What do strawberries, spinach, nectarines, bell peppers, cherries and tomatoes have in common?
At first glance, apart from being fruits and vegetables, not a whole lot. Some are berries, others grow on trees, others on vines or from bulbs in the ground. Some of these items pair well together, like spinach and tomatoes, while others don't find themselves sharing a plate all that often, such as cherries and spinach.
What these items, along with several others do share, is that they appeared together on the EWG's 2021 "Dirty Dozen" list.
For those not familiar with the list, it's a yearly publication ostensibly detailing the 12 food items most contaminated by pesticides and other harmful chemicals. Each time it's released, it generates a bit of public discussion about the value of going organic and pesticide-free. It also leads to many shoppers making some tough choices at the grocery store or farmer's market.
But are these foods really as dangerous as one organization claims or are we not seeing the whole picture?
While the Dirty Dozen is a brilliant, and easily marketable concept, it's not necessarily as clear cut as it might seem.
Who are the people publishing this Dirty dozen list?
The organization behind the initiative is the EWG (or Environmental Working Group), an American nonprofit organization that focuses on agricultural research and advocacy. They mainly examine and publish articles focusing on chemicals, pollutants, and corporate accountability as they pertain to the foods we eat and the waters we consume.
The EWG publishes a lot of articles each range, ranging from examinations of sunscreen efficacy to children's food choices. Their most consistent and well-known work is the yearly "Dirty Dozen" list that details twelve foods that are said to contain the highest numbers of dangerous additives that may lead to adverse health effects.
So what are the foods the EWG is saying we should avoid in 2021?
The twelve items on this year's list are:
● Strawberries
● Spinach
● Kale, collard and mustard greens
● Nectarines
● Apples
● Grapes
● Cherries
● Peaches
● Pears
● Bell and hot peppers
● Celery
● Tomatoes
Yikes. That's a lot of common and popular items there.
How did the EWG choose these twelve crops?
The twelve that made the list were selected from forty-six separate crops they tested this year and singled these fellows out for containing higher amounts of pesticides than all others and/or more varieties of pesticides. For instance, as part of their explanation they offered the following observations:
● The vast majority of the fruits and vegetables they tested apparently had traces or multiple different pesticides on them.
● The leafy greens lifted had in some cases twenty different varieties of pesticides on a single leaf.
● Spinach had on average nearly double the pesticide on it as other crops, while hot peppers had the single highest amount detected.
The important disclaimer to note here is that the EWG only claimed to have tested non-organic produce. As they note yearly, this study does not look at organic foods - and in fact, quite the opposite. The EWG uses this study as an opportunity to promote organic harvests which prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides.
So, ultimately, as the EWG argues, if you want to keep enjoying these products worry-free, your best bet is to shop for them in organic sections or from local farms that do not use synthetic pesticides.
That all sounds pretty clear cut, right? I mean, who on Earth would want to opt for a pesticide-heavy strawberry when there are alternatives that either didn't make the list or can be found organically?
Well, here is where things begin to get a little complicated. Let's go through a short list.
One: a lot of scholars and other researchers have called into question the ways in which the EWG puts together their list.
Take for example an independent study in 2011 that examined the same items listed on that year's Dirty Dozen list. Instead of corroborating the EWG's findings and drawing the same conclusion, those researchers actually found the opposite to be the case. Not only did all the items tested show safe levels of chemical residue, well below the national guidelines, but some had levels a hundred times less than the recommendations (and some individual samples were found to have no reside at all).
Looking at them side by side, it might seem honestly perplexing how this could be the case. Was this other study mistaken in their findings, or was it the EWG who jumped to conclusions?
As strange as it might seem, both were right, but only in specific instances. What we mean is, in the EWG's methodology for testing pesticides, they carefully remarked that their measurements were either based on all samples of a type of food they had or a single sample of a type of food.
So, for instance, in order to make their list, the EWG may have looked at the average amount of a whole batch or tomatoes or counted only a single tomato for their studies.
While we can't see the details or know exactly what they did, you can likely see the possible issues that go with judging crops in this way. For instance, an average across an entire crop could mean that half the crop tested for sky-high pesticides while the rest was a low level. Also, if there's a single bad tomato that's being counted and five others with low levels of pesticides not being counted, it amounts to is tossing out the whole crop for, pardon the pun, a single bad apple.
Given this, one wonders why the EWG chose to measure the crops for their study in this manner. After all, it could lead to lists that aren't exactly grounded in the data. Well, to understand this, it might help bring us to our second point.
Two: let's take another look at the organization behind the list.
The EWG claims that for the past 25+ years it has fought for right of consumers to live in a healthier environment and enjoy healthier lives. They've argued that reports they've done on pesticides in children's food have helped food safety legislation make it through the American congress and improve regulations nation-wide.
While all this is certainly commendable, and most of this is likely accurate, the EWG is unfortunately very opaque about where it receives its funding. Though they do not regularly discuss it in their articles and press releases, it's been noted that the organization receives the vast majority of its funding from the organic food lobby and major factory growers.
