As part of our effort to provide more information about the safety of all fruits and vegetables, the Alliance for Food and Farming is launching a new blog feature to www.safefruitsandveggies.com. This will allow us to introduce readers to new science and studies, discuss news reports of interest, as well as counter the numerous misstatements and inaccuracies that seem to be constantly disseminated about the safety of fruits and vegetables.

For our first post, we thought it might be interesting to re-post what others are saying about the so-called “Dirty Dozen” list which was recently released.We found it gratifying that more and more journalists,columnists and bloggers understand our concerns that these lists are misleading to consumers and are a disservice to public health since they may discourage consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables. As we reviewed some of the reader comments on articles that focused on the “Dirty Dozen” list release, we were also gratified to see consumers are quite skeptical of these types of lists. Many of the reader comments focused on the importance of consuming fruits and veggies, how these lists are simply a gimmick and they reiterated the contention that the “Dirty Dozen” list is just a fundraising ploy. Some also took the publications to task for covering the “Dirty Dozen” list release at all. 

 Here are some excerpts of some of that coverage by journalists and bloggers:

Dirty Dozen Debate : Chicago Tribune

By Kelly April, June 21, 2011 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture says, "Make half your plate fruits and vegetables," in its latest dietary guidelines, but a just-published list of the 12 most pesticide-laden produce could confuse those deciding what is both healthful and safe to eat. But Holly Herrington, a registered dietitian at Northwestern University, urges caution in interpreting the studies, and said, "So far, there is not a lot of research to support these findings."

A study published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed Journal of Toxicology, using the same USDA data from 2004 to 2008, said scientists found the levels of pesticides in 90 percent of cases from the 2010 Dirty Dozen were at least 1,000 times lower than the chronic reference dose — the concentration of a chemical a person could be exposed to on a daily basis throughout life before risking harm.

A person would need to eat "so much (of the produce on the Dirty Dozen) you can't even imagine," said Dr. Marion Nestle, author and professor of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University.

Q: Should produce be peeled to eliminate pesticides? Will this reduce the nutritional value?

A: "If the amount of pesticide is so small that it can barely be measured, it really doesn't matter much," said Nestle. "If people are concerned, they should scrub the apple or peel it."

Q: Should families give up the worst produce?

A: "No. The amounts of pesticides are usually small and people who eat fruits and vegetables, with or without pesticides, are healthier than those who do not," Nestle said.

Apple-Picking of Data Leaves Bad Taste : Montreal Gazette

By Joe Schwarcz, June 25, 2011

It isn't often that I find myself in agreement with those gallant knights at the Environmental Working Group in the U.S., who are on a quest to rid the environment of all those nasty chemicals that lurk in our sunscreens, cosmetics, cleaning agents and, of course, in our food. But I'll ride along when they urge the public to eat more fruits and vegetables, even conventionally grown ones, acknowledging that the health benefits outweigh any risk posed by pesticide residues.

Call me a cynic, but I think the reason that EWG's recent new release about "most pesticide contaminated fruits and vegetables" led off with this bit of sound advice was to help deflect any accusations of fearmongering. But fearmongering is an apt description of EWG's release of its Dirty Dozen fruits and vegetables.

While the list is of very questionable scientific merit, it is undoubtedly an effective fundraiser for EWG. I'm not sure that mining a U.S. Department of Agriculture database constitutes "cutting-edge research," and I'm even less sure of the usefulness of the consumer guide that is generated by cherry-picking the impressive amount of data the USDA has collected. EWG claims that it is not out to scare the public, that it only strives to alert consumers as to which fruits and vegetables harbour the most pesticide residues and should therefore be purchased in their organic versions if possible. That may be the stated motive, but I suspect EWG is not averse to the donations reaped by the wide publicity the Dirty Dozen list generates.

Virtually every media report of EWG's recent Dirty Dozen news release led off with a picture of apples and a chilling headline about apples being the most pesticide-laden fruit. As a result, I fielded numerous questions along the lines of: "Is it true that we shouldn't give apples to children?""Why are apple growers allowed to profit from illness?""How many apples can be safely eaten in a week?" Why this focus on apples? Because they just happen to be the "dirtiest" of EWG's Dirty Dozen. Pretty convenient when it comes to garnering publicity. Apples are associated with health. After all, an apple a day is supposed to keep the doctor away. Disparaging the revered fruit in some way is almost guaranteed to generate headlines and keep EWG in the news.

Publicity Stunt Aims To Scare More Than Inform

Truth About Trade And Techonology

Every year, the group regurgitates USDA studies on pesticide residue and makes a big showy splash about how "bad" some produce is. That the group doesn't like pesticides is one thing. Anyone is entitled to choose whatever he wants to eat. But to inflict that position on both farmers and consumers in a misleading manner is quite another thing.

The sad irony of such attacks is that once it grabs headlines with its scare tactics the group encourages people to eat fruits and vegetables. On its website EWG says, "Eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure. ... eating conventionally grown produce is far better than not eating fruits and vegetables at all."

In other words, "Never mind."

Our next post will again focus on the media coverage of the “Dirty Dozen” list release. However, we will examine some of the mischaracterizations made about the pesticide residue issue and the Alliance for Food and Farming itself.

Misstatements and inaccuracies were common in media and blog coverage of the release of the Dirty Dozen list last month.  Not surprisingly, these misstatements were often carried and perpetrated by the authors of the Dirty Dozen list themselves, the Environmental Working Group (EWG).  Below are a few of the most concerning statements, along with the corrected information.

But before we get into the misstatements, let’s start on a bright note and feature the one thing that EWG, the media and bloggers got right!

Eat More Fruits and Vegetables:

The EWG did state repeatedly that consumers should be eating more fruits and vegetables – either conventional or organically grown – for better health.  In previous years, EWG did not carry this message.  Now it can be found and featured prominently on their website, in press releases and during media interviews.  But, again, if they acknowledge consumers should be eating more produce of all kinds to improve health and that organic and conventional produce is safe then why do consumers need their list?  The answer is that they don’t!  Just wash it and enjoy! 

Now the list of Inaccuracies: 

Washing:

Misinformation:  Most samples were washed and peeled before being tested, so the rankings reflect the amounts of the chemicals likely present on the food when it is eaten.– LA Times. 

The Truth:  While the USDA Pesticide Data Program does wash and/or peel produce prior to testing, the Federal Food and Drug Administration does not. EWG relies on sampling data from both agencies but negates to explain or omits the fact that FDA does not wash its samples.   EWG has even gone so far as to claim on CNN in 2010 that “the list is based on pesticide tests conducted after the produce was washed with USDA high-power pressure water system.” 

It is clear by EWG’s continuing efforts to mislead consumers that they know washing is effective and something consumers who may be concerned about residues can easily do.  But, again, if consumers know that washing is an effective way to reduce or eliminate residues, then why have the “Dirty Dozen” list at all.  That must be why they resort to “high power, pressure water system” exaggerations.

Industry Front Group:

Misinformation:The Alliance for Food and Farming, a nostalgic-sounding organization that, according to EWG, is “a pro-agricultural chemicals lobby dedicated to combating pesticide critics like EWG.” – The Delicious Truth Blog.

