ParfumGigi@aol.com

Adjusting your eating habits can lower your intake of pesticides -- sometimes dramatically so. Substitute organic for conventional produce that is consistently contaminated with pesticides. When organic is not available, eat fruits and vegetables with consistently low pesticide loads.

An EWG simulation of thousands of consumers eating high and low pesticide diets shows that people can lower their pesticide exposure by 90 percent by avoiding the top twelve most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated instead. Eating the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables will expose a person to nearly 20 pesticides per day, on average. Eating the 12 least contaminated will expose a person to a fraction over 2 pesticides per day. Less dramatic comparisons will produce less dramatic reductions, but without doubt using the Guide provides people with a way to make choices that lower pesticide exposure in the diet.

Consistent with two previous EWG investigations, fruits topped the list of the consistently most contaminated fruits and vegetables, with eight of the 12 most contaminated foods. Among the top six were four fruits, with peaches leading the list, then strawberries, apples and nectarines. Pears, cherries, red raspberries, and imported grapes were the other four fruits in the top 12. Among these eight fruits:

* Nectarines had the highest percentage of samples test positive for pesticides (97.3 percent), followed by pears (94.4 percent) and peaches (93.7 percent).

* Nectarines also had the highest likelihood of multiple pesticides on a single sample — 85.3 percent had two or more pesticide residues — followed by peaches (79.9 percent) and cherries (75.8 percent).

* Peaches and raspberries had the most pesticides detected on a single sample with nine pesticides on a single sample, followed by strawberries and apples, where eight pesticides were found on a single sample.

* Peaches had the most pesticides overall with some combination of up to 45 pesticides found on the samples tested, followed by raspberries with 39 pesticides and apples and strawberries, both with 36.

Spinach, celery, potatoes, and sweet bell peppers are the vegetables most likely to expose consumers to pesticides. Among these four vegetables:

* Celery had the highest of percentage of samples test positive for pesticides (94.5 percent), followed by spinach (83.4 percent) and potatoes (79.3 percent).

* Celery also had the highest likelihood of multiple pesticides on a single vegetable (78 percent of samples), followed by spinach (51.8 percent) and sweet bell peppers (48.5 percent).

* Spinach was the vegetable with the most pesticides detected on a single sample (10 found on one sample), followed by celery and sweet bell peppers (both with nine).

* Sweet bell peppers were the vegetable with the most pesticides overall with 39, followed by spinach at 36 and celery and potatoes, both with 29. 

The vegetables least likely to have pesticides on them are sweet corn, avocado, cauliflower, asparagus, onions, peas and broccoli.

* Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of the pea and broccoli samples had no detectable pesticides. Among the other vegetables on the least-contaminated list, there were no detectable residues on 90 percent or more of the samples.

* Multiple pesticide residues are extremely rare on any of these least contaminated vegetables. Broccoli had the highest likelihood, with a 2.6 percent chance of more than one pesticide when ready to eat. Avocado and corn both had the lowest chance with zero samples containing more than one pesticide when eaten.

* The greatest number of pesticides detected on a single sample of any of these low-pesticide vegetables was three as compared to 10 found on spinach, the most contaminated crop with the most residues.

* Broccoli and onions both had the most pesticides found on a single vegetable crop at up to 17 pesticides but far fewer than the most contaminated vegetable, sweet bell peppers, on which 39 were found.

The five fruits least likely to have pesticide residues on them are pineapples, mangoes, bananas, kiwi and papaya.

* Fewer than 10 percent of pineapple and mango samples had detectable pesticides on them and fewer than one percent of samples had more than one pesticide residue.

* Though 53 percent of bananas had detectable pesticides, multiple residues are rare with only 4.7 percent of samples containing more than one residue. Kiwi and papaya had residues on 23.6 percent and 21.7 percent of samples, respectively, and just 10.4 percent and 5.6 percent of samples, respectively, had multiple pesticide residues. 

The Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce ranks pesticide contamination for 46 popular fruits and vegetables based on an analysis of over 100,000 tests for pesticides on these foods, conducted from 1992 - 2001 by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration. Contamination was measured in six different ways and crops were ranked based on a composite score from all categories.

The six measures of contamination we used were:

* Percent of the samples tested with detectable pesticides

* Percent of the samples with two or more pesticides

* Average number of pesticides found on a sample

* Average amount (level in parts per million) of all pesticides found

* Maximum number of pesticides found on a single sample

* Number of pesticides found on the commodity in total

The philosophy behind the guide is simple: give consumers the information they need make choices to reduce pesticides in their diets. In this spirit, the Guide does not present a complex assessment of pesticide risks, but instead simply reflects the overall load of pesticides found on commonly eaten fruits and vegetables. This approach best captures the uncertainty of the risks of pesticide exposure and the value judgments involved in the choice to buy food with less pesticides.

