7 ms·

Okay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce. That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced. What th

Okay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce. That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced. What this article annoyingly neglects to mention, is the _numbers_ attached to those traces of pesticides. Where there large amounts of trace chemicals, such that the levels exceed the EPA's recommended safe exposure levels? Were they so high that dangerous levels of bio-accumulation were likely? Absent numbers, it's difficult to tell if the people mentioned in the article are justified in feeling very worried, if it's a bunch of hand-wringing about nothing of significance, or somewhere between.

astrea 8y ago
Also worth noting the EWG's reports have been questioned in the past for their bias. Heck, even the type of report this article mentions is commonly criticized: https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits-and-veggies/ https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits...
- korethr 8y ago
  There's another factor that I think the OP fails to account for and that's washing produce before cooking and consumption. It's a habit I've been in for as long as I can recall cooking with produce, which I probably picked up from my parents, and have seen in just about every kitchen I've been in. As far as I recall, it was less out of a concern over pesticide residue, but more to make sure all soil was removed from the produce before consumption. That latter point is very important! It _sucks_ to bite into a grain of sand when eating a salad because I neglected to wash the lettuce well. And even if the trace levels of pesticides were close to the unsafe chronic threshold, washing the produce to remove remaining trace dirt is, IMO, likely to take those trace levels of pesticides down far enough that I don't need to worry.
  - primroot 8y ago
    Ever heard of systemic pesticides? "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
    - korethr 8y ago
      No, I had not. Today I learned a thing. Thank you. Clearly systemic pesticides will need to be addressed differently from those which simply coat the crop and leave residues, but I remain confident that washing produce before cooking and consumption is enough to reduce the latter to safe levels.
      - feanaro 8y ago
        Sadly, it's probably not universally true: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118 In my country, washing things isn't some kind of oddity some people do so that realizing why they do it makes it some cool new trick. Rather, everyone washes their produce for exactly this reason, but this study suggests it's far from foolproof.
alexandercrohde 8y ago
Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can even decide yet if coffee is good for me?
- korethr 8y ago
  > Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable so far. > Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? > Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through. However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and what to do about it. > Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided yet if coffee is good for me? I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data. That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do so.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
Not_a_pizza 8y ago
I don't think the final question is how much do we need to avoid. We are protecting ourselves and the things we want to keep alive in the future. We have to then ask, "Will this permanently destroy us or our living space?". Also, science determines LD50 all the time. What they often do not check is what amount of pesticide needs to be consumed before your health or intelligence drop by 10%. Those would be excellent numbers to have available.

astrea 8y ago

Also worth noting the EWG's reports have been questioned in the past for their bias. Heck, even the type of report this article mentions is commonly criticized: https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits-and-veggies/ https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits...

korethr 8y ago
There's another factor that I think the OP fails to account for and that's washing produce before cooking and consumption. It's a habit I've been in for as long as I can recall cooking with produce, which I probably picked up from my parents, and have seen in just about every kitchen I've been in. As far as I recall, it was less out of a concern over pesticide residue, but more to make sure all soil was removed from the produce before consumption. That latter point is very important! It _sucks_ to bite into a grain of sand when eating a salad because I neglected to wash the lettuce well. And even if the trace levels of pesticides were close to the unsafe chronic threshold, washing the produce to remove remaining trace dirt is, IMO, likely to take those trace levels of pesticides down far enough that I don't need to worry.
- primroot 8y ago
  Ever heard of systemic pesticides? "Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide
  - korethr 8y ago
    No, I had not. Today I learned a thing. Thank you. Clearly systemic pesticides will need to be addressed differently from those which simply coat the crop and leave residues, but I remain confident that washing produce before cooking and consumption is enough to reduce the latter to safe levels.
    - feanaro 8y ago
      Sadly, it's probably not universally true: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118 In my country, washing things isn't some kind of oddity some people do so that realizing why they do it makes it some cool new trick. Rather, everyone washes their produce for exactly this reason, but this study suggests it's far from foolproof.

alexandercrohde 8y ago

Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can even decide yet if coffee is good for me?

korethr 8y ago
> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea what's definitely safe. I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I think it is a gross overstatement that nobody has any idea what's definitely safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have been workable so far. > Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't be wrong? > Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after all? Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through. However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and what to do about it. > Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided yet if coffee is good for me? I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data. That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do so.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

Not_a_pizza 8y ago

I don't think the final question is how much do we need to avoid. We are protecting ourselves and the things we want to keep alive in the future. We have to then ask, "Will this permanently destroy us or our living space?". Also, science determines LD50 all the time. What they often do not check is what amount of pesticide needs to be consumed before your health or intelligence drop by 10%. Those would be excellent numbers to have available.