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

Turns Out, There Are 5 Sleep Styles — And Each Affects Your Brain Differently

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each...

THURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new study suggests there’s more to sleep than how long you snooze each night. Your overall sleep pattern could shape your mood, brain function and even long-term health.Researchers from Concordia University in Montreal identified five distinct sleep profiles that may help explain why some people feel well-rested while others struggle with fatigue, poor focus or emotional ups and downs.The findings, published Oct. 7 in PLOS Biology, show that these “sleep-biopsychosocial profiles” reflect a mix of biological, mental and environmental factors — from stress and emotions to bedroom comfort — that all affect how well you sleep.“People should treat their sleep seriously,” study co-author Valeria Kebets, a manager at Concordia’s Applied AI Institute, told NBC News. “It affects everything in their daily functioning.”The researchers identified five sleep profiles:1. Poor sleep and mental healthPeople in this group reported the worst sleep quality and higher levels of stress, fear and anger. They also had a greater risk of anxiety and depression.These individuals had poor mental health or attention issues but said their sleep felt fine, suggesting “sleep misperception,” or being unaware of underlying sleep problems, researchers said.3. Sleep aids and sociabilityThis group used sleep aids, but also reported strong social support and fewer feelings of rejection. However, they showed lower emotional awareness and weaker memory.4. Sleep duration and cognitionPeople sleeping fewer than six to seven hours a night scored lower on tests measuring problem-solving and emotional processing. They also showed higher aggression and irritability.5. Sleep disturbances and mental healthThose with issues like frequent waking, pain or temperature imbalance had higher rates of anxiety, substance use and poor cognitive performance.The study analyzed data from 770 healthy adults aged 22 to 36, using MRI scans and questionnaires about sleep, lifestyle and mood.Experts say the profiles could help doctors tailor sleep treatments in the future.“We really need to consider multiple sleep profiles in our research and clinic — the value of a multidimensional approach to data,” Dr. Phyllis Zee, director of the Center for Circadian and Sleep Medicine at Northwestern University, who was not involved in the study, told NBC News.Sleep experts also say the research reinforces the importance of good rest for both mental and physical health.“Sleep is a more complex issue than just how much time you spend in bed,” Dr. Rafael Pelayo, a sleep medicine specialist at Stanford University, said in the NBC News report. “If I can improve your sleep, it has downwind effects on your overall health — not just your mental health, but your physical health.”SOURCE: NBC News, Oct. 8, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Wildfire Smoke Might Damage Male Fertility

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Oct. 9, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Wildfire smoke could be damaging men’s fertility, according to a new study.Key measures of sperm quality appeared to drop among dozens of men participating in fertility treatments, researchers recently reported in the journal Fertility and Sterility.“These results reinforce growing evidence that environmental exposures — specifically wildfire smoke — can affect reproductive health,” said senior researcher Dr. Tristan Nicholson, an assistant professor of urology in the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle.“As we see more frequent and intense wildfire events, understanding how smoke exposure impacts reproductive health is critical,” she added in a news release.For the study, researchers analyzed semen samples from 84 men taken as part of intrauterine insemination procedures in the Seattle area between 2018 and 2022.Major wildfire smoke events hit Seattle in 2018, 2020 and 2022, researchers noted. The team compared the men’s sperm quality during and between these events.“This study takes advantage of our institution’s location in the Puget Sound region, where wildfire smoke events create distinct pre- and post-exposure periods in a natural experiment to examine how a sudden, temporary decline in air quality influences semen parameters,” researchers wrote.Results showed consistent declines in sperm concentration, total sperm count and sperm movement during wildfire smoke exposures.Wildfire smoke contains particle pollution that can invade a person’s organs through their lungs and bloodstream, researchers said.This exposure has previously been linked to lung cancer, respiratory disease, heart attack, stroke and mental impairment, but its effect on male fertility has not been well-studied, researchers said.Overall, the pregnancy rate among the men’s partners was 11%, and the live birth rate 9% — both at the low end of the average range, researchers noted.However, the team added that the study was not designed to fully evaluate the direct impact of wildfire smoke on reproductive outcomes.Researchers next plan to see what happens after wildfire smoke has dented a man’s fertility.“We are very interested in how and when sperm counts recover after wildfire smoke exposure,” Nicholson said. “Currently we are conducting a prospective pilot study of men in the Seattle area to evaluate how wildfire smoke affects sperm quality.”SOURCE: University of Washington, news release, Oct. 1, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

AirPods Pro 3 review: better battery, better noise cancelling, better earbuds

Top Apple buds get upgraded sound, improved fit, live translation and built-in heart rate sensors, but are still unrepairableApple’s extremely popular AirPods Pro Bluetooth earbuds are back for their third generation with a better fit, longer battery life, built-in heart rate sensors and more effective noise cancelling, and look set to be just as ubiquitous as their predecessors.It has been three years since the last model, but the earbuds still come only in white and you really have to squint at the details to spot the difference from the previous two generations. Continue reading...

