{"id":27694,"date":"2020-09-18T00:01:11","date_gmt":"2020-09-18T04:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/?p=27694"},"modified":"2020-09-18T09:27:59","modified_gmt":"2020-09-18T13:27:59","slug":"consumer-reports-study-rates-foods-with-pesticide-residues-doesnt-include-worker-environmental-justice-biodiversity-impacts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/beyondpesticides.org\/dailynewsblog\/2020\/09\/consumer-reports-study-rates-foods-with-pesticide-residues-doesnt-include-worker-environmental-justice-biodiversity-impacts\/","title":{"rendered":"Consumer Reports Study Rates Foods with Pesticide Residues; Doesn’t Include Worker, Environmental Justice, Biodiversity Impacts"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"(Beyond Pesticides<\/em>, September 18, 2020)\u00a0In late August, Consumer Reports<\/em> magazine (CR<\/em>) issued a report<\/a> titled, \u201cStop Eating Pesticides,\u201d which offers consumers a rating system CR<\/em> developed and employed to help them \u201cget the health benefits from fruits and vegetables while minimizing [the] risk from toxic chemicals.\u201d In addition to providing its analysis and ratings of the pesticide risk of a variety of produce items, CR <\/em>recommends eating organically<\/a> grown and raised foods whenever possible. It also makes a host of recommendations on federal pesticide policies and emphasizes the importance of maintaining the integrity<\/a> of the National Organic Standards<\/a> (of the USDA-housed National Organic Program). Beyond Pesticides appreciates that this mainstream publication has arrived at many shared, science-based assessments of the risks of pesticides. That said, a wholesale transition to organic and regenerative agriculture<\/a> \u2014 rather than making the public figure out which fruits and vegetables are \u201csafer\u201d or \u201cless safe\u201d \u2014 is the real answer to the health risks of pesticides in the food supply<\/a>, according to Beyond Pesticides.<\/p>\n

The CR<\/em> analysis used data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture\u2019s (USDA\u2019s) Pesticide Data Program<\/a> for 2014\u20132018. Those pesticide residue data were compiled from tests of approximately 450 pesticides across 24,000 samples of 35 different fruits and vegetables. The analysis evaluated both conventionally grown, meaning produce that\u2019s typically been treated with pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, and organically grown produce<\/a>; it also reviewed both U.S. produced and imported items. CR<\/em> based its ratings on four criteria<\/a>: the number of pesticides found on each item, the average amount of residue of each pesticide found on the items, the frequency with which pesticides were found on samples, and the toxicity of the pesticides detected.<\/p>\n

Embedded in the ratings is consideration of the number of child-size servings (i.e., 2\/3 of an adult serving) of a fruit or vegetable item that could be consumed before the exposures could represent potential harm. The analysis was normed for a 35-pound child (the weight of an average four-year-old); adults would likely consume more in a serving, but CR<\/em> says the relative risk would remain the same. CR<\/em> notes that<\/a> \u201cin some cases, those levels exceed what CR<\/em>\u2019s experts consider safe.\u201d See more on CR<\/em>\u2019s rating methodology here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Based on the criteria mentioned, CR<\/em> assigned Excellent or Very Good ratings to the \u201ccleanest\u201d produce, and Fair or Poor to the items that scored as most risky. One of the consultants to CR<\/em>\u2019s project was Charles Benbrook, PhD, an agricultural economist, former executive director of the National Academy of Sciences board on agriculture, and former research professor at the Center for Sustaining Agriculture and Natural Resources at Washington State University. He notes that, in order to \u201cminimize the chance that risks are underestimated,\u201d CR<\/em> used<\/a> \u201cEPA\u2019s chronic reference dose for each pesticide (the amount it considers not likely to cause harm over a lifetime), then applied the FQPA [Food Quality Protection Act<\/a>] safety factor to known neurological toxins or suspected endocrine disruptors \u2014 even when the EPA doesn\u2019t.\u201d<\/p>\n

CR<\/em> writes,<\/a> \u201cThis means that fruits and vegetables with residue of many different pesticides can still receive a rating of Very Good or even Excellent if the amounts are low compared with the level we consider harmful, or if the pesticides have a low toxicity. But others rate poorly if they have even a very small amount of a more dangerous pesticide.\u201d On the face of it, rating a produce item with residue of many different pesticides as Very Good or Excellent would seem to contravene CR<\/em>\u2019s acknowledgement of EPA\u2019s inadequate regulatory attention to exposures to multiple pesticide compounds. (See more on EPA and multiple exposure risks, below.)<\/p>\n

