Viewpoint: Pesticides on produce aren’t dangerous. Ignore the ‘Dirty Dozen’ and eat more fruits and veggies

Hillary Kaufman | July 24, 2020

Full disclosure: I buy organic fruits & veggies. I also buy conventional fruits & veggies. For me, it depends on the time of year, the way the produce looks, which grocer or market I’m visiting, and price (those two-for-one berry deals are no joke!). At D2D, we also believe that feeding a growing population requires all kinds of safe, sustainable growing methods. We should have a choice and not be unnecessarily fearful of the food at the grocery store.

What's at Stake?

I f I told you that I only buy organic produce, you’d probably assume that I had the Environmental Working Group’s (EWG) list of contaminated produce memorized for when I go shopping, right? And probably expound on the “horrors” of conventional farming, too. Some of you may not know what EWG is, but you’re probably familiar with their annual “Dirty Dozen” list showing which conventionally-farmed fruits and veggies have the most pesticide residue based on data from the USDA Pesticide Data Program. But should you really be afraid of these “Dirty Dozen” items?

EWG would give a big ‘yes’ to that one. But wouldn’t you do this, too, if your corporate donations came from Organic Valley, Earthbound Farms, Applegate Farms, and Stonyfield Farms? Hey, I kinda get it – they’d infuriate their stakeholders if they published information discouraging their products. But their report hurts our health and frankly, our sanity. And at a time when we need it most with COVID-19.............To Read More......

‘Children killer’ glyphosate found in Cheerios? Experts dismantle Environmental Working Group’s herbicide food residue study

Cameron English, Jon Entine | June 17, 2019

Last week, on June 12 2019, the organic industry-funded Environmental Working Group (EWG) issued a news release that claimed, “Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.”

EWG’s announcement is the third of its kind focusing on the alleged dangers of glyphosate residues in our food. It was immediately trumpeted by fringe activist groups—that’s par for the course—but was also covered, almost entirely uncritically, by mainstream sources, such as CNN:

What’s the news here?

Like its predecessors, released in July and October 2018, this EWG ‘study’ was based on a “round of tests” that was not peer reviewed by independent experts. Its scientists claimed that they found dozens of instances in which food it tested did not pass its “children’s health benchmark” for assessing potential exposure level hazards.

EWG did not mention that its ‘benchmark’ is entirely made up, has no clear scientific basis and is at odds with historically established and globally recognized benchmarks used by regulators in every country. The EWG “safety threshold” is 100 times lower than even the most conservative cut-off established by oversight agencies around the world, including the EPA. Curiously but not surprisingly considering EWG’s historical willingness to distort science, the threshold it settled upon just ‘happens’ to coincide with the infinitesimally trace amounts of glyphosate it found on Cheerios. ............To Read More....

When chemicals are used to scare you about food

By Cara Rosenbloom May 7 2019

 

Would you worry if you knew your food contained sucrose octanoate esters or tocopherols? They might sound frightening, but don’t fret. These substances in packaged foods are also known as sugar, fat and vitamin E.

 

But see what I did there? I used chemical names to evoke fear by telling you those items were in your food. For a moment, you were probably wary of ingesting tocopherols. Scare tactics like this are often used by marketers to make people buy one product over another — especially organic over conventionally grown foods, which consumers spend billions of dollars on annually.

 

The Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization that focuses on human health and environmentalism, contributes to this fear. In March, it released a report called “Organic: The Original Clean Food,” which asserted that organic packaged foods are safer than conventional packaged foods, because they don’t contain toxic pesticides or added chemicals. The report says “organic packaged foods are the only clean option for consumers.” That’s a scary thought considering the high cost of organic products — an organic 50-gram chocolate bar is $4.99 while a conventional one costs about $1.50.

 

(This is probably an opportune moment to point out that a small amount of the EWG’s funding comes from the organic food industry and that many of its reports and claims have been heavily criticized by members of the scientific community.)

 

As a dietitian, I encourage people to choose fresh food more often than processed foods, whether organic or not. Organic cookies, chips and soda are not healthier than conventional versions. But the EWG says conventional packaged foods are filled with “chemicals.”

 

This is where I remind you that “chemical” is not synonymous with “dangerous.”...........The dose makes the poison.............To Read More.....

 

We Get What We Ask For!

By Rich Kozlovich

Paradigms and Demographics was created to disseminate information that defends the pesticide applications industries, especially if that information that isn’t being disseminated by the information deliverers of our industry.

Many of those in leadership positions are completely aware of this kind of information, so it isn’t that our leaders are ignorant, it is just they are not crusaders. This is true of the trade journals, it is true of our state and national associations, and it is certainly true of the Ph.D.’s who are part and parcel of our industry. Why? First and foremost, heterodoxy isn’t for the faint of heart. No one likes being the rock in the current. Secondly, they don’t perceive this as part of their job description. Thirdly -and this is by far the most important reason of all - we don’t insist that they do it. Our leaders and information deliverers give us what we want. If we are not willing to demand more from them, if we're not will to stand up with them and be counted - then the fault is ours and ours alone! Why should they take shots for us if we don't care?

