether or not the most popular tea brands contained traces of pesticides in their products that could undermine the health benefits of the tea.

They found out that an inspection done by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) three years ago concluded that 1 in 4 teas contained pesticide residue far above the safety limit set by Health Canada. Both the dry leaves and steeped tea contained these traces.

To find out if the worst offenders are still on the market, CBC hired an accredited lab to retest some of Canada’s most popular brands, including Lipton, Red Rose, Tetley, and Twinings.

tea

The full list includes:

  • Twinings – Earl Grey
  • Tetley – green tea
  • Lipton – yellow label black tea
  • Signal – orange pekoe
  • Uncle Lee’s Legends of China – jasmine green tea
  • King Cole – orange pekoe
  • No Name – black tea
  • Uncle Lee’s Legends of China – green tea
  • Lipton – pure green tea
  • Red Rose – orange pekoe

They rigorously followed the testing method employed by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency to ensure accurate results.

The investigation revealed that half the teas had traces of pesticides higher than the legal limit in Canada. Some even contained pesticides banned worldwide.

Pesticides In Tea: The 3 Worst Offenders!

6/10 of the teas tested contained a cocktail of pesticides, but each was below Canadian limits. These three, however, were way above these guidelines.

1. Twinings Earl Grey

This classic tea is considered a relatively high quality bagged tea. However, it placed third highest in pesticide content. Most alarmingly, this tea was repeatedly found to contain acetamiprid, a poison that causes severe nausea and vomiting, muscle weakness, hypothermia, convulsions, and hypoxia in small quantities (3).

2. Tetley Green Tea

Tetley green tea has been shown to contain both acetamiprid and chlorfenapyr, which is fatal in small quantities. Chlorfenapyr has delayed effects, causing death or damage to the central nervous system up to two weeks after ingestion. The CBC report showed that Tetley’s tea had 18 pesticides in its finished product, 3 over the allowable limit (4).

3. Uncle Lee’s Legends of China green tea

Uncle Lee’s Legends of China is the most toxic tea sold in Canadian grocery stores. It contained the same pesticides as Tetley as well as dangerous levels of Bifenthrin, a known carcinogen. It contained traces of 22 Pesticides, 6 of which in illegal quantities (5).

It’s far from the only Chinese tee with illegal pesticides. Countless Chinese tea producers routinely use pesticides banned by China’s Ministry of Agriculture (6).

The Unexpected Winner

Of all the teas tested by CBC, Red Rose was the only brand that contained zero pesticides. The tea brand has made many efforts in recent years to be more ecofriendly and ethical. It has now received Rainforest Alliance Certification and Fair Trade Certified (6).

This proves that it is possible for a profitable business to give its customers pesticide-free products at a large scale.

Health Canada’s Response

Despite the alarming results revealed by the investigation, Health Canada insists that these pesticides aren’t a public health concern.

“Health Canada reviewed the information provided by Marketplace and for the pesticides bifenthrin, imidacloprid, acetamiprid, chlorfenapyr, pyridaben, acephate, dicofol and monocrotophos determined that consumption of tea containing the residues listed does not pose a health risk based on the level of residues reported, expected frequency of exposure and contribution to overall diet. Moreover, a person would have to consume approximately 75 cups of tea per day over their entire lifetime to elicit an adverse health effect,” a spokesperson wrote to the CBC in a statement.

But not everyone agrees :”This is very worrisome from a number of perspectives,” environmental lawyer David Boyd told CBC.

“I think that’s a complete abdication of CFIA’s responsibility to protect Canadian people. The reality is that there is emerging science about the impacts of pesticides at very low concentrations,” he says.

“The whole point of pesticides is that they’re chemically and biologically active in parts per million or parts per billion…Pesticides can have adverse effects at what are seemingly very small concentrations.”

Choosing Pesticide Free Tea

The simplest way to avoid sipping on pesticides in tea (or other unwanted substances) along with your tea is by choosing loose-leaf unflavored organic products.

“Natural” or “herbal” teas that are not certified organic won’t be any better than the teas tested above, so make sure to read the labels carefully. Flavored teas will likely contain unwanted additives like soy lecithin and natural or artificial flavors.

It’s also worth noting that tea bags can be made of plastic fibers that leak hormone-disrupting toxins into your cup (7).


