Re: Vegetables & Pesticides

[Guest guest]

> When eating 15 or 20 servings a day of vegetables,

> I'm thinking that

> pesticide residues may actually become an issue.

It would be the opposite.

Several studies have shown the lowest pesticde levels

in those who eat the most plant foods. (Please excuse

the age of some as it is not something they study

everyday)

Chemosphere. 2002 Feb;46(5):689-96.

Comparison of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in fish,

vegetables, and meats and levels in human milk of

nursing women in Japan.Ohta S, Ishizuka D,

There was a strong positive relationship between PBDE

concentrations in human milk and dietary intake of

fish and shellfish

PMID: 11999792

HERGENRATHER, J., HLADY, G., WALLACE, B., & SAVAGE, E.

(1981) Pollutants in breast milk of vegetarians. New

Engl. J. Med., 304(13): 792.

The mean pollutant levels were only 1 - 2% of the

average level in breast milk of the US general

population

Acta Paediatr Scand. 1983 Nov;72(6):811-6.

Levels of organochlorine contaminants in human milk in

relation to the dietary habits of the mothers.Noren K.

The lowest levels of p,p'-DDT+p,p'-DDE and PCBs were

found in milk from lacto-vegetarians and the highest

levels in milk from mothers who regularly consumed

fatty fish from the Baltic.

Its a " food chain " issue.. when you eat lower on the

food chain, you get less chemical contaminants. Many

of these chemicals are stored in fat, so when you eat

animals that have eaten plants (that are much heavier

sprayed than the ones we give to humans) they

concentrate these levels in their fat. When you drink

the milk of these animals, or products made from the

milk, the chemicals are even more concentrated. When

you eat an animal that lives only on other animals,

then the concentration is even greater.

Every study to date over the last 50 years (or more)

has always shown, the more fruits and veggies you eat,

the less cancer (of all kinds) you have (and the less

of . And these studies are all done on conventionally

grown produce.

Bruce Ames, leading cancer researcher, has been quoted

saying the same thing many times.

Your risk of problems from pesticides in a diet based

on plant foods, is way below the risk of problems

associated with a diet based on animal products.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

once you lower your body fat, on a mostly plant based

diet, you end up with " less " contaminants.

Toxicol Sci. 1999 Dec;52(2 Suppl):61-5.

Physiologic changes in humans subjected to severe,

selective calorie restriction for two years in

biosphere 2: health, aging, and toxicological

perspectives.

Walford RL, Mock D, MacCallum T, Laseter JL.

Department of Pathology, UCLA School of Medicine, Los

Angeles, California 90095, USA. roy@...

Biosphere 2 is a closed ecological space of 7-million

cubic feet near Tucson, AZ, containing 7 biomes: rain

forest, Savannah, ocean, marsh, desert, agricultural

station, and habitat for humans and domestic animals.

Sealed inside, 4 men and 4 women maintained themselves

and the various systems for 2 years. All organic

material, all water, and nearly all air was recycled,

and virtually all food was grown inside. On the low

calorie but nutrient-dense diet available, the men

sustained 18% and the women 10% weight loss, mostly

within the first 6 to 9 months. The nature of the diet

duplicated rodent diets that had been shown to enhance

health, lower disease incidence, and retard aging.

Using blood specimens frozen at different points

during and after the 2 years, determinations were made

of a number of biochemical parameters judged to be

pertinent based on past studies of rodents and monkeys

on similar diets. These included blood lipids,

glucose, insulin, glycosylated hemoglobin, renin, and

others. The results clearly suggest that humans react

to such a nutritional regime similarly to other

vertebrates. In addition to these studies, and because

this was a tightly closed, isolated environment, the

levels of insecticides or pollutants or their

derivatives were determined in the sera of 2 crew

members. It was found that levels of the lipophilic

toxicant DDE and the " total PCB " load increased with

the loss of body fat during the first 12-18 months

inside Biosphere 2, then decreased.

PMID: 10630592

[Guest guest]

Well, certainly pesticides are more heavily concentrated in animal

fats than vegetables, but somewhat processed foods contain far less

pesticide residues than vegetables. The question is whether consuming

huge amounts of vegetables instead of more processed foods might edge

up the pesticide levels in one's bloodstream. I don't think any

studies showing the undeniable benefits of vegetables involved

vegetable consumption at the level typical of CRON (though I could be

wrong) -- say 20 servings per day. Is it prudent to make sure a good

percentage of these vegetables are pesticide-free, or is such worry

misplaced?

>

> > When eating 15 or 20 servings a day of vegetables,

> > I'm thinking that

> > pesticide residues may actually become an issue.

