8 ms·

Traces of 122 different pesticides in 12 most polluted fruit and veg products

120 points by sva_ 5y ago

ObamaBinSpying 5y ago
I wonder if any of those oranges were from California... because they are very anti carcinogenic agents.
mrfusion 5y ago
How bad are these? What can a person realistically do?
deltasixeight 5y ago
Theoretically if the pesticide is below a certain threshold I should be fine. However if I mix thousands of dangerous chemicals together while keeping each portion below the danger threshold until I have a cup of this stuff I can gulp down than in theory I should be fine. However if I suffer from ingesting such a concoction then logically this theory of keeping chemicals below certain danger thresholds does not logically hold weight.
- cheschire 5y ago
  I'm unsure why you're being downvoted unless the downvoters just didn't read till the end. I wonder if that's a regularly used loophole in the use of chemicals on foods.
syntaxing 5y ago
I’m assuming there is different list for different countries? Are these “dirty 12” a good representation in the US? If not, anyone can point me to a list similar but for the US?
- clairity 5y ago
  the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've referred people to this list by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any other: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php note that the recommendation for these produce items is to buy organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of the least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've referred people to this list by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any other: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php >note that the recommendation for these produce items is to buy organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of the least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a political lobbying group for the organic industry.
    - clairity 5y ago
      yes, it's not an independent body, but one of many from which to triangulate a reasonable position. hopefully it was an obviously neutral recommendation.
jniedrauer 5y ago
> Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health. This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. This organization, Pesticide Action Network, is opposed to GMOs and other modern farming techniques that kicked off the green revolution, seemingly on principle more than anything else. Consumers absolutely should be vigilant, because industrial food production has a bad track record. But with 7 billion humans to feed and counting, it is not realistic to roll back the green revolution.
- version_five 5y ago
  > This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. Elected politicians should "dictate" - I would say build consensus on - health policy. Scientists should inform it.
- bawolff 5y ago
  > This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. I think anyone should be able to raise an objection - and then we should look at the science to decide how valid it is. The activists seem to be worried that while individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't sound impossible, and there have certainly been other cases in other contexts where a combination is toxic but the individual parts aren't. If that's been studied great, if not we should definitely study it to find out.
  - OJFord 5y ago
    > individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination I'm sure I've heard colleagues (more on the 'ag' side of the 'agtech' company) mention that, things that can't be used in combination, but I can't see where it would be listed (or find an example where it is) in the pesticides register: https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp I'll ask next week if I remember, curious now, since it seems fairly obvious? Just like you can buy all sorts of safe household & garden chemicals for cleaning etc. but which if you know what you're doing (I don't) and want to (I certainly don't) can be used to construct very not-safe things.
mherdeg 5y ago
This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only organic produce or should I be spending the same money and energy on eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce? There is a tradeoff... with young kids and a full-time job the time I can spend buying or preparing meals is pretty limited. I don't fully understand the magnitude of the risks of, say, eating too much vs. eating too much pesticide. I'm also kind of irrationally mad at organizations like the Environmental Working Group; as far as I can tell their "dirty dozen list" comes from taking public domain FDA data about toxins in food, dividing the guideline safe amounts by about 10 arbitrarily, and publishing that the public numbers are higher than their (apparently made up?) lower safety thresholds. I just don't understand the science here -- how much extra death are they saying I'm incurring by eating non organic produce and what are the error bars?
- clairity 5y ago
  the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other produce. eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you replace it with fruit or not.
  - mherdeg 5y ago
    Yeah the fact that it took us years to identify issues with like, BPA or trans fats -- and the constant churn on stuff like glyphosate where it feels like regulators continue to be slower than data -- have me worried. Maybe we should be buying more organic ... It's not any extra time and not overall a huge amount of extra money in the grocery budget.
    - clairity 5y ago
      yah, washing produce thoroughly also helps reduce (but doesn't eliminate) the extra chemicals. these couple precautions don't add too much mental/physical burden, imo.
      - 5y ago
Nicksil 5y ago
This article has so much misleading information. It's bonkers. >The official figures, analysed by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), found 122 different pesticides in the 12 most polluted products, which the charity calls the “dirty dozen”. Many of these are hazardous to human health; 61% are classified as highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a concept used by the UN to identify those substances most harmful to human health or the environment. >The list of pesticides includes 47 with links to cancer, 15 “reproductive or developmental toxins” that can have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility, and 17 cholinesterase inhibitors that can impair the respiratory system and cause confusion, headaches and weakness. A quarter of the pesticides found are suspected endocrine disruptors that can interfere with hormone systems, causing an array of health problems including birth defects and developmental disorders. >Every fruit or vegetable on the list contains two or more types of pesticide, with some containing up to 25. Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health. "Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits" This is buried but this is what it all comes down to. Every chemical can be hazardous to humans. Every one of 'em. Water? Yeah, you can die from too much water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication). If you're wondering why you have yet to die from consuming these foods or why our average life expectancy hasn't declined since we began applying these products, it's because they are in-fact not harmful to humans in the quantities allowed for agricultural application. >“The best way for people to avoid pesticides is to buy organic. Of course, almost no one in the UK can financially afford or access a fully organic diet so that is why we publish the dirty dozen – to help consumers prioritise which produce to avoid,” she said. Here, again, is the misconception "organic" foods are produced without the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Of course these "organic" crops have pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer applied. If they didn't, there wouldn't be enough output to sustain the size of the "organic" industry we see today. "Organic" crops may not use the same products as conventional agriculture because of seemingly arbitrary rules they came up with governing the make-up of such products. Now here's where it gets especially frustrating: The "organic" variety of these products are less effective than the more advanced variety used by everyone else. More of the chemical is required to achieve the desired output. More, not less, of these "organic" chemical products are being applied to the "organic" foods you consume. >There are also environmental implications: half of the top 12 pesticides found are groundwater contaminants, meaning they persist in water bodies, potentially affecting aquatic biodiversity or drinking water quality. The list includes the neonicotinoid acetamiprid which, while thought to be less toxic to pollinators than other neonicotinoids, PAN says could still represent a potential threat to bee health. This is true for all applications of such chemicals; including the chemicals used to treat "organic" crops. When you put stuff in the environment, it will become detectable in the environment. >Mole added: “Consumers presume that their food has been through rigorous testing and that if an item is available for sale in the UK then it must be safe. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. [...]” Yes it is. Rigorous testing is being conducting on a nearly constant basis. Whether we find something in the future that is harmful to humans does not mean testing had not taken place, it means our science and understanding has advanced to the point where we're capable of discovering such a thing. > [...] We actually have very limited understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of tens of different pesticides every day of our lives.” No we don't. We have a pretty good understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of different "organic" and conventional pesticides. >A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “All food sold in the UK must meet strict rules on pesticide residue to ensure it is safe to eat. These are enforced via a comprehensive residues monitoring programme overseen by an independent specialist body and in 2020 more than 97% of tested samples were compliant. And buried at the end of it all is this. But why should we believe the government when this interest group is scaring us into buying more "organic" produce? This is bananas. I am genuinely surprised such a low-quality, low-effort article, spreading blatant fear, uncertainty, and doubt was published by The Guardian. --- I've enclosed the term "organic" in quotes in some context because the word is absolutely meaningless when used to describe foods. All food is organic. "Organic" is this context is a marketing term and nothing more.
mandmandam 5y ago
So, 74 'Highly Hazardous Pesticides' from just 12 fruit. And likely with significant crossover, so you get double and triple-dosed. We know they're more toxic than your ex, and we know that there's people out there eating all these fruits and grains, like your mum. So why do we have debate on Round-ups' toxicity, or the 'economic benefits' of robot-powered, topsoil-eroding mono-cultures with no life in them? Why do we talk about MDMA piss polluting rivers after festivals, instead of the persistent petrochemical pesticides fucking up all our water and insects and birds and insides? We know organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for the soil, for the water and birds and bees. ... But there are statuses to quo I guess, so fuck us.
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >We know organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for the soil, for the water and birds and bees. It's not better. Not a thing about it makes it better than conventional agriculture. Indeed one could make the argument it is worse than conventional agriculture for the items you listed because of the less effective methods used for "organic" pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application.
  - TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
    I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how can you say that?
    - Nicksil 5y ago
      >I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how can you say that? What specifically about Roundup are you referring to?
      - mandmandam 5y ago
        It's funny how often you show up in these threads Nicksil. Doing exactly this. For a software engineer you really seem to love defending pesticides, toxins, and mono-culture. Did an organic banana hurt you in some way?
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Vertical farming is a solution, because it needs no pesticide being in a clean environment.
- dabfiend19 5y ago
  do you have any evidence of this? from my personal experience pests are an even bigger problem for growing plants indoors. lack of predatory parts of the food chain allow some pests to go unchecked. just one spider mite in a greenhouse... could quickly overtake the whole thing with out natural predators like lady bugs and predatory mites.
- klyrs 5y ago
  A friend of mine is a mycologist who studies fungi that grow in hydroponic greenhouses. I feel fairly safe saying that there's no such thing as a "clean" environment where anything is allowed to grow. In the best case: if it's clean but nutritious enough to support life, it's ripe for rapid colonization, and probably by something nasty. See also: biosphere experiments.
  - Ekaros 5y ago
    It is all good until it isn't and then it's massively expensive replacing or sterilising everything. I wonder how long realistically such level of cleanliness could on average be managed...
- anonuser123456 5y ago
  Just like fusion power.
desktopninja 5y ago
This was the book that, as they say these days, "awoke" me many moons ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring

120 points by sva_ 5y ago

ObamaBinSpying 5y ago

I wonder if any of those oranges were from California... because they are very anti carcinogenic agents.

mrfusion 5y ago

How bad are these? What can a person realistically do?

deltasixeight 5y ago

Theoretically if the pesticide is below a certain threshold I should be fine. However if I mix thousands of dangerous chemicals together while keeping each portion below the danger threshold until I have a cup of this stuff I can gulp down than in theory I should be fine. However if I suffer from ingesting such a concoction then logically this theory of keeping chemicals below certain danger thresholds does not logically hold weight.

cheschire 5y ago
I'm unsure why you're being downvoted unless the downvoters just didn't read till the end. I wonder if that's a regularly used loophole in the use of chemicals on foods.

syntaxing 5y ago

I’m assuming there is different list for different countries? Are these “dirty 12” a good representation in the US? If not, anyone can point me to a list similar but for the US?

clairity 5y ago
the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've referred people to this list by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any other: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php note that the recommendation for these produce items is to buy organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of the least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php
- Nicksil 5y ago
  >the dirty dozen concept seems global at this point. i've referred people to this list by the Environmental Working Group (EWG), though i don't know that it's better than any other: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/dirty-dozen.php >note that the recommendation for these produce items is to buy organic. there's a complementary list (clean fifteen) of the least polluted produce, for which buying regular is fine: https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/clean-fifteen.php The Environmental Working Group (EWG) is a political lobbying group for the organic industry.
  - clairity 5y ago
    yes, it's not an independent body, but one of many from which to triangulate a reasonable position. hopefully it was an obviously neutral recommendation.

jniedrauer 5y ago

> Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health. This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. This organization, Pesticide Action Network, is opposed to GMOs and other modern farming techniques that kicked off the green revolution, seemingly on principle more than anything else. Consumers absolutely should be vigilant, because industrial food production has a bad track record. But with 7 billion humans to feed and counting, it is not realistic to roll back the green revolution.

