A Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Common Foods – And Why It Matters

There seems to have been a raging controversy for quite some time now surrounding the question of whether pesticide residues in food(s) contribute to health problems – especially certain types of cancers.  Research, especially from the National Cancer Institute (NCI), quite clearly shows a connection between the occupational use of pesticides and certain cancers.  For example, an association between pesticide use and prostate cancer risk has been observed among farming populations (1).  Pesticide use has also been linked to a higher risk of pre-cancerous multiple myeloma among those who use pesticides occupationally, particularly farmers (2).  However, the issue that appears to be one that is contentious is whether pesticide residues in food are a matter of concern for all of us.

Based on several scientific studies listed on their site, The Environmental Working Group (EWG) asserts that different pesticides in the foods we eat have been linked to a variety of toxic effects, including nervous system disorders, hormonal and carcinogenic effects, and skin, eye, and lung irritation.  The EWG claims that the acceptable pesticide residue levels for fruits and vegetables established by the The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are too high, and that not enough studies have been done to measure the effects of low-level and multiple pesticide exposure – a reason that warrants due caution with respect to pesticide intake through foods.

On their website, the EWG presents The Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides that ranks pesticide contamination for 47 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of 87,000 tests for pesticides on these foods, conducted from 2000 to 2007 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration.  They state that nearly all the studies used to create the list test produce after it has been rinsed or peeled.  You can view more details on the methodology used to create this guide at the EWG website.

As an epidemiologist, I am inclined in this case to agree with the conclusions arrived at by the EWG.  Pesticides – though often considered a necessary evil – are by definition agents that have an inherent toxicity.  For this reason, it makes sense to minimize our exposure to these agents.  And, precisely because we do not have long-term studies or data to help us decisively know to what extent ingestion of pesticides may be harmful, it seems only prudent for us to err on the side of caution.  To that end, the EWG has created a useful guide.

On the left is a list of “The Dirty Dozen” or the fruits and vegetables found to be most contaminated with pesticides.  It makes good sense to try to buy the organic versions of these foods, whenever possible.  The guide also lists “The Clean 15″ – a list of fruits and vegetables that have been found to be the least contaminated when grown conventionally.  EWG simulation studies show that by avoiding the top twelve most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated ones instead, consumers can lower their pesticide exposure by nearly 80%.

As a closing note, I fail to see why the matter of minimizing our pesticide intake through choosing certain foods is one that  is surrounded by as much controversy as it is.  In matters pertaining to our health and well-being, when we do not have “all the information” we would like to have, it is prudent to do what we can (based on what we do know) to minimize our risk to exposures that may have the potential for harm – perhaps even significant harm.   And, I might add that in the final analysis, minimizing risks is what health research is all about.

Is it ever an error to err on the side of safety on issues that may have a direct bearing on our very life and health?  I think not.  And you? – What say you?

Notes:

(1)  http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/AgricultureHealthStudy

(2)  http://www.cancer.gov/newscenter/pressreleases/AHSmyeloma

Resources:

Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides Full List