>

> It would be the opposite.

>

> Several studies have shown the lowest pesticde levels

> in those who eat the most plant foods. (Please excuse

> the age of some as it is not something they study

> everyday)

>

> Chemosphere. 2002 Feb;46(5):689-96.

> Comparison of polybrominated diphenyl ethers in fish,

> vegetables, and meats and levels in human milk of

> nursing women in Japan.Ohta S, Ishizuka D,

> There was a strong positive relationship between PBDE

> concentrations in human milk and dietary intake of

> fish and shellfish

> PMID: 11999792

>

>

> HERGENRATHER, J., HLADY, G., WALLACE, B., & SAVAGE, E.

> (1981) Pollutants in breast milk of vegetarians. New

> Engl. J. Med., 304(13): 792.

> The mean pollutant levels were only 1 - 2% of the

> average level in breast milk of the US general

> population

>

> Acta Paediatr Scand. 1983 Nov;72(6):811-6.

> Levels of organochlorine contaminants in human milk in

> relation to the dietary habits of the mothers.Noren K.

> The lowest levels of p,p'-DDT+p,p'-DDE and PCBs were

> found in milk from lacto-vegetarians and the highest

> levels in milk from mothers who regularly consumed

> fatty fish from the Baltic.

>

> Its a " food chain " issue.. when you eat lower on the

> food chain, you get less chemical contaminants. Many

> of these chemicals are stored in fat, so when you eat

> animals that have eaten plants (that are much heavier

> sprayed than the ones we give to humans) they

> concentrate these levels in their fat. When you drink

> the milk of these animals, or products made from the

> milk, the chemicals are even more concentrated. When

> you eat an animal that lives only on other animals,

> then the concentration is even greater.

>

> Every study to date over the last 50 years (or more)

> has always shown, the more fruits and veggies you eat,

> the less cancer (of all kinds) you have (and the less

> of . And these studies are all done on conventionally

> grown produce.

>

> Bruce Ames, leading cancer researcher, has been quoted

> saying the same thing many times.

>

> Your risk of problems from pesticides in a diet based

> on plant foods, is way below the risk of problems

> associated with a diet based on animal products.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

>but somewhat processed foods

> contain far less

> pesticide residues than vegetables.

Your point is well taken however i had been looking

for another post that addressed this issue and havent

found it yet. When I do, I will post it.

In the meantime... studies have shown that rinsing

your produce with water and either a little vinegar;

or bleach; or dish detergent, and then rerinsing it,

removes up to 98% of the pesticides. And, as good, if

not better than any of the commmercial washes that

they sell.

Also, refined foods may have less pesticides (though I

dont know of any evidence comfirming this to be true),

but refined foods have way more known health problems,

(lack of nutrients, lack of fiber, increasec caloric

density, added sugar, salt, hydrogenated oils, etc

etc).

So, again, any potential negative from the pesticides

in consuming a diet high in vegetables is clearly out

weighed by the known negatives of a diet high in

refined foods.

jeff

[Guest guest]

Yes we have this " rinse " in the archives.

on 9/12/2006 7:44 AM, Jeff Novick at chefjeff40@... wrote:

In the meantime... studies have shown that rinsing

your produce with water and either a little vinegar;

or bleach; or dish detergent, and then rerinsing it,

removes up to 98% of the pesticides. And, as good, if

not better than any of the commmercial washes that

they sell.

[Guest guest]

Found it.

(its long)

Jeff

FROM CONSUMER REPORTS

Cut residues by washing produce

We tested our produce unwashed, just as it arrived

from the market. But in real life, most people don't

eat fresh produce without doing something to it first,

if only rinsing it off. No one has directly studied

rinsing with water only, but an ingenious study done

at the Southwest Research Institute in San

shows that extra-careful food preparation can

get rid of a lot of pesticides--though not all.

The San researchers brought fruits and

vegetables in 10-pound lots and tested half of each

sample for pesticides. If residues showed up, they

prepared the other half of the sample as follows:

First, they washed the produce using extremely

diluted green Palmolive liquid dish soap, then rinsed

with tap water. After that, they did the usual things

a home cook would do: stemmed the strawberries,

snapped and boiled the green beans, peeled and seeded

the oranges, peeled the carrots, and so on.

The results: 53 percent of the washed samples no

longer had detectable pesticide residues. The samples

that still had residues registered declines ranging

from 30 percent to nearly 100 percent.

FROM AICR (American Institute of Cancer Reseacrh)

There's no question that diets high in vegetables and

fruits protect against cancer, as well as heart

disease and many other chronic illnesses. But many

people have questions about pesticides and other

chemical residues in the food supply. Here

are answers to ease many common concerns.