Leave a comment

Strawberries Remain at Top of Pesticide List, Report Says

An annual report by the Environmental Working Group found that nearly 70% of samples of 48 types of conventionally grown produce were contaminated with pesticide residues. That’s down 6.6 percentage points from last year.

The EWG Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce, released Wednesday, ranks pesticide contamination of popular fruits and vegetables based on more than 36,000 samples of produce tested by the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.

This year, strawberries remained at the top of the list of produce with the highest concentration of pesticides, while sweet corn and avocados were ranked as having the lowest concentration.

What are pesticides?

Pesticides are widely used in producing food to control pests such as insects, rodents, weeds, bacteria, mold and fungus. In addition to their uses in agriculture, pesticides are used to protect public health by controlling organisms that carry tropical diseases, such as mosquitoes.

Pesticides are potentially toxic to humans, according to the World Health Organization. They may have negative effects on reproduction, immune or nervous systems, cause cancer and lead to other problems.

Pesticide residue can remain on fruits and vegetables even after they are washed and, in some cases, peeled, according to the report.

However, a report by the USDA in 2014 found that “overall pesticide chemical residues on foods tested were at levels below the tolerances established by the Environmental Protection Agency” and were not a safety concern to consumers.

The Dirty Dozen

Produce that tested positive for various pesticides and contained higher concentrations of pesticides than other produce is featured on the list, known as the “Dirty Dozen.”

Starting with the highest amounts of pesticide residue, the list features strawberries, spinach, nectarines, apples, peaches, celery, grapes, pears, cherries, tomatoes, sweet bell peppers and potatoes.
Strawberries remained at the top of the list with at least 20 pesticides, while spinach jumped into the second spot with twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop.

Americans eat nearly 8 pounds of fresh strawberries per person each year, and even when they are rinsed in the field and washed before eating, they are still most likely to be contaminated with pesticide residue, according to the Environmental Working Group.

In 2016, spinach was ranked eighth, but the latest numbers from the USDA showed a sharp increase in pesticide residues on non-organic spinach since the crop was last tested eight years ago.

The pesticides responsible for the residues included three fungicides and one insecticide called permethrin, which has been linked to tremors and seizures in the nervous systems of animals and insects.

The newest additions to the list were pears and potatoes, which replaced cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year.

The Clean Fifteen

Produce that had relatively fewer pesticides and lower total concentrations of pesticide residues was placed on the group’s “Clean Fifteen” list.

This list included, in order, sweet corn (including corn on the cob and frozen corn), avocados, pineapples, cabbage, onions, frozen sweet peas, papaya, asparagus, mangoes, eggplant, honeydew melon, kiwis, cantaloupe, cauliflower and grapefruit.

Only 1% of samples showed any detectable pesticides in avocados and sweet corn, which were deemed the cleanest produce.

More than 80% of pineapples, papaya, asparagus, onions and cabbage that were sampled showed no pesticide residue.

Methodology

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit advocacy group, analyzed more than 36,000 samples taken by personnel at the USDA and the FDA who mimicked consumer practices by first washing or peeling the produce.

To compare the fruits and vegetables, the group came up with a composite score for each type of produce based on six measures of contamination. Some of the measures include the percent of the sample tested with detectable pesticides and the average number of pesticides found on a single sample.

Shopping smart

Nutrition experts support the findings and even use the list to make recommendations to their own patients.

“I believe that this is an important source of information,” said Corinne Bush, a clinical nutritionist who was not part of the research.

Bush warns that some pesticides that do not exceed thresholds established by the EPA can still be very harmful, since low-level exposure over time can have extremely damaging effects.

The Environmental Working Group recommends buying organic produce whenever possible to reduce exposure to pesticides.

“If you don’t want to feed your family food contaminated with pesticides, the EWG Shopper’s Guide helps you make smart choices, whether you’re buying conventional or organic produce,” Sonya Lunder, a senior analyst with the group, said in a news release.

“Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is essential no matter how they’re grown, but for the items with the heaviest pesticide loads, we urge shoppers to buy organic. If you can’t buy organic, the Shopper’s Guide will steer you to conventionally grown produce that is the lowest in pesticides.”

