3 ms·

Here you can see their methodology about pesticide risk https://article.images.consumerreports.org/image/upload/v1711992081/prod/content/dam/CRO-Images-2024/Ma

• JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  Thanks! Seems strange they measure the contamination by averaging only samples that were contaminated? Anywhere else that would be called 'cherry-picking' (no pun intended). Sure it's bad if any samples are contaminated. But this might be a few in a thousand, and the whole category is painted with that brush. Seems like it's designed to create scary numbers.
  • defrost 3y ago
    There's a lot of layering going on, I read both the methodology and the article written for The Guardian. eg: Green beans are another example. They qualify as high-risk primarily because of a pesticide called acephate or one of its breakdown products, methamidophos. Only 4% of conventional, domestic green bean samples were positive for one or both – but their pesticide levels were often alarmingly high. Attention is paid to the proportion of a category that is pesticide free and to the average and peak pesticide levels in those samples that test positive. Some food categories have most samples testing positive for low levels of not very risky chemicals, other categories mostly test clean but (big but) where there are pesticides the levels are high and dangerously so. It's done this way to get a clear picture of the risk spikes .. rather than "washing out" the risk by averaging across a large number of samples.