Do pesticides and other chemicals in food increase

cancer risk?

The scientists who reviewed over 4,500 research

studies from around the world to develop AICR's

report, Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer:

a Global Perspective, found NO convincing evidence

that eating foods containing trace amounts

of chemicals such as fertilizers, pesticides,

herbicides and drugs used on farm animals changes our

risk for cancer. Exposure to all manufactured

chemicals in air, water, soil and food is

believed to cause LESS than 1% of all cancers.

How are limits on pesticides set?

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency looks to

animal studies to project the maximum amount of a

pesticide residue that a person could consume daily

during a 70-year life span without suffering harm.

Once determined, the EPA sets the legal limit at

a small fraction of that amount - generally 100 times

lower.

In 1996, Congress passed the Food Quality Protection

Act which is requiring the EPA to reassess all

existing tolerances over a period of 10 years,

starting with those believed to be most dangerous.

Does buying organic eliminate pesticides?

Organic farming restricts or eliminates the use of

chemical pesticides, fertilizers, herbicides and

fungicides, resulting in lower pesticide residue

levels in products. However, even crops grown by

organic farming methods MAY contain some chemical

residues. Foods may be exposed to contaminated rain

water, irrigation water, soil or to chemicals carried

from farm to farm by wind. In a recent test of over

1,000 pounds of produce, 25% of organic fruits and

vegetables contained residues, compared with 77% of

conventionally-grown.

Are pesticides in food more toxic to children than to

adults?

The Food Quality Protection Act requires that a

pesticide must be shown to be safe for infants and

children before used on crops. When effects on

children are not known, only one-tenth of the amount

that is considered safe for adults is used, as added

protection.

Are imported fruits and vegetables safe?

In 1996, 38% of fruits and 12% of vegetables consumed

in the U.S. were imported. Imports must meet the same

standards as produce grown in this country, but

inspection is often less than stringent. Take the same

precautions with imported fruits and vegetables - tips

are below - that you would with those grown

domestically.

What can I do to reduce chemical residues in the foods

I eat?

Several simple measures can make produce even safer:

Wash and scrub all fresh fruits and vegetables

thoroughly under running water, removing the outer

leaves of leafy vegetables.

Choose produce that is free of holes or punctures

where residue could have entered.

Consider buying fresh and processed organic foods.

Eat a variety of foods. The more kinds of food you

eat, the less your exposure to any one pesticide.

othew news bits....

All pesticides applied in the U.S. meet Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) standards for being used

at levels 100 times less than that showing any

unhealthy effect. Furthermore, about 75% of fruits

and vegetables grown in the U.S. have no detectable

pesticide residues.

There are 600 pesticides in use worldwide, and many

are not detectable by FDA tests. MOST of these

compounds can be rinsed off with PLAIN water, or by

peeling the outer layers, but some are systemic and

throughout the plant.

According to Dr. Bruce Ames of the University of

California at Berkeley, one of the most respected

scientists in this area (Cancer), 99.99% of all

pesticides are naturally occurring in plants. Most

commercial plants have been bred to resist attacks by

parasites and they do this by producing a wide

array of chemicals. However, it is clear from many

dozens of studies that the more fruits and vegetables

consumed, the healthier a person is. Therefore, there

is no compelling evidence that the pesticide

residues found in fruits and vegetables are associated

with ANY harm.

Some sepcific studies...

Jukes TH. Organic food. CRC Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr

1977;9(4):395-418.

" Organic " or " organically grown " foods are commonly

represented as " food grown without pesticides; grown

without artificial fertilizers; grown in soil whose

humus content is increased by the additions of organic

matter; grown in soil whose mineral

content is increased with applications of natural

mineral fertilizers; has not been treated with

preservatives, hormones, antibiotics etc. " The

substitution of " organic " for " chemical "

fertilizers during the growth of plants produces no

change in the nutritional or chemical properties of

foods. All foods are made of " chemicals. " Traces of

pesticides have been reported to be present in about

20 to 30% of BOTH " organic " and conventional

foods. These traces are usually within the official

tolerance levels. Such levels are set low enough to

protect consumers adequately. Indeed, there is NO

record of a SINGLE case of injury to a consumer

resulting from the application of pesticides to food

crops at permitted levels.

Meinert R, Schuz J, Kaletsch U, Kaatsch P, et al.

Leukemia and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in childhood and

exposure to pesticides: results of a register-based

case-control study in Germany. Am J Epidemiol 2000 Apr

1;151(7):639-46; discussion 647-50.