The Truth: The Alliance takes absolutely no money from any pesticide manufacturers or organizations representing the pesticide industry nor do we do any lobbying.  The Alliance for Food and Farming is a non-profit organization formed in 1989.  Its membership includes approximately 50 agriculture associations, commodity groups and individual growers/shippers who represent farms of all sizes and includes conventional as well as organic production. The Alliance works to provide a voice for farmers to communicate their commitment to food safety and care for the land.

Why does EWG make these misstatements about the Alliance continually in media interviews, blog postings, emails to its members and press releases?  Why are they so desperate to malign the credibility of the Alliance itself by spouting false information?  Maybe they don’t want people to hear what we have to say?

Pesticide Exposure Levels:

Misinformation: Consumers who choose five servings of fruits and vegetables a day from EWG's Clean 15 list rather than from the Dirty Dozen can lower the volume of pesticides they consume by 92 percent, according to EWG’s calculations. EWG Press Release

The Truth:  Sounds meaningful, doesn’t it?  Except EWG negates to state how low these residues were – if they were found at all that is.  In fact, a study published earlier this year in the peer-reviewed Journal of Toxicology, using the same USDA data from 2004 to 2008, said scientists found the levels of pesticides in 90 percent of cases from the 2010 Dirty Dozen were at least 1,000 times lower than the chronic reference dose — the concentration of a chemical a person could be exposed to on a daily basis throughout life before risking harm.  This collaborates the work of Dr. Robert Krieger from the University of California’s Personal Chemical Exposure Program who examined the USDA data as well and found a man, woman, teenager or child would have to eat hundreds or thousands of servings a day and still not see an effect from the low residues found during government sampling.  (Use the “Residue Calculator” on safefruitsandveggies.com to learn more.)

We ran across this excellent blog post which appeared in Scientific American earlier this week. It’s generating some interesting Internet discussion with a lot of very good information being provided from all sides of the debate.  While this blog post is titled, Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture, the author’s conclusion doesn’t favor one over the other.  In fact, Wilcox writes as follows:

 “The biggest myth when it comes to organic farming is that you have to choose sides. Guess what? You don’t. . . .You, the wise and intelligent consumer, don’t have to buy into either side’s propaganda and polarize to one end or another. You can, instead, be somewhere along the spectrum, and encourage both ends to listen up and work together to improve our global food resources and act sustainably.”

We couldn’t agree more and we very much appreciate the author’s exceedingly well-done effort to clear up some of the misconceptions many people have about farming. 

What we like most about this article is that addresses many of the false assertions we hear about both conventional and organic farming. Since the Alliance for Food and Farming is an organization of farmers who produce both conventional and organic fruits and vegetables, our goal is to communicate that both are exceedingly safe. The fact is, the lines which separate these two farming systems are becoming increasingly blurred –particularly when it comes to farming fruits and vegetables.  Both conventional and organic produce farmers absolutely must care for and nurture the soil, both regularly practice crop rotation, both monitor pests and utilize beneficial insects for control and both use pesticides as sparingly as possible. Most importantly, they both must follow very strict regulations for how and which pesticides can be applied.

Yes, nutritional differences exist between organic and conventional fruits and vegetables.  But no research has conclusively found one is better than the other. Consumers should buy both with confidence and make their selection based on quality, availability, flavor and cost at the time of purchase – just like they do with any other consumer good.  This constant need to “scare” people about one form of farming over another is not conducive to increased consumption of fruits and vegetables. Here is where the science is indisputable – people should be eating more fruits and vegetables for good health. If everyone were to eat the recommended number of produce servings (which the USDA now defines as “half your plate”), neither conventional nor organic farming could supply enough! But if they did, we’d all be a lot healthier.

We encourage you to read this excellent article and we thank Christie Wilcox very much for opening a real discussion on this important topic.

Mythbusting 101: Organic Farming > Conventional Agriculture, Scientifc American, July 18, 2011.

Last week the Environmental Working Group issued a release again questioning the validity of the science behind the Alliance for Food and Farming’s Safe Fruits and Veggies initiative.  How interesting that a new study just popped up on our radar screen with additional evidence that it is the EWG’s “science” which should be called into question.

The new University of California study was just published in The Journal of Toxicology (Volume 2011), a peer-reviewed journal specializing in original research articles in areas of toxicology. Authors of the study are Carl Winter, Ph.D., director of the University’s FoodSafe Program and a food toxicologist who specializes in research on the detection of pesticides, and Josh Katz, a fourth-year doctoral student at UC-Davis.

We want to be clear the Alliance for Food and Farming has known Dr. Winter for many years and we admire his work as well as his efforts to communicate about issues concerning pesticide residues and food safety.  However, his study was completely independent of our organization. It was not funded by the Alliance. In fact, we didn’t even know about it until a few weeks ago when Dr. Winter forwarded us his paper titled Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues from Commodities Alleged to Contain the Highest Contamination Levels.

The findings of his report are strikingly similar to both the existing studies currently posted on the Safe Fruits and Veggies website including our Expert Panel Report, authored by a team of scientists in nutrition, toxicology and risk assessment, and Perspective on Pesticide Residues in Fruits and Vegetables, by Dr. Robert Krieger, University of California, Riverside.

Much like these two Alliance reports, Dr. Winter concludes after reviewing the methodology used to develop the “Dirty Dozen” list that the EWG “does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.”  Dr. Winter further concludes that the EWG does not adequately consider “the amount of pesticide residue detected on the various commodities” and that “the consumer exposure to the ten most common pesticides found on the Dirty Dozen commodities are several orders of magnitude below levels required to cause any biological effect.” 

What’s very important to note about Dr. Winter’s report is the fact that it was peered reviewed prior to being accepted for publication in the Journal of Toxicology.  Both of the Alliance for Food and Farming studies are also currently being subjected to peer-review for submission in respected scientific journals.

Despite the fact that the EWG has been publishing its “Dirty Dozen” list for many years with a tremendous amount of media coverage, this report has yet to be peer reviewed or published in a scientific journal that we know of.  The Alliance for Food and Farming has called on the EWG to do so, but to our knowledge, this action has not been taken.  We have to ask ourselves, “Why not?”

For now, we urge media and consumers to take a closer look at the claims being made by EWG and to consider the mounting scientific evidence which finds that the “Dirty Dozen” list is just not good science, nor is it good advice for consumers when making purchasing decisions about produce. 

Like the Alliance for Food and Farming, Dr. Winter notes in his report that he concurs with EWG’s President Kenneth Cook who states, “We recommend that people eat healthy by eating more fruits and vegetables, whether conventional or organic.”

 When it comes to that recommendation --the science is indisputable.   

The California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDPR) has just released 2010 data from the state’s Pesticide Residue Monitoring program.  Keep in mind this monitoring program, designed to ensure that fruits and vegetables sold in the state of California are safe for consumption when it comes to pesticide residues levels, is in addition to the nation-wide monitoring program conducted through the United States Department of Agriculture’s Pesticide Data Program. 