Taken at face value, this suggests that the EWG may have a conflict of interest when it comes to praising organic food and decrying non-organic food. After all, the organization only examines pesticide use in non-organic crops and frequently praises the organic industry for being synthetic pesticide free.
I suppose it is worth noting here that while the EWG correctly states that organic crops are synthetic pesticide free, that's not the same as being entirely pesticide free. While you can get organic food, often from local growers, that is 100% pesticide free, many of the bigger factory farms in the organic market do in fact use pesticides - albeit "natural" ones such as products made from vinegar, soaps, hydrogen peroxide and even sulfur.
So, despite the buzz, not all organic foods are in fact pesticide or even chemical free - rather, when the growers do use pesticides, they simply use different chemicals.
Wait, are you saying organic crops are just as bad as non-organic crops?
No, but it does bring us to our next point to consider.
Three: it has to do with what we know about pesticides.
It is universally agreed that pesticides are harmful to human consumption in large quantities. There's no argument there. However, the vast majority of the foods we eat have well below the safe legal limits. Because of this, it is hard to tell how harmful (if at all) these foods really are - especially as there may be other factors at work in deciding how dangerous pesticides are.
If we take a step back and look at the bigger picture, everyone agrees that while fruits and vegetables contribute to good health, they aren't the only things needed to stay healthy. Doctors recommend two or more hours of vigorous exercise a week, along with seven to eight hours of sleep at night, etc. Clean air, less screen time and other factors also contribute to our overall picture of good health.
Bearing this in mind, even he EWG itself observes that people who eat organic only foods also tend to be more health-conscious in general than those who don't. They exercise more frequently, drink less alcohol and are able to make better culinary choices. Therefore, it is possible that organics only play a small part (if any) in their overall health outcomes.
Adding to this, while there are lots of studies pointing out the danger of a short-term exposure to massive amounts of chemical pesticides, there are few long-term studies examining the impact of organic versus non-organic diets on people. This makes it difficult to determine the extent to which eating foods with trace of amounts of pesticides will have a negative on a person's life. It's possible there will be long-term effects down the road, but most of the evidence we have is anecdotal and not grounded in data.
Nevertheless, conventional wisdom would suggest that eating healthy meals, getting exercise and making good lifestyle choices while eating non-organic will be better for someone who never exercises, hardly sleeps, smokes and eats only organic.
Does the Dirty Dozen take other factors into consideration?
All this discussion on organics also segues into another related hot topic that the EWG frequently dives into and which also sometimes informs its Dirty Dozen - genetically modified foods or GMO food.
Several years ago, the internet was rife with articles listing the dangers of GM crops. While there is certainly something a little frightening about the thought of corn being made and genetically modified in a laboratory apart from nature, it's important to take a measured look at things.
First, while there are lots of ethical and other issues related to designing crops, there is a widespread scientific consensus that GM crops do not pose any greater risk to human health than non-GM crops. Though there is a lot of fear on the internet about them, when you look at the data, there isn't much to support that stance. That's not to say a person doesn't have the right to fear things which are deemed safe of course (for instance, bungee jumping is largely safe, but it's still terrifying).
Second, a lot of GM crops have been designed to repel bugs and insects and otherwise cause the crop to require fewer pesticides - if any at all. Taken together, being anti-pesticide as well as anti-GM is a fair position to take but it might also be a bit of a contradiction seeing that some of these crops are specifically designed to reduce their chemical content.
Third, fears over crop engineering sometimes overlook the fact that virtually all foods we enjoy are in some way engineered. Through selective breeding, farmers have over the generations transformed our crops into giving higher yields, tastier harvests, and also fewer seeds. For instance, one only has to look up a wild banana or see a painting of a watermelon in the 1700s to realize the food we get at the market is very different from how it appeared previously in nature (hint, the seeds take up more space than the edible fruit itself).
While cloning apples with shoots in an orchard is certainly different than doing so in a lab, the end goal of producing consistently tastier, heartier apples is still the same.
Okay, I’m confused. Are you saying that we shouldn't avoid GM crops or non-organic fruits?
No. It's hardly our place to tell everyone what they can or cannot purchase, eat and enjoy.
Rather, what we would like to do is state that when you go about making your own decisions about which foods to buy and avoid that you should be aware that not every claim being made is exactly as it seems.
Having an annual list of a Dirty Dozen of foods to avoid is certainly buzzworthy, and the kind of material you might share with your friends, it helps to sometimes get a second opinion. And in this case, the second opinions are inconclusive about whether the foods on the list are actually as “dirty” as it seems.
Ultimately, knowing more about the foods we eat can help you make decisions that you are comfortable with. If you are afraid of non-organic foods, you probably shouldn't be - and if you only want to eat locally grown, organic produce, then good on you as well. There are no hard and fast guidelines on what food you can eat and enjoy, apart from maybe your own preferences and ensuring that you have a healthy relationship with food itself.
In any case, try to enjoy the food you love!
