Cookies help us run our site more efficiently.

By clicking “Accept”, you agree to the storing of cookies on your device to enhance site navigation, analyze site usage, and assist in our marketing efforts. View our Privacy Policy for more information or to customize your cookie preferences.

We found unhealthy pesticide levels in 20% of US produce – here’s what you need to know

News Feed
Thursday, April 18, 2024

When it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.Though using chemicals to control bugs, fungi and weeds helps farmers grow the food we need, it’s been clear since at least the 1960s that some chemicals also carry unacceptable health risks. And although certain notorious pesticides, such as DDT, have been banned in the US, government regulators have been slow to act on others. Even when a dangerous chemical is removed from the market, chemical companies and growers sometimes just start using other options that may be as dangerous.Consumer Reports, which has tracked the use of pesticides on produce for decades, has seen this pattern repeat itself over and over. “It’s two steps forward and one step back – and sometimes even two steps back,” says James E Rogers, who oversees food safety at Consumer Reports.To get a sense of the current situation, Consumer Reports recently conducted our most comprehensive review ever of pesticides in food. To do it, we analyzed seven years of data from the US Department of Agriculture, which each year tests a selection of conventional and organic produce grown in or imported to the US for pesticide residues. We looked at 59 common fruits and vegetables, including, in some cases, not just fresh versions but also canned, dried or frozen ones.Our new results continue to raise red flags.Pesticides posed significant risks in 20% of the foods we examined, including popular choices such as bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries. One food, green beans, had residues of a pesticide that hasn’t been allowed to be used on the vegetable in the US for over a decade. And imported produce, especially some from Mexico, was particularly likely to carry risky levels of pesticide residues.But there was good news, too. Pesticides presented little to worry about in nearly two-thirds of the foods, including nearly all of the organic ones. Also encouraging: the largest risks are caused by just a few pesticides, concentrated in a handful of foods, grown on a small fraction of US farmland. “That makes it easier to identify the problems and develop targeted solutions,” Rogers says – though he acknowledges that it will take time and effort to get the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the use of pesticides on crops, to make the necessary changes.The way the EPA assesses pesticide risk doesn’t reflect cutting-edge scienceConsumer Reports senior scientist Michael HansenIn the meantime, our analysis offers insights into simple steps you can take to limit exposure to harmful pesticides, such as using our ratings to identify which fruits and vegetables to focus on in your diet, and when buying organic produce can make the most sense.What’s safer, what’s risky, and whySixteen of the 25 fruits and 21 of the 34 vegetables in our analysis had low levels of pesticide risk. Even children and pregnant people can safely eat more than three servings a day of those foods, Consumer Reports’ food safety experts say. Ten foods were of moderate risk; up to three servings a day of them are OK.The flip side: 12 foods presented bigger concerns. Children and pregnant people should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving a day of very high-risk ones. Everyone else should limit consumption of those foods, too. Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The GuardianTo come up with that advice, we analyzed the USDA’s test results for 29,643 individual food samples. We rated the risk of each fruit or vegetable by factoring in how many pesticides showed up in the food, how often they were found, the amount of each pesticide detected and each chemical’s toxicity.The Alliance for Food and Farming, a farming industry organization, pointed out to Consumer Reports that more than 99% of foods tested by the USDA contained pesticide residues below the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limits (referred to as tolerances).But Consumer Reports’ scientists think many EPA tolerances are set too high. That’s why we use lower limits for pesticides that can harm the body’s neurological system or are suspected endocrine disruptors (meaning they may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones). Consumer Reports’ approach also accounts for the possibility that other health risks may emerge as we learn more about these chemicals.“The way the EPA assesses pesticide risk doesn’t reflect cutting-edge science and can’t account for all the ways the chemicals might affect people’s health, especially given that people are often exposed to multiple pesticides at a time,” says Consumer Reports senior scientist Michael Hansen. “So we take a precautionary approach, to make sure we don’t underestimate risks.”In our analysis, a fruit or vegetable can contain several pesticides but still be considered low-risk if the combination of the number, concentration and toxicity of them is low. For example, broccoli fared well not because it had no pesticide residues but because higher-risk chemicals were at low levels and on just a few samples.Some of the most problematic foods, on the other hand, had relatively few residues but worrisome levels of some high-risk pesticides.Case in point: watermelon. It’s very high-risk mainly because of a pesticide called oxamyl. Only 11 of 331 conventional, domestic watermelon samples tested positive for oxamyl. But it’s among those that Consumer Reports’ experts believe require extra caution because of their potential for serious health risks.Green beans are another example. They qualify as high-risk primarily because of a pesticide called acephate or one of its breakdown products, methamidophos. Only 4% of conventional, domestic green bean samples were positive for one or both – but their pesticide levels were often alarmingly high. In one sample from 2022 (the most recent year for which data was available), methamidophos levels were more than 100 times the level Consumer Reports’ scientists consider safe; in another, acephate levels were seven times higher. And in some 2021 samples, levels were higher still.You can eat a variety of healthy fruits and vegetables without stressing too much about pesticide riskRegistered dietitian Amy KeatingThis is especially troubling because neither chemical should be on green beans at all: growers in the US have been prohibited from applying acephate to green beans since 2011, and methamidophos to all food since 2009.“When you grab a handful of green beans at the supermarket or pick out a watermelon, your chance of getting one with risky pesticide levels may be relatively low,” Rogers says. “But if you do, you could get a much higher dose than you should, and if you eat the food often, the chances increase.”In some cases a food qualifies as high-risk because of several factors, such as high levels of a moderately dangerous pesticide on many samples. Example: chlorpropham on potatoes. It’s not the most toxic pesticide – but it was on more than 90% of tested potatoes.How pesticides can harm youPesticides are one of the only categories of chemicals we manufacture “specifically to kill organisms”, says Chensheng (Alex) Lu, an affiliate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle who researches the health effects of pesticide exposure. So it’s no surprise, he says, that pesticides used to manage insects, fungi and weeds may harm people, too.While there are still open questions about exactly how and to what extent chronic exposure to pesticides can harm our health, scientists are piecing together a compelling case that some can, drawing on a mix of laboratory, animal and human research.One type of evidence comes from population studies looking at health outcomes in people who eat foods with relatively high pesticide levels. A recent review in the journal Environmental Health, which looked at six such studies, found evidence linking pesticides to increased risks of cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.Stronger evidence of pesticides’ dangers comes from research looking at people who may be particularly vulnerable to pesticides, including farmworkers and their families. In addition to the thousands of workers who become ill from pesticide poisonings every year, studies have linked on-the-job use of a variety of pesticides with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, breast cancer, diabetes and many more health problems.Other research found that exposure during pregnancy to a common class of pesticides called organophosphates was associated with poorer intellectual development and reduced lung function in the children of farmworkers.Pregnancy and childhood are times of particular vulnerability to pesticides, in part because certain pesticides can be endocrine disruptors. Those are chemicals that interfere with hormones responsible for the development of a variety of the body’s systems, especially reproductive systems, says Tracey Woodruff, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.Another concern is that long-term exposure to even small amounts of pesticides may be especially harmful to people with chronic health problems, those who live in areas where they are exposed to many other toxins and people who face other social or economic health stresses, says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The GuardianThat’s one of the reasons, she says, regulators should employ extra safety margins when setting pesticide limits – to account for all the uncertainty in how pesticides might harm us.How to stop eating pesticidesWhile our analysis of USDA pesticide data found that some foods still have worrisome levels of certain dangerous pesticides, it also offers insights into how you can limit your pesticide exposure now, and what government regulators should do to fix the problem in the long term.Eat lots of low-risk produce. A quick scan of this chart makes one thing clear: there are lots of good options to choose from.