Sorry green-market-loving hipsters, but it turns out eating organic isnt always that great for the planet, and may only have a marginal effect on your health.

A new study published in the journal Science Advances reports that even though organic farms have the ecofriendly benefit of using fewer pesticides, they also use more land, which is harmful to the planet.

Researchers at the University of British Columbia analyzed organic crop farming across 17 criteria such as yield, impact on climate change, farmer livelihood and consumer health by looking at the existing scientific literature on its results. For one, they found the environmental benefits of organic farming can be offset by the lower yields of such crops (typically 19 to 25 percent lower than conventional farming).

While an organic farm may be better for things like biodiversity, farmers will need more land to grow the same amount of food, wrote Verena Seufert, the studys co-author. And land conversion for agriculture is the leading contributor to habitat loss and climate change.

The study also pointed out that reviews disagree on whether organic food offers a significant difference in nutrient content compared to conventional crops. While one benefit was found to be unequivocal reduced contamination from pesticides the authors point out that this might not matter for consumers in high-income countries, where pesticide contamination on conventionally grown food is far below acceptable daily intake thresholds.

For consumers in less-developed countries, however, the health benefit is greater.

Read the original post:

Organic food isn't all it's cracked up to be | New York Post - New York Post

This story was originally published by Fusionand is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Its easy to think that buying organic food helps to support local communities and protect the environment from the heavy hand of big agriculture. But the reality is not so clear cut. A detailed new analysis finds that organic farming is not always more upstanding than its conventional counterpart.

One of trickiest challenges facing society is how to produce enough food for growing populations without wrecking the environment and local communities. A study published on March 10 in the journal Science Advances finds that organic agriculture is not the holy grail of sustainable agriculture that its image suggests.

Its not enough just to do organic, said Verena Seufert, a researcher at the University of British Columbia, Canada, and a lead author of the study.

There is not a single answer to whether organic performs better or worse than conventional agriculture, she added.

The study finds that organic farming is better than conventional agriculture in some important ways.

The clearest benefit of organic agriculture is that farm workers are exposed to fewer potentially toxic pesticides, said Seufert.

Also, lower levels of pesticide residues are found on organic produce. This is of most benefit for people living in low-income countries, which tend to have weak controls on pesticide use. But it will make little difference to the health of consumers in the U.S. or Europe, for example, where pesticide residues on conventionally grown food are very low, the study says.

It also confirms previous findings that organic food is more nutritious, but the slightly higher levels of vitamins and other wholesome compounds are unlikely large enough to boost consumers health, said Seufert.

Organic agriculture is also a boon for financially fraught farmers. Farmers often struggle to make ends meet and must supplement their income through other activities, said Seufert.

Organic produce commands a higher price, making it more profitable, the study finds. However, organic farmers do not seem to provide better working conditions or wages to laborers, according to the limited available evidence, said Seufert.

While organic farms are friendlier to wildlife, such as bees, they are not always kinder to the environment overall, the study says. This is because organic farms produce less food on the same area of land compared to conventional farms. Lower organic yields mean that more land is put to work. And for the same amount of food produced, organic farms also tend to release more nitrogen pollution than conventional farms.

The new analysis is one of the most comprehensive to date comparing large-scale organic and conventional farming. It clarifies previous mixed conclusions on organic farmings green credentials. Other research has shown that smaller community gardens are important sources of organic produce, and have a plethora of socioeconomic and environmental benefits, such as saving on shipping costs and packaging and providing green spaces for people to enjoy.

This does not imply that organic agriculture is bad or should not be part of the solution. It just means we need to improve organic agriculture and make it better, said Seufert.

Amending organic regulations to better promote environmentally friendly farming practices, such as rotating crops, could help make organic farming more sustainable, said Seufert. Currently, organic regulations mainly focus on restricting chemical inputs such as pesticides and fertilizers.

If you want to make organic sustainable, you must include environmental best practices in regulations, she said.

