Considering Local in a World of Pesticides

By Samuel Fromartz

While you chew over the Time magazine cover story on local and organic foods, consider the latest report from the USDA on pesticide residues. The watchdogs over at Beyond Pesticides - an NGO long fighting against pesticides in our food supply, homes, workplaces and, yes, golf courses - reports on the latest pesticide data from the USDA.

Every year, the USDA grinds up food samples around the country and then measures the pesticide residues it finds. Beyond Pesticides looked over the Pesticide Data Report:

In fruits and vegetables, 73 percent of fresh and 61 percent of processed produce had detectable residues. Drinking water analyses primarily found widely used herbicides and their metabolites; forty-eight different residues were found in untreated intake water and 43 in treated water.

It doesn't end there. Sixteen percent of bottled water samples had pesticide residues. So did 22 percent of soybeans, 75 percent of wheat, 98 percent of apples and 99 percent of heavy cream.

Milk generally contains pesticide residues, primary DDE (the substance that DDT breaks down into when it is metabolized). Why does it show up in milk? Because long-lasting pesticides like DDT concentrate in fatty tissues. This is still the case, even though DDT has been banned since 1972. Since it exists in the soil, plants take it up and then it is consumed by cows. (The FDA, however, says these detectable levels do not pose a health risk). DDE was in 85 percent of milk samples, which is about the same level when the USDA last tested milk.

The PDP report, incidentally, is one of the data sets that Environmental Working Group relies upon to find the foods with the most pesticide residues. They take this data, crunch the numbers, and then come up with a list of the foods with the highest and lowest numbers. That way you can try to make an intelligent choice about what organic foods to buy if you can only afford a few items.

Studies show organic food has lower pesticide residues. A widely publicized study in 2002, looking at 94,000 food samples from 1994-1999, found that organic had about two-thirds less residues than conventional food. It would be interesting if this study were repeated, especially now that so much more food is available organically.

In light of this rather consistent body of data, I've argued elsewhere that the choice between local and organic is a false one: both are good choices for different reasons. And both are such a tiny fraction of the food supply that choosing between them is virtually meaningless.

Comments

[SharitheRD]

Organic, my favorite topic this month. Actually anything is my favorite topic if it annoys my boss, who only reads front page articles and thinks he is the expert.
It is funny that I never read Time but yesterday I was at the airport and I saw the title that caught my eye. You see, I am writing a paper titled, "Organic isn't healthy," for my Food Laws and Regulations in the United States course. The point of the paper is that the way the labeling laws are written in CFR 21 of the U.S. Code for Organic Food, the average consumer is not able to make reasonable healthy food choices.
The problem in this country is obesity, it is striking our kids and costing us money! Research has shown that the less educated and those with less access to healthcare, have less healthy eating habits. We need to encourage fruits and vegetables and discourage the fast food nations. The advertisers and markets have made Organic such an issue, it is scary. Imagine if a low income person thinks they shouldn't buy an apple because it is not organic and too expensive? Organic advertisers and marketers have gone too far. Hey, I am one to help my envirnoment, it has been good to me and I want to return the favor, but it better be well worth it and not at the expense of the low income!

[Sam Fromartz]

Sharithe, you write: "Imagine if a low income person thinks they shouldn't buy an apple because it is not organic and too expensive?" This is a potential issue, but not sure if there is anything that supports the premise that people actually face this choice. For low-income people the much bigger is access to ANY fresh produce (as opposed to fast food). Some low-income neighborhoods, for example, don't even have supermarkets. The only alternative is the convenience store or fast food. On these issues, I'd direct you to places like the People's Grocery in West Oakland, CA or Just Food in NYC. People in these organizations can speak to these issues.

http://www.justfood.org/jf/index.html
http://www.peoplesgrocery.org/

[Charles Benbrook]

Sam --

Re your comment that the 2001 Baker et al. analysis of pesticide residues in conventional vs. organic food be redone, we have redone it twice, and are doing a third update with the newly released 2005 PDP data as we speak. The USDA is including more samples of organic food each year, allowing richer comparisons. For the latest, see the report "Successes and Lost Opportunities in Reducing Pesticide Dietary Exposure" on the Organic Center website, in the category "State of Science," under pesticides. The new analysis will be out this summer.

And on the topic of organic vs. local and residues, the crop and where it was grown makes a huge difference, local or not.

Chuck Benbrook

[Sam Fromartz]

Chuck, nice to see you're reading our blog! For those who don't know, Chuck is chief scientist at the Organic Center, and formerly worked as a lead staffer in the House on ag and at the National Academies of Sciences - so when Chuck talks, it's wise to listen. Yes, the organic center has done two reports on this issue (I should know, I cited the first one in my book). See
http://www.organic-center.org/science.pest.php?action=view&report_id=19

Chuck has also done some very interesting work on e. coli and many other issues, all available at the center's web site.

[Bibhu Prasad Mohanty]

The report is scary and truthful, as I believe. Under this context I wonder, how USA Govt. is allowing its agri business companies to spread and trade all those restricted chemicals in the agri fields of developing countries. Is it the policy of USA Govt.to weaken other countries by dumping its fatal chemicals in other countries and make money and become more wealthy? Is it a way to establish its anarchial approach to world economy?

Those who promote chemicals in food stuff production in the name of economic growth and prosperity they should also consider and calculate the loss we make because of the effect of chemical inputs in food and residues to our atmosphere. Only if we use our land and water resources in appropriate way we can have a balanced living and life support system. It is only human greed and ego brought such disastrous condition.

Let's think and rethink about our wrong actions which has brought such unhealthy and unwanted conditions for our dearly and lovingly future generation.Our markets and homes are the centres of stocks for such unwanted fatal food materials. Unless we become sincere enough towards futre generation and love them more dearly , we can never be free from demonic effects of human made disasters.

With regards
Bibhu Prasad Mohanty
Chief Consultant
Hunger Solution
Linagaraj Nagar, Jeypore 764004, Koraput, Orissa, India