“That’s great,” says Amy Keating, a registered dietitian at Consumer Reports. “You can eat a variety of healthy fruits and vegetables without stressing too much about pesticide risk, provided you take some simple steps at home.” (See Can you wash pesticides off your food? A guide to eating fewer toxic chemicals.)Your best bet is to choose produce rated low-risk or very low-risk in our analysis and, when possible, opt for organic instead of riskier foods you enjoy. Or swap in lower-risk alternatives for riskier ones. For example, try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.But you don’t need to eliminate higher-risk foods from your diet. Eating them occasionally is fine.“The harm, even from the most problematic produce, comes from exposure during vulnerable times such as pregnancy or early childhood, or from repeated exposure over years,” Rogers says.Switch to organic when possible. A proven way to reduce pesticide exposure is to eat organic fruits and vegetables, especially for the highest-risk foods. We had information about organically grown versions for 45 of the 59 foods in our analysis. Nearly all had low or very low pesticide risk, and only two domestically grown varieties – fresh spinach and potatoes – posed even a moderate risk.Organic foods’ low-risk ratings indicate that the USDA’s organic certification program, for the most part, is working.It’s always worth considering organic produce, [though] it’s most important for the fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest riskJames E Rogers, head of food safety at Consumer ReportsPesticides aren’t totally prohibited on organic farms, but they are sharply restricted. Organic growers may use pesticides only if other practices – such as crop rotation – can’t fully address a pest problem. Even then, farmers can apply only low-risk pesticides derived from natural mineral or biological sources that have been approved by the USDA’s National Organic Program.Less pesticide on food means less in our bodies: multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet quickly reduces dietary exposure. Organic farming protects health in other ways, too, especially of farmworkers and rural residents, because pesticides are less likely to drift into the areas where they live or to contaminate drinking water.And organic farming protects other living organisms, many of which are even more vulnerable to pesticides than we are. For example, organic growers can’t use a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, a group of chemicals that may cause developmental problems in young children – and is clearly hazardous to aquatic life, birds and important pollinators including honeybees, wild bees and butterflies.The rub, of course, is price: organic food tends to cost more – sometimes much more.“That’s why, while we think it’s always worth considering organic produce, it’s most important for the handful of fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest pesticide risk,” Rogers says. He also says that opting for organic is most crucial for young children and during pregnancy, when people are extra vulnerable to the potential harms of the chemicals.Watch out for some imports. Overall, imported fruits and vegetables and those grown domestically are pretty comparable, with roughly an equal number of them posing a moderate or worse pesticide risk. But imports, particularly from Mexico, can be especially risky.Seven imported foods in our analysis pose a very high risk, compared with just four domestic ones. And of the 100 individual fruit or vegetable samples in our analysis with the highest pesticide risk levels, 65 were imported. Most of those – 52 – came from Mexico, and the majority involved strawberries (usually frozen) or green beans (nearly all contaminated with acephate, the pesticide that’s prohibited for use on green beans headed to the US).A spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration told Consumer Reports that the agency is aware of the problem of acephate contamination on green beans from Mexico. Between 2017 and 2024, the agency has issued import alerts on 14 Mexican companies because of acephate found on green beans. These alerts allow the FDA to detain the firms’ food shipments until they can prove the foods are not contaminated with the illegal pesticide residues in question.The Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, which represents many major importers of fruits and vegetables from Mexico, did not respond to a request for comment.Rogers, at Consumer Reports, says: “Clearly, the safeguards aren’t working as they are supposed to.” As a result, “consumers are being exposed to much higher levels of very dangerous pesticides than they should.” Because of those risks, he suggests checking packaging on green beans and strawberries for the country of origin, and consider other sources, including organic.How to solve the pesticide problemPerhaps the most reassuring, and powerful, part of Consumer Reports’ analysis is that it demonstrates that the risks of pesticides are concentrated in just a handful of foods and pesticides.Of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples Consumer Reports looked at, just 2,400, or about 8%, qualified as high-risk or very high-risk. And among those samples, just two broad classes of chemicals, organophosphates and a similar type of pesticide called carbamates, were responsible for most of the risk.“That not only means that most of the produce Americans consume has low levels of pesticide risk, but it makes trying to solve the problem much more manageable, by letting regulators and growers know exactly what they need to concentrate on,” says Brian Ronholm, head of food policy at Consumer Reports. Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The GuardianOrganophosphates and carbamates became popular after DDT and related pesticides were phased out in the 1970s and 1980s. But concerns about these pesticides soon followed. While the EPA has removed a handful of them from the market and lowered limits on some foods for a few others, many organophosphates and carbamates are still used on fruits and vegetables.Take, for instance, phosmet, an organophosphate that is the main culprit behind blueberries’ poor score. Until recently, phosmet rarely appeared among the most concerning samples of pesticide-contaminated food. But in recent years, it’s become a main contributor of pesticide risk in some fruits and vegetables, according to our analysis.“That’s happened in part because when a high-risk pesticide is banned or pushed off the market, some farmers switch to a similar one still on the market that too often ends up posing comparable or even greater harm,” says Charles Benbrook, an independent expert on pesticide use and regulation, who consulted with Consumer Reports on our pesticide analysis.We just don’t need [pesticides]. And the foods American consumers eat every day would be much, much safer without themBrian Ronholm, head of food policy at Consumer ReportsConsumer Reports’ food safety experts say our current analysis has identified several ways the EPA, FDA and USDA could better protect consumers.That includes doing a more effective job of working with agricultural agencies in other countries and inspecting imported food, especially from Mexico, and conducting and supporting research to more fully elucidate the risks of pesticides. In addition, the government should provide more support to organic farmers and invest more federal dollars to expand the supply of organic food – which would, in turn, lower prices for consumers.But one of the most effective, and simple, steps the EPA could take to reduce overall pesticide risk would be to ban the use of any organophosphate or carbamate on food crops.The EPA told Consumer Reports that “each chemical is individually evaluated based on its toxicity and exposure profile”, and that the agency has required extra safety measures for several organophosphates.But Consumer Reports’ Ronholm says that approach is insufficient. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work. Industry and farmers simply hop over to another related chemical that may pose similar risks.”Canceling two whole classes of pesticides may sound extreme. “But the vast majority of fruits and vegetables eaten in the US are already grown without hazardous pesticides,” Ronholm says. “We just don’t need them. And the foods American consumers eat every day would be much, much safer without them.”Read more from this pesticide investigation:Find out more about pesticides at Consumer Reports