This brings me to the most important kind of science that everyone needs to use in order to understand all of these claims. The science of observation, i.e., “Everything we are told should bear some resemblance to what we see going on in reality!”

I have used this basic concept since I first started researching all these claims of the green movement. Initially I had a favorable, although erroneous view of environmentalism; whose claims I later found to be emotionally charged and unscientific. Very quickly I realized that they spew out lies of omission, lies of commission, misdirection, emotionally charged scaremongering, supposition, junk science studies that are full of weasel words and logical fallacies as the basis for all that they say and do.

The article published by ASCH goes on to say;

“A new study published in the Journal of Toxicology lays to rest any claims about “toxic pesticide residues” that the Environmental Working Group (EWG) publicized with their annual “Dirty Dozen” list. This compilation of “tainted” fruits and vegetables would have everyone scared to touch the majority of produce in the average grocery store. We are pleased, then, that this study, from the Department of Food Science and Technology at the University of California, Davis, looked at the dietary exposure of consumers to pesticides found in twelve products at the top of the EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” list and found…little to worry about.”

The article continues saying;

“To be more precise, the researchers, led by ACSH advisor Dr. Carl Winter, found that all pesticide exposures were well below established chronic reference doses. Dr. Winter concluded that, not only does exposure to these pesticides pose negligible risk to consumers at the levels they are present, but also, substituting organic forms for conventionally grown ones does not result in any appreciable reduction of risk. And, finally, the researchers write: “the methodology used by the environmental advocacy group to rank commodities with respect to pesticide risks lacks scientific credibility.” In other words, the EWG’s claims are empty.”

The chemistry lesson for parents? The "dirty dozen is down to zero".

One of the favorite lines from the green movement, and their acolytes in government when they wish to pass legislation that will seriously restrict pesticides (or any chemical for that matter) is, “it’s for the children”. Unfortunately most of what they are doing ends up being “to the children” versus “for the children”.

We have to start thinking critically about these things. As we look all around the world we see that  dystopia (misery, squalor, disease, suffering and death) is rampant where green policies are implemented. They stand against modern food production, pesticides, power production of every type (many in the green movement are now against ethanol, solar and wind energy production as well as oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy), roads, bridges, dams and even the chlorination of drinking water, which is one of the greatest advances in public health ever. They are against everything that makes people live longer and healthier lives. So if dystopia is what results everywhere else the world where their principles are adopted, why would we think it would be different here?  Dystopia follows the green movement like the plague follows rats. 

We, the pesticide applicators of the world, are the defenders of public health; we are the food providers for the people of the world; we are the true defenders of humanity; we save lives.  As one author who was very familiar with exterminators noted; they "are the hunters that keep the tribe healthy".We are part of that thin gray line that stands on the wall and says to society, "no on will harm you on my watch"; and we had better start believing and acting on that fact. 

###

Why do we listen to these people?

By Rich Kozlovich

The Environmental Working Group recently posted a news realease form the National Academies about how ethanol worsens greenhouse gases, which is fascinating. For years all I heard from the green left is that we had to turn to alternative energy sources because our traditional sources were either running out or were a disaster for the environment.

First: we are in no way running out of traditional energy sources such as coal, oil or natural gas. In spite of all the hyperbole many of us have known that for years. The tale is always in the history and historically we kept finding and using more oil than the last estimate of all known reserves. Now everyone knows it because so much natural gas and oil has been discovered lately. And the greenies look like fools, except the media doesn’t paint them in this light.

One of their pet programs was biofuels. Biofuels cannot compete financially with traditional sources, so it has to be subsidized in some fashion. We have known for some time that biofuels will do a number of detrimental things. As more and more biofuel replaces traditional sources more biofuel would be required than is sustainable, because biofuels aren’t as efficient in delivering energy. Therefore biofuels will take up huge amounts of land that would have been used for growing food, so the price of food is skyrocketing all over the world, including the U.S. We know this extra use of land will eliminate habitat for endangered species; which I don’t particularly care about, but the greenies are nutso over this issue.

We also know that the processing of biofuels is very detrimental to the environment; provided that you buy into anthropogenic climate change claptrap regarding emissions. And cellulosic biofuels are even worse because it takes so much more of everything to turn cellulose into ethanol. That cost is prohibitive without mandates or subsidies on all biofuels and it is worse for cellulosic biofuel.

Sheila Karpf, EWG’s legislative and policy analyst says that “This report highlights the severe damage to the environment from corn-based ethanol,” and that “It underscores just how misguided U.S. biofuels policy has become. It catalogs the environmentally damaging aspects of corn-based ethanol and also casts serious doubt on the future viability of so-called ‘advanced’ biofuels made from other sources.”