version_five 5y ago
> This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. Elected politicians should "dictate" - I would say build consensus on - health policy. Scientists should inform it.
bawolff 5y ago
> This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists. I think anyone should be able to raise an objection - and then we should look at the science to decide how valid it is. The activists seem to be worried that while individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination. I have no idea if that's true or not, but it doesn't sound impossible, and there have certainly been other cases in other contexts where a combination is toxic but the individual parts aren't. If that's been studied great, if not we should definitely study it to find out.
- OJFord 5y ago
  > individually the chemicals are fine, maybe they aren't in combination I'm sure I've heard colleagues (more on the 'ag' side of the 'agtech' company) mention that, things that can't be used in combination, but I can't see where it would be listed (or find an example where it is) in the pesticides register: https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp https://secure.pesticides.gov.uk/pestreg/prodsearch.asp I'll ask next week if I remember, curious now, since it seems fairly obvious? Just like you can buy all sorts of safe household & garden chemicals for cleaning etc. but which if you know what you're doing (I don't) and want to (I certainly don't) can be used to construct very not-safe things.

mherdeg 5y ago

This is an area where I'm torn. Should I be buying only organic produce or should I be spending the same money and energy on eating less sugar and more of any kind of produce? There is a tradeoff... with young kids and a full-time job the time I can spend buying or preparing meals is pretty limited. I don't fully understand the magnitude of the risks of, say, eating too much vs. eating too much pesticide. I'm also kind of irrationally mad at organizations like the Environmental Working Group; as far as I can tell their "dirty dozen list" comes from taking public domain FDA data about toxins in food, dividing the guideline safe amounts by about 10 arbitrarily, and publishing that the public numbers are higher than their (apparently made up?) lower safety thresholds. I just don't understand the science here -- how much extra death are they saying I'm incurring by eating non organic produce and what are the error bars?

clairity 5y ago
the (magnitude of) risk isn't certain yet, but it's unlikely zero, given our history of poorly quantifying the harmfulness of a variety of substances. a reasonable hedge is to buy organic for the dirty dozen and non-organic for other produce. eat less processed sugar regardless, whether you replace it with fruit or not.
- mherdeg 5y ago
  Yeah the fact that it took us years to identify issues with like, BPA or trans fats -- and the constant churn on stuff like glyphosate where it feels like regulators continue to be slower than data -- have me worried. Maybe we should be buying more organic ... It's not any extra time and not overall a huge amount of extra money in the grocery budget.
  - clairity 5y ago
    yah, washing produce thoroughly also helps reduce (but doesn't eliminate) the extra chemicals. these couple precautions don't add too much mental/physical burden, imo.
    - 5y ago

Nicksil 5y ago

This article has so much misleading information. It's bonkers. >The official figures, analysed by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), found 122 different pesticides in the 12 most polluted products, which the charity calls the “dirty dozen”. Many of these are hazardous to human health; 61% are classified as highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a concept used by the UN to identify those substances most harmful to human health or the environment. >The list of pesticides includes 47 with links to cancer, 15 “reproductive or developmental toxins” that can have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility, and 17 cholinesterase inhibitors that can impair the respiratory system and cause confusion, headaches and weakness. A quarter of the pesticides found are suspected endocrine disruptors that can interfere with hormone systems, causing an array of health problems including birth defects and developmental disorders. >Every fruit or vegetable on the list contains two or more types of pesticide, with some containing up to 25. Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health. "Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits" This is buried but this is what it all comes down to. Every chemical can be hazardous to humans. Every one of 'em. Water? Yeah, you can die from too much water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication). If you're wondering why you have yet to die from consuming these foods or why our average life expectancy hasn't declined since we began applying these products, it's because they are in-fact not harmful to humans in the quantities allowed for agricultural application. >“The best way for people to avoid pesticides is to buy organic. Of course, almost no one in the UK can financially afford or access a fully organic diet so that is why we publish the dirty dozen – to help consumers prioritise which produce to avoid,” she said. Here, again, is the misconception "organic" foods are produced without the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Of course these "organic" crops have pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer applied. If they didn't, there wouldn't be enough output to sustain the size of the "organic" industry we see today. "Organic" crops may not use the same products as conventional agriculture because of seemingly arbitrary rules they came up with governing the make-up of such products. Now here's where it gets especially frustrating: The "organic" variety of these products are less effective than the more advanced variety used by everyone else. More of the chemical is required to achieve the desired output. More, not less, of these "organic" chemical products are being applied to the "organic" foods you consume. >There are also environmental implications: half of the top 12 pesticides found are groundwater contaminants, meaning they persist in water bodies, potentially affecting aquatic biodiversity or drinking water quality. The list includes the neonicotinoid acetamiprid which, while thought to be less toxic to pollinators than other neonicotinoids, PAN says could still represent a potential threat to bee health. This is true for all applications of such chemicals; including the chemicals used to treat "organic" crops. When you put stuff in the environment, it will become detectable in the environment. >Mole added: “Consumers presume that their food has been through rigorous testing and that if an item is available for sale in the UK then it must be safe. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. [...]” Yes it is. Rigorous testing is being conducting on a nearly constant basis. Whether we find something in the future that is harmful to humans does not mean testing had not taken place, it means our science and understanding has advanced to the point where we're capable of discovering such a thing. > [...] We actually have very limited understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of tens of different pesticides every day of our lives.” No we don't. We have a pretty good understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of different "organic" and conventional pesticides. >A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “All food sold in the UK must meet strict rules on pesticide residue to ensure it is safe to eat. These are enforced via a comprehensive residues monitoring programme overseen by an independent specialist body and in 2020 more than 97% of tested samples were compliant. And buried at the end of it all is this. But why should we believe the government when this interest group is scaring us into buying more "organic" produce? This is bananas. I am genuinely surprised such a low-quality, low-effort article, spreading blatant fear, uncertainty, and doubt was published by The Guardian. --- I've enclosed the term "organic" in quotes in some context because the word is absolutely meaningless when used to describe foods. All food is organic. "Organic" is this context is a marketing term and nothing more.