Consumer Reports recently conducted its most comprehensive review of pesticides in 59 US fruits and vegetables. Here the organization shares what it foundWhat’s safe to eat? Here is the pesticide risk level for each fruit and vegetableWhen it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.Though using chemicals to control bugs, fungi and weeds helps farmers grow the food we need, it’s been clear since at least the 1960s that some chemicals also carry unacceptable health risks. And although certain notorious pesticides, such as DDT, have been banned in the US, government regulators have been slow to act on others. Even when a dangerous chemical is removed from the market, chemical companies and growers sometimes just start using other options that may be as dangerous. Continue reading...

When it comes to healthy eating, fruits and vegetables reign supreme. But along with all their vitamins, minerals and other nutrients can come something else: an unhealthy dose of dangerous pesticides.

Though using chemicals to control bugs, fungi and weeds helps farmers grow the food we need, it’s been clear since at least the 1960s that some chemicals also carry unacceptable health risks. And although certain notorious pesticides, such as DDT, have been banned in the US, government regulators have been slow to act on others. Even when a dangerous chemical is removed from the market, chemical companies and growers sometimes just start using other options that may be as dangerous.

Consumer Reports, which has tracked the use of pesticides on produce for decades, has seen this pattern repeat itself over and over. “It’s two steps forward and one step back – and sometimes even two steps back,” says James E Rogers, who oversees food safety at Consumer Reports.

To get a sense of the current situation, Consumer Reports recently conducted our most comprehensive review ever of pesticides in food. To do it, we analyzed seven years of data from the US Department of Agriculture, which each year tests a selection of conventional and organic produce grown in or imported to the US for pesticide residues. We looked at 59 common fruits and vegetables, including, in some cases, not just fresh versions but also canned, dried or frozen ones.

Our new results continue to raise red flags.

Pesticides posed significant risks in 20% of the foods we examined, including popular choices such as bell peppers, blueberries, green beans, potatoes and strawberries. One food, green beans, had residues of a pesticide that hasn’t been allowed to be used on the vegetable in the US for over a decade. And imported produce, especially some from Mexico, was particularly likely to carry risky levels of pesticide residues.

But there was good news, too. Pesticides presented little to worry about in nearly two-thirds of the foods, including nearly all of the organic ones. Also encouraging: the largest risks are caused by just a few pesticides, concentrated in a handful of foods, grown on a small fraction of US farmland. “That makes it easier to identify the problems and develop targeted solutions,” Rogers says – though he acknowledges that it will take time and effort to get the Environmental Protection Agency, which regulates the use of pesticides on crops, to make the necessary changes.

In the meantime, our analysis offers insights into simple steps you can take to limit exposure to harmful pesticides, such as using our ratings to identify which fruits and vegetables to focus on in your diet, and when buying organic produce can make the most sense.

What’s safer, what’s risky, and why

Sixteen of the 25 fruits and 21 of the 34 vegetables in our analysis had low levels of pesticide risk. Even children and pregnant people can safely eat more than three servings a day of those foods, Consumer Reports’ food safety experts say. Ten foods were of moderate risk; up to three servings a day of them are OK.

The flip side: 12 foods presented bigger concerns. Children and pregnant people should consume less than a serving a day of high-risk fruits and vegetables, and less than half a serving a day of very high-risk ones. Everyone else should limit consumption of those foods, too.

Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The Guardian

To come up with that advice, we analyzed the USDA’s test results for 29,643 individual food samples. We rated the risk of each fruit or vegetable by factoring in how many pesticides showed up in the food, how often they were found, the amount of each pesticide detected and each chemical’s toxicity.

The Alliance for Food and Farming, a farming industry organization, pointed out to Consumer Reports that more than 99% of foods tested by the USDA contained pesticide residues below the Environmental Protection Agency’s legal limits (referred to as tolerances).

But Consumer Reports’ scientists think many EPA tolerances are set too high. That’s why we use lower limits for pesticides that can harm the body’s neurological system or are suspected endocrine disruptors (meaning they may mimic or interfere with the body’s hormones). Consumer Reports’ approach also accounts for the possibility that other health risks may emerge as we learn more about these chemicals.

“The way the EPA assesses pesticide risk doesn’t reflect cutting-edge science and can’t account for all the ways the chemicals might affect people’s health, especially given that people are often exposed to multiple pesticides at a time,” says Consumer Reports senior scientist Michael Hansen. “So we take a precautionary approach, to make sure we don’t underestimate risks.”

In our analysis, a fruit or vegetable can contain several pesticides but still be considered low-risk if the combination of the number, concentration and toxicity of them is low. For example, broccoli fared well not because it had no pesticide residues but because higher-risk chemicals were at low levels and on just a few samples.

Some of the most problematic foods, on the other hand, had relatively few residues but worrisome levels of some high-risk pesticides.

Case in point: watermelon. It’s very high-risk mainly because of a pesticide called oxamyl. Only 11 of 331 conventional, domestic watermelon samples tested positive for oxamyl. But it’s among those that Consumer Reports’ experts believe require extra caution because of their potential for serious health risks.

Green beans are another example. They qualify as high-risk primarily because of a pesticide called acephate or one of its breakdown products, methamidophos. Only 4% of conventional, domestic green bean samples were positive for one or both – but their pesticide levels were often alarmingly high. In one sample from 2022 (the most recent year for which data was available), methamidophos levels were more than 100 times the level Consumer Reports’ scientists consider safe; in another, acephate levels were seven times higher. And in some 2021 samples, levels were higher still.

This is especially troubling because neither chemical should be on green beans at all: growers in the US have been prohibited from applying acephate to green beans since 2011, and methamidophos to all food since 2009.

“When you grab a handful of green beans at the supermarket or pick out a watermelon, your chance of getting one with risky pesticide levels may be relatively low,” Rogers says. “But if you do, you could get a much higher dose than you should, and if you eat the food often, the chances increase.”

In some cases a food qualifies as high-risk because of several factors, such as high levels of a moderately dangerous pesticide on many samples. Example: chlorpropham on potatoes. It’s not the most toxic pesticide – but it was on more than 90% of tested potatoes.

How pesticides can harm you

Pesticides are one of the only categories of chemicals we manufacture “specifically to kill organisms”, says Chensheng (Alex) Lu, an affiliate professor at the University of Washington in Seattle who researches the health effects of pesticide exposure. So it’s no surprise, he says, that pesticides used to manage insects, fungi and weeds may harm people, too.

While there are still open questions about exactly how and to what extent chronic exposure to pesticides can harm our health, scientists are piecing together a compelling case that some can, drawing on a mix of laboratory, animal and human research.

One type of evidence comes from population studies looking at health outcomes in people who eat foods with relatively high pesticide levels. A recent review in the journal Environmental Health, which looked at six such studies, found evidence linking pesticides to increased risks of cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease.

Stronger evidence of pesticides’ dangers comes from research looking at people who may be particularly vulnerable to pesticides, including farmworkers and their families. In addition to the thousands of workers who become ill from pesticide poisonings every year, studies have linked on-the-job use of a variety of pesticides with a higher risk of Parkinson’s disease, breast cancer, diabetes and many more health problems.

Other research found that exposure during pregnancy to a common class of pesticides called organophosphates was associated with poorer intellectual development and reduced lung function in the children of farmworkers.

Pregnancy and childhood are times of particular vulnerability to pesticides, in part because certain pesticides can be endocrine disruptors. Those are chemicals that interfere with hormones responsible for the development of a variety of the body’s systems, especially reproductive systems, says Tracey Woodruff, a professor of environmental health sciences at the University of California, San Francisco.

Another concern is that long-term exposure to even small amounts of pesticides may be especially harmful to people with chronic health problems, those who live in areas where they are exposed to many other toxins and people who face other social or economic health stresses, says Jennifer Sass, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The Guardian

That’s one of the reasons, she says, regulators should employ extra safety margins when setting pesticide limits – to account for all the uncertainty in how pesticides might harm us.

How to stop eating pesticides

While our analysis of USDA pesticide data found that some foods still have worrisome levels of certain dangerous pesticides, it also offers insights into how you can limit your pesticide exposure now, and what government regulators should do to fix the problem in the long term.