By Johanzynn Gatewood  (CNN)      Wed March 8, 2017
 


Leave a comment

Two Ways You And Your Family Can Help Minimize Your Cancer Risk

By: Care2 Healthy Living Guest Blogger David Benjamin    April 16, 2016

Disease affects all of our lives on some level or another. Our families are affected by it, our friends and co-workers too. Most people only see disease as either a distant potential future event, or something that affects their friends and family. Unfortunately, disease can become a part of our life overnight if we don’t take the right actions to live a healthy lifestyle each day.

Did you know that 41% of Americans are diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime? That’s right. In total, 1 in 2 men and 1 in 3 women are diagnosed with cancer in America, and those numbers don’t even include heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity and other life-threatening diseases.

My grandfather died of colon cancer within less than a month of diagnosis, at the time I was only 11 years old and saw his rapid decline. That same year my mom was also diagnosed with colon cancer, thankfully she survived and found the right people and solutions that helped her heal and bring her health back. Three of my four grandparents have died of cancer. These experiences have impacted me greatly and have pushed me to read through the research on environmental factors that cause cancer.

Thankfully with the latest science we can do much more than we could even a decade ago to prevent cancer and reduce our risk of developing it, and we’re starting to get a good idea of which chemicals and products are carcinogenic.

The U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services published a 240 page report on reducing environmental cancer risk that can be read here. “With nearly 80,000 chemicals on the market in the United States, many of which are used by millions of Americans in their daily lives and are un- or understudied and largely unregulated, exposure to potential environmental carcinogens is widespread,” the report explains.

These chemicals are prevalent in our environment, but what can you do? Stop supporting companies that produce these chemicals, for one. If a product contains carcinogens do you really want that in your home and around your children?

While some instances of cancer are unavoidable, there are things we can do to actively protect ourselves and our families:

Pesticides

1. Eat organic as often as possible.

Food that is organic is grown without synthetic pesticides and utilizes classic farming techniques to build healthy soil. The suffix ‘-cide’ literally means death. Synthetic pesticides, fungicides, herbicides and other forms of ‘cides’ are death for the crops that you eat as well as the soil surrounding it. This affects your health in a few ways. First, organic food doesn’t contain as high of a level of pesticides so you’re not ingesting these chemicals. What you eat determines your inner state of health. If you’re eating food grown in pesticides your body has to adapt and fight harder to stay healthier.

In animal studies it has been found that multiple forms of pesticides are carcinogenic, so why are we still eating so much food that contains them? Eating organic is the number one way to reduce your body’s overall pesticide load. Glyphosate, a pesticide used on many genetically engineered (GMO) foods was labeled “probably carcinogenic to humans” by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Glyphosate was brought to the market by Monsanto under the product name ”Roundup.”

2. Avoid sprays designed to exterminate.

Ant sprays, roach sprays, mosquito sprays, flea and tick sprays should all be used with caution.  Sprays that are meant to kill bugs are also potentially going to weaken human health, because they are chemical concoctions formulated to incur death on a smaller species.

According to the New York Times, indoor studies relating to bug sprays (with 16 studies backing this) have proven that these chemicals lead to a 47% increased risk for childhood leukemia and a 43% increase in the risk of childhood lymphoma. Additionally outdoor pesticides used as weed killers were associated with a 26% increased risk for brain tumors.

What can you do? Use natural bug sprays or mixtures made from essential oils instead.

A good rule of thumb is to look at a label and look for any warning labels on the product. This is also a good indicator that using these products and inhaling the fumes is not beneficial for health. Solutions that are made from plant chemicals or compounds are often more eco-friendly to the environment as well.

Unfortunately, many products on the market today have not been tested for their cancer-causing potential. This is why making eco-healthy choices and healthy-friendly choices is the best route to take.

Using more of nature’s intelligence and fewer synthetic chemicals in your diet and lifestyle routine is ultimately the best choice for the health of your body, your family, and for dramatically reducing your risk of becoming another statistic on the wrong side of our “war against cancer.”

David Benjamin is the founder of HealthyWildAndFree.com, He writes about health, wellness, green living and sustainability. He also works with the Truth About Cancer documentary series to share and educate the public on understanding cancer, it’s causes and risks further and how to prevent it by making smarter, more earth friendly decisions.