Pesticides cause many adverse effects in well designed animal studies, from cancer, to nervous system damage, to reproductive effects. Rather than assign more weight to cancer than birth defects, we simply assumed that all adverse effects are equal. There is a significant degree of uncertainty about the health effects of pesticide mixtures. This ranking takes this uncertainty into account in the most defensible way possible, by simply ranking fruits and vegetables by their likelihood of being consistently contaminated with the greatest number of pesticides at the highest levels.

The produce listed in the Guide was chosen after an analysis of USDA food consumption data from 1994-1996. The 46 selected were those reported eaten on at least one tenth of one percent of all "eating days" in the survey with a minimum of 100 pesticide test results. An eating day is one day of food consumption reported to USDA by one individual - some of whom were followed for three days.

The more that scientists learn about the toxicity of pesticides, the more questions are raised about the potential toxic effects on people. Pesticide manufacturers often portray these unresolved scientific issues, and the uncertainty that comes with them, as safety. Statements like, "there is no conclusive evidence of harm to humans" from exposure to pesticide X are intended to mislead the public into believing that exposures to pesticides and toxic chemicals are without appreciable risks. This is not true. Absence of knowledge is not proof of safety.

There are two chief reasons why it is so difficult to link human harm conclusively to toxic chemicals.

First, most safety tests done for regulatory agencies are not designed to discover whether the low dose exposures to pesticide and chemical mixtures that we all experience are safe, particularly during critical periods of development. In general, the government demands, and companies conduct, high dose studies designed to find gross, obvious toxic effects. In the absence of the appropriate tests at lower doses, pesticide and chemical manufacturers claim safety because no harm at low doses has been conclusively demonstrated (or even studied). Second, because people are contaminated with trace levels of literally hundreds of chemicals, it is generally impossible to attribute a specific health effect to any one of them. There are several worrisome exceptions, however, including chemicals like PCBs and lead, where low doses at critical periods of development have been shown to have significant permanent adverse effects on learning and behavior (CDC 2001, CDC 2003, EWG 2003, ATSDR 1999, ATSDR 2000).

Beyond the narrow confines of regulatory agencies, independent research scientists are beginning to understand the subtle ways in which small doses of pesticides during critical periods of fetal development and childhood can have long lasting adverse effects on people. It is well established that the fetus, infant and small child are typically most vulnerable to the toxic effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals (NRC 1993, EPA 2003, FSA 2003). The metabolism, physiology and biochemistry of a fetus, infant or child is fundamentally different than an adult. A host of vital organ systems continue to grow and mature from conception throughout childhood. At critical periods of developmental change, these systems are susceptible to the toxic effects of pesticides and toxic chemicals, both individually, and in mixtures. Many organ systems, for example the nervous system and brain, can be permanently, if subtly damaged by exposure to toxic substances in-utero or throughout early childhood that, at the same level, cause no measurable harm to adults (Jacobson 1996, CDC 1997, NRC 2000)

The endocrine (hormone) system is perhaps even more sensitive to toxic exposure than the nervous system, and over the past decade, enormous effort has been put into the study of how pesticides and toxic chemicals interfere with normal endocrine signaling and function. A significant body of research in animals now shows that ultra-low doses of pesticides and toxic chemicals on critical days of development can cause changes in hormone function and effects on organ development and function that often only appear later in life. A growing number of these studies show that low doses at a susceptible moment of development can cause more of an effect than high doses (vom Saal 1997, Alworth 2002, Hayes 2003). This is particularly relevant to childhood and fetal exposures via food and water where the timing of the exposure is at least as important as the dose.

Many pesticides are now considered "endocrine disrupters", in part because the term is something of a catch phrase for chemicals that cause a variety of changes in normal hormone signaling. Some better known examples of highly toxic endocrine disrupting pesticides are DDT (and its metabolite DDE) which are now known to exhibit much of their toxicity through anti-androgenic (de-masculinizing) properties (ATSDR 2002), vinclozolin, a heavily used fungicide that is also anti-androgenic (EPA 2000), endosulfan, a DDT relative with estrogenic properties that is found more often in food than any other pesticide (EPA 2002, USDA 1994-2001), and atrazine, a weed killer with broad hormonal activity, that contaminates the drinking water of about 20 million people in the United States (EWG 1999, EWG 1995).

Today scientists know much more about how pesticides can change critical hormone signals in the human body in ways that can have potential life changing effects. Yet in spite of these advances, there is little agreement on how much endocrine disruption is too much, and how much is without harm. The same is true of immune system effects and to a lesser degree effects on the developing nervous system.

As science advances, public health and environmental officials are faced with growing knowledge about the hazards of pesticides, but uncertainty about precise mechanisms and nature of the adverse effects. This conundrum is straining a regulatory system that has become overly dependent on scientific certainty when certainty is increasingly difficult, and even impossible to achieve.

Rather than preventing exposures and putting the burden of proving safety where it belongs, on pesticide and toxic chemical producers, most pesticides remain on the market with no threat of regulatory action. EPA is increasingly mired in complex and arcane scientific arguments, mostly generated by chemical companies, that serve primarily as delaying tactics to keep pesticides and toxic chemicals in the marketplace. With no end in sight to this stalemate, the consumer is wise to minimize exposure to pesticides whenever possible.

Yes, but far too slowly. Further, it's important to remember that the government said that highly toxic pesticides like DDT, chlordane, dursban and others were safe right up to the day the EPA banned them.

The EPA is in the process of upgrading pesticide safety standards to comply with a 1996 law (The Food Quality Protection Act) that requires protection of infants and children from pesticides. Several highly toxic pesticides have been banned or restricted under the law, but many have either escaped controls, or have not yet been subjected to them. Pesticide makers, food companies and agribusiness groups are fighting strict application of the statute, and so far have succeeded in weakening several key provisions.

Even the best application of the 1996 law will not protect the public from the combined effect of multiple pesticides. Although a handful of the most dangerous pesticides have been removed from the food supply in recent years, overall, the use of pesticides has remained steady. Once you see the results of the FoodNews Computer, you'll see that multiple exposures are daily events. If you eat in this country, you eat pesticides.

Pesticides are toxic by design. They kill bugs, weeds, fungi, rodents and other "pests." That's why the government regulates them--though not stringently enough. The risks you encounter when you eat them depend on a number of factors including the toxicity of the pesticide, degree and form of exposure, your age, genetic susceptibility, and exposure to other toxics, including other pesticides. We believe that:

1. You have a right to know what's in your food.

2. The risks from many of these contaminants are unacceptably high, especially for infants and children

3. The government can and should take steps to eliminate toxic chemicals, including pesticides, from the food supply.

References

Alworth, LC., Howdeshell, KL., Ruhlen, RL., Day, JK., Lubahn, DB., Huang, TH., Besch-Williford, CL and vom Saal, FS. 2002. Uterine responsiveness to estradiol and DNA methylation are altered by fetal exposure to diethylstilbestrol and methoxychlor in CD-1 mice: effects of low versus high doses. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 183 (1): 10-22.

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1999. Toxicology profile for lead (CASRN 7439-92-1). Available online at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2000. Toxicological profile for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (Arochlors -1260, -1254, -1248, -1242, -1232, -1221, and -1016 (update). Available online at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html#Final

ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 2003. Toxicological profile for DDT, DDE, and DDD (CASRN DDT 50-29-3, DDE 72-55-9, DDD 72-54-8). Available online at

http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxpro2.html#Final

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 1997. Facts on Lead. Available online at

http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/lead/guide/1997/docs/factlead.htm

CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). 2003. Second National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. Department of Health and Human Services. Available online at

http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/.

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Reregistration eligibility decision for vinclozalin. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) EPA 738-R-00-023. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/vinclozolin/

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2002. Reregistration eligibility decision for endosulfan. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (OPPTS) EPA 738-R-02-013. Available online at

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/REDs/endosulfan_red.pdf

EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Draft final guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment (external review draft, February 2003). Available online at

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=55445

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 1995. Weed Killers By The Glass. Available online at

http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/Reports/Weed_Killer/Weed_Home.html

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 1999. Into the Mouth of Babes.

EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2003. BodyBurden: The Pollution in People. Available online at

http://www.ewg.org/issues/home.php?i=6.

FSA (Food Standards Agency) 2003. Proposed regulations regarding baby and infant food. Available online at

completed_consultations/compconsulteng/babyfoodregscons2003

Hayes, T., Haston, K., Tsui, M., Hoang, A., Haeffele, C and Vonk, A. 2003. Atrazine-induced hermaphroditism at 0.1 ppb in American Leopard Frogs (Rana pipiens): laboratory and field evidence. Environ Health Perspect 111 (4): 568-75.

Jacobson, JL and Jacobson, SW. 1996. Intellectual impairment in children exposed to polychlorinated biphenyls in utero. N Engl J Med 335 (11): 783-9.

NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Toxicological Effects of Methylmercury. Washington DC, National Academy Press. Available online at

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309071402/html/

NRC (National Research Council). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets of Infants and Children. National Academy Press, Washington DC. Available online at

http://books.nap.edu/books/0309048753/html/R1.html#pagetop

USDA (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 1994-2001. Pesticide Data Program.

vom Saal, FS., Timms, BG., Montano, MM., Palanza, P., Thayer, KA., Nagel, SC., Dhar, MD., Ganjam, VK., Parmigiani, S and Welshons, WV. 1997. Prostate enlargement in mice due to fetal exposure to low doses of estradiol or diethylstilbestrol and opposite effects at high doses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 94 (5): 2056-61.