Eat lots of low-risk produce. A quick scan of this chart makes one thing clear: there are lots of good options to choose from.

“That’s great,” says Amy Keating, a registered dietitian at Consumer Reports. “You can eat a variety of healthy fruits and vegetables without stressing too much about pesticide risk, provided you take some simple steps at home.” (See Can you wash pesticides off your food? A guide to eating fewer toxic chemicals.)

Your best bet is to choose produce rated low-risk or very low-risk in our analysis and, when possible, opt for organic instead of riskier foods you enjoy. Or swap in lower-risk alternatives for riskier ones. For example, try snap peas instead of green beans, cantaloupe in place of watermelon, cabbage or dark green lettuces for kale, and the occasional sweet potato instead of a white one.

But you don’t need to eliminate higher-risk foods from your diet. Eating them occasionally is fine.

“The harm, even from the most problematic produce, comes from exposure during vulnerable times such as pregnancy or early childhood, or from repeated exposure over years,” Rogers says.

Switch to organic when possible. A proven way to reduce pesticide exposure is to eat organic fruits and vegetables, especially for the highest-risk foods. We had information about organically grown versions for 45 of the 59 foods in our analysis. Nearly all had low or very low pesticide risk, and only two domestically grown varieties – fresh spinach and potatoes – posed even a moderate risk.

Organic foods’ low-risk ratings indicate that the USDA’s organic certification program, for the most part, is working.

Pesticides aren’t totally prohibited on organic farms, but they are sharply restricted. Organic growers may use pesticides only if other practices – such as crop rotation – can’t fully address a pest problem. Even then, farmers can apply only low-risk pesticides derived from natural mineral or biological sources that have been approved by the USDA’s National Organic Program.

Less pesticide on food means less in our bodies: multiple studies have shown that switching to an organic diet quickly reduces dietary exposure. Organic farming protects health in other ways, too, especially of farmworkers and rural residents, because pesticides are less likely to drift into the areas where they live or to contaminate drinking water.

And organic farming protects other living organisms, many of which are even more vulnerable to pesticides than we are. For example, organic growers can’t use a class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, a group of chemicals that may cause developmental problems in young children – and is clearly hazardous to aquatic life, birds and important pollinators including honeybees, wild bees and butterflies.

The rub, of course, is price: organic food tends to cost more – sometimes much more.

“That’s why, while we think it’s always worth considering organic produce, it’s most important for the handful of fruits and vegetables that pose the greatest pesticide risk,” Rogers says. He also says that opting for organic is most crucial for young children and during pregnancy, when people are extra vulnerable to the potential harms of the chemicals.

Watch out for some imports. Overall, imported fruits and vegetables and those grown domestically are pretty comparable, with roughly an equal number of them posing a moderate or worse pesticide risk. But imports, particularly from Mexico, can be especially risky.

Seven imported foods in our analysis pose a very high risk, compared with just four domestic ones. And of the 100 individual fruit or vegetable samples in our analysis with the highest pesticide risk levels, 65 were imported. Most of those – 52 – came from Mexico, and the majority involved strawberries (usually frozen) or green beans (nearly all contaminated with acephate, the pesticide that’s prohibited for use on green beans headed to the US).

A spokesperson for the Food and Drug Administration told Consumer Reports that the agency is aware of the problem of acephate contamination on green beans from Mexico. Between 2017 and 2024, the agency has issued import alerts on 14 Mexican companies because of acephate found on green beans. These alerts allow the FDA to detain the firms’ food shipments until they can prove the foods are not contaminated with the illegal pesticide residues in question.

The Fresh Produce Association of the Americas, which represents many major importers of fruits and vegetables from Mexico, did not respond to a request for comment.

Rogers, at Consumer Reports, says: “Clearly, the safeguards aren’t working as they are supposed to.” As a result, “consumers are being exposed to much higher levels of very dangerous pesticides than they should.” Because of those risks, he suggests checking packaging on green beans and strawberries for the country of origin, and consider other sources, including organic.

How to solve the pesticide problem

Perhaps the most reassuring, and powerful, part of Consumer Reports’ analysis is that it demonstrates that the risks of pesticides are concentrated in just a handful of foods and pesticides.

Of the nearly 30,000 total fruit and vegetable samples Consumer Reports looked at, just 2,400, or about 8%, qualified as high-risk or very high-risk. And among those samples, just two broad classes of chemicals, organophosphates and a similar type of pesticide called carbamates, were responsible for most of the risk.

“That not only means that most of the produce Americans consume has low levels of pesticide risk, but it makes trying to solve the problem much more manageable, by letting regulators and growers know exactly what they need to concentrate on,” says Brian Ronholm, head of food policy at Consumer Reports.

Illustration: Sarah Anne Ward/The Guardian

Organophosphates and carbamates became popular after DDT and related pesticides were phased out in the 1970s and 1980s. But concerns about these pesticides soon followed. While the EPA has removed a handful of them from the market and lowered limits on some foods for a few others, many organophosphates and carbamates are still used on fruits and vegetables.

Take, for instance, phosmet, an organophosphate that is the main culprit behind blueberries’ poor score. Until recently, phosmet rarely appeared among the most concerning samples of pesticide-contaminated food. But in recent years, it’s become a main contributor of pesticide risk in some fruits and vegetables, according to our analysis.

“That’s happened in part because when a high-risk pesticide is banned or pushed off the market, some farmers switch to a similar one still on the market that too often ends up posing comparable or even greater harm,” says Charles Benbrook, an independent expert on pesticide use and regulation, who consulted with Consumer Reports on our pesticide analysis.

Consumer Reports’ food safety experts say our current analysis has identified several ways the EPA, FDA and USDA could better protect consumers.

That includes doing a more effective job of working with agricultural agencies in other countries and inspecting imported food, especially from Mexico, and conducting and supporting research to more fully elucidate the risks of pesticides. In addition, the government should provide more support to organic farmers and invest more federal dollars to expand the supply of organic food – which would, in turn, lower prices for consumers.

But one of the most effective, and simple, steps the EPA could take to reduce overall pesticide risk would be to ban the use of any organophosphate or carbamate on food crops.

The EPA told Consumer Reports that “each chemical is individually evaluated based on its toxicity and exposure profile”, and that the agency has required extra safety measures for several organophosphates.

But Consumer Reports’ Ronholm says that approach is insufficient. “We’ve seen time and again that doesn’t work. Industry and farmers simply hop over to another related chemical that may pose similar risks.”

Canceling two whole classes of pesticides may sound extreme. “But the vast majority of fruits and vegetables eaten in the US are already grown without hazardous pesticides,” Ronholm says. “We just don’t need them. And the foods American consumers eat every day would be much, much safer without them.”

Read more from this pesticide investigation:

Find out more about pesticides at Consumer Reports

Read the full story here.
Photos courtesy of

First, the frogs died. Then people got sick.

An emerging area of research is uncovering hidden links between nature and human health.