4 Comments

Ten Reasons Why Organic Food Is Better

 by Guy Dauncey

I work at Eating Well Organically and this list is posted on the wall in the store. I’ve been researching organic foods and I think its a great list of reasons to eat the “organic way”. This list is full of excellent facts and insightful knowledge from studies from all over the world. Please note that some of the data is a little old (latest 2002) so not all the figures are up-to-date. Enjoy!

1. Organic farming is better for wildlife
A report by Britain’s Soil Association shows that wildlife is substantially richer and more varied on organic than on conventional farms. A typical organic field has five times as many wild plants, 57% more species, and 44% more birds in cultivated areas than a regular farm . Two 1996 studies show that organic farms have twice as many skylarks, and twice as many butterflies . Every time we eat an organic lettuce or tomato, we help restore wildlife.

2. Organic farming is better for the soil
Studies show that organic fields have deeper vegetation, more weed cover, and contain 88% more ‘epigeal arthropods’ (squiggly soil creatures) . A new Swiss study demonstrates that organic soils have more soil microbes, more mycorrhizae – the fungi that attach themselves to the tips of plant roots and help plants absorb nutrients – and more earthworms . It found that soil insects are twice as abundant and more diverse in organic plots, including pest-eating spiders and beetles.

3. Organic food is better for animal reproduction
Out of 14 animal studies, ten showed that animals fare better when fed organic food. Three showed no difference, and one showed an improvement with conventional food. We are all mammals, so we share a lot in common. Female rabbits fed on organic food have twice the level of ovum production; chickens fed on organic food have a 28% higher rate of egg production. Rabbits that were fed conventional food saw a decline in fertility over three generations, compared to no decline for organically fed rabbits . Meanwhile, many human couples find it hard to have a baby…

4. Organic food helps fight cancer, stroke and heart problems
In a recent study, Scottish scientists found that organic vegetable soups contain almost six times as much salicylic acid as non-organic vegetable soups. Eleven brands of organic soup had 117 nanograms per gram, versus just 20 nanograms in 24 types of non-organic soup . Salicylic acid is the main ingredient in aspirin; it helps fight hardening of the arteries and bowel cancer, and is produced naturally in plants as a defence against stress and disease. If plants don’t have to resist bugs because of pesticide-use, they generate less salicylic acid, and pass less on to us. The same scientists found significantly higher concentrations of salicylic acid in the blood of vegetarian Buddhist monks, compared with meat-eaters.

5. Organic food contains more nutrients
According to a recent study by the Canadian Globe and Mail and CTV News of the nutrient quality of fruit and vegetables, compared to 50 years ago, today’s regular fruit and vegetables contain dramatically less vitamins and minerals . The average potato has lost 100% of its vitamin A, 57% of its vitamin C and iron, 28% of its calcium, 50% of its riboflavin, and 18% of its thiamin. Out of seven key nutrients studied, only niacin levels increased. Similar results applied to 24 other fruits and vegetables. For broccoli, all seven nutrients fell, including a 63% decrease in calcium and a 34% decrease in iron. No wonder we are gulping down the supplements.

In April 2001, however, a US study examined 41 comparisons of the nutrient levels in organic and regular foods. In every case, the organic crops had higher nutrient levels – 27% more vitamin C, 29% more iron, 14% more phosphorus . At the June 2001 meeting of the American Chemical Society, a chemistry professor reported that organic oranges contained up to 30% more vitamin C than regular oranges, even though they are half the size . (Conventional orange trees are fed nitrogen fertilizer, causing the fruit to absorb more water, which makes them bigger.) In a French study, a cancer specialist studying the nutrient qualities of food grown in the Languedoc-Roussillon region of France showed that for the twelve foods where his study is complete, the organic foods showed increased quantities of vitamins A, C, E, and the B group, increased elements such as zinc, increased minerals such as calcium, and increased fibre.

6. Organic apples are just better!
From 1994 to 1999, a soil scientist at Washington State University ran a series of tests comparing apple orchards. The organic orchard had the best soil, held water better, and resisted soil damage better. It was more energy efficient, and required less labour and less water per apple. The organic apples were firmer, tasted sweeter and were less tart to a non-expert panel. The organic orchard also made more money, since the apples sold for a higher price.