CR\u2019s report<\/a> rates, for example, U.S. grown, non-organic broccoli, cabbage, carrots, corn, bulb onions, tomatoes, cranberries, oranges, and a few other items as Excellent, and domestic green beans, potatoes, spinach, peaches, and cherries as Poor. Nearly all of the domestic organic items rated fell into the Excellent category, with organic spinach being a notable exception. The report says that 33 pesticides were found on 76% of those samples. However, CR<\/em> explains that the probable reason is that pesticides banned in organic agriculture can drift from fields where non-organic crops are grown \u2014 a common and growing problem, especially with increasing use of pesticides that pair with genetically engineered commodity crops, such as soybeans, cotton, and corn. Senior CR<\/em> scientist Michael Hansen, PhD, comments,<\/a> \u201cThe vast majority of the USDA data show that while pesticides are sometimes found on organic foods, the levels are usually 10 percent or less of what\u2019s found on nonorganic, which would be consistent with drift from a neighboring field. When levels on organic and nonorganic are similar, government agencies should take a closer look.\u201d Notably, imported produce often, though not always, had poorer ratings than domestic items.<\/p>\n

The CR<\/em> article chronicles a number of health risks associated with pesticide exposures, even at low levels, including cardiovascular diseases, cancers, reproductive dysfunction, respiratory problems (e.g., asthma, bronchitis), neurological impacts (e.g., developmental effects and dementia\/Alzheimer\u2019s), and endocrine dysfunction, among others. To its credit, the report also includes a section on the shortcomings of federal pesticide policy, which notes<\/a> that CR<\/em>\u2019s own \u201cexperts say the government hasn\u2019t upheld its responsibility to protect consumers [and that] the research used to set [pesticide residue] tolerances is imperfect, and they\u2019re often too high.\u201d The report also calls out the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is primarily responsible for pesticide regulation, for multiple failures.<\/p>\n

One is the failure to use the mandated<\/em> FQPA \u201csafety factor\u201d (which establishes more-protective limits on residues) 85% of the time<\/em>, from 2011 through 2019, for non-organophosphate pesticides. Another is that, despite the requirement of the FQPA to review registered pesticides for endocrine-disrupting impacts, by 2020 EPA has done this for only 52<\/em> of the roughly 9,000 pesticide compounds approved for use in the U.S. Dr. Hansen comments<\/a>, \u201cThe tests the EPA uses to approve pesticides don\u2019t take into account new evidence on pesticide harms, and it hasn\u2019t incorporated many new scientific techniques.\u201d<\/p>\n

CR<\/em> also points to some of the failings of EPA\u2019s pesticide regulation that Beyond Pesticides has long discussed: relative inattention to the impacts of so-called \u201cinert\u201d or adjuvant ingredients<\/a> in pesticide products; and reviewing (and registering) pesticides as single entities or classes<\/a>, when in real life, people are often exposed to multiple pesticides. Brenda Eskenazi, PhD, director of the Center for Environmental Research and Children\u2019s Health at the University of California, Berkeley, comments,<\/a> \u201cWhat we should be looking at is the whole swimming pool of chemicals that we\u2019re exposed to.\u201d<\/p>\n

In recognizing the risks of pesticide residue in food and<\/em> the importance to health of consuming a wide variety of fruits and vegetables (the goal being 4\u00bd cups daily for most adults), CR<\/em> underscores the conundrum the public faces. If conventional produce is contaminated with pesticides, what are consumers to do? The CR<\/em> report says<\/a> that they \u201ccan minimize the risk by choosing fruits and vegetables grown with fewer and safer pesticides.\u201d To that end, the analysis proposes to \u201chelp consumers identify which produce poses the biggest risk from pesticides,\u201d and asserts that the \u201cgood news\u201d is that nearly \u201chalf of the nonorganic fruits and vegetables pose little risk. But about 20 percent, such as fresh green beans, peaches, and potatoes, received our worst scores; those are the ones it\u2019s most important to try to buy organic. . . . For the lowest-scoring items, eating a half of a serving or less per day poses long-term health risks to a young child.\u201d Beyond Pesticides believes that warning is more than warranted<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Choosing organic for the \u201cworst\u201d produce items is an incremental approach that does yield somewhat lower risks to eaters. Indeed, Beyond Pesticides has often covered the annual Environmental Working Group\u2019s \u201cDirty DozenTM<\/sup>\u201d and \u201cClean 15\u201d guides<\/a> to avoiding pesticide residue in foods. The \u201csimplest\u201d answer is to consume organic fare as much as is practicable<\/a>. Yet that is not necessarily easy for everyone, whether it\u2019s a matter of availability or price. This is one reason that those who can purchase most or all of their food as organic, should: it helps scale up organic production and, as organics occupy increasing market share over time, potentially bring prices more in line with conventional pricing. This is a short-term, market-based strategy; the equitable and most-protective strategy is to transition to organic agricultural practices, which nearly eliminate the risks of chemical exposures through food.<\/p>\n