In addition, researchers need to develop new crop varieties that are bred to perform well in organic systems, such as crops that can grow well with less fertilizer. Today, most of the crops grown on organic farms were bred for conventional agriculture where nutrient-rich chemical fertilizer is liberally applied.

John Reganold, an agroecologist at Washington State University, said that the new study agrees with much of his own findings on organic farming including that it better supports ecosystem services such as bio-pest control and healthier soils. But he said the future of farming will likely sit in the middle ground between organic and conventional agriculture, where farmers will use green farming methods alongside chemicals inputs. Such hybrid farming will be more sustainable by better balancing profit and productivity with social and environmental concerns, he said.

Organic farming is helping to drive a move towards sustainable agriculture by encouraging conventional farmers to adopt environmentally friendly practices, said Reganold.

Organic farming is pulling conventional farmers towards the middle ground. This will have a tremendous impact, he said.

And although organic produce is grown on only 1 percent of global farmland, it can have a strong influence on agricultural markets. It is the fastest growing food sector in North America and Europe. Consumers recognize and demand the organic food label, said Seufert.

Therefore, at the moment, organic is the most important way that consumers can influence how their food is produced, she said.

More:

Is organic always better? It's not as clear-cut as you might think. - Grist

Organic cotton textiles register no more than a footnote in the worlds cotton production, but Vishal Naithani wants to change that.

His company, Sustained Organic Living in Edina, selects certified organic cotton grown in India with non-GMO seeds. The products are made using only fair trade labor on the farms and in the factories.

The challenge for Naithani and his company, which is also known as Sol Organics, is to be able to create the level of interest among consumers for organic apparel that has been generated for organic food. For now, his chief weapon is price: He aims to price his products significantly lower than his online competitors and on par with high-quality bedding that is not fair trade organic.

Every family should have access to affordable organic cotton just like they have access to affordable organic food, he said. It shouldnt be only the wealthy who can afford premium products.

Sol Organics is one of a number of companies offering organic, fair trade textiles online or in stores. Companies such as Boll & Branch and Patagonia sell them. West Elm, Pottery Barn, and Target feature organic cotton that may or may not be fair trade. Naithani said Sol Organics is the only Minnesota-based company to do so.

Part of the reason Naithani acts as a maverick is that organic cotton hasnt grabbed the consumers attention like organic milk, produce and poultry.

Shoppers arent ingesting organic cotton as they do organic foods, so they may not see the benefit, said Mary Brett Whitfield, senior vice president at Kantar Retail, a retail consulting business. We havent trained shoppers to think about how cotton is grown or how it fits in the environmental food chain.

Conventionally grown cottons critics say the so-called fabric of our lives is a crop that requires lots of water and chemicals to grow. A pesticide-intensive crop, conventional cotton uses more than an average amount of pesticides, although the amount is in dispute.

Cotton covers 2.5 percent of the worlds cultivated land, yet growers use an estimated 10 to 25 percent of the worlds pesticides, according to Rodale Institute, a Pennsylvania organic farm and researcher. AMIS Global, an agriculture data firm, estimates the pesticide usage for cotton at closer to 5 percent, according to Cotton Inc., a U.S. trade organization.

In India, where more than 20 percent of the worlds cotton is grown, child labor is common. According to a Harris Poll conducted in 2016, three in five consumers would not purchase a cotton product if they knew it was picked by children or forced labor.

Naithani and others in the business believe that, in time, more consumers will search out organic sheets, towels and clothing. Only 5 percent of consumers purchase organic clothing, slightly higher among millennials, according to Kantar Retail.

The average price paid for a queen sheet set in the U.S. is $80, but organic cotton sets (300 thread count sateen) start at $240 at BollandBranch.com and $258 at Coyuchi.com.

At the wholesale level, organic, fair trade cotton costs only about 15 percent more than conventional cotton, Naithani said. He doubles the cost of the goods for his retail price while competitors triple the cost, he said.

The only way to get people to convert to buying organic cotton is to keep prices competitive. Costco and Wal-Mart have made organic food affordable, he said. We want to do the same for organic cotton.

At $119 for a queen set and $139 for a king set at solorganix.com (after a $40 instant savings), his prices are 30 to 50 percent less than comparable products online, but still nearly double what a conventional set costs at Kohls or J.C. Penney.

Naithani hopes to drop the price of his queen-sized set to $99 within two years, once the product reaches critical mass. Affordability is the tipping point, he said. It promotes access, which in turn creates demand and conversion to organic cotton.

Brett Whitfield sees organic cotton as early in its life cycle but poised for growth. Target and Pottery Barn recently expanded their organic textiles selection. Pottery Barns spring collections show fair trade, organic sheets and towels.

Target, which already had organic cotton sheets, clothes and baby items, added organic in its new Cat & Jack kids line. Its recent pledge to remove perfluorinated chemicals and flame retardants from textiles by 2022 shows a long-term commitment.

We know organic cotton is important to our guests, said Erika Winkels, a Target spokeswoman. It will continue to grow in the future, whether its home or apparel. Its not the be-all-end-all, but its important.

Naithani, who also sells his product on Amazon, hopes to break $1 million in annual sheet sales by next month. Thats still a fraction of the online retailer Boll & Branch, which sold about $40 million in organic fair trade sheets and towels in 2016.

Sols products are getting four- and five-star reviews online. His return rate is an enviably low 2.5 percent.

Increasing the demand for organic cotton creates this tremendous upside where everyone wins, the farmer, the consumer and the earth, he said.

Read the original post:

Can organic cotton become as mainstream as organic food? - Minneapolis Star Tribune

JON MORGAN

Last updated12:32, March 13 2017

We have to trust farmers, regulators and science that pesticide residues in our food are not at dangerous levels.

OPINION: Wellington Organic Week is coming up and I'm pleased. It gives my organic farming friends a chance to profit from this heightened interest in them.

But what I'm not happy about is the divisiveness of a crowd calling themselves the Safe Food Campaign.

They claim that only organic food is "safe" because all other food contains pesticides that are a risk to children's health. In a media release marking Wellington Organic Week, they spell out, with relish, what can go wrong - birth defects, genetic and hormonal damage, damaged immune system, and brain damage. All this from eating non-organic food.

Now, the organic growers and farmers I know would be horrified by these scare tactics. They know claims like this are without foundation and they know that they lead to counter-claims of equal strength which I will come to in a minute.

READ MORE:Kiwis take to organics as the sector goes mainstream

First, these claims. Every so often health authorities detail pesticide residues in food. The Greens and their mates see this as a chance to literally scare up more votes and toxicologists are forced to hose them down.

These experts say use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilisers, and veterinary medicines in all food is strictly regulated and pesticide levels are at extremely low levels, not remotely near what would be considered unsafe. These residuesaredetected more efficiently than they used to be because thetechnology to do so has improved.

If the Safe Foodclaims were true, youwould think the Cancer Society would be up in arms. But no.

This is what the society says: "There is no current evidence that shows very low levels of pesticide residues increase the risk of cancer. There is evidence which suggests eating lots of fruit and vegetables has many health benefits. These health benefits far outweigh any risk which might be linked with pesticide residues and you should not limit the fruit and vegetables you eat."

Strangely, the chemicals that organic farmers are permitted to use to replace conventional pesticides are not tested for residues in food but you can bet they're there.

The list is too long to show here, but these are three of the more dangerous ones.

Copper sulphate is used as a fungicide by organic farmers, despite its far higher toxicity when compared to synthetic alternatives.

Vineyard sprayers have experienced liver disease from exposure to it. It is corrosive to the skin and eyes, and is absorbed through the skin. It causes reproductive problems in birds, hamsters and rats. It has been shown to induce heart disease in the offspring of pregnant hamsters that were exposed to it. It has caused endocrine tumours in chickens. At normal application rates it is foundto bepoisonous to sheep and chickens. It isvery toxic to fish, crabs, shrimps and oysters.