Like the national monitoring results, the California Pesticide Residue Monitoring program finds that the majority (64.8 percent) of produce sold in California during 2010 has no detectable pesticide residues at all.  The report shows that 32 percent of the samples contained residues below allowable limits, leaving 2.4 percent with residues above legal limits – and CDPR scientists stress even these residues do not pose an acute health risk.

The CDPR monitoring program considers all produce sold in California, including imports from other countries and states, but sampling data can be sorted according to point of origin.  For produce produced within the state of California, known to have the most stringent regulations for pesticide use in the world, the numbers are even better. The 110 California-grown products tested by CDPR showed 98.6 percent had either no detected residue or residues below legal limits, leaving just 0.4 percent with residues above what is considered legal.

This report is just one more reason consumers should feel confident about the safety of fruits and vegetables they eat and feed to their families.  The Alliance for Food and Farming, working with Dr. Robert Krieger, a respected toxicologist from the University of California, Riverside, has created a calculator to illustrate how small any pesticides found on fruits and vegetables really are.  Visit our website at www.safefruitsandveggies.com to calculate just how many servings of your favorite produce item you can eat without any effect whatsoever from pesticides.

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation also provides a fact sheet on its website explaining how fruits and vegetables are tested for safety. They reiterate that food safety experts agree any small risk from trace levels of pesticides found in produce should not keep you from the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables.

According to a recent press release, CDPR also has plans to expand its monitoring further using improved technologies to detect newer pesticides that had previously been difficult to detect with older methods.  The cost of the DPR monitoring program is currently $4.5 million per year and will be expanded by an additional $2.5 million to include the new detection methods.  In cash-strapped California, it is important to note that the California pesticide data program is paid for by a tax on companies who sell pesticides.  Please visit the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s website to learn more.    

A new report examining pesticide use trends in California provides clear indication that farmers are reducing their use of older, more stringently regulated pesticides in exchange for newer, environmentally-friendly methods to control pests.   The report, issued by the Alliance for Food and Farming, analyzes California Department of Pesticide Regulations Pesticide Use Report data, which shows that application of older, broad-based pesticides has declined 66 percent over the past 12 years.

“The purpose of this report is to examine whether long-term pesticide use trends support the widely-held belief that farmers are increasingly using Integrated Pest Management strategies and more modern tools targeted toward specific pests,” said James Wells of Environmental Solutions Group and former director of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR), who authored the report and conducted the analysis of CDPR Pesticide Use Report data. “The analysis shows a dramatic drop in the use of organophosphate and carbamate pesticides from 1998 to 2009. More importantly, the decline has been steady for the 12 year period, indicating that it is not just the result of ‘low pest’ years, but a clear trend in pest management strategies.”

The report shows that organophosphate and carbamate pesticides currently represent just two percent of all pesticides used in California agriculture.  According to the most recent data available, 39 percent of the pesticides applied are approved for use in organic agriculture systems.  In fact, two of the top three pesticides used by California farmers are approved for organic production.  The remainder of all pest control products applied is made up of all other pesticides and includes several newer, reduced risk compounds that are common tools used by farmers as part of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) strategies.

While data is from California only, the Pesticide Use Report from the CDPR is considered to be the most comprehensive in the world. Under the program, all agricultural pesticide use must be reported monthly to county agriculture commissioners, who in turn report the data to the CDPR.  Similar use trends on a national basis were recently reported by the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

It is very gratifying, but not surprising, to see these numbers so clearly reflect the shift in farming practices to IPM and other environmentally-friendly farming methods over the past decade.  We knew this trend was happening but it is good to see it quantified in this analysis.

Whenever pesticides are used by California farmers, that use is strictly controlled by the most advanced regulatory system in the nation.  Farmers who grow the food you see in stores also feed it to their own families.  In addition, they often live and work on their farms, which is strong motivation to use the most up-to-date and safest tools to control pests and diseases.

Click here to view the full report titled Pesticide Use Trends in California Agriculture.

This Discovery News article first appeared on August 31 and has been picked up by other publications over the last three weeks. Here is (yet again!) another scientist concerned about the negative effects of misleading information about pesticides residues on produce consumption and public health.

Pesticide Concerns May Actually Harm Us -

The sense that organic fruits and vegetables are safer because pesticides increase the risks for cancer has no good scientific support, argues an expert.

By Emily Sohn | Wed Aug 31, 2011 07:33 AM ET

The levels of pesticides that linger on fruits and vegetables are much less of a health threat than eating too little produce, argued a scientist at this week's meeting of the American Chemical Society in Denver.

According to growing evidence, said Bruce Ames, senior scientist at the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California, even slight nutrient deficiencies can lead to chronic health problems. With less access to affordable produce, low-income populations face the biggest risks.

It's a controversial theory, partly because there are still many unknowns about how the wide variety of chemicals we encounter in our daily lives may affect our health. Some recent studies have also linked certain pesticides with developmental problems in children, though it's still unclear if exposure through food actually contributes much to the problem.

As debates continue about the ability of regulators to accurately weigh health risks of chemical exposures, most experts agree that eating fruits and vegetables remains essential, even if consumers can't afford organics."If you ask the public what is causing cancer, they'll say it's the pesticides on fruits and vegetables, but that's the wrong message to give people," Ames said. "To me, the real risks are eating a bad diet, even if you just take obesity."

"Environmentalists hate me because I'm saying everything they've been passionate about for years is wrong," he added. "I think pesticides are good for the environment because you're getting more food out of less land and they're not giving you cancer at the level you're getting them."

Bruce Ames first made a name for himself in the early 1970s, when he developed a now widely used method -- called the Ames Test -- for assessing the likelihood that chemicals will cause DNA damage, which can lead to cancer. Eventually, he started to question growing concerns about pesticide residues on food.

Every plant, Ames said, is full of 100 or more chemicals, including "natural pesticides," which the plants make to defend themselves against predators. These compounds account for more than 99 percent of the chemicals we consume. And in tests, Ames said, studies show that the natural chemicals have just as much cancer causing potential as synthetic pesticides do.

"When you eat broccoli, you make compounds that work the same as dioxins" and bind the same receptor, Ames said. "When you compare the amounts, it seems like you should worry about broccoli. The whole thing didn't seem plausible."

In rodent studies, he added, the levels of chemicals required to cause cancer are orders of magnitude higher than what regulations allow on produce in the United States. It's not ethical to do the same kinds of experiments on people, so no one knows for sure exactly how pesticides affect human health at various levels. But epidemiological studies that look for correlations have failed to show a link between eating larger portions of conventional produce and higher risks of cancer.

Instead, Ames argued, common nutritional deficiencies are far more likely to accelerate aging and lead to cancers, among other diseases. As an example, he pointed to research that has linked low levels of folic acid with DNA damage. Ten percent of Americans and half of people in the lowest-income brackets, he said, have levels low enough to be concerned about.

According to his Triage Theory of nutrition, when the human body gets low on any of the 30 essential vitamins and minerals, it prioritizes survival by fueling the proteins needed for daily functioning. But the trade-off is a decline in long-term health.

