----------
From: Francis Thicke <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: IOWA-LEOPOLD-FORUM <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 22:03:48 -0500
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: from the NY Times: Less Pesticide Residue on Organic Produce
Study Finds Far Less Pesticide Residue on Organic Produce
May 8, 2002
By MARIAN BURROS
The first detailed scientific analysis of organic fruits
and vegetables, published today, shows that they contain a
third as many pesticide residues as conventionally grown
foods.
The findings, published in the Food Additives and
Contaminants Journal, confirmed what consumers of organic
food have taken for granted but did not settle the argument
over whether organic food is safer than conventional food
treated with chemical pesticides.
The debate gained prominence in February 2000 when John
Stossel, a correspondent on the ABC News program "20/20,"
reported that testing had proved that the levels of
pesticide residues in conventional produce were similar to
those in organic produce, making organic claims a fraud.
Though Mr. Stossel retracted his statement - such testing
had never been conducted - his report alarmed proponents of
organic agriculture and those like Consumers Union who do
not oppose the use of synthetic pesticides but want
stricter standards.
Edward Groth III, a senior scientist at Consumers Union and
a co-author of the report, said: "There have been some very
strong opinions voiced about organic produce that haven't
been based on data and have confused the issue. This report
shows rather convincingly and compellingly that organic
foods are much less likely to have any residues; that when
they have residues they have fewer and that the levels of
the residues are generally lower."
The findings are based on pesticide residue data collected
on a wide variety of foods by the United States Department
of Agriculture from 1994 to 1999, tests conducted on food
sold in California by the state's Department of Pesticide
Regulation from 1989 through 1998, and tests by Consumers
Union in 1997. The combined data covered more than 94,000
food samples from more than 20 crops; 1,291 of those
samples were organically grown, about 1.3 percent.
The Agriculture Department data showed that 73 percent of
the conventionally grown foods had residue from at least
one pesticide and were six times as likely as organic to
contain multiple pesticide residues; only 23 percent of the
organic samples of the same groups had any residues.
The California data found residues in 31 percent of the
conventional food and 6.5 percent in the organic. Consumer
Union tests found residues on 79 percent of the
conventional samples and 27 percent on the organic.
The study also looked at why organic foods contained any
pesticide residues. When residues of persistent
insecticides, like DDT, were excluded, the percentage of
organic samples with residues dropped to 13 percent from
23.
The findings were minimized by opponents of organic
agriculture, like the American Council on Science and
Health, which gets 40 percent of its financing from
industry.
"So what?" said the council's Dr. Gilbert Ross. "The health
risks associated with pesticide residues on food are not at
all established. I think the amount of pesticide residues
to which we are exposed on our foods pose no significant
health risks to human beings."
The Environmental Protection Agency disagrees and has been
working to reduce pesticide levels since 1996.
Dr. Groth said the amount of residues in conventional food
was well below the level that is clearly unsafe but above
the level scientists say is probably safe.
"There is a large gray area in between," Dr. Groth said,
"and we need a wide safety margin which is not wide enough
with conventional produce. This is especially true when we
talk about infants and children because they are still
developing."
Ken Cook, president of the Environmental Working Group, a
nonprofit research and advocacy group financed by
foundations, said, "The report shows what we suspected all
along: if you want to reduce your exposure to pesticides,
eating organic is a very good way."
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/science/08PEST.html?ex=1021881289&ei=1&en=d21deac6184d5dc2 <http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/08/science/08PEST.html?ex=1021881289&ei=1&en=d21deac6184d5dc2>