There are cases where most animal life in soil, including large earthworms, have been eliminated by the extensive use of copper-containing fungicides in orchards.

Once a soil is contaminated with copper, there is no practical way to remove it.

Azadirachtin, also known as neem oil, is a toxic pesticide that is far more effective in killing foraging bees than synthetic pesticides.EUstudieshaveshown it kills 50 per cent of bee populations when they're exposed to a dose level 50 times lower than the recommended dosefororganicfarmers.

Pyrethrum is highly toxic to bees. Several studies indicate the possibility of a connection between pyrethrins and cancer, including one study showing a 3.7-fold increase in leukemia among farmers who had handled pyrethrins compared to those who had not.

Organic farmers excuse their use of these poisons by saying they have no alternative. Yes they do. They could use the pesticides conventional farmers use and are proved to be safe. But then they wouldn't be "organic" and able to charge more for their food and claim they are safer than other food.

You see. It's easy to slag off both organic and non-organic food for perceived dangers. But the fact is we have to trust the farmers, the scientistsand the regulators that they are keeping all food safe for us to eat. And I am sure they are.

Jon Morganis the editor of NZ Farmer

-Stuff

Here is the original post:

Safe food campaign open to counter-claims of poisons in organic ... - Stuff.co.nz

Green BEAN Delivery, the regions largest online natural and organic grocery delivery service, has announced it is expanding its services to cover residents in Peru.

Beginning at 3 p.m. on Oct. 20, members can shop online from a full selection of local, organic produce and all-natural, artisanal groceries and have them delivered directly to their doorsteps.

We are excited to continue growing throughout our home state of Indiana, providing the Peru community with the freshest produce and thousands of all-natural and local, artisanal groceries, said Shane Towne, president of BEAN, LLC, parent company of Green BEAN Delivery, in a press release.

We take great pride in helping area farmers and artisans showcase their amazing products, each week, in our online grocery store, he said.

One of those local farmers is Mark Boyer, who started the company Healthy Hoosier Oils with his dad at their Converse farm in March 2015. The farm grows sunflowers and canola, which they turn into cooking oil using a cold press.

For around two years, Green BEAN Delivery has distributed their product. Boyer said now, its great to see the delivery service coming to his home turf.

This is a wonderful resource in our community for many healthy and specialty foods that were previously unavailable, he said in an email. Their service is growing, but not yet in many areas with populations the size of ours.

To become a Green BEAN Delivery member, residents can sign up, select their bin preference and delivery frequency, and begin exploring the virtual aisles of the online store. Every order is customizable with members choosing from thousands of organic, all-natural and local and artisanal offerings.

Peru residents who want to become members can register at http://www.greenbeandelivery.com/PeruWabash. The first 50 Peru residents who sign up will receive a special discount of 20-percent off of their first three grocery orders. Membership does not come with contracts or commitments, and delivery is free when the selected bins minimum order is reached.

The company was founded in 2007 by Matt Ewer and his wife, Beth Blessing, who said in press release their goal was to make local, organic produce and natural groceries convenient, affordable and accessible to area communities. Now, the company boasts the Midwest and Souths largest network of farmers and artisans with organic and sustainable practices.

The delivery service also operates a 60-acre organic farm in Sheridan, Indiana, where they grow a wide variety of vegetables and also is home to more than five acres of blueberry bushes. The produce from the farm is included in their bins.

Besides its online service, Green BEAN Delivery has also committed to combating food insecurity by donating over 950,000 pounds of fresh produce to food banks in the communities it serves. They also partner with anti-hunger organizations to increase the flow of fruits, vegetables and grocery items into emergency food assistance programs.

Follow this link:

Organic food delivery service expands to Peru - Kokomo Tribune

Researchhas found that while environment doesnt necessarily benefit, such foodstuffsare more profitable for poor farmers and can produce food with a higher nutritional value

ORGANIC food may be no better for the environment or consumers than standard fruit and veg, a study suggests.

The pricey produce is often thought of as better for the planet.