A decade ago, Beyond Pesticides addressed the affordability issue in a comprehensive article in its journal, Pesticides and You<\/em><\/a>, which spelled out the \u201cinvisible\u201d aspects of affordability. The article noted that a simple comparison of retail prices is a misleading metric on the cost of organic vs. conventional produce because \u201cit overlooks the glaring fact that conventional farm operations do not incur the total cost of their production. Chemical-intensive agriculture has countless negative effects on our health and natural resources, which are not accounted for in most traditional farm business models, but [which] are passed on to society nevertheless. Some researchers calculate the adverse impacts to health and the environment to be as much as $16.9 billion a year [as of 2011] . . . . We still pay these costs, just not at the grocery checkout counter. Instead, we see these costs in the forms of higher taxes and medical bills, and decreased quality of life due to environmental pollution. Conversely, organic farmers take steps to ensure that they do not create these effects, which result in external costs. Instead, they internalize them and take care not to damage and deplete natural resources or create public health problems.\u201d<\/p>\n

Beyond Pesticides would add to this personal and societal calculation the consideration that consumption of conventionally grown produce \u2014 even those items that score well in CR<\/em>\u2019s analysis \u2014 takes both environmental and social justice tolls at the sites of food production and processing. Farmworkers<\/a>, ecosystems<\/a>, and biodiversity<\/a> are notoriously negatively impacted by the use of pesticides. Beyond Pesticides Executive Director Jay Feldman notes: \u201cWe contribute to environmental racism when we eat conventionally grown food because the regulation and risk assessments that support our chemical-intensive food system institutionalize disproportionate risk for black and brown people.\u201d CR<\/em> senior policy analyst Dr. Charlotte Vallaeys is quoted<\/a> in the article: \u201cThe effects of pesticides on the people who grow and harvest our food is a big part of the reason CR<\/em> recommends buying organic when you can.\u201d<\/p>\n

Beyond Pesticides\u2019 2020 Labor Day Daily News Blog<\/em> article added<\/a>, \u201cOur work . . . will continue to seek changes in underlying policies that codify disproportionate harm, such as federal pesticide law that is built on a foundation that allows elevated and disproportionate risk to workers who are excluded from EPA\u2019s cumulative risk assessment (under the Food Quality Protection Act, amendments to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act), which aggregates dietary and non-dietary, but explicitly not\u00a0occupational,<\/em>\u00a0exposure to pesticides, while including a mandate to protect children. With this,\u00a0the law<\/a>\u00a0effectively requires EPA to allow higher rates of harm for workers, particularly farmworkers<\/a> [and] landscapers<\/a> (who are disproportionately people of color), and others occupationally exposed to pesticides.\u201d<\/p>\n

The CR<\/em> article acknowledges<\/a> that there are big knowledge gaps about impacts of pesticides on human health, never mind on ecosystems, and says, \u201cLaws governing the use of pesticides on produce in the U.S. are based, at least in theory, on a philosophy of avoiding potential risk in the absence of definitive proof of their harm.\u201d The glaring failing in this EPA approach to regulation is the lack of a precautionary framework. As as Dr. Vallaeys notes in the article, \u201cIt makes sense that we should err on the side of caution and base decisions about pesticide use not just on what we know but also on what we don\u2019t yet know.\u201d EPA\u2019s current policies and practices essentially allow chemical experimentation on the U.S. population without the public\u2019s permission, and without benefit of understanding what the impacts of various pesticides will be, given multiple, chronic, and ubiquitous exposures.<\/p>\n

Among CR<\/em>\u2019s recommendations are these<\/a>:<\/p>\n