7. Organic farming can feed the world
In a 2002 Greenpeace report, the authors found that organic and agro-ecological methods of growing in the Southern hemisphere produced a dramatic increase in yields, as well as reduced pests and diseases, greater crop diversity, and improved nutritional content. In the Tigray, Ethiopia, organic crops raised 3-5 times more food than chemically treated plots; in Brazil, maize yields increased by 20 – 250%; in Peru, uplands crop yields increased by 150% .

In 1998, the Rodale Institute in Kutztown, Pennsylvania, published the results of a 15-year study that compared 3 ways of growing maize and soybeans – a conventional chemical rotation method, an organic system involving crop rotation and legume crops, and an organic system using cow manure. The yields were similar for all three systems, debunking the myth that organic methods cannot feed the world . In Britain, an experiment run at Broadbalk by the Rothamsted Experimental Station for 150 years has shown that wheat yields on manured plots average 3.45 tonnes per hectare, compared to 3.40 tonnes on the chemically fertilized plots.

A recently completed 21-year Swiss study, on the other hand, showed that organic yields were 20% smaller than conventional yields. The organic plots required 34% to 53% less fertilizer and energy and 97% less pesticide, however, and produced more food per unit of energy and fertilizer. The soil microbes, flora, fauna and soil fertility also increased, leading the study’s authors to conclude that the ecological benefits of organic farming make up for the reduced harvest.

8. Organic farming protects the climate
Organic soil is full of living creatures, which carry carbon. In the Rodale experiment, the organically managed plot stored much more carbon than the conventional plot. In the Broadbalk experiment, soil fertility increased by 120% in the manured plots, versus 20% in the chemical plots. The same results occurred in the Swiss experiment. A study in California’s Central Valley showed that as well as producing similar yields and suffering similar pest damage, organically managed fields produced 28% more organic carbon. By storing more carbon in the soil, organic farmers help to counteract global climate change.

9. Organic farming produces higher yields in drought conditions
In a review of comparative studies of grain and soybean production in the US Midwest, organic growers produced higher yields in drier climates and during droughts (and similar yields in regular conditions) . The same results were found in the Rodale experiment. Organic matter makes the soil less compact and more moisture retentive, allowing the roots to penetrate more deeply to find water.

10. Organic food is safer
Organic farming generates more jobs, produces more profits, and doesn’t pollute groundwater with nitrogen run-off. It also avoids all the risks associated with GM crops. But let’s finish with the reason why many people start eating organic food – because they believe it is safer. Farmers in Canada, Kansas and Nebraska who use the pesticide 2,4-D suffer a higher rate of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (a cancer). The same applies to dogs which play on lawns that have been sprayed. In Sweden, exposure to phenoxy herbicides has been shown to increase the risk of contracting lymphomas six-fold . In the US, the death rates from myeloma (a cancer) are highest in rural farming areas . And so it goes on. Migrant farmworkers suffer an abnormally high rate of multiple myeloma, stomach, prostate and testicular cancer . Organic farming carries none of these risks.

There is a strong association between breast cancer and exposure to chemical pesticides. Atrazine, a common ingredient in pesticides, causes breast cancer in rats, chromosomal breakdown in the ovaries of hamsters , and hind-limb deformities in frogs. A Finnish study showed that women whose breasts stored the highest levels of a lindane-like residue were ten times more likely to have breast cancer than women with lower levels . (Lindane is a pesticide.)

We can end all this by shifting to organic food. We can be healthier. Our children can be healthier. Our farmers and farm workers can be healthier. Frogs, worms, butterflies, skylarks and the soil itself can be healthier. All that it takes is to turn away from chemically grown food, and embrace organic food.

Guy Dauncey is the author of Earthfuture: Stories from a Sustainable World (ecotopian short stories, summer reading!) and Stormy Weather: 101 Solutions to Global Climate Change, winner of a Nautilus Award at the New York Book Expo (New Society Publishers). He lives in Victoria, BC. http://www.earthfuture.com