So now we have the Environmental Working Group telling everyone the truth. Great….but where did this “misguided” policy come from in the first place?  It came about because the greenies were the ones demanding this stuff, and everyone started running around crying; Go Green, Go Green , Go Green, without a clue as to what it would ultimately mean. It became the cause célèbre. Shouldn’t we at least start asking now; why didn’t they know this before everyone started passing legislation promoting it and others started investing in fields and plants to produce this stuff? Why was the green movement so hot on this in the first place if this was such a bad thing?

I believe the reason is (as far as I have been able to determine over the years) they don’t have a clue because they are like bureaucrats. They do activism….they don’t do work. They think that have all the answers when in reality they don’t even know the questions because they have no practical experience in the areas they are critiquing.

We need do to really get this. These people are clueless. They are great at finding fault, but they couldn’t find a solution if someone threw a bucket of it on them. If any of this stuff was worth doing some businessman would have done it. And he would have done it without government subsidies.

After successful demonization campaign against herbicide glyphosate, anti-GMO activists and environmental groups take aim at atrazine

Andrew Porterfield | Genetic Literacy Project | October 18, 2018

In July, the US Environmental Protection Agency issued an extensive report that reviewed decades of science and declared that a very popular herbicide did not present any human health problems. As they have in reaction to previous EPA reports exonerating herbicides, anti-GMO groups howled in protest.

But this time, the herbicide was one that, while widely used by farmers, hasn’t yet gathered the headlines and legal focus of that ‘other’ popular herbicide, glyphosate (known in its patented version as “Roundup”). The subject of last summer’s report was the herbicide

atrazine. There are increasing signs that atrazine is the next target of groups opposed to GMOs (although atrazine is applied to conventional and GM plants) and synthetic chemicals used in modern agriculture.

According to the anti-modern agriculture Environmental Working Group, “EPA Ignores the Science, Dismisses the Risks to Children’s Health from Syngenta’s Atrazine.” EWG is now demanding a ban on the use of atrazine in the US:..............To Read More....

‘Children killer’ glyphosate found in Cheerios? Experts dismantle Environmental Working Group’s glyphosate study

Cameron English | Genetic Literacy Project | August 17, 2018

“If you or your children are eating Cheerios right now, there’s a good chance that they’re accompanied by a potentially harmful weed killer called Roundup,” Fortune told its readers on August 16. Newsweek headlined its article, “Dangerous Weed Killer Ingredient Found in Cheerios, Quaker Oats and Other Breakfast Cereals.”

These were two of literally hundreds of news outlets that botched coverage of what scientists say is a dubious study of breakfast cereals and granola bars by virulently anti-GMO Environmental Working Group, a Washington DC-based public health advocacy group........To Read More....

Hey Mainstream Media, Please Stop Promoting EWG's 'Dirty Dozen'

By Julianna LeMieux — April 12, 2018 @ American Council on Science and Health

Spring is in the air, flowers are blooming and the Environmental Working Group (EWG) has published their annual "Dirty Dozen."

The concept of the list is to help consumers decide, as they are choosing their produce, which types of produce should be given priority when buying the organic version.

But, the list should be ignored for a multitude of reasons. First of all, it promotes the idea that organic foods do not have pesticides (they do). In case you don't believe me, check out the National List of pesticides approved for organic certified farms.

EWG also makes some sweeping claims that are not backed up by scientific evidence. They publish their methods of list creation here. But, they fail to relate the pesticide amounts to health standards and not all pesticides are the same, of course.

They also claim that “consumers can lower their pesticide consumption by nearly four-fifths by avoiding conventionally grown varieties of the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables.” However, since they do not measure consumer exposure, there is no way to make this statement.
In 2011, a group published a paper in the Journal of Toxicology (1) to test whether the dirty dozen was, indeed, dirty. This is a peer-reviewed scientific paper - not a blog on a website.

They compared the amount of pesticides on samples of the foods listed in the Dirty Dozen to the chronic reference dose, which is the maximum amount that you can have if you are eating that food every day of your life. The level of the chronic reference dose is much higher than anything that would ever lead to a health effect (100 times higher than the amount that caused effects in animals.) However, none of the foods tested reached that level.
They concluded that

In summary, findings conclusively demonstrate that consumer exposures to the ten most frequently detected pesticides on EWG's “Dirty Dozen” commodity list are at negligible levels and that the EWG methodology is insufficient to allow any meaningful rankings among commodities. We concur with EWG President Kenneth Cook who maintains that “We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic” [1], but our findings do not indicate that substituting organic forms of the “Dirty Dozen” commodities for conventional forms will lead to any measurable consumer health benefit.

So, that's it. The dirty dozen is just a list of twelve fruits and vegetables (we are not even going to post it the list because that would lend some credibility to it) that probably have some pesticides on them. So, please, mainstream media (CBS, CNN, and USA Today - we're looking at you) please stop promoting the false information that inherently comes along with this list. You can do better than that.

Source: Carl Winter and Josh Katz. Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels. Journal of Toxicology Published online 2011 May 15. doi:  10.1155/2011/589674