Traces of 122 different pesticides in 12 most polluted fruit and veg products

I wonder if any of those oranges were from California... because they are very anti carcinogenic agents.

Theoretically if the pesticide is below a certain threshold I should be fine. However if I mix thousands of dangerous chemicals together while keeping each portion below the danger threshold until I have a cup of this stuff I can gulp down than in theory I should be fine.

However if I suffer from ingesting such a concoction then logically this theory of keeping chemicals below certain danger thresholds does not logically hold weight.

I’m assuming there is different list for different countries? Are these “dirty 12” a good representation in the US? If not, anyone can point me to a list similar but for the US?

> Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health.

This is the important part. Activists' fear should not dictate health policy. That should be done by scientists.

This organization, Pesticide Action Network, is opposed to GMOs and other modern farming techniques that kicked off the green revolution, seemingly on principle more than anything else. Consumers absolutely should be vigilant, because industrial food production has a bad track record. But with 7 billion humans to feed and counting, it is not realistic to roll back the green revolution.

This article has so much misleading information. It's bonkers.

>The official figures, analysed by Pesticide Action Network (PAN), found 122 different pesticides in the 12 most polluted products, which the charity calls the “dirty dozen”. Many of these are hazardous to human health; 61% are classified as highly hazardous pesticides (HHPs), a concept used by the UN to identify those substances most harmful to human health or the environment.

>The list of pesticides includes 47 with links to cancer, 15 “reproductive or developmental toxins” that can have adverse effects on sexual function and fertility, and 17 cholinesterase inhibitors that can impair the respiratory system and cause confusion, headaches and weakness. A quarter of the pesticides found are suspected endocrine disruptors that can interfere with hormone systems, causing an array of health problems including birth defects and developmental disorders.

>Every fruit or vegetable on the list contains two or more types of pesticide, with some containing up to 25. Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits, activists fear the combination of multiple chemicals could be particularly damaging to people’s health.

"Although the levels of individual pesticides are within legal limits"

This is buried but this is what it all comes down to.

Every chemical can be hazardous to humans. Every one of 'em. Water? Yeah, you can die from too much water (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication).

If you're wondering why you have yet to die from consuming these foods or why our average life expectancy hasn't declined since we began applying these products, it's because they are in-fact not harmful to humans in the quantities allowed for agricultural application.

>“The best way for people to avoid pesticides is to buy organic. Of course, almost no one in the UK can financially afford or access a fully organic diet so that is why we publish the dirty dozen – to help consumers prioritise which produce to avoid,” she said.

Here, again, is the misconception "organic" foods are produced without the application of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer. Of course these "organic" crops have pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer applied. If they didn't, there wouldn't be enough output to sustain the size of the "organic" industry we see today.

"Organic" crops may not use the same products as conventional agriculture because of seemingly arbitrary rules they came up with governing the make-up of such products. Now here's where it gets especially frustrating: The "organic" variety of these products are less effective than the more advanced variety used by everyone else. More of the chemical is required to achieve the desired output. More, not less, of these "organic" chemical products are being applied to the "organic" foods you consume.

>There are also environmental implications: half of the top 12 pesticides found are groundwater contaminants, meaning they persist in water bodies, potentially affecting aquatic biodiversity or drinking water quality. The list includes the neonicotinoid acetamiprid which, while thought to be less toxic to pollinators than other neonicotinoids, PAN says could still represent a potential threat to bee health.

This is true for all applications of such chemicals; including the chemicals used to treat "organic" crops. When you put stuff in the environment, it will become detectable in the environment.

>Mole added: “Consumers presume that their food has been through rigorous testing and that if an item is available for sale in the UK then it must be safe. Unfortunately, this is not necessarily the case. [...]”

Yes it is. Rigorous testing is being conducting on a nearly constant basis. Whether we find something in the future that is harmful to humans does not mean testing had not taken place, it means our science and understanding has advanced to the point where we're capable of discovering such a thing.

> [...] We actually have very limited understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of tens of different pesticides every day of our lives.”

No we don't. We have a pretty good understanding of the long-term impacts to human health of consuming small amounts of different "organic" and conventional pesticides.

>A spokesperson for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: “All food sold in the UK must meet strict rules on pesticide residue to ensure it is safe to eat. These are enforced via a comprehensive residues monitoring programme overseen by an independent specialist body and in 2020 more than 97% of tested samples were compliant.

And buried at the end of it all is this. But why should we believe the government when this interest group is scaring us into buying more "organic" produce?

This is bananas. I am genuinely surprised such a low-quality, low-effort article, spreading blatant fear, uncertainty, and doubt was published by The Guardian.

---

I've enclosed the term "organic" in quotes in some context because the word is absolutely meaningless when used to describe foods. All food is organic. "Organic" is this context is a marketing term and nothing more.