First, the frogs died. Then people got sick.An emerging area of research is uncovering hidden links between nature and human health.This reporting was supported by the Pulitzer Center....moreThis reporting was supported by the Pulitzer Center....moreNovember 14, 2025 at 6:00 a.m. EST9 minutes agoALTOS DE CAMPANA NATIONAL PARK, Panama — Brian Gratwicke’s lunch box was full of frogs.Kneeling on the muddy rainforest floor, the biologist opened his red Coleman cooler and scooped one up. It was a Pratt’s rocket frog — about the size of a walnut, sporting black-and-white racing stripes. Gratwicke deposited the frog in a small mesh tent, a “catio” for indoor pets to glimpse the outdoors, and encouraged it to acclimate to its transitional home.“There you go,” he told it. “Look at all that nice leaf litter.” The frog darted into the carpet of leaves, unaware it had just leaped into a high-stakes experiment.Conservation biologist Brian Gratwicke searches with his team for frogs in Altos de Campana National Park in Panama.Nate Weisenbeck, a research intern with the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project, checks on how a pair of Pratt’s rocket frogs are acclimating to the forest.Gratwicke is a conservation biologist who leads amphibian work at the Smithsonian’s National Zoo and Conservation Biology Institute. He had flown to Panama, in the middle of rainy season, to help resurrect frog species that had vanished from the cloud forest decades ago.Whether these amphibians can strike out on their own and thrive here again is uncertain.What is becoming increasingly clear is that without them, humans are in trouble. It turns out that frogs — in biblical times regarded as a plague — are actually guardians against disease.50 Species that Save UsThis series highlights emerging research on how plants and animals protect human health – and how their disappearance is already sickening thousands of people around the world. Explore these connections in our illustrated, interactive species cards.As dozens of frog species have declined across Central America, scientists have witnessed a remarkable chain of events: With fewer tadpoles to eat mosquito larvae, rates of mosquito-borne malaria in the region have climbed, resulting in a fivefold increase in cases.The discovery of this link is part of an emerging area of research in which ecologists and economists are trying to calculate the costs of species decline.They are revealing hidden ways that thriving populations of many plants and animals — including wolves, bats, birds and trees — underpin humanity’s well-being.They are learning that without saving nature, we cannot save ourselves.The mystery of the vanishing frogsAt first, no one knew why frogs seemed to be disappearing everywhere.In Texas, some herpetologists thought egrets were eating them. In Connecticut, people accused raccoons. In Brazil, they blamed a bout of chilly weather. But the fact that so many frogs were vanishing from so many places in the early 1990s suggested something widespread but invisible was behind the decline.Karen Lips was a graduate student at the time, working with amphibians in Costa Rica, near the border with Panama. During a trip there in 1993, she couldn’t find the toads she had been studying. “Almost everything was gone,” she recalled. At first, she blamed the weather, her headlamp, her searching technique.Then she remembered a related toad species had disappeared a few hundred miles to the north. It dawned on her: Perhaps a frog-killing “wave” was sweeping from mountain to mountain.Weisenbeck works with harlequin frogs raised at the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project in Gamboa.Lemur leaf frogs are grouped in a breeding tank with multiple males and females at the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project.Whatever it was, she wanted to get ahead of it. She set up camp farther east, in a cloud forest in Panama. She thought she’d have many years to study the 40-odd species of frogs there. But by 1996, many of the ones she was picking up were leathery and lethargic.“Sometimes they would make one jump and it would be their last bout of energy,” recalled Lips, today an ecologist at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis. “They’d make a big jump to try and escape. And then they couldn’t move anymore at all, and they would just die there.”After she helped publish a photo of an infection on the frogs’ skin, herpetologists studying wild frogs in Australia and captive ones at the National Zoo realized they were all dealing with the same disease: a fungus that would be dubbed Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, or Bd for short.The researchers swab a yellow-flecked glass frog to assess the prevalence of Bd in wild frog communities in Altos de Campana National Park.Thought to have originated in Asia or Africa, Bd may have hitched a ride on ships or planes to traverse otherwise insurmountable oceans. It now coats every continent except Antarctica (where there are no frogs).The microscopic pathogen kills by burrowing into an amphibian’s sensitive skin, blocking electrolytes and sapping muscles of their strength. Ultimately, an infected frog becomes so fatigued that its heart stops.As the fungus swept eastward through Panama, Gratwicke and his colleagues raced to rescue as many frogs as they could. They persuaded a shipping company to donate seven containers to a Smithsonian facility an hour outside Panama City. There, along the Panama Canal, they built a makeshift ark, stacking each container floor-to-ceiling with terrariums full of frogs for a captive breeding program.The Smithsonian focused on saving nine species it assessed to be in the direst state. “It’s absolute triage,” Gratwicke said. “We can’t look after 200 species.”Among those targeted for preservation was the Panamanian golden frog, a national icon and symbol of good luck that is depicted on banners and beer cans.“It’s a huge weight of responsibility on our shoulders,” Gratwicke said. “Because if we screw this up, we screw it up for an entire species.”This year, the researchers also brought into captivity a population of Pratt’s rocket frogs that had disappeared in the national park but survived elsewhere, possibly because they had developed some immunity to the fungus. Gratwicke and his colleagues were relocating two dozen of those potentially resistant frogs to Altos de Campana. After two weeks, the researchers would unzip them from the tents, with the hope that the transplanted frogs might help repopulate the park.Globally, frog populations have crashed as a result of Bd. The fungus has affected more than 500 amphibian species, decimating at least 90 to the point where they are thought to be extinct in the wild. For the researchers watching it all unfold over the past three decades, it was clear a frog apocalypse was underway. The fungus, along with climate change and habitat loss, has made amphibians the most vulnerable group of vertebrates on Earth.Lips began studying the cascading effects of these massive losses. She found algae thrived in spots where there were no tadpoles to eat it. Snake populations, meanwhile, dwindled with fewer adult frogs to eat.When describing this upheaval in a call with other scientists, she piqued the interest of Michael Springborn, an environmental economist at the University of California at Davis. “I’d heard a little bit about Bd,” he recalled, “but I was embarrassed to learn that I didn’t really understand how impactful that had been.” The two decided to work together.Lemur leaf frogs are among the lab-raised specimens at the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project.With statistical tools more commonly used in economics, they mapped the frog die-offs and spread of the fungus county-by-county across Costa Rica and Panama.Then they compared that spread to county-level health records of malaria in humans. They found a striking pattern: a fivefold spike in malaria cases after the fungus arrived and the frogs died. Lips, Springborn and their colleagues published the discovery in 2022 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.The region’s tapered shape, bound on either side by the Caribbean and the Pacific, allowed them to track the spread of the disease in detail. “We got lucky in a sense that there’s this … narrow strip where you had Bd arguably channeled through,” Springborn said.Some herpetologists, Lips said, would be content to stay in their lane and just “count