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.

Exposure to Contaminants from Agricultural Sources

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.