"A focus on nutrition in general would be much more beneficial to human health than this misguided focus on extraordinarily small contamination levels of pesticides," said Samuel Cohen, a pathologist with expertise in toxicology and carcinogenesis at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha. "Every chemical has toxicity, but it’s all in the dose. The amount of pesticides present as residues on food is miniscule."

Part of the problem, Cohen said is that analytical chemistry techniques have become so refined that scientists are able to detect much lower levels of chemicals in food and water than they could just a decade ago.

Still, some experts remain cautious. For one thing, the process of setting safe levels for chemicals in the food supply involves just as much policy and art as it does science, said Betsy Wattenberg, a toxicologist at the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities. Of the 80,000 or so chemicals that people are regularly exposed to, she estimated that data on people is available for fewer than 100.

To account for a large number of uncertainties, regulatory agencies build in huge margins of safety. But there is no definitive evidence to say for sure that those levels are safe, especially considering that people are exposed to so many chemicals at the same time.

"It's very rare to have a human study where you can see that this caused that," Wattenberg said. "If you're a person who's eating food and in general, you want to be protected, ideally you wouldn’t want any pesticides in your food because who wants to take that risk? People don’t want to be exposed to something they don't have a choice about."

Today, some of the biggest concerns surround a class of pesticides called organophosphates, which are designed to attack molecules in the nervous systems of insects. We have similar molecules in our bodies. And three recent studies by three different groups of researchers showed that mothers who are exposed to higher levels of organophosphates while pregnant give birth to children who score lower on intelligence tests at age seven.

The studies relied on blood and urine tests, so no one can say for sure what the major source of exposure was for the women, though researchers suspect that eating produce contributes far less risk than does spraying your home with pesticides or living near agricultural fields.

For now, public health experts continue urge people to eat the recommended two to six and a half cups of fruits and vegetables a day. And since many people can't afford organics, just make sure to wash your produce well, said Kim Harley, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

We’ve discovered that engaging the Environmental Working Group in a discussion is much like talking with a teenager.  While you’re insisting he or she finish their homework before hanging out with friends, they’re arguing that you never let them do anything or you just don’t like their friends, etc. etc.  Anything to divert the conversation away from the real issue – getting the homework done.

Over the last couple of days, the Alliance engaged with EWG in an online discussion about the pesticide residue issue while commenting on an article that appeared in Food Safety News http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2011/10/pesticides-are-good-for-you/.  And, just like the teenager analogy, instead of debating about the science, EWG and their supporters worked diligently to divert the conversation away from the real topic by repeatedly stating that we were a pesticide industry front group, questioning our funding sources, making inaccurate claims about how much funding we have, as well as making accusations we are trying to “sell the notion” that “chemicals designed to kill are perfectly safe for kids to eat.”  All in an effort to discredit the Alliance and keep the conversation about anything other than the issue at hand.

EWG and their supporters did engage in one activity that most teenagers seem to avoid nowadays – name-calling.  It was amazing to see either our comments or the Alliance staff referred to as robots, trolls, shills, homely, naughty, among other things.  They were also mad that we posted as the “Alliance for Food and Farming” instead of as an individual, which made no sense but this became a running theme.

This diversion tactic in an attempt to avoid the real issue is quite obvious because EWG knows exactly what the Alliance is, who we represent, who is on staff and how much funding we have.  But, while engaging with EWG can be tiring and frustrating, we did learn some important things. 

First, we asked EWG specifically about their plans to peer review their Dirty Dozen list report.  We felt this was a logical question since the article we were commenting upon discussed a peer reviewed report in the Journal of Toxicology by Dr. Carl Winter of University of California, Davis.  Dr. Winter analyzed EWG’s Dirty Dozen list and found that it was not based upon sound science and ignored basic tenets to establish risk. 

EWG’s response to our question:  “It’s a guide. Claiming that it needs to be peer reviewed is a straw man argument.” Interestingly another blogger (Snack Girl) asked EWG the same question http://www.snack-girl.com/snack/dirty-dozen-false/?e=ch9xryhK.  Their response to her was:  “It is not published in a peer-reviewed journal. However, EWG and its research department stand 110 percent behind the methodology.”  So if EWG stands behind this list so strongly – then wouldn’t they want a credible, science-based third party to assess it and publish it in order verify their claims? Or, put another way, why wouldn’t they?   

We were also pleased to see the EWG and the Alliance agree that EPA standards governing pesticide use are stringent and health protective.  In one of EWG’s comments they stated: “EPA takes a different tact in assessing pesticide risks. It focuses on children age 2 to 5 who are a vulnerable population for pesticide toxicity, look at all sources of pesticides in kids diets, drinking water and home environment, and wherever possible the additive effects of pesticides. Using this approach they have made numerous restrictions to pesticide permissions that have improved the safety of commercial produce.”  We couldn’t agree more and as we posted in one of our comments, this statement is very similar to the findings of the Alliance for Food and Farming’s Expert Panel Report which also examined the pesticide residue issue and the Dirty Dozen list. The full report can be found on this website in the research section.

We were a bit puzzled by one of EWG’s comments to another post which came very late in this very long discussion.  “In the past farm bills and the upcoming one EWG has been fighting for more federal support not just for organics, but for conventional fruit and vegetables in California.”  So EWG continually bashed us during this dialogue (and over the last year and a half) for defending the safety of wholesome conventionally grown produce, they call these healthy products “dirty” and say that the Alliance is “trying every trick to get families to feed their kids pesticides.”  But now EWG is “fighting” to get federal support for conventionally grown produce? By this action, EWG must agree with us that conventionally grown produce is, indeed, very safe.  This is similar to EWG’s statement on their website and in media reports that, “the health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.”

After reading the long comment line, one can see that, at times, EWG’s diversionary tactics worked with us.  We forgot an important point (until our last post).  Safefruitsandveggies.com is about removing fear as a barrier to consumption.  It’s about nutrition and ensuring kids are eating enough fruits and vegetables. It’s about farmers working hard to provide consumers with safe and wholesome organic and conventionally grown produce.  It’s about providing consumers with good information to help them make their choices in the marketplace in an environment free of rhetoric, catch phrases, etc.  So let’s stop the rhetoric and name-calling and let the science speak.  And, one way EWG can let science speak is through the peer review process, which we will continually remind them about.  It can be their “homework.”

Today, October 24, is Food Day.  Although, many of you may not even know it since media coverage of this “nationwide event” organized by the Center for Science in the Public Interest has been rather light.  In fairness, there have been a few stories in major newspapers throughout the country mostly generated by a press release from the Food Day “team” along with some scattered media coverage of local events in various communities throughout the country. 

A few weeks back, the Alliance for Food and Farming decided that Food Day might provide an opportunity to reach out to the media in support of farmers who supply America with its fruits and vegetables.  And so, we issued a Media Advisory which asked food, health and environmental writers to “Meet a REAL Farmer who grows REAL food for REAL people and then introduce these farmers to their viewers, readers and listeners.”