the frogs.” But she anticipated that “if we could link it to people, maybe we could get more traction. Maybe people would care.”Biologists have long documented ways in which people benefit from nature — what, in academic circles, are called “ecosystem services.” Bees pollinate crops, trees suck heat-trapping carbon dioxide out of the air, and coral reefs guard coastal communities from storms and foster fish for food.But the interdisciplinary effort to uncover the relationship between biodiversity and human health — an approach dubbed “One Health” — is just beginning to tease out even deeper connections.The researchers are working toward the release of Panamanian golden frogs, an icon of the country.In the United States, researchers have shown that a collapse of insect-eating bat populations prompted farmers to use more pesticide on crops, which in turn led to a higher human infant mortality rate.Around the Great Lakes, the reemergence of gray wolves has had the surprising effect of keeping motorists safe. The canines prowl along roads while hunting, spooking deer from crossing and reducing collisions with cars.Also in North America, invasive emerald ash borers devastated ash trees, contributing to elevated temperatures and an increase in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths.India may have witnessed the most astounding ecological breakdown of them all. After vultures experienced a mass die-off, the livestock carcasses they once scavenged piled up. Packs of feral dogs took the place of vultures, resulting in a rise in deaths from rabies.Eyal Frank, a University of Chicago economist who helped connect the dots in the bat and vulture case studies, said we often don’t realize how crucial a plant or animal is to our well-being until it is gone.“Why preserve biodiversity?” Frank said. “We might not realize now that this species is important. But we might realize in the future that it’s important.”By 2012, the frog-killing fungus had conquered Panama, reaching its easternmost point, the Darién Gap.A remote and roadless jungle, the area is known as a treacherous stretch for migrants trying to make their way from North to South America. The resident population is small and mostly made up of Indigenous tribes.Jando Mejia, from the seminomadic Wounaan people, figures he was bitten when he was visiting his mother there in 2023. When a mosquito latched onto his skin and sucked his blood, it must have dropped a single-celled parasite called a plasmodium into his body.Within days the parasite began wreaking havoc, invading and multiplying within his red blood cells. His eyes and tongue turned yellow. His head felt like it was splitting open with pain.“I couldn’t taste food,” he said. “I lost my appetite, and I felt dizzy and weak. I couldn’t do anything.”Mejia, 23, believes he contracted malaria in eastern Panama.Mejia was at that point staying with his sister in central Panama. Her house is on concrete stilts to deter snakes and other wildlife, but its plywood walls and open-air windows provide little protection from buzzing mosquitos. Smoke wafts from spiral-shaped repellents to keep the insects away. Nearby, vendors in the village sell golden frog figurines.His sister set up a bed for him on the floor. His mother made the journey from the Darién Gap to help. “I was in bed for a week,” he said. “I could hardly remember anything.”Even after the worst of the symptoms subsided, it was weeks before he had enough strength to return to his $15-a-day job on a farm growing coffee and plantains.“He wasn’t normal,” his sister, Chanita Mejia, recalled. “Even climbing a small hill was hard. He felt tired.”By the time he could go back to work, he had lost out on a month of income.Telbinia Toscon, a traditional craftswoman in the Embera village, lost her mother to malaria.Frogs are a recurring image in Panamanian crafts.No single case of malaria can be attributed to the wave of frog deaths. And other factors, too, may have contributed to the rise in cases. José Ricardo Rovira, a mosquito researcher at Indicasat, a Panamanian institute, noted that paths made by migrants crisscrossing the Darién have further enabled the spread of malaria-carrying mosquitos.But Springborn, Lips and their colleagues estimate there were tens of thousands of additional cases of the disease in Panama and Costa Rica in the decade following the amphibian decline. Although it’s difficult to estimate, that increase in cases would have led to “a handful” of additional deaths each year, Springborn said.Rovira knows how debilitating the disease can be. He vividly remembers the fever and chills he experienced after twice contracting malaria while setting mosquito traps in the Darién.He said he doesn’t fear malaria, but has learned to respect it. Now 75, he appreciates he must be cautious. “I’m not going out to the field much anymore,” he said.Working to restore the frogsOn Gratwicke’s recent Panama trip, after depositing the Pratt’s rocket frogs in their tent, he turned to the question of how much Bd was still out there.He bounded down a series of waterfalls on a rumbling creek, sweeping his flashlight along the muddy embankment. The light caught a glint of yellow. It was a Panama rocket frog, a related species. True to its name, it shot off after being spotted. The hunt was on.With a stick, Gratwicke prodded the fugitive frog into the water. “Just wait, he’ll come up,” he said leaning over the stream. The birdlike chirps of rocket frogs used to fill this gully, he explained. Now, save for the rush of the water, it was mostly silent.“Oh, I got it!” Gratwicke yelped after reaching his gloved hands into the stream. Pulling out a long cotton swab, he dabbed the frogs’ feet, thighs and belly before letting it go. (Lab tests on the swabs would later reveal that Bd was on a third of the frogs plucked from the water that day.)Gratwicke and his team listen to frog calls while walking through Altos de Campana National Park.Conservation scientists Julie Dogger, Oliver Granucci and Orlando Garces check on tadpole development in Altos de Campana National Park. Next stop was the encampment of a crowned tree frog. This chocolate brown frog had been bred in a Smithsonian lab, and after two weeks acclimating to the forest, it was ready for release — into a still perilous place.Nate Weisenbeck, Gratwicke’s colleague from the Smithsonian, reached up and unlatched the front of a mesh cube nailed to a tree teetering on the mountainside.“This is a pilot,” Gratwicke said. “Because it’s the first time this has ever been done, you can’t really predict all the ways in which things can go wrong.”The researchers are trying to set their frogs up with the best shot at survival, but don’t know if they will succumb to the fungus or other predators. (The work is supported financially by the Bezos Earth Fund, a philanthropic initiative of Washington Post owner Jeff Bezos, as well as the Cheyenne Mountain Zoo, Zoo New England and the Panamanian government.)Weisenbeck had installed a variety of possible shelters for the frog to choose next: a hollow stalk of bamboo, a stack of black plastic pots, a wooden birdhouse.When the researchers came back about six hours later, wearing headlamps to navigate the pitch-black jungle at night, all those potential homes were empty.Weisenbeck unfurled a six-pronged antenna on a device that beeped to indicate whether he was homing in on the tracker tied to the frog’s back.A metamorphosing lemur leaf frog tadpole hangs on the edge of Dogger’s net. A crowned tree frog wears a radio transmitter to enable tracking within the national park.He circled the tree: beep… beep…He was careful with his feet, so as not to inadvertently step on a frog. The device grew louder. Beep… Beep…He twisted to prevent the antenna from getting tangled in the vegetation. BEEP… BEEP… BEEP…“Well done, Nate,” Gratwicke said. Weisenbeck bent down to capture one last photo of his frog, resting on a cigar plant about 30 feet from the tree.“Yeah, this could be the last time we see him,” Weisenbeck said. “He’s wild.”Two variable harlequin frogs at the Panama Amphibian Rescue and Conservation Project in Gamboa.About this storyThis article is part of The Washington Post’s “Species That Save Us” series, highlighting hidden links between nature and human health. Photos and video by Melina Mara. Design and development by Hailey Haymond. Editing by Marisa Bellack, Juliet Eilperin, John Farrell, Dominique Hildebrand and Joe Moore. Copy editing by Mike Cirelli.