Previous studies have suggested an association between

exposure to pesticides and different types of

childhood cancer. This paper presents results from a

population-based case-control interview study of

parents of children less than 15 years of

age, which was conducted in the states of West Germany

from 1993 to 1997. Cases were 1,184 children with

leukemia, 234 with non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, and 940

with a solid tumor; 2,588 controls were also included.

Parental occupational exposures

were found to be related to childhood cancer

regardless of the time period of exposure and the type

of cancer. Residential use of insecticides was

associated with childhood lymphoma: both

extermination of insects by professional pest

controllers (odds ratio (OR) = 2.6, 95% confidence

interval (CI): 1.2, 5.7) and frequency of parental use

of household insecticides (p for trend

= 0.02) were significant risk factors for this

diagnosis. The use of pesticides on farms was WEAKLY

related to childhood leukemia (OR = 1.5, 95% CI: 1.0,

2.2), while their use in gardens was NOT associated

with childhood leukemia (OR = 1.0, 95% CI: 0.8, 1.2).

Mills PK. Correlation analysis of pesticide use data

and cancer incidence rates in California counties.

Arch Environ Health 1998 Nov-Dec;53(6):410-3.

California, the leading agricultural state in the

United States, has maintained a population-based

cancer registry since 1988,and it also maintains a

comprehensive, state-wide pesticide reporting system.

Data on cancer incidence and pesticide use

reporting are available, by county, for all 58

counties in California. Average annual age-adjusted

cancer incidence rates (1988-1992), on a county-,

sex-, and race/ethnicity-specific basis, were obtained

from the California Cancer Registry (CCR),

which maintains the population-based cancer registry

throughout California. Pesticide use data (i.e.,

pounds of active ingredient applied annually in each

county) were obtained from the California Department

of Pesticide Regulation for 1993. Investigators used

Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients ® to

correlate age-adjusted incidence rates for

selected cancers with the use data for selected

pesticides. For most sex- and race/ethnicity-specific

groups, the correlation coefficients were very close

to zero or negative in sign, indicating NO correlation

between pesticide use and cancer

incidence

Baris D, Zahm SH, Cantor KP, Blair A. Agricultural use

of DDT and risk of non-Hodgkin's lymphoma: pooled

analysis of three case-control studies in the United

States. Occup Environ Med 1998 Aug;55(8):522-7.

CONCLUSIONS: No strong consistent evidence was found

for an association between exposure to DDT and risk of

non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

And some more info..

Safer?

" Organic " proponents suggest that their foods are

safer because they have lower levels of pesticide

residues. However, the pesticide levels in our

food supply are not high. In some situations,

pesticides even reduce health risks by preventing the

growth of harmful organisms, including molds that

produce toxic substances [Newsome R. Organically grown

foods: A scientific status summary by the Institute of

Food Technologists' expert panel on food

safety and nutrition. Food Technology 44(12):123?130,

1990. ].

To protect consumers, the FDA sets tolerance levels in

foods and conducts frequent " market basket " studies

wherein foods from regions throughout the

United States are purchased and analyzed. Its 1997

tests found that about 60% of fruits and vegetables

had no detectable pesticides and only about

1.2% of domestic and 1.6% of imported foods had

violative levels [FDA Center for Food Safety and

Applied Nutrition. Pesticide Program: Residue

Monitoring 1997, ]. Its annual Total Diet Study has

always found that America's dietary intakes are well

within international and Emvironmental Protection

Agency standards.

Most studies conducted since the early 1970s have

found that the pesticide levels in foods designated

organic were similar to those that were not. In

1997, Consumer Reports purchased about a thousand

pounds of tomatoes, peaches, green bell peppers, and

apples in five cities and tested them for more than

300 synthetic pesticides. Traces were detected in 77%

of conventional foods and 25% of organically labeled

foods, but only one sample of each exceeded the

federal limit [Organic produce. Consumer Reports

63(1):12?18, 1998. ].

Pesticides can locate on the surface of foods as well

as beneath the surface. The amounts that washing can

remove depends on their location, the amount and

temperature of the rinse water, and whether detergent

is used. Most people rinse their fruits and

vegetables with plain water before eating

them. In fact, Consumer Reports on Health has

recommended this [Healthy ideas: Wash your produce.

Consumer Reports on Health, 10(3):5, 1998].Consumer

Reports stated that it did not do so because the FDA

tests unwashed products. The amount of pesticide

removed by simple rinsing has not been scientifically

studied but is probably small. Consumer Reports missed

a golden opportunity to assess this.