 We elected to take this action, primarily because the stated goal of Food Day is go get people to “eat real.”  As described on the Food Day website – Real food tastes great.  Real food is meals built around vegetables, fruits, and whole grains that are delicious and satisfying. Further, the site states that  Food Day's goal is nothing less than to transform the American diet—to inspire a broad movement involving people from every corner of our land who want healthy, affordable food produced in a sustainable, humane way.

When it comes down to it, there is no way we could disagree with any of those statements. In fact, we support them fully. Not surprisingly, the Food Day website has a lot more to say about American farmers and exactly what kinds of practices constitute “real” farming.  The site encourages people and organizations to support Food Day by frequenting farmers markets and by buying more locally-grown and organically-produced food.  The Alliance for Food and Farming doesn’t have an issue with these recommendations either.  But we got to thinking – sure shopping farmers markets, visiting a local farm and buying locally or organically-grown produce is great.  But what about all the rest of the fruits and vegetables people see in their grocery store produce departments every day or those they eat in restaurants?  Isn’t that real food too?

We can honestly say that every fruit and vegetable farmer we’ve ever met is committed to producing safe, affordable and healthy food, protecting the environment and farm workers and is working to employ farming practices that are considered sustainable.  Also, isn’t every farmer a “local” farmer in the communities where they live and work?

And so, we set out to make this point to the media. We volunteered to help the media find a “real” farmer, but we also encouraged them to seek their own sources by going to their local grocery produce departments and reading labels.   After all, who better to inform people about how their food is grown than farmers themselves?  For many Americans, how their food is grown can be a mystery and it shouldn’t be. We strongly believe that if people got to know the farmers who grow their fruits and vegetables, they would be pleasantly surprised to learn about the care and commitment that goes into producing the fruits and vegetables we all feed our families.   If only people knew that:  

-Fruit and vegetable farmers tend to be small to mid-sized operations rather than large corporations. 

-They are often family-run businesses which have been operating for generations. 

-Fruit and vegetable farmers are not commonly recipients of government subsidies. 

-They are all local farmers in their own communities and contribute to the local economies where they do business.

-Virtually all fruit and vegetable farmers practice sustainable farming, and incorporate methods such as crop rotation and Integrated Pest Management. 

-Many grow both conventional and organic produce. 

-Further, fruits and vegetables are some of the most highly regulated foods in the world regarding food safety.

To date, not one reporter that we know of has taken us up on our offer.   But perhaps in the days following Food Day we’ll hear from a reporter or two who has taken the time to learn more about the dedicated farmers who grow our fruits and vegetables.  And, as many people have aptly pointed out – every day is food day.  So, maybe October 24 is the simply first of many more opportunities to educate the media and consumers about the real farmers who grow real food.   We certainly hope so.       

A study recently released by the Centers for Disease Control found that the median number of times high school students were consuming fruits and vegetables was 1.2.  And 28.5% consumed fruit less than once per day while 33% consumed vegetables less than once per day.   What’s even more shocking than these numbers is the lack of attention this study received by the mainstream media, bloggers, foodies, consumer groups, activists and proponents of school foodservice reform.

These consumption numbers are dismal and concerning.  Many teenagers whose bodies are still growing and developing clearly aren’t getting the nutrients needed with their busy schedules which include school, handling homework loads, participating in school activities and sports.  And, the CDC study also showed that consumption deteriorated further as the students got older with seniors in high school consuming a median of 1.2 daily servings while freshmen consumed a daily median of 1.4 servings (still pretty dismal).

While convenience and availability at schools may be contributing causes, repeatedly calling safe products “dirty” just can’t be helpful either.  Wouldn’t it be nice if the groups that spend so much time and effort promoting “dirty” produce lists for their own gain would put those efforts into working with farmers, nutritionists, produce associations and the government to increase consumption of fruits and vegetables?  After all, if these groups are truly concerned about the health of Americans, then maybe raising fruit and vegetable consumption should become a key focus instead of expending efforts raising unwarranted fears about the safety of these healthful foods.

You can learn more about the safety of fruits and vegetables by reviewing this website (www.safefruitsandveggies.com) and you can even calculate for yourself the very high number of servings that teenagers, specifically, can eat and still not experience any effect at all from minute amounts of pesticide residues that may be present. 

Whether it’s a statement on our website, an answer to a consumer’s question, or in comments to reporters, the Alliance for Food and Farming is consistent in our response to this question:  “Should I eat organic or conventionally grown produce?”  Our answer, “choose either, both our very safe, but choose to eat more fruits and vegetables.”

While many nutritionists and health experts agree with our answer, it was gratifying that a well-known author and “foodie” recently responded to a very similar question in a very similar manner.  In a January 9 Boston Globe article, Michael Pollan was asked, “Do you recommend eating organic.”  His response:

“ You don’t have to eat organic to eat healthily. Eating real food, whether it’s organic or not, is going to do a lot for your health. Any apple is good for you.”

Hopefully, Mr. Pollan’s statements will be reassuring to consumers who have been frightened away from safe and healthful fruits and vegetables due to fear-based messaging from activist groups that has permeated throughout mainstream and social media outlets for over a decade. 

Pollan joins a “cast of thousands” (toxicologists, nutritionists, physicians, government agencies and health experts) who agree with his “any apple is good for you” message, but maybe Pollan’s singular voice of reason will finally reach and positively influence consumers.

We’ve seen the First Lady making the media rounds lately promoting her “Let’s Move” campaign.  A key component in her message is getting Americans to eat more fruits and vegetables.  But, the First Lady’s message is being undermined by activist groups that continue to call popular produce items “dirty.”  Since the obesity epidemic is prevalent among lower income Americans, labeling more affordable fruits and vegetables “dirty” is counterproductive to the First Lady’s efforts and a disservice to public health. How can it not be?

Often these groups who distribute and publicize lists of “dirty” produce items hide behind statements like “it’s just a guide to help consumers.”  They also repeatedly state that American’s should, “eat your fruits and vegetables! The health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables outweigh the risks of pesticide exposure.” 

But directly following this “benefits” message, one group makes the scary statement that the list “will help you determine which fruits and vegetables have the most pesticide residues and are the most important to buy organic. You can lower your pesticide intake substantially by avoiding the 12 most contaminated fruits and vegetables and eating the least contaminated produce.” 

Their liberal use of terms like “pesticide intake,” “most contaminated,” and “have the most pesticide residues”  leave consumers to believe that conventionally grown produce is unsafe, that it is “contaminated’ and “dirty.”  Consumers will quickly forget this group’s introductory “eat your fruits and veggies” statement. And, what about lower income consumers that can’t afford to buy organically grown produce?  Where does this messaging leave them? 

What is really important for consumers to know is that the activist group’s statements are wrong!  That’s why in 2010, the Alliance for Food and Farming launched its own initiative to provide science based, truthful information to consumers about pesticide residues and the safety of both organically and conventionally grown fruits and vegetables.  Our focus is to correct misleading information, provide clarity and eliminate fear as a barrier to consumption of produce.   The Alliance has compiled scientific reports, nutritional information, statements by farmers to help consumers better understand this often complicated issue.  In 2012, we’ll be adding even more information that shows the safety of produce, the quality of the science we cite as well as quantify the dangers of activist group’s messaging about “dirty” produce.

Finally, we’ll ask these groups once again to stop using these unsubstantiated, scientifically invalid “dirty” produce lists.  If they are interested in improving public health and seeing the First Lady’s campaign succeed, they should and they must stop using these fear-based tactics and disparaging the very foods everyone should be consuming more of.  

This week, the Alliance, once again, has been attacked by an activist group in various emails and blog postings because we continue to discourage consumers from using “dirty” produce lists by providing credible, science based information about pesticide residues. 

The basis of the activist group’s attacks continues to center on accusations that the Alliance is a “pesticide lobby front group.”  Since we don’t lobby and we are expressly forbidden to take money from any pesticide group or company, these attacks are baseless and completely disingenuous.  Further, on this very website anyone can view our entire tax return, which clearly shows we are who we say we are – a group representing organic and conventional farmers and farming organizations.

We understand why this group is attempting to redefine and misrepresent us – if you undermine the credibility of the messenger maybe you undermine the message.  And since our message is strong and good and backed by credible science their only choice is to malign the messenger.  This is a classic political campaign strategy and many of the activist group staffers have campaign backgrounds.  Except this campaign is about public health which we are trying to improve by providing people with more information about an important health topic.  Apparently, this group doesn’t want consumers to have more information.  They want us to be quiet and are trying to silence us by attempting to discredit us.  Sad, but true.

For those of you that support our work, we wanted to share a brief description of who the Alliance is.  Our supporters can use this description if they are asked questions about the Alliance. 

“The Alliance for Food and Farming is a non-profit organization formed in 1989 which represents organic and conventional farmers and farms of all sizes.  Alliance contributors are limited to farmers of fruits and vegetables, companies that sell, market or ship fruits and vegetables or organizations that represent produce farmers.  Our mission is to deliver credible information to consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables.  The Alliance does not engage in any lobbying activities, nor do we accept any money or support from the pesticide industry.”

In 2012, the Alliance is looking forward to providing even more information that shows the safety of all produce, the quality of the science we cite as well as quantify the dangers of this activist group’s continual messaging about “dirty” produce. And, we fully expect the baseless attacks from this group to continue.  In fact, we expect them and their supporters to get even more strident and mean as the Alliance’s message about safe produce gets stronger. While their fear-based messaging is exposed as counterproductive to public health, not based on science and undermines healthy eating initiatives like the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign. 

So stay tuned.

As part of our work to provide more information to consumers about the safety of fruits and vegetables, the Alliance has added a new section called “Ask the Experts”  to this website featuring real farmers talking about efforts to control pests and diseases on their conventional and organic farms.

Visitors to this new web section will learn firsthand about the progress organic and conventional farmers have made over the years as well as the scientific intricacies of disease and pest control strategies.  They will find that disease and pest control challenges are very similar on organic and conventional farms and so are the solutions.  Farmers often use the exact same strategies to prevent or reduce pests and diseases from proliferating, including crop rotation, planting cover crops, degree day models, pheromone traps, etc. 

Further, conventional and organic farmers only apply pesticides as a last resort to prevent crop losses.  Interestingly, once it is clear that a pesticide application is needed, conventional and organic farmers often choose the same one.   This is further evidenced by an analysis commissioned by the Alliance that examined 10 years of pesticide use trends.  That analysis showed that two out of the top three pesticides used on California farms were sulfur and mineral oil – approved for both organic and conventional crop production.

We think consumers will be impressed by the care, commitment and knowledge of these farmers.  The new website section will answer many commonly asked questions about pesticide use on conventional and organic crops and as well as underscore the safety of both production systems. 

It seems the Environmental Working Group doesn’t like our new “Ask the Experts” video section of www.safefruitsandveggies.com.   These videos feature real information about the challenges faced by both organic and conventional farmers when it comes to controlling diseases and pests. In addition to featuring experts in farming, this new section of our website has insights from experts in nutrition.  It’s too bad the EWG isn’t a fan, but, then again – why would they want to hear from experts?  Unlike the tactics employed by EWG, these farmers are not trying to scare people, and they are not trying to raise millions of dollars to fund a smear campaign – these farmers are simply telling people about what they do to make sure the fruits and vegetables they grow are safe, affordable and abundant.  

The response from the EWG to this important message is their usual one –they are distributing information designed to scare consumers by misleading them about the safety of fruits and vegetables.  And they are, once again, misrepresenting the Alliance for Food and Farming.  Not only that, but a new article running in the Huffington Post, titled “Are Pesticide Sprayers "Health Experts?" Seriously?”  is insulting to the farmers.

From the article’s outset the EWG gets it wrong again by saying,  “The Alliance for Food and Farming, or AFF, which has lobbied the U.S. Department of Agriculture to tone down its annual pesticide residue tests on fruits and vegetables, has rolled out short videos in which California farmers answer questions usually reserved for scientists and health experts."

For the record, the Alliance is an information resource only.  Alliance contributors are limited to farmers, farming companies or organizations that represent farmers.  We do not receive money or support from the pesticide industry and we do not engage in lobbying. For full disclosure and transparency, our 2011 tax return is posted on our website.

Secondly, www.safefruitsandveggies.com was developed with the support of experts in toxicology, nutrition, risk assessment and farming and is loaded with credible information about the safety of fruits and vegetables. Consumers can read several important research reports on our site from a host of independent experts, watch videos on the new “Ask the Experts” section and even use a link on that section to ask the experts their own questions.  

And yes, EWG, we do believe fruit and vegetable farmers are experts in what they do -- which is growing the safest, most nutritious foods on the planet.  The Alliance believes that people will find these videos to be an incredibly valuable resource in making decisions about purchasing fruits and vegetables.  From them consumers can will learn facts like:  both organic and conventional farmers use pesticides only as a last resort in their pest and disease control efforts; that both are drastically reducing the use of older, broad-based pesticides by incorporating Integrated Pest Management practices and using safer methods to control pests; and that once the decision is made to use a pesticide – organic and conventional farmers often choose to use the exact same ones.  In fact, according to a recent analysis of pesticide use trends in California – about one-third of all pesticides applied to farms are approved for use in organic farming.   This report also shows a decrease in older, broad-based pesticides of 66 percent in the past twelve years.   

The bottom line is that farmers are doing things much differently than what the EWG would have consumers believe.  It’s time to stop using fear to generate money and, instead focus on helping to increase the consumption of both conventional and organic fruits and vegetables.

We do appreciate the EWG drawing attention to our new website and we urge people to watch these videos for themselves. We also encourage everyone to visit our new Facebook page  to help get more credible information to consumers so they don’t have to rely only on the EWG.  We hope people will like our information better than the EWG does and that visitors will share the real facts with others instead of spreading more fear.       

This week, the media reported on a new study conducted by McGill University and University of Minnesota and published in Nature comparing organic and conventional farming practices.  Not surprisingly, the study found that the most sustainable production system may be a “hybrid” which uses the best practices from organic and conventional farming.

Our reaction?  Isn’t that exactly what our farmers said in the new “Ask the Experts” videos?  Viewers of these videos have seen that fruit and vegetable farmers already use very similar pest and disease strategies on their conventional and organic farms based upon this “hybrid” philosophy of best practices.  They also learned that organic and conventional farmers only use pesticides as a last resort in their battle to control pests and diseases and, when they do, they often choose to use the same ones.  Viewers can also gain further knowledge about why synthetic fertilizers are often more efficient than organic nitrogen sources – a key finding in the McGill/Minnesota study. 

The study authors suggest that this “hybrid” of organic and conventional farming systems be further explored as an environmentally sustainable option that may allow us to feed an ever-growing world population.  The authors also stated that “heated” discussions adamantly in favor of either conventional or organic farming systems should be set aside.  We agree.  Which is why we call on groups, like the Environmental Working Group, to stop calling safe and healthy produce items “dirty” simply because they are farmed conventionally.  In fact, it would be interesting to get EWG’s take on this new study and the authors’ suggestions.  We’ll invite them to post a comment to this blog. 

We hope that visitors to our website find that they are learning valuable information about how their organic and conventional fruits and vegetables are grown.  And, it is gratifying when our farming experts’ knowledge is substantiated by studies like those conducted by McGill University and University of Minnesota.

On Wednesday, the Huffington Post ran another editorial from the Environmental Working Group.  The language in the piece illustrates EWG’s escalating use of  messaging intended to scare consumers away from healthy and safe produce.  Among the most egregious examples was this statement: 

“This…grew out of one overarching conclusion embraced by scientists, physicians, policy makers, parents, and the public interest community: Pesticides used in the cultivation of fruits and vegetables can cause serious and lasting harm to young children.”  Alex Formuzis, Environmental Working Group.

Let’s address the inaccuracy of the statement first.  The complete data set of scientific studies proves that the “overarching conclusion” actually embraced by scientists, physicians, and moms  is that adults and children who consume more fruits and veggies are healthier and live longer.  These studies were conducted using conventionally grown produce. 

But it is the second half of this statement that is most concerning and dangerous from a public health standpoint.  EWG is telling parents that feeding their children fruits and vegetables can cause them “serious and lasting harm.”  Really?  This is insupportable, it is undermining to public health efforts to improve diets, and it is scaring parents who are trying to do the right thing by feeding their kids fruits and vegetables.

At the Alliance, we have spent considerable time analyzing EWG’s messaging and its impacts on consumers.  The results are concerning and should be concerning to public health advocates everywhere.  In our effort to be an information resource, the Alliance will be providing these findings to the public soon.  

In the meantime, at the Alliance for Food and Farming, our advice to consumers remains clear.  We will continue to encourage consumers to learn more about the safety of both conventional and organic produce.  We will also continue to encourage consumers to choose to eat either conventional or organic fruits and vegetables, while emphasizing they should eat more.  And, we will do our best to provide consumers with the knowledge they need to make informed shopping choices.

And, one more thing, we would like to ask EWG to clearly explain why they follow their increasingly scary messages with this statement:  “Oh and eat your fruits and vegetables, organic or conventional.  They’re good for you.” 

EWG,  you either agree with the recommendation of health experts everywhere that parents feed their children more conventionally and organically grown produce because both are safe and healthy or you don’t.  Your messaging is contradictory and confusing.  More importantly, it is doing nothing at all to improve public health.

We leave you with this recent example from EWG to illustrate our point.

“They don’t want their customers (eaters) to be informed about any associations between the pesticide growers use and health problems connected with them, such as ADHD, lower IQ, low birth weight, diabetes and cancer, to name just a few…Oh, and eat your fruits and veggies, organic or conventional.  They’re good for you.”  EWG.  May 9, 2012.

The Alliance for Food and Farming is a non-profit organization formed in 1989 which represents organic and conventional farmers and farms of all sizes.  Alliance contributors are limited to farmers of fruits and vegetables, companies that sell, market or ship fruits and vegetables or organizations that represent produce farmers.  Our mission is to deliver credible information to consumers about the safety of all fruits and vegetables.  We do not engage in lobbying nor do we accept any money or support from the pesticide industry.  In the interest of transparency, our entire 2011 tax return is posted on this website.

Guest Blog by Drs. Richard Reiss and John DeSesso, Exponent:

  Maternal nutrition during pregnancy has long been known to be important for fetal growth and healthy offspring.  In contrast, lower birth weights are associated with higher neonatal mortality, risks for cognitive or neurological impairments, and risks for chronic diseases later in life.  Fortunately, simply improving one’s diet during pregnancy can improve birth weights and is associated with reduced risk for numerous negative health effects.

Several large studies have found significant associations between maternal fruit and/or vegetable consumption and healthy birth weights and other infant measures such as increased birth length and head circumference (Mikkelsen et al. 2006, Ramón et al. 2009, Timmermans et al. 2012).  The largest study by Mikkelson et al. (2006) included 43,585 pregnant women in Denmark.  The women who ate the most fruit and vegetables had babies that were, on average, 51 grams heavier at birth, compared to the group with the least fruit and vegetable consumption.

The good news doesn’t stop with healthy birth weights.  Numerous studies have also associated fruit and/or vegetable consumption during pregnancy with other positive outcomes, including reduced incidences in offspring for germ cell tumors (Musselman et al. 2010), leukemia (Kwan et al. 2009; Spector et al., 2005), eczema (Miyake et al., 2010), familial retinoblastoma (Orjuela et al. 2005), brain tumors (Bunin et al. 1998; Bunin et al., 2005), gastroschsis (Torfs et al., 1998), spontaneous abortion (Di Cintio et al., 2001), and orofacial cleft (Krapels et al., 2004).

Additionally, a Mediterranean diet or generally health conscious diet during pregnancy, both of which include significant fruit and vegetable consumption, has been associated with reduced risk for high blood pressure during pregnancy (Timmermans et al., 2011), reduced incidence of postpartum depression (Chatzi et al., 2011), and a reduced risk in offspring for spina bifida (Vujkovic et al., 2009).

You may have heard about some recent epidemiologic studies that associate lower birth weights and other outcomes with exposure to a certain type of pesticides (organophosphates).  Of course, for conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables, there may be some pesticide residue.  However, it is important to remember that the residue levels on fruits and vegetables are very small.  In contrast to the nutritional epidemiology studies, the pesticide epidemiologic studies have far fewer participants, and have other substantial methodological limitations.  Furthermore, the epidemiologic studies include exposures from other pathways, including home and garden use of pesticides

By far, the balance of the evidence shows that eating a healthy diet high in fruits and vegetables during pregnancy will lead to a healthier baby.

References Cited

Bunin GR. 1998. Maternal diet during pregnancy and risk of brain tumors in children. Int J Cancer Suppl. 11:23-25.

Bunin GR, Kushi LH, Gallagher PR, Rorke-Adams LB, McBride ML, Cnaan A. 2005. Maternal diet during pregnancy and its association with medulloblastoma in children: a children’s oncology group study (United States). Cancer Causes Control. 16:877-891.