Not so Golden Brown: DJ plays 24-hours of No 2s in Lake District sewage protest

Radio host uses chart songs that didn’t quite make top spot to highlight issue of Windermere pollutionIf you Sit Down and wonder why Britain’s streams, rivers and lakes are so filthy, you’re probably Holding Out for a Hero to halt this Scandalous discharge of sewage.Step forward the Lake District Radio DJ Lee Durrant, who will go Radio Ga Ga with a 24-hour live broadcasting marathon on Friday, playing songs that peaked at No 2 in the charts to highlight the ongoing stench of not quite Golden Brown “number twos” floating downstream. Continue reading...

If you Sit Down and wonder why Britain’s streams, rivers and lakes are so filthy, you’re probably Holding Out for a Hero to halt this Scandalous discharge of sewage.Step forward the Lake District Radio DJ Lee Durrant, who will go Radio Ga Ga with a 24-hour live broadcasting marathon on Friday, playing songs that peaked at No 2 in the charts to highlight the ongoing stench of not quite Golden Brown “number twos” floating downstream.If you’re fuming about the injustice of Cry Me a River or Born Slippy being left off the top spot, you may take comfort from pop classics being coopted to fight the injustice of illegal sewage spills, which is risking human health and killing wildlife in the Lake District, despite its status as a national park and world heritage site.“What’s more shocking? Fairytale of New York never making it to Christmas No 1, or United Utilities dumping sewage into Windermere and paying themselves huge dividends?” said Durrant, who begins his broadcasting marathon at 8am on 14 November. “We’re based in the Lake District so we’re passionate about what’s happening to our lakes, but it’s become a wider issue across the country and around the world with sewage-dumping in what we’d assume would be clean waterways.”skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionBetween playing number twos with riverine resonances from Take That’s The Flood to Dirty Cash by the Adventures of Stevie V, Durrant will be joined on the community radio station by guests including campaigners from Save Windermere to Surfers Against Sewage, environmental experts and representatives from water companies.Windermere was found to have high levels of bacteria found in human faeces throughout this summer, according to comprehensive analysis of water quality in England’s largest lake. Only 14% of England’s rivers and lakes meet good ecological standards.“I’m sort of looking forward to it and sort of dreading it,” said Durrant of his No 2 marathon. “I’m predicting the witching hour of 3am will be when I’ll struggle. I might need to play some heavy rock to get me through that.”Winds of Change might go down well in the Lakes.

Fossil fuel projects around the world threaten the health of 2bn people – report

Exclusive: ‘Deep-rooted injustices’ affect billions of people due to location of wells, pipelines and other infrastructureA quarter of the world’s population lives within three miles (5km) of operational fossil fuel projects, potentially threatening the health of more than 2 billion people as well as critical ecosystems, according to first-of-its-kind research.A damning new report by Amnesty International, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that more than 18,300 oil, gas and coal sites are currently distributed across 170 countries worldwide, occupying a vast area of the Earth’s surface. Continue reading...

A quarter of the world’s population lives within three miles (5km) of operational fossil fuel projects, potentially threatening the health of more than 2 billion people as well as critical ecosystems, according to first-of-its-kind research.A damning new report by Amnesty International, shared exclusively with the Guardian, found that more than 18,300 oil, gas and coal sites are currently distributed across 170 countries worldwide, occupying a vast area of the Earth’s surface.Proximity to drilling wells, processing plants, pipelines and other fossil fuel facilities elevates the risk of cancer, respiratory conditions, heart disease, premature birth and death, as well as posing grave threats to water supplies and air quality, and degrades land.Almost half a billion (463 million) people, including 124 million children, now live within 0.6 miles (1km) of fossil fuels sites, while another 3,500 or so new sites are currently proposed or under development that could force 135 million more people to endure fumes, flares and spills, according to Extraction Extinction: Why the Lifecycle of Fossil Fuels Threatens Life, Nature, and Human Rights.Most active projects have created pollution hotspots, turning nearby communities and critical ecosystems into so-called sacrifice zones – heavily contaminated areas where low-income and marginalized groups bear the disproportionate burden of exposure to pollution and toxins.The report details the devastating health toll from extraction, processing and transportation, as well as demonstrating how leaks, flares and construction destroy irreplaceable natural ecosystems and undermine human rights – particularly of those living near oil, gas and coal infrastructure.It comes as world leaders, excluding the US – the largest historical emitter of greenhouse gases – gather in Belém, Brazil, for the 30th annual climate negotiations amid growing frustration at the lack of progress in phasing out fossil fuels, which are driving planetary collapse and human rights violations.“The fossil fuel industry and its state sponsors have argued for decades that human development requires fossil fuels. But we know that under the guise of economic growth, they have instead served greed and profits without red lines, violated rights with near-complete impunity, and destroyed the atmosphere, biosphere and oceans,” said Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International.“Cop30 leaders must keep people, and not profits and power, at the heart of negotiations by committing to a full, fast, fair and funded fossil-fuel phase-out and just transition to sustainable energy for all.”Cop30 takes place as the Philippines, Mexico and Jamaica are reeling from superstorms that were intensified by warmer atmospheric and ocean temperatures, with states under growing pressure to take decisive action to regulate fossil fuel companies and end extraction, subsidies, licenses and consumption in order to comply with the landmark ruling by the international court of justice.Last week, the Guardian revealed how more than 5,350 fossil fuel industry lobbyists have been given access to the UN climate talks in the past four years, blocking climate action while their paymasters drill for record quantities of oil and gas.The quantitative analysis is based on a first-of-its-kind mapping exercise by researchers at Better Planet Laboratory (BPL) at the University of Colorado Boulder, who compared data on the known locations of fossil fuel infrastructure sites with census data, and datasets on critical ecosystems, greenhouse gas emissions and Indigenous peoples’ land.A third of all operational oil, coal and gas sites overlap with one or more critical ecosystems such as a wetland, forest or river system that is rich in biodiversity and critical for carbon sequestration or where environmental degradation or disaster could lead to ecosystem collapse, researchers found.The true global scale is probably higher due to gaps in the documentation of fossil fuel projects and limited census data across countries.The report also includes testimonies from Indigenous land defenders in Canada and coastal communities in Senegal, as well as fishers in Colombia and Brazil and Amazonian leaders in Ecuador fighting against gas flaring, that were conducted in partnership with Columbia Law School’s Smith Family Human Rights Clinic.skip past newsletter promotionThe planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the good, the bad and the essentialPrivacy Notice: Newsletters may contain information about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. If you do not have an account, we will create a guest account for you on theguardian.com to send you this newsletter. You can complete full registration at any time. For more information about how we use your data see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.after newsletter promotionThe findings reveal deep-seated environmental injustice and racism in exposure to oil, gas and coal industries.Indigenous peoples, who account for 5% of the world’s population, are disproportionately exposed to life-shortening fossil fuel infrastructure, with one in six sites located on Indigenous territories.“We’re experiencing intergenerational battle fatigue … We physically won’t survive [this]. We were never the instigators but we have taken the brunt of all the violence,” said Wet’suwet’en land defender Tsakë ze’ Sleydo’ (Molly Wickham), describing the imminent construction of new compressors for a fossil gas pipeline on Indigenous lands in British Columbia, Canada.“When we rise up to defend the Yin’tah [Wet’suwet’en territory], we are criminalized.”The expansion of fossil fuels has also been linked with land grabs, cultural pillage, community division and loss of livelihoods, as well as violence, online threats and lawsuits, both criminal and civil, against community leaders peacefully opposing the construction of pipelines, drilling projects and other infrastructure.“We are not after money; we only want what is ours. We just want to fish in Guanabara Bay, it’s our right. And they are taking our rights,” said Bruno Alves de Vega, an urban artisanal fisher from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.Fossil fuels affect every part of the human body, posing especially severe risks for children, older people and pregnant people that risk harm to the health of future generations, according to the UN special rapporteur on climate change who has called for criminal penalties against those peddling disinformation about the climate crisis and a total ban on fossil fuel industry lobbying and advertising.“The climate crisis is a manifestation and catalyst of deep-rooted injustices,” added Callamard from Amnesty. “The age of fossil fuels must end now.”

Air quality alert for Deschutes County Wednesday

An air quality alert was reported by the National Weather Service on Monday at 5:15 p.m. in effect until Wednesday at 3 p.m. for Deschutes County.