Do pesticides found in conventional foods pose a

health threat? Does the difference in pesticide

content warrant buying " organic " foods? Consumer

Reports equivocates: " For consumers in general, the

unsettling truth is that no one really knows what a

lifetime of consuming the tiny quantities of foods

might do to a person. The effect, if any, is likely to

be small for most individuals -- but may be

significant for the population at large. " But

the editors also advise, " No one should avoid fruits

and vegetables for fear of pesticides; the health

benefits of these foods overwhelm any possible

risk. "

Manfred Kroger, Ph.D., Professor of Food Science at

The Pennsylvania State University, has put the matter

more bluntly:

Scientific agriculture has provided Americans with the

safest and most abundant food supply in the world.

Agricultural chemicals are needed to

maintain this supply. The risk from pesticide residue,

if any, is minuscule, is not worth worrying about, and

does not warrant paying higher prices.

there is some evidence that the migrant workers who

work day in and day out in the fields where the

chemicals are applied, and those who work in the

factories that are involved in the manufacturer of the

chemicals may be at a hgiher risk for some cancers..

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>So, again, any potential negative from the pesticides

>in consuming a diet high in vegetables is clearly out

>weighed by the known negatives of a diet high in

>refined foods.

Yeah. And I'm provisionally persuaded that frozen vegs (and fruit) represent

the best of both worlds, especially given that frozen vegs may be superior

to fresh regarding nutrient retention at the point of the supermarket.

Al

[Guest guest]

> Yeah. And I'm provisionally persuaded that frozen

> vegs (and fruit) represent

> the best of both worlds, especially given that

> frozen vegs may be superior

> to fresh regarding nutrient retention at the point

> of the supermarket.

>

I agree!!

[Guest guest]

>

[...snip...]

> Is it prudent to make sure a good

> percentage of these vegetables are pesticide-free, or is such worry

> misplaced?

You might consider printing out the wallet card from here:

http://www.stonyfield.com/Organic/EWGShoppersGuide.pdf

listing the top- and bottom-12 fruits/vegetables with regard

to pesticide usage.

-

[Guest guest]

Thanks, here's another list. Definitely some

overlap, though not in full:

http://www.thevegetariansite.com/health_pesticides.htm

> >

> [...snip...]

> > Is it prudent to make sure a good

> > percentage of these vegetables are pesticide-free, or is such worry

> > misplaced?

>

> You might consider printing out the wallet card from here:

>

> http://www.stonyfield.com/Organic/EWGShoppersGuide.pdf

>

> listing the top- and bottom-12 fruits/vegetables with regard

> to pesticide usage.

>

>

> -

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

Presumably different types of chemicals are used on different types

of crops. And logically some of the chemicals used are more, or

less, harmful to humans than others. There may even be some that are

beneficial in the minute quantities found.

Does anyone know of data for the type and degree of toxic effects

associated with the specific chemicals used on different crop

species? Presumably these chemicals have been tested for signs of

toxicity to humans, or at least to mice.

For example, while apparently peaches contain greater levels of these

compounds, the importance of this is likely to depend on how harmful

the substance is, assuming it has been shown to be (in larger

quantities) demonstrably harmful.

Taking this additional factor into account the rankings in the list

might look appreciably different.

Rodney.

> >

> > --- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@>

wrote:

> > >

> > [...snip...]

> > > Is it prudent to make sure a good

> > > percentage of these vegetables are pesticide-free, or is such

worry

> > > misplaced?

> >

> > You might consider printing out the wallet card from here:

> >

> > http://www.stonyfield.com/Organic/EWGShoppersGuide.pdf

> >

> > listing the top- and bottom-12 fruits/vegetables with regard

> > to pesticide usage.

> >

> >

> > -

> >

>

[Guest guest]

> Presumably different types of chemicals are used on

> different types > of crops. And logically some of

the chemicals used > are more, or > less, harmful to

humans than others. There may even > be some that are

> beneficial in the minute quantities found.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/Summary2004.pdf

the Pesticide Data Program’s (PDP) 14th Annual

Summary, which includes data for calendar year 2004.

http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/ProgRpt.pdf

2006 Update

[Guest guest]

The study used to back the Stonyfield data finished up in 2001.

The site you give below references data from 1999. Jeff has

just posted even more recent information (2004).

-

> >

> > --- In , " orb85750 " <sudarsky@>

wrote:

> > >

> > [...snip...]

> > > Is it prudent to make sure a good

> > > percentage of these vegetables are pesticide-free, or is such

worry

> > > misplaced?

> >

> > You might consider printing out the wallet card from here:

> >

> > http://www.stonyfield.com/Organic/EWGShoppersGuide.pdf

> >

> > listing the top- and bottom-12 fruits/vegetables with regard

> > to pesticide usage.

> >

> >

> > -

> >

>