Chatzi L, Melaki V, Sarri K, Apostolaki I, Roumeliotaki T, Georgiou V, Vassilaki M, Koutis, A, Bitsios P, Kogevinas M. 2011. Dietary patterns during pregnancy and the risk of postpartum depression: the mother-child ‘Rhea’ cohort in Crete, Greece. Public Health Nutr. 14:1633-1670.

Di Cintio E, Parazzini F, Chatenoud L, Surace M, Benzi G, Zanconato G, La Vecchia C. 2001. Dietary factors and risk of spontaneous abortion. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 95:132-136.

Krapels IP, van Rooij IA, Ocke MC, West CE, van der Horst CM, Steegers-Theunissen RP. 2004. Maternal nutritional status and the risk of orofacial cleft offspring in humans. J Nutr. 134:3106-3113.

Kwan ML, Jensen CD, Block G, Hudes ML, Chu LW, Buffler PA. 2009. Maternal diet and risk of childhood acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Public Health Rep. 124:503-514.

Mikkelsen TB, Osler M, Orozova-Bekkevold I, Knudsen VK, Olsen SF. 2006. Association between fruit and vegetable consumption and birth weight: a prospective study among 43,585 Danish women. Scand J Public Health 34:616-622.

Miyake Y, Sasaki S, Tanaka K, Hirota Y. 2010. Consumption of vegetables, fruit, and antioxidants during pregnancy and wheeze and eczema in infants. Allergy. 65:758-765.

Musselman JR, Jurek AM, Johnson KJ, Linabery AM, Robinson LL, Shu XO, Ross, JA. 2011. Maternal dietary patterns during early pregnancy and the odds of childhood germ cell tumors: A Children’s Oncology Group study. Am J Epidemiol 173:282-291.

Orjuela MA, Titievsky L, Liu X, Ramirez-Ortiz M, Ponce-Castaneda V, Lecona E, et al. 2005. Fruit and vegetable intake during pregnancy and risk for development of sporadic retinoblastoma. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 14(6):1433-1440.

Ramón R, Ballester F, Iniguez C, Rebagliato M, Murcia M, Esplugues A, et al. 2009. Vegetable but not fruit intake during pregnancy is associated with newborn anthropometric measures. J Nutr 139(3):561-567.

Timmermans S, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Vujkovic M, den Breeijen H, Russcher H, Lindemans J, et al. 2012. The Mediterranean diet and fetal size parameters: the Generation R study. Br J Nutr. doi:10.1017/S000711451100691X; [Online 21 February 2012].

Timmermans S, Steegers-Theunissen RP, Vujkovic M, Bakker R, den Breeijen H, Raat H, Russcher H, Lindemans J, Hofman A, Jaddoe VW, Steegers EA. 2011. Major dietary patterns and blood pressure patterns during pregnancy: the Generation R study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 205:337.e1-2.

Torfs CP, Lam PK, Schaffer DM, Brand RJ. 1998. Association between mothers’ nutrient intake and their offspring’s risk of gastroschisis. Teratology. 58:241-250.

Vujkovic M, Steegers EA, Looman CW, Ocke MC, van der Spek PJ, Steegers-Theunissen RP. 2009. The maternal Mediterranean dietary pattern is associated with a reduced risk of spina bifida in the offspring. BJOG. 116:408-415.

Anecdotally, we have always thought that the inflammatory messaging calling into question the safety of fruits and vegetables had to have a negative effect on people’s produce consumption habits.  After all, it is just common sense that after you hear something repeatedly in the mainstream and social media that it begins to have an effect. 

So, we landed where we always do which is “we need to ask consumers directly” to test this common sense hypothesis.   This thinking launched a new consumer research project and corresponding analysis by a scientific panel with expertise in nutrition, consumer behavior and farming and resulted in the new report released today titled “Scared Fat.”  And, our hypothesis proved correct – unfortunately.  After just ten short minutes of participating in the survey and reading four messages taken directly from the statements of an activist group (Environmental Working Group) fear was increased with some respondents stating they would reduce their consumption as a result.  Low income consumers were the most affected by the messaging.

The expert panel who reviewed these new consumer research findings agreed that there is an emerging trend for consumers to react to negative messages about the safety of fruits and vegetables by consuming less of these healthy foods. 

This finding underscores why the Alliance developed this website safefruitsandveggies.com in 2010.  Consumers need a place to go to find the other side of the story, to learn about the body of science that exists about the safety of organic and conventionally grown fruits and veggies and the health benefits of consuming more of both.  Our only regret is that we should have done it sooner.  We should not have waited to aggressively challenge activist groups like the EWG on their lack of science-based information, their use of contradictory messaging about the safety of fruits and veggies and their contentions that certain produce items are “dirty.” But we, like many in the produce industry, naively thought that because our products are safe, nutritious and have the glowing endorsement of health experts throughout the world that an activist group’s claims would not be taken seriously.

And, now we know the damage they are actually doing with their publicity fueled mis-information and scary messaging.  Ironically, EWG states that their mission “is to use the power of public information to protect public health.”  Our new “Scared Fat” report clearly shows that the opposite is true when it comes to the effect their mis-information has on the public and their diets. 

Maybe when groups like EWG see the consumer results and “Scared Fat” report they’ll rethink tactics like issuing their annual “Dirty Dozen” list.  If they don’t, then they might want to change their mission statement.    

Last week, the Environmental Working Group predictably released its 2012 “Dirty Dozen” list. But, this year there was a big difference – much less coverage from major media outlets and much more balance when the list was covered.  Some key examples of balanced coverage came from  National Public Radio's food blog,  Food Safety News and the Chicago Sun Times.

But, one of our favorites came from Editor Pamela Riemenschneider of Produce Retailer.  Ms. Riemenschneider posted a simple question on an online Facebook forum for moms as part of her story.  She asked:  “If it’s on the Dirty Dozen list and you can’t find it in organic do you:  Skip it entirely,  Buy conventional or I don’t care about the Dirty Dozen”  The findings according to Riemenschneider, “The majority of my mom friends said they’d skip it entirely, which is troubling to me – and the produce industry.”

Yes, very troubling.  Especially when a formal and professional survey conducted by the Alliance for Food and Farming had similarly concerning findings with almost 10% of low income consumers stating they would reduce consumption of certain fruits and veggies after hearing statements from EWG about the Dirty Dozen list (see our new report Scared Fat to see complete survey results).  It should be noted that Riemenschneider also did an informal shopping experiment and found that purchasing all the items on the Dirty Dozen list cost 65% more than the conventional counterparts – another concerning statistic for low income consumers.   

Of course, there were still some typical one-sided stories that only carried the inflammatory list messages and we’ll be using those stories in the future to further illustrate the findings in the Scared Fat report.

But, we are hopeful that some of the information, reports and press releases recently issued by the Alliance and found on this website contributed to an increase in balanced reporting and a decrease in coverage by major media.  And, the Alliance remains committed to continuing these efforts to provide more information about the safety of organic and conventionally grown produce to help consumers make educated shopping decisions as well as reduce fear as a barrier to consumption.