An air quality alert was reported by the National Weather Service on Monday at 5:15 p.m. in effect until Wednesday at 3 p.m. for Deschutes County."Oregon Department of Environmental Quality has issued an Air Quality Advisory. until 3 p.m. Wednesday. A Smoke Air Quality Advisory has been issued. Wildfires burning in the region combined with forecasted conditions will cause air quality to reach unhealthy levels. Pollutants in smoke can cause burning eyes, runny nose, aggravate heart and lung diseases, and aggravate other serious health problems. Limit outdoor activities and keep children indoors if it is smoky. Please follow medical advice if you have a heart or lung condition," comments the weather service.Guidance for air quality alerts: Insights from the weather serviceWhen an air quality alert pops up on the radar, deciphering its implications is crucial. These alerts, issued by the weather service, come with straightforward yet essential guidance to ensure your safety:Prioritize indoor stay:If it's within your means, stay indoors, especially if you have respiratory issues, health concerns, or fall within the senior or child demographics.Trim outdoor activities:When venturing outside is unavoidable, restrict your time outdoors solely to essential activities. Reducing exposure is paramount.Reduce pollution contributors:Be conscious of activities that contribute to pollution, such as driving cars, using gas-powered lawnmowers, or relying on motorized vehicles. Curtail their use during air quality alerts.A no to open burning:Refrain from igniting fires with debris or any other materials during air quality alerts. Such practices only contribute to the problem of poor air quality.Stay well-informed:Stay updated of developments by tuning in to NOAA Weather Radio or your preferred weather news source. Being well-informed empowers you to make informed decisions regarding outdoor pursuits during air quality alerts.Focus on respiratory health:If you have respiratory problems or underlying health conditions, exercise extra caution. These conditions can increase your vulnerability to adverse effects from poor air quality.By adhering to the advice from the weather service, you can enhance your safety during air quality alerts while reducing your exposure to potentially harmful pollutants. Stay aware, stay protected, and make your health a top priority.If you purchase a product or register for an account through a link on our site, we may receive compensation. By using this site, you consent to our User Agreement and agree that your clicks, interactions, and personal information may be collected, recorded, and/or stored by us and social media and other third-party partners in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

Multiple Sclerosis Explained: Symptoms, Risk Factors & How It’s Treated

By Dr. Aaron Bower, Assistant Professor of Neurology at Yale School of Medicine HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Multiple...

MONDAY, Nov. 10, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Multiple sclerosis (MS) is one of the most common autoimmune diseases affecting the brain and spinal cord, with 2.9 million people estimated to be living with the disease worldwide.As MS is an autoimmune disease, damage is caused by inappropriate actions of the body’s infection-fighting (immune) cells. The damage typically involves myelin, the outer covering of the cells that reside in the brain and spinal cord. This impedes the electrical signals necessary for the brain and spine to function properly.The damage can lead to both sudden “flares” of inflammation and a slow worsening of symptoms over time. Historically, MS has been broken down into specific subtypes, as detailed below. But the reality of the disease may be better understood as a spectrum that likely started even before symptoms were noticed.Relapsing and remitting MS is:The most common subtype (85% of cases)  Characterized by flares of inflammation, known as “relapses” Separated by periods, known as “remissions,” when patients feel relatively normal  Primary progressive MS is: The less common subtype (10% to 15% of cases)  Characterized by consistent worsening of symptoms over months to years  Not characterized with clear “flares” or periods of stability  Secondary progressive MS: Initially follows a course like that of relapsing and remitting MS  Evolves over time, with patients noting a consistent worsening of symptoms in the absence of any clear “flares” What are the symptoms of multiple sclerosis? Since MS can affect any part of the brain or spinal cord, patients can present with a wide variety of symptoms, depending on where the damage has taken place.In patients with the most common subtype, relapsing and remitting, these symptoms will typically come on over days and improve over weeks to months.Common initial symptoms include: Painful loss or blurred vision Double vision  Face drooping on one side   Slurring words  Room-spinning dizziness and unsteadiness  Weakness in arms and/or legs  Numbness and tingling in arms and/or legs Difficulty with fine motor tasks (such as typing, buttoning a shirt and eating) Difficulty walking, possibly leading to falls  Electric shock-like sensation down the spine when touching chin to chest (“Lhermitte’s sign”)  Tight, squeezing sensation around the chest or belly (“MS hug”) What are the causes and risk factors of multiple sclerosis? There is no single cause of multiple sclerosis. It likely results from interactions between genetic and environmental risk factors. How is multiple sclerosis diagnosed? A diagnosis of MS generally requires a doctor to pursue several different tests during the initial evaluation. These tests help rule out other possible causes and provide evidence that supports a diagnosis of MS. Blood work To look for evidence of other diseases (including infection, inflammation, vitamin deficiencies, for example) Imaging: MRI of the brain and spine  Procedure: Lumbar puncture  A neurologist may also recommend evaluations by additional medical providers. This can include an ophthalmologist (eye doctor) who can look for evidence of MS affecting the optic nerve that connects the eye to the brain.This can be achieved through non-invasive testing, such as optical coherence tomography (OCT), which examines the thickness of the nerves at the back of the eye, or visual evoked potentials (VEPs), which assess the function of the optic nerve.How is multiple sclerosis treated? MS treatment is provided on two fronts: 1) Treatment of active inflammation. 2) Prevention of new inflammation and damage to the brain and spine. If a patient is having active inflammation due to MS (“flare”), a provider will typically recommend treatment with steroids. Steroids quickly reduce inflammation in the body to speed recovery. This is generally administered by IV infusion over three to five days.To avoid recurrent “flares” and the side effects of frequent steroid use, however, the key to MS treatment is prevention.Preventive medications in MS are referred to as disease-modifying therapies (DMTs). These medications should be started as early as possible to limit damage to the brain and spine. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved many DMTs for relapsing-remitting MS. Each medication can vary in effectiveness, side effects and how it is administered (pills, injections or infusions). Ultimately, the choice of treatment is an individualized discussion between the patient and provider. There are fewer options for secondary and primary progressive MS. A single medication (Ocrevus) is currently FDA-approved to treat this subtype of MS.What is it like living with multiple sclerosis? Living with MS has changed dramatically as more effective treatments have been developed, with patients generally acquiring less disability and limitations over time.However, many people with MS can continue to struggle with “day-to-day” symptoms that require additional treatment. Possible “day-to-day” symptoms include: . Fatigue  Slowed processing speed and memory impairments  Issues with mood (depression, anxiety)  Problems with urination and bowel movements  Tingling and burning sensations  Muscle tightness and cramping  Walking difficulties and instability  Heat intolerance  Given the variety of symptoms one can face with MS, a patient’s neurologist will work with other medical providers to optimize care.Additional team members could include physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists, physiatrists, mental health care providers, and specialists in the areas of eye, bladder, GI and sleep.Together, the health care team will work with the patient to prevent and treat the complications of MS, allowing patients to live life as they want.Dr. Aaron Bower is an Assistant Professor of Neurology at the Yale School of Medicine. He is a board-certified neurologist and completed fellowship training in Multiple Sclerosis and Neuroimmunology. He specializes in treating patients with inflammatory disorders of the central nervous system such as Multiple sclerosis, Neuromyelitis Optica, Autoimmune encephalitis, MOG-associated disease, and the neurologic sequelae of systemic Rheumatologic disease.Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Suggested Viewing

Join us to forge
a sustainable future

Our team is always growing.
Become a partner, volunteer, sponsor, or intern today.
Let us know how you would like to get involved!

CONTACT US

sign up for our mailing list to stay informed on the latest films and environmental headlines.

Subscribers receive a free day pass for streaming Cinema Verde.
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.