Footnotes
1 New Scientist, June 3, 2000. http://www.soilassociation.org
2 Ecology and Farming Magazine, IFOAM, Sept/Dec 1996
3 Ecology and Farming Magazine, IFOAM, Sept/Dec 1996
4 BBC News, May 30 th 2002. Study by Paul Mader
5 ‘Effect of Agricultural Methods on Nutritional Quality’ by Dr. Virginia Worthington, Alternative Therapies, 1998:4.
6 New Scientist, March 14 th , 2002
7 Globe and Mail, July 6 th , 2002
8 Nutritional Quality of Organic Versus Conventional Fruits, Vegetables and Grains. Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, by Dr. Virginia Worthington. Vol 7, No 2, 2001.
9 Research by Professor Theo Clark, Truman State University, Kirksville, Mo. American Chemical Society, June 2, 2002
10 Reported in the newspaper ‘Ouest-France’, August 16 th 2001
11 New Scientist, April 18 th 2001
12 The Real Green Revolution’ by N. Parrott and T. Marsden. Greenpeace, 2002. http://www.farmingsolutions.org
13 Drinkwater, Wagoner and Sarronio, Nature 396, (1998). http://www.rodaleinstitute.org/science/fst1.html
14 “Can Organic Farming Feed the World?” by ChristosVasilikiotis, Ph.D. http://www.cnr.berkeley.edu/~christos/articles/cv_organic_farming.html
15 See Note 5
16 See Note 13
17 ‘Living Downstream’, by Sandra Steingraber, page 52.
18 Steingraber, page 64.
19 Steingraber, page 65.
20 Steingraber, page 162.
21 Steingraber, page 11.

source: http://sustainablesteps.blogspot.ca/2006/10/ten-reasons-why-organic-food-is-better.html


Leave a comment

Tired of worrying about what’s really in your food? There is an answer: Go organic

By Organic Week   Posted Aug. 31   By Matthew Holmes, Executive Director, Canada Organic Trade Association

When you ask people what’s special about organic food, they generally say organic farmers do not use toxic chemical pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, hormones, antibiotics or genetically modified organisms (GMOs). That’s part of the picture, but there is much more to it.

Organic agriculture offers compelling answers to the complex issues facing the world today – whether hunger, land sovereignty, environmental degradation or the threat of GMOs in the food chain.

The organic movement started as farmers, scientists and consumers began to question the long-term legacy of the post-war intensification of chemical agriculture. Sadly, many of these concerns are just as real today as they were back then.

But truly, what can a consumer do about unethical labour practices within the multinational food system; about the prevalence of cancer among farm workers; about the toxic impacts on our environment and wildlife from industrialized agriculture; about the unsustainable use of fossil-fuel-derived synthetic fertilizers that form the basis of modern agriculture; or about the GMOs and countless chemical additives we all eat without knowing it?

It’s simple: you can support organic agriculture and help us grow a sustainable and positive alternative.


A lot of people are talking about the “100-mile diet” in support of local farmers and local economies. This concept is really important, but it goes both ways: if your local PEI potato farmer is contributing to the toxins in your water that make thousands of fish wash up dead after a major rain-fall, this is not a good relationship. If your local meat producer isn’t following humane animal welfare standards, what does that say about your community? If your Ontario corn and soy producer is increasing the number of GMOs that are contaminating and compromising the future of food as we know it, why would they deserve your support?

Instead, let’s talk about the 100-year diet: sustainable ecological agriculture that contributes to the resilience of our food system and food security, increases the biodiversity and balance in our environment, and contributes to the health and well-being of our children and our communities. This is what organic offers that truly sets it apart and makes it worth supporting.

It is time for Canada to re-imagine agriculture as something more than just a major trade that results in food. We need to find a way to bring agriculture, health and environment together. All three are unquestionably linked.

Some governments have already done so: giving incentives to farmers who provide ecological goods and services to their communities and society in general.

In Germany, for example, several water utilities pay farmers to switch to organic methods and certification because it costs less than removing conventional farm chemicals from water supplies. Makes sense, doesn’t it? In Italy, the government requires schools to provide children with organic foods to ensure they have the best possible start in life with nutritious foods from local farmers.

To make these sorts of changes here at home, it’s up to you to “go organic”.

When you see the Canada Organic logo on a food label, you know that product meets Canada’s national organic requirements, overseen by the Canadian Food Inspection Agency. As organic certification is built on top of all other food regulations and food safety requirements, organic is the most regulated and inspected food system in the country.

But organic is not only that.

When you see the Canada Organic logo on a food product, you know that product is from an alternative food system that is supporting farmers and processors who take the long-view of agriculture, health and environment. Choosing organic really does make a difference.