Alamy

But a study has found the environment doesnt necessarily benefit because of how many more resources it takes to produce the same amount as non-organic fare.

Researchers analysed organic crop farming across 17 criteria such as yield, impact on climate change, farmer livelihood and consumer health.

They found it typically has a positive influence on local biodiversity, is more profitable for poor farmers and can produce food with a higher nutritional value.

But it often produces yields that 19 to 25 per cent lower and leads to higher consumer prices.

This means some of the environmental benefits may be lost once the yield differences are taken into account.

Getty Images

A pack of six small bananas in one supermarket cost 90p but their organic equivalent are 1.39. A 400g bloomer loaf costs 70p or 80p for organic.

Researcher Verena Seufert, from University of British Columbia, in Canada, said: Organic is often proposed a Holy Grail solution to current environmental and food scarcity problems.

While an organic farm may be better for things like biodiversity, farmers will need more land to grow the same amount of food.

And land conversion for agriculture is the leading contributor to habitat loss and climate change.

We need to stop thinking of organic and conventional agriculture as two ends of the spectrum.

Instead, consumers should demand better practices for both so that we can achieve the worlds food needs in a sustainable way.

Getty Images

Her colleague, Professor Navin Ramankutty, said the health benefits are marginal in countries with strict pesticide regulations, such as the UK.

The only entirely unequivocal benefit of organic foods is reduced contamination from pesticide residues although this might not matter for consumers in high-income countries, where pesticide contamination on conventionally grown food is far below acceptable daily intake thresholds.

In a developing country, where pesticide use is not carefully regulated and people are micronutrient deficient, we think that the benefits for consumer and farm worker health may be much higher.

Getty Images

Organic farming covers approximately 1 per cent of agricultural land and is the fastest growing food sector in North America and Europe.

The findings are published in the journal Science Advances.

Read more here:

Organic produce may be no greener than standard fruit and veg, says study - The Sun

Oaktree, where value investing thought leader Howard Marks (Trades, Portfolio) is co-chairman, increased its stake last Friday in SunOpta Inc. (NASDAQ:STKL), a company where it is pushing for change as the biggest shareholder but where few other prominent value investors have been active.

Oaktree found opportunity to increase its position when a weak earnings report released March 1 precipitated a decline in the companys stock price. Shares of SunOpta dropped 15.3% from the markets close Feb. 28 through March 2, registering their lowest price since August at $6.10 a piece. On March 3, Oaktree bought 3 million additional shares, reflecting a 26.5% holding increase that built his ownership to 14,333,333 shares, or 16.7% of the company.

SunOpta joined Oaktree in reviewing its operations starting in October and constructed a Value Creation Plan to maximize profit for shareholders. The plan, which aims for $30 million in product-driven annualized EBITDA enhancements and $20 million in working capital efficiencies over the next 12 to 18 months, features four pillars: portfolio optimization, operational excellence, go-to-market- effectiveness and process sustainability.

As we implement the four pillars of our strategic plan, we will refine our product portfolio, improve execution, broaden our sales effort and build a sustainable platform for profitable growth, SunOpta President and CEO David Colo, appointed Feb. 6 in a management shakeup, said in a release. We believe SunOpta is well positioned to benefit from the growing trend for healthier foods and we are building the platform for long-term achievement of our strategic goals and increased returns for shareholders."

Parts of the plan, like divesting of non-core business lines and impairment charges, as well as weak beverage and fruit sales, impinged on the companys fourth-quarter earnings results which fell below its expectations.

SunOptas revenue declined 6% from the prior years fourth quarter to $297.5 million. Its net loss of $33.5 million, or 41 cents per share, deepened from $30.1 million, or 16 cents per share, for the same periods. It ended the quarter with $1.25 million on its balance sheet, down from $2.27 million, and $244.4 million in long-term liabilities and debt, down from $339.03 million.

Over the last five years, SunOpta grew revenue at a 0.7% growth rate, while EBITDA fell at a rate of 8.8% and book value at a rate of 4%. In addition, its gross and operating margins have been in decline.

