Refresh

The Proof is in the Produce

Jeff Wells March 11th, 2008

Pesticide and other chemical residues have long been one of the primary issues driving organic produce purchases. The industry got a real taste of that with the Alar controversy in 1989. Some industry observers even point to that event as a milestone in developing demand for organics.

A just-released report by The Organic Center puts some impressive numbers behind the argument in favor of organic fruits and vegetables. Using a federally approved index, the study concluded that converting the nation’s 8 million acres of produce farms to organic would reduce dietary risk from pesticides by roughly 97%. Of course, the number also relies on Americans eating imported produce that is certified organic, too.

The report listed examples of residue counts on several items. A conventional spinach sample in 2006 was found to have nine residues, a kale sample had 10, and a raisin sample contained 11; almost half the conventional peach samples in 2006 contained five or more residues; and more than one-third of conventional fruit and vegetable samples in 2006 contained multiple residues.

Consumers have known about the use of pesticides for years. The federal government, which tests fruits and vegetables, monitors pesticide use and regulates which chemicals can be used. Washing all produce before consumption eliminates just about every trace of pesticides, we’re told, and fear of pesticides should not keep people from eating more fresh produce.

They’re right. No one has sprouted a third ear or anything weird like that. But now we find there are prescription drugs in our tap water (see the prior post) and there are new worries about the pollutants in our air. It seems we’ve been ingesting a lot more artificial, man-made elements than we first thought.

Knowing this might cause the public to start demanding reductive measures wherever possible. Since pesticides are perhaps the most well known of our human-intervention efforts, it would follow that this might be the area they want to start.

3 Comments to “The Proof is in the Produce”

F. Chang Says:

March 12th, 2008 at 12:44 pm

I think it’s “interesting” that the results are so dramatic, but I think the study is almost “digging” for results — there aren’t any studies that link pesticide intake with disease.

While I’m a skeptic of this study, I’m also a firm believer in what seems to be an emerging trend in food: Eat Less, Eat Quality, Eat Local. And to the quality piece of the equation, I’ll buy organic as often as I can — because even if it doesn’t have proven effects on human health, I know that I’m eating a little less, better quality, and helping to keep artificial fertilizers, chemicals, and pesticides out of the environment.
Jeff Wells Says:

March 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Thanks for your comment. You’re right, the study doesn’t seem to be earth shattering, but it does show measurable differences between organic and conventional food that we haven’t seen before. Same case with a study in January out of Washington state. Could this be the start of a trend? Stay tuned.

Hard evidence is definitely something the organic community has craved. But, as you pointed out, food safety is not the only reason to go organic. It’s a dynamic category that also incorporates nostalgia for simpler times, supporting family farms, and eating higher quality, better tasting food. Retailers and organic advocates need to help consumers understand this…
Juan Andres Ferrari Says:

April 11th, 2008 at 11:25 am

Dear Jeff
This is a great comment and i would have to agree with Mr Chang.
Other angle to see is, how much more money we will spend if all want to change to organic produce, since we are in a market, where supply/demand acts “sometimes” as defined. Not all families have the resources to buy organic and eat the quantities they use to eat. If the “market’ was decent enough not to “make” such huge profits with produce and farmers and consumers get the produce at more convinient prices, maybe i would suggest people to change, from now, knowing that farmers, distributors,retailers have to make money and consumers want to pay less, can you see a dilema trying to make a fair equation to all of us?