There They Go Again - "Dirty Dozen" List Continues to Ignore Sound Science

Jun 02, 2010

WASHINGTON, DC – The Environmental Working Group (EWG) has yet again released its annual “Dirty Dozen” report in an attempt to create news out of nothing. Every year, EWG delves into the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data and allegedly “counts” the detections of residues from crop protection products on fruits and vegetables destined for grocery stores. They then list what they consider to be the most dangerous produce based on frequency of detection. But, rather than performing a rational, scientific analysis of USDA data, EWG distorts the figures to imply that crop protection product residue is harmful at any level and that it is widely present. The report's end result: scaring consumers, leading buyers away from safe and healthy produce, and garnering publicity.

The “Dirty Dozen” list does not take into account the residue tolerance levels established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Nor does it pay attention to the actual levels of residues in the various foods which, overwhelmingly, are well within those tolerance levels. The EWG report forthrightly states that its report “is not built on a complex assessment of pesticide risks.” Yet, science-based risk assessment is established to help ensure human health while allowing for the use of crop protection products, and production of affordable produce.

For each registered crop protection product, extensive testing and field studies are conducted to determine the potential for residue to remain on treated crops at the time of harvest. The EPA uses this information to determine an allowable maximum residue level or “tolerance.” Any residue under that level is determined safe for human consumption, with a large margin of safety included. EWG disregards this important piece of information and instead wildly and inaccurately counts whatever it can find, ignoring the fact that the mere detection of residues does not indicate harm.

Instead, by overlooking the risk assessment and established residue limits, EWG ignores the facts:
 

• A tolerance is proposed based on the maximum amount of residue likely to occur in or on the crop as it leaves the farmer’s field. These residues, permitted by the U.S. government safety standards, are regulated to levels that are considered safe based on average daily consumption of these foods by adults and children. In 2008, 99.5% of more than 11,000 samples tested by USDA for crop protection products were below the tolerance levels set by the government. Approximately 30% of the samples had no detectable residues.
• EPA’s dietary risk assessment for a given crop protection product takes into account how on many different crops it is used; the residue tolerance levels; the proportion of each crop likely to be treated; the amount likely to be used; how long after treatment the crop is harvested; how the food is prepared and eaten; and a number of other factors, in order to assure that the food is safe to consume.
• Before a crop protection product can be approved for use, it must be shown through a series of tests and evaluations that there is "reasonable certainty of no harm" from exposure to residues, including those that remain on food.

By glossing over these facts, EWG apparently intends to scare consumers into avoiding fruits and vegetables which are proven to be rich with vitamins, help fight cancer and are vital to a balanced diet.