Only three other investors tracked by GuruFocus hold shares of SunOpta: Chuck Royce (Trades, Portfolio), Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio) and Paul Tudor Jones (Trades, Portfolio). Two, Chuck Royce (Trades, Portfolio) and Mario Gabelli (Trades, Portfolio), reduced their positions in the fourth quarter.

SunOpta shares have gained 39% over the past five years, including a 3.6% rise year to date.

See more buys and sells of investors who own more than 5% of a companys shares at Real Time Picks.

Continue reading here:

Oaktree Boosts Stake as Largest Shareholder in Organic Food Company SunOpta - GuruFocus.com

Dive Brief:

Grocery retailers are pushing organic and natural sales because those products provide more revenue thanks to higher prices. Plus, with consumers looking to eat healthier,demand has never been higher.

According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, organic products are now available in nearly 20,000 natural food stores and nearly 3 out of 4 conventional grocery stores. Produce makes up almost half of that.

Packaged Facts released a report that the organic and natural industry reached $69 billion in total sales last year, an 11% increase over 2015, and a 32% gain over the past five years.

Shoppers'interest in produce on the whole is skyrocketing. While stores should make organic produce available, they should also continue to stock lower-margin conventionally grown produce. Consumer research has shown some are confused about the benefits of natural and organic products and would rather buy conventional produce. Through signage and staff to provide information to shoppers, stores can work to educate shoppers on why they may want to choose organic products, as well as an explanation about what makes them different.

Follow this link:

How to encourage more organic produce sales | Food Dive - Food Dive

GETTY

Fruit, vegetables and meat produced without using chemicals is becoming an increasingly popular choice because people believe it is healthier both for humans and good for the environment.

But researchers at the University of British Columbia believe this may not be the case because organic farming has between 17 and 25 per cent smaller yields than conventional farming on average.

As a result, to produce the same amount of food more land is needed affecting soil and water quality.

It uses more energy, conditions of farm workers may not be better and its high prices puts it out of reach for poorer consumers.

Dr Verena Seufert at the Institute for Resources, Environment and Sustainability said: Organic is often proposed a holy grail solution to current environmental and food scarcity problems, but we found that the costs and benefits will vary heavily depending on the context.

The study analysed organic crop farming across 17 criteria such as yield, impact on climate change, farmer livelihood and consumer health.

It was the first systematic review of the scientific literature to identify the conditions leading to good or bad performance of organic agriculture.

GETTY

Factors include biodiversity, how it affects climate change, water use and quality, soil quality, yields, problems of scaling organic farming up, its impact on farm workers and consumer health and how affordable the food is.

Many people choose organic because of worries about overuse of pesticides and the belief organic is more nutritional.

The study argued in countries like Canada where pesticide regulations are stringent and diets are rich in micronutrients, the health benefits of choosing organic may be marginal.

Co-author Professor Navin Ramankutty said: But in a developing country where pesticide use is not carefully regulated and people are micronutrient deficient, we think that the benefits for consumer and farm worker health may be much higher.

GETTY

Consumers argue it is more sustainable and past research has compared the costs and benefits of organic and conventional farms of the same size, which does not account for differences in yield.

But organic crop yields are lower than under conventional farming and many of the environmental benefits of organic agriculture diminish once lower yields are accounted for.

For example fields managed organically have on average lower nitrogen loss and lower pesticide leaching than conventional farms.

It also uses more recycled nitrogen and phosphorus, thereby introducing less new nitrogen and phosphorus into our water systems.

GETTY

But in lower yields the nitrogen loss per unit food produced might actually be higher under organic management and run off of manure impacts water quality.

In terms of biodiversity on average, organic management results in a 40 to 50 per cent increase in organism abundance in agricultural fields and researchers do not know if this is offset because lower yields require more land to feed the same number of mouths.

But plants and bees benefits the most, while other arthropods and birds benefit to a smaller degree.