mandmandam 5y ago

So, 74 'Highly Hazardous Pesticides' from just 12 fruit. And likely with significant crossover, so you get double and triple-dosed. We know they're more toxic than your ex, and we know that there's people out there eating all these fruits and grains, like your mum. So why do we have debate on Round-ups' toxicity, or the 'economic benefits' of robot-powered, topsoil-eroding mono-cultures with no life in them? Why do we talk about MDMA piss polluting rivers after festivals, instead of the persistent petrochemical pesticides fucking up all our water and insects and birds and insides? We know organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for the soil, for the water and birds and bees. ... But there are statuses to quo I guess, so fuck us.

Nicksil 5y ago
>We know organic perma-culture is better; for our bodies, for the soil, for the water and birds and bees. It's not better. Not a thing about it makes it better than conventional agriculture. Indeed one could make the argument it is worse than conventional agriculture for the items you listed because of the less effective methods used for "organic" pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer application.
- TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
  I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how can you say that?
  - Nicksil 5y ago
    >I mean, have you read anything about Roundup? If so, how can you say that? What specifically about Roundup are you referring to?
    - mandmandam 5y ago
      It's funny how often you show up in these threads Nicksil. Doing exactly this. For a software engineer you really seem to love defending pesticides, toxins, and mono-culture. Did an organic banana hurt you in some way?

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Vertical farming is a solution, because it needs no pesticide being in a clean environment.

dabfiend19 5y ago
do you have any evidence of this? from my personal experience pests are an even bigger problem for growing plants indoors. lack of predatory parts of the food chain allow some pests to go unchecked. just one spider mite in a greenhouse... could quickly overtake the whole thing with out natural predators like lady bugs and predatory mites.
klyrs 5y ago
A friend of mine is a mycologist who studies fungi that grow in hydroponic greenhouses. I feel fairly safe saying that there's no such thing as a "clean" environment where anything is allowed to grow. In the best case: if it's clean but nutritious enough to support life, it's ripe for rapid colonization, and probably by something nasty. See also: biosphere experiments.
- Ekaros 5y ago
  It is all good until it isn't and then it's massively expensive replacing or sterilising everything. I wonder how long realistically such level of cleanliness could on average be managed...
anonuser123456 5y ago
Just like fusion power.

desktopninja 5y ago

This was the book that, as they say these days, "awoke" me many moons ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring