Why Do Consumers Buy Organic?
Though organic foods generally cost more than conventionally
grown foods, sales of organic fruits and vegetables in the United States have
nearly doubled in the past five years (OTA). Why are the sales of organic foods continuing
to grow?
People prefer organics for a variety of reasons, including:
the belief that they are healthier, pesticide-free, more nutritious,
environmentally-friendly, taste better, not genetically-modified (GMO),
supportive of small farmers and rural communities, the right thing to do
ethically, and a vote against modern farming methods (nielsenwire).
Are Organic Foods Healthier?
Some experts
say that organic foods don’t provide any more nutritional
value than foods grown conventionally. Other experts
disagree. What they do agree on, though, is that with organic agriculture,
chemicals are not used in the environment that could leach into water supplies
and animals aren’t given hormone or medicinal treatments that end up in their
milk or meat. Shoppers can be assured that when they choose foods with the USDA
Organic Label, these edibles are produced using environmentally-friendly
practices that pose low health risks for consumers.
Do Our Foods
Contain Pesticide Residues?
One of the most
often cited reasons for buying organic is to avoid dietary pesticide
exposure. Organic consumers are willing
to pay more for organic foods in order to reduce the toxic load: to keep
chemicals out of the air, water, soil and our bodies. Many consumers believe that buying
organic food promotes a less toxic environment for all living things (Organic.org).
USDA PESTICIDE DATA
PROGARM TESTS FOODS FOR PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION
To estimate pesticide contamination of foods purchased by
consumers, the Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide
Data Program (PDP) samples more than 80 types of fruits, vegetables, nuts,
meat, grains, dairy products, and other foods to identify and quantify residues
from insecticides, herbicides, fungicides, and growth regulators. The foods,
including processed and imported products, are collected from 10 states
representing all regions of the country; the samples are collected as close to
the point of Consumption as possible.
Fruit and vegetable samples are collected at terminal markets and large
chain store distribution centers from which food commodities are supplied to
supermarkets and grocery stores. Sampling at these locations allows for residue
measurements that include pesticides applied during crop production and those
applied after harvest (such as fungicides and growth regulators, such as
sprouting inhibitors) and takes into account residue degradation while food
commodities are in storage.
Prior to testing, PDP analysts wash samples for 10 seconds
with gently running cold water as a consumer would do; no chemicals, soap or
any special wash are used. This
provides an accurate assessment of what consumers actually ingest.
MOST CONVENTIONALLY
GROWN FOOD IS CONTAMINATED WITH PESTICIDES
In its 2008 report, PDP analyzed 11,683 samples, conducting
an average of 105 tests on each sample (more than 1.22 million analyses in
total). Only 23.1 percent of samples had zero pesticide residues detected, 29.5
percent had one residue, and the remainder had two or more. The majority of
residues detected were at levels far below EPA tolerances (limits on pesticide
residues on foods; referred to as maximum residue limits, or MRLs, in many
other countries) but the data on which the tolerances are based are heavily
criticized by environmental health professionals and advocates as being
inadequate and unduly influenced by industry (President’s
Cancel Panel Report 2008-2009).
The 2010 PDP data indicate that 41.0 percent of all food
samples tested contained no detectable pesticides, 18.5 percent contained 1
pesticide, and 40.5 percent contained more than 1 pesticide. Parent compounds
and their metabolites are combined to report the number of “pesticides” rather
than the number of “residues”.
What About Baby Foods?
The 2010 PDP report contained data on three baby foods for
the first time: pears, green beans and
sweet potatoes. In general, the sweet potatoes and pears were pretty clean, but
9% of the green bean samples had clearly unacceptable levels of the
organophosphate insecticide methamidophos. A remarkable 25% of pear baby food
samples contained six or more residues, and 3.7% of the samples contained 10
residues. Not good. As always, buy organic (The Organic Center))!
Bee Killing
Insecticides
Nicotinyl insecticide residues are extremely common because
they are widely used and are systemic – they work by moving into the plant,
including the harvested portion. In fact, about 1 in 10 of samples tested by
the PDP (across ALL crops) had residues of imidacloprid (Admire), and many
fresh fruit and vegetable samples contained residues of two nictoinyls. This is
the family of insecticides implicated in honey bee Colony Collapse Disorder (The Organic Center)).
Drinking Water
Extensive testing was carried out on drinking water,
including school wells. These data have some surprises– especially the fact
that 85% of finished drinking water had residues of 2,4-D. This phenoxy
herbicide is known to be a significant risk factor for a host of reproductive
problems, birth defects, and cancers. It is also linked to a possible, new
herbicide-tolerant, genetically engineered corn variety currently under review
by the USDA and EPA (The Organic Center).
Atrazine (another endocrine disrupting herbicide linked to breast
cancer and a host of developmental abnormalities) was found in 95%+ of samples
of drinking water! The levels are generally very low, but this year’s PDP
confirms that most people living in heavily farmed regions are ingesting three,
four or more herbicides daily via finished drinking water (The Organic Center)).
How Do Pesticide Residues on Organic Foods
Compare with those on Conventionally Grown Foods?
The PDP survey also includes organic samples. Just as in
recent years, the organically grown food tested by PDP in 2010 has
substantially fewer residues. When residues are detected, the levels are
usually 10-X to 100-X lower than in conventional samples. Based on TOC’s
“Dietary Risk Index,” typical risk levels in organic foods are 50-200 times
lower than in the corresponding conventional foods. Clearly, consumers
purchasing organic food to lower pesticide exposures and risks are getting just
that (http://www.generationsoforganic.org/news/latest-news/2010pdpdatablog/).
Baker, et al. conducted an
analysis of pesticide residue data to determine and compare the differences
between organically grown and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Data on
residues in foods from three different market categories (conventionally grown,
integrated pest management (IPM)-grown/no detectable residues (NDR), and
organically grown) were compared using data from three test programs: The
Pesticide Data Program of the US Department of Agriculture; the Marketplace
Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and
private tests by the Consumers Union, an independent testing organization.
Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as
conventionally grown foods, and about one-half as many residues as found in
IPM/NDR samples. Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more
likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown
samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue
concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two
categories, across all three data sets. The IPM/NDR category, based on data
from two of the test programs, had residues higher than those in organic
samples but lower than those in conventionally grown foods.
Are these pesticide residues harmful to our
health?
The Organic Center reports that new science published in the
last five years has established strong linkages between prenatal pesticide
exposures and developmental problems in infants and children (Bouchard et
al., 2010), especially cognitive deficits
(Rauh
et al., 2011; Engel et
al., 2011; Bouchard
et al., 2011; Marks
et al., 2010), smaller brains (Whyatt
et al., 2004), reproductive problems (Christiansen
et al., 2009), asthma (Hernandez et al., 2011)
and increased risk of overweight (Adigun et al., 2010)
and diabetes (Lim
et al., 2009). Emerging science has both reinforced long simmering
concerns over pesticides and created new worries, especially
those linking pesticides to overweight and type 2 diabetes (Patel
et al., 2010).
A 2010 study has shown that children with higher levels of
organophosphate pesticide metabolites in their urine are more likely to have
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.
On April 21, 2011 the highly regarded journal Environmental
Health Perspectives published online the results of three studies
carried out at three different universities, using three different methods
exploring the same phenomenon – the impacts of prenatal exposures to
organophosphate (OP) insecticides on the neurological development of
children. The three studies reached the
same, sobering conclusion – exposure to OPs during pregnancy leads to IQ
deficits in school-age children.
The December 2011 issue of Environmental
Health Perspectives Dr. David Belinger reported that three common
environmental chemicals – lead, organophosphate pesticides and methylmercury –
may have effects on children's IQ in the overall population equaling or
exceeding those of major medical conditions such as preterm birth or ADHD – two
of the most prevalent health problems in U.S. children. He concluded that when population impact is
considered, the contributions of chemicals to FSIQ (full scale IQ points) loss
in children are substantial, primarily due to the relative ubiquity of
exposure.
The most recent publication of Environmental
Health Perspectives, July 02, 2012, contained the results of a non-invasive
magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study which reveals that in children exposed
to the organophosphate insecticide chlorpyrifos (CPF) in utero, CPF
alters the structure of brain regions that govern a broad range of behavioral
outcomes, offering new insight into the way in which CPF affects the central
nervous system of exposed fetuses. They
found that brain damage occurs at exposure levels well below current EPA
dietary reference dose levels indicating that the EPA risk assessment for CPF
needs to be revised.
For adults, pesticide risk assessment can rarely prove
definitively a direct, causal relationship between pesticide exposure and a
specific adverse health outcome that some individual has suffered. But across
the population, scientists have concluded that pesticide exposure is a risk
factor that increases the chances that certain health problems will occur with
greater frequency and/or lead to more serious consequences (TOC).
The public will continue to hear conflicting claims about
whether there is any
reason to worry about pesticide residues in the diet. While
scientists work toward
more complete and accurate pesticide dietary risk
assessments, reducing
pesticide exposures across the population remains a sure way
to reduce pesticide
risks, whatever those risks ultimately prove to be (TOC).
President’s Panel on Cancer Report:
The 2008-2009 President’s Panel on Cancer Report,
titled: REDUCING ENVIRONMENTAL CANCER RISK: What We Can Do Now, was very direct about
the dangers of exposure to dietary pesticides:
“Despite overall decreases in incidence and mortality,
cancer continues to shatter and steal the lives of Americans. Approximately 41
percent of Americans will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their
lives, and about 21 percent will die from cancer. The incidence of some
cancers, including some most common among children, is increasing for
unexplained reasons.”
Recommendations: What
Individuals Can Do:
“Individuals and families have many opportunities to reduce or eliminate
chemical exposures. Exposure to
pesticides can be decreased by choosing, to the extent possible, food grown
without chemical pesticides or fertilizers and washing conventionally grown
produce to remove residues. Similarly,
exposure to antibiotics, growth hormones, and toxic run-off from livestock feed
lots can be minimized by eating free-range meat raised without these
medications if it is available. Avoiding
or minimizing consumption of processed, charred, and well-done meats will
reduce exposure to carcinogenic heterocyclic amines and polyaromatic
hydrocarbons”.
Nearly 1,400 pesticides have been registered (i.e.,
approved) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for agricultural and
non-agricultural use. Exposure to these chemicals has been linked to
brain/central nervous system (CNS), breast, colon, lung, ovarian (female
spouses), pancreatic, kidney, testicular, and stomach cancers, as well as
Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and soft tissue sarcoma.
Pesticide-exposed farmers, pesticide applicators, crop duster pilots, and
manufacturers also have been found to have elevated rates of prostate cancer,
melanoma, other skin cancers, and cancer of the lip (PCP
Report).
Approximately 40 chemicals classified by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as known, probable, or possible human
carcinogens, are used in EPA-registered pesticides now on the market. Some of
these chemicals are used in several different pesticides; for example, chromium
trioxide, an IARC Class 1 carcinogen (carcinogenic to humans), is used in 14
different pesticide products from five different companies. Thus, the total
number of registered pesticide products containing known or suspected
carcinogens is far greater than 40, but few have been severely restricted in
the United States. Among those that have been banned, or had their use
restricted, are DDT, ethylene oxide, dimethlhydrazine, hexachlorobenzene, and
some chlorophenoxy herbicides (PCP
Report).
While all Americans now carry many foreign chemicals in
their bodies, women often have higher levels of many toxic and
hormone-disrupting substances than do men. Some of these chemicals have been
found in maternal blood, placental tissue, and breast milk samples from pregnant
women and mothers who recently gave birth. Thus, chemical contaminants are
being passed on to the next generation, both prenatally and during
breastfeeding. Some chemicals indirectly increase cancer risk by contributing
to immune and endocrine dysfunction that can influence the effect of
carcinogens (PCP
Report).
Children of all ages are considerably more vulnerable than
adults to increased cancer risk and other adverse effects from virtually all
harmful environmental exposures. In addition, some toxics have adverse effects
not only on those exposed directly (including in utero), but on the offspring
of exposed individuals (PCP
Report).
Some scientists maintain that current toxicity testing and
exposure limit-setting methods fail to accurately represent the nature of human
exposure to potentially harmful chemicals. Current toxicity testing relies
heavily on animal studies that utilize doses substantially higher than those
likely to be encountered by humans. These data—and the exposure limits
extrapolated from them—fail to take into account harmful effects that may occur
only at very low doses. Further, chemicals typically are administered when
laboratory animals are in their adolescence, a methodology that fails to assess
the impact of in utero, childhood, and lifelong exposures. In addition, agents
are tested singly rather than in combination (PCP
Report).
The prevailing regulatory approach in the United States is
reactionary rather than precautionary. That is, instead of taking preventive
action when uncertainty exists about the potential harm a chemical or other
environmental contaminant may cause, a hazard must be incontrovertibly
demonstrated before action to ameliorate it is initiated. Moreover, instead of
requiring industry or other proponents of specific chemicals, devices, or
activities to prove their safety, the public bears the burden of proving that a
given environmental exposure is harmful (PCP
Report).
By comparison, the European Union adopted the precautionary
principle which, in essence, directs that action be taken to reduce risk
from chemicals in the face of uncertain but suggestive evidence of harm to
human health and the environment. While the system is far from perfect (see,
for example, RoundUp and Birth Defects, Is the Public Being Kept In The
Dark?, a report by international scientists challenging
the European pesticide approval process for failing to consider independent
scientific research and the lack of regulatory enforcement), there
is, nonetheless, a formal process which allows for the removal from the
market of chemicals suspected of causing harm, even when scientific
evidence is insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain but preliminary scientific
evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for concern (http://gmo-journal.com/index.php/2011/10/25/are-systemic-pesticides-to-blame-for-honeybee-colony-collapse/).
The President’s
Cancer Panel recommended “The adoption of a new precautionary, prevention-oriented approach to replace our current reactionary approaches in which human
harm must be proven before action is taken to reduce or eliminate
exposure. As a part of this approach, it
is recommended that the burden of proof of safety should be shifted to the
manufacturer, rather than the current burden of proof being upon the government
to prove harm.
The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to
numerous agricultural chemicals, some of which also are used in residential and
commercial landscaping. Many of these chemicals have known or suspected
carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties. Pesticides (insecticides,
herbicides, and fungicides) approved for use by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) contain nearly 900 active ingredients, many of which
are toxic. Many of the solvents, fillers, and other chemicals listed as inert
ingredients on pesticide labels also are toxic, but are not required to be
tested for their potential to cause chronic diseases such as cancer. In
addition to pesticides, agricultural fertilizers and veterinary pharmaceuticals
are major contributors to water pollution, both directly and as a result of
chemical processes that form toxic by-products when these substances enter the
water supply. Farmers and their families, including migrant workers, are at
highest risk from agricultural exposures. Because agricultural chemicals often
are applied as mixtures, it has been difficult to clearly distinguish cancer
risks associated with individual agents (PCP
Report).
Meaningful measurement and assessment of the cancer risk
associated with many environmental exposures are hampered by a lack of accurate
measurement tools and methodologies. This is particularly true regarding
cumulative exposure to specific established or possible carcinogens,
gene-environment interactions, emerging technologies, and the effects of
multiple agent exposures. Single-agent toxicity testing and reliance on animal
testing are inadequate to address the backlog of untested chemicals already in use
and the plethora of new chemicals introduced every year. Some high-throughput
screening (HTS) technologies are available to enable testing of many chemicals
and other contaminants simultaneously, but many remain to be developed to meet
chemical testing needs (PCP
Report).
Recognizing that results of laboratory and animal studies do
not always predict human responses, an environmental health paradigm for
long-latency diseases is needed to enable regulatory action based on compelling
animal and in Revitro evidence before cause and effect in humans has been
proven (PCP
Report).
Industry has exploited regulatory weaknesses, such as
government’s reactionary (rather than precautionary) approach to regulation.
Likewise, industry has exploited government’s use of an outdated methodology
for assessing “attributable fractions” of the cancer burden due to specific
environmental exposures. This methodology has been used effectively by industry
to justify introducing untested chemicals into the environment (PCP
Report).
Atrazine (President’s
Cancel Panel Report)
Atrazine is a broad leaf herbicide that has become
ubiquitous in the population. Used primarily in corn production, approximately
80 million pounds of atrazine are applied annually in the U.S.—more than any
other agricultural pesticide. Atrazine
is used to increase crop yields by preventing weeds from growing and stealing
nutrients from the crop, but some evidence suggests that eliminating its use
would have little impact on usable crop levels.
Atrazine has been shown to affect mammary gland development
in animal studies, with some findings suggesting multigenerational effects. The
relatively few human studies of atrazine carcinogenicity have been
inconclusive. IARC has classified atrazine as a group 3 human carcinogen (not
classifiable as to its carcinogenicity). EPA has faced considerable criticism
from the media and environmental groups on its oversight of atrazine and 2003
renewal of atrazine’s classification as “not likely to cause cancer in humans.”
In October 2009, EPA announced a comprehensive reevaluation of atrazine’s
cancer and non-cancer effects based on the latest scientific data. The
evaluation is expected to be completed in September 2010; EPA will determine at
that time whether the agency’s regulatory position on atrazine should be
revised and if new restrictions are needed to better protect health and the
public.
{We use 80 million pounds [of atrazine]
annually in the United States. It’s the number-one pesticide contaminant of
ground water, surface water, and drinking water. It’s used in more than 80
countries but it’s now outlawed in all of Europe or, as the company likes to
say, has been denied regulatory approval. The main point here is that here’s a
compound that we use 80 million pounds of, and it’s illegal in the home country
of the company that makes it.} Tyrone
Hayes, University of California, Berkeley.
The Problem With Systemic Pesticides
James Frazier, Ph.D, a professor of entomology at Penn
State’s College of Agricultural Sciences, and other researchers and beekeepers
are concerned that the EPA is not adequately evaluating pesticide
interaction, sub-lethal impacts, and interaction with other stressors on
honeybee fitness. Like Tom Theobald, a Colorado beekeeper and one of the
founders of the Boulder County Beekeepers’ Association, Professor
Frazier criticized the EPA for using the same approach to evaluating
systemic pesticides that is used for older generation pesticides. He explained
to me in a recent interview that the EPA had sixteen years to develop a
different protocol for evaluating systemic pesticides but the agency still
relies on a risk-benefits analysis model it has used all along. Under the
risk-benefits analysis, scientific evidence is only one of the factors
considered when evaluating a pesticide for approval. The other
factors include economic, technological, political, and social. Another serious
problem with the EPA approval process is that ultimately it is the
EPA administrators, not the EPA scientists, who make approval decisions.
Systemic pesticides call out for a different system of
approval since they differ in many respects from older generation pesticides.
Being one of the most widely used pesticides in the United
States, systemic pesticides became popular in U.S. in 2000s and have
increased with the increased planting of transgenic seeds (a.k.a. GMOs).
“Unlike older pesticides that evaporate or disperse shortly after application,
neonicotinoids are systemic poisons.
Applied to the soil or doused on seeds, neonicotinoid insecticides incorporate
themselves into the plant’s tissues, turning the plant itself into a tiny
poison factory emitting toxin from its roots, leaves, stems, pollen, and
nectar.” With systemic pesticides, “the chemical is in the bloom. So bees searching for nectar now can come into
contact with pesticides too.”
And they persist in the soil for longer than the older generation
pesticides. Professor Frazier explained that systemic pesticides
could remain in the soil anywhere between two to three years, and in some cases
up to six years, depending on the nature of the soil
and the chemical formulation of the pesticide.
Systemic pesticides are of a particular concern
to beekeepers because they kill sucking and chewing insects by disrupting their
nervous systems. While the routes of exposure have previously focused on
contaminated food that is taken up by bees, new evidence is emerging that
suggests additional ways in which bees are exposed to neonicotinoids. Recent
studies performed in Italy suggest that bees become contaminated by insecticide
(neonicotinoid) dust emission during foraging activity when they fly near
a drilling machine at levels “sufficient to kill the bees.” Specifically, the
researchers concluded that their trials “indicate that when a bee travelling
towards a food source flies over a seeder that is sowing insecticide-coated
maize seed, the bee may be exposed to a lethal dose of active ingredient,
probably even in a single flight.” (Marzaro, et al., 2011; APENET
Project, 2011).
Take Home Lesson?
Use the precautionary principle and eat organic when you can. If you can’t buy all of your fruits and
vegetables in organic and you can’t grow your own, then use the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty
Dozen List as a guide to which foods are most important to eat organic in
order to avoid dietary pesticide exposure.