Organic farms typically have lower energy use and lower green-house gas emissions than conventional farms but when poorer yields are taken into account emissions might actually be higher under organic management.

And water use is lower on organic farms because the land can hold more of it.

Dr Seufert said: While an organic farm may be better for things like biodiversity, farmers will need more land to grow the same amount of food.

And land conversion for agriculture is the leading contributor to habitat loss and climate change.

While their findings suggested organic alone cannot create a sustainable food future, it still has an important role to play.

1 of 11

Organic is one way that consumers have control over and knowledge of how their food is produced since it is the only farming system regulated in law.

Dr Seufert said: We need to stop thinking of organic and conventional agriculture as two ends of the spectrum.

Instead, consumers should demand better practices for both so that we can achieve the world's food needs in a sustainable way.

The study was published in Science Advances.

Originally posted here:

Organic food may NOT be good for you or the planet after all, shock study finds - Express.co.uk

Regardless of whetheryoure a parent, an environmentalist, or just a plain old shopper, chances are youve gazed out overthe supermarket producesection and asked yourself, Should I buy organic?

Everyones heard of the scary chemicals used by agribusiness to keep yourapples worm-freeits what generates the fearthat makes organic produce lucrative. In exchange for more money,consumers are told they can have pesticide-free peace of mind.On Wednesday, the Environmental Working Group (which calls itselfanonpartisan organization aimed atprotecting human health and the environment) released its annual ranking of the best (Clean Fifteen) and the worst (Dirty Dozen) producewhen it comes topesticide content. The list is meant to be a tool for the consumer: If your favorite fruit is among the Dirty Dozen, the thinking goes, youd be safer buying organic.

Strawberries and spinach hold the top two spots inthis years Dirty Dozenmore than 98percent of samples tested positive for pesticide residue. One sample of strawberries, the report states, came with 20 different pesticides, while spinach samples had on average double the amount of pesticide residue by weight as any of the other crops reviewed.

Strawberriesrankhigh on the Dirty Dozen list.

Photographer: Mark Elias/Bloomberg

When buying conventional, the guide says, try to stick with the Clean Fifteen: These fruits and vegetables, including sweet corn, mangoes, eggplant, and cabbage, had the fewest pesticides present and in the lowest concentrations. The guide also helps shoppers feel as if they are saving money safely: You dont need to cough up extra cashfor already expensive avocados, for example,becauseonly 1percent had detectable pesticide.

But experts in pesticides and toxicology say thisannual list, seen as helpful for sales of organic produce, oversimplifies a complicated issue. Just because pesticides are on an apple doesnt meanthe apple is dangerous. Meanwhile, critics say, the EWG survey muddies what is a much more important message for American consumers: Eat more fruits and vegetables. Period.

In fact, organic marketing that emphasizes the perceived threat of pesticide residue could be dissuading some consumers from buying fruits and vegetables at all. And thats really not healthy.

One critic of the list is Carl Winter, director of the FoodSafe Program at the University of California, Davis. In 2011, heco-authored a studyconcluding that the level of pesticides consumers were exposed to viathe Dirty Dozen was negligible. Whats more, they found thatorganic produce had some pesticide residue, too.And finally, they reported, EWGs methodology does not appear to follow any established scientific procedures.

Take the bell pepper. According to EWGs 2010 report, it had high levels of the organophosphate insecticide methamidophos. Organophosphates can be verydangerous, and even mild poisoning can cause vomiting and chest tightness. But Winter found that thereference dose (RfD), or the highest acceptable level of a toxin that can be consumed orally, as set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was almost 50times higher than what was found on those bell peppers.

Sonya Lunder, an EWG senior analyst, acknowledged Winters report but advised caution that the EPAs continued efforts to revoke tolerancesspecifically for neurotoxic insecticidesis a sign that some pesticides do pose a safety risk in the food supply.

Other studies do support theEWGto a point. In 2011, three reportsshowed prenatal exposure to organophosphates had a measurable impact on achilds neurological development, including lowering their IQ byan average of as much as seven points. The independentstudies began during pregnancy and followedthe children until they were seven years old, both in low income New YorkCity neighborhoods where they were exposed through home pesticide use, and in Californias Salinas Valley, Americas No. 1vegetable-growingregion. The studies showed that prenatal exposure to organophosphates (as opposed to consumption of food tainted by it) islikely to have long-term, deleterious impacts on children.

Immigrant farm workers harvest spinach near Coachella, Calif.

Photographer: David McNew/AFP via Getty Images

In 2015, another study compared organophosphate byproducts in the urine of conventionalproduce consumers withthose in the urine of organic consumers.Not surprisingly, organic fans showed lower levels. But,says Cynthia Curl, an assistant professor at Boise State University and the studys lead author, there isnt firm evidence that organic eaters were any healthier in the end.

An organic diet dramatically and immediately reduces or eliminates exposure to organophosphates, Curl said. Is that enough to lead to a measurable health difference? Thats what we dont know. In other words, working in a field or living in a home where pesticides are sprayed isnt the same as eating a fruit or vegetable with just a little bit of residue, and even less after its been washed or cooked or both.

Winter points to the old toxicologist adage: Its the dose that makes the poison.

Testing has shown that organic produce sometimes haspesticide residue, both chemicalsapproved for use in organic agriculture and those coming through drift, irrigation, and other kinds of inadvertent contamination, Winter saidin a2012 study, Pesticide Residues in Imported, Organic and Suspect Fruits and Vegetables.

QuickTake Organic Food

In 2010, for example, the California Department of Pesticide Regulation analyzed 137 organic produce samples and found 20 of them, or 14.6percent, had pesticide residue, including seven that had higher levels than would be allowed under the rules of the U.S. National Organic Program. Wintersconclusion: Organic produce has lower levels of pesticides than conventional produce, but none of it is worth worrying about.

The EWG doesnt include testing on organic produce in its calculations, andLunder points out that the testing that has been done involves many fewer samples. Plus, says Curl from Boise State, the pesticides most people are concerned with, such asorganophosphates, arent used in organic agricultureat all.

As for long-term buildup, Winter says the studies that setallowable levelstake that into account and are done over long periods of time. Our typical exposure is often 100,000 times lower than levels that show no effect in lab animals who have been fed the chemicals on a daily basis throughout their lifetime.

Curlconcedes that the EWG list remains helpful for consumers despite its shortcomings. If you are concerned about reducing your level of exposure to pesticides, she says, eating organic is one way to do that.

One misperception about the value of organic foods, saysMichael Joseph, chief executive of Green Chef, a certified organic meal kit company, is that consumer pesticide exposure isthe overriding concern. Eating organic means supporting an industry that uses less harmful chemicals, and thats good for soil health, minimizing runoff into waterways.

Ive been down in Costa Rica to conventional banana fields where whats happening is you wind up polluting that local water system and make it unusable for a local population, he says.

But Winter said lists leveraging the fear of pesticides might be doing harm to the most vulnerable.

The most important business stories of the day.

Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.

In astudy published in late 2016 that surveyed more than 600 low-income household shoppersin the greater Chicago area, one reason people avoided buying fruits and vegetables was because of publicity about pesticides levels in non-organic options. In response to several statementsabout the differences between organic and conventional fruits and vegetablesincluding assertions that organics werent more nutritious and that both may have safe, low levels of pesticidesthe statement citing the Dirty Dozen list elicited thegreatest number of people to choose less likely to purchase any type of fruits or vegetables.

Put simply, fear of pesticides can drive people away from fruits and vegetables in general. And even EWG recognizes thats a bad result. (Eating conventionally grown produce is far better than skipping fruits and vegetables, the group said in its 2016 report.)

We know so much about the health benefits of eating fruits and vegetables and theres so much uncertainty about levels of residues, Curl said. I never want my work to be interpreted as we shouldnt eat fruits and vegetables because we can't afford organic.

The rest is here:

How Organic Produce Can Make America Less Healthy - Bloomberg