Apple’s extremely popular AirPods Pro Bluetooth earbuds are back for their third generation with a better fit, longer battery life, built-in heart rate sensors and more effective noise cancelling, and look set to be just as ubiquitous as their predecessors.The Guardian’s journalism is independent. We will earn a commission if you buy something through an affiliate link. Learn more.It has been three years since the last model, but the earbuds still come only in white and you really have to squint at the details to spot the difference from the previous two generations.The AirPods Pro 3 cost £219 (€249/$249/A$429), making them £30 cheaper in the UK than when their predecessors launched, and sit above the AirPods 4, which cost £169 with noise cancelling for those who don’t like silicone earbud tips.The shape of the earbuds has been tweaked, changing slightly the way you put them in and making them more comfortable than their predecessors for extended listening sessions of three hours or more. Five sizes of tips are included in the box, but if you didn’t get on with silicone earbuds before these won’t make a difference.The stalks are the same length as before, but the shape of the earbud has been changed to better align the tip with your ear canal. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianMost of the features are fairly standard for modern earbuds. Squeeze the stalks for playback controls, swipe for volume or take them out to pause the music. They support the same new features rolled out to Apple’s older earbuds, including the ability to use them as a shutter remote for the camera app and for live translation with the Translate app on the iPhone. The latter is limited to English, French, German, Portuguese and Spanish for now and isn’t available in the EU, but it works surprisingly well for casual conversations.The biggest problem is that the other person will have to rely on reading or hearing your translated speech from your iPhone. I can see it being most useful with announcements or audio guides – the kind you get on transport or in museums where you need only to translate language one way.The most interesting added hardware feature is heart rate monitoring via sensors on the side of the earbuds, similar to Apple’s Powerbeats Pro 2 fitness buds. They can be used with more than 50 workouts started in the Fitness app or a handful of third-party apps on the iPhone and proved to be roughly in line with readings from a Garmin Forerunner 970 or an Apple Watch during walks and runs. The earbuds are water-resistant to IP57 standards, which makes them much more robust against rain and sweat than before.The battery life has been increased by a third to at least eight hours of playback with noise cancelling for each charge, which is very competitive with some of the best rivals and long enough for most listening sessions.The compact flip-top case provides two full charges for a total playback time of 24 hours – six hours short of the previous generation, but five minutes in the case is enough for an hour of listening time. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianSpecifications Connectivity: Bluetooth 5.3, SBC, AAC, H2 chip, UWB Battery life: eight hours ANC playback (24 hours with case) Water resistance: IP57 (buds and case) Earbud dimensions: 30.9 x 19.2 x 27.0mm Earbud weight: 5.6g each Charging case dimensions: 47.2 x 62.2 x 21.8mm Charging case weight: 44g Case charging: USB-C, Qi wireless/MagSafe, Apple Watch Bigger sound and impressive noise cancellingThe silicone earbuds are infused with foam in the tips that expands slightly for a better seal for music and noise cancelling. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianThe sound of the third-generation AirPods Pro takes a great listen and makes it bigger. They have a wider soundscape that makes big tracks sound more expansive, while still maintaining strong but nicely controlled bass. They are detailed, well-balanced and do justice to different genres of music, with plenty of power and punch where needed. As with Apple’s other headphones, they sometimes sound a little too clinical, lacking a bit of warmth or rawness in some tracks, and they can’t quite hit the very deepest of notes for skull-rattling bass. However, few earbuds sound better at this price and size.Apple’s implementation of spatial audio for surround sound for movies remains best in class, adding to the immersion with compatible devices and services, even if spatial audio music remains a mixed bag.The AirPods Pro are the best combination of earbuds and compact case that you can easily fit in a pocket. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianThe improved noise cancelling is the best upgrade. Apple says it is twice as effective as the already good AirPods Pro 2, which sounds about right. In side-by-side comparisons, the AirPods Pro 3 handle street noise, including cars, horns and engines, almost as well as the class-leading Sony WH-1000XM6, which is thoroughly impressive given they are large over-ear headphones, not little earbuds.They also do a great job of dampening the troublesome higher tones such as keyboard clicks and speech, making the commute and office work more bearable.Apple’s class-leading transparency mode is just as good on the new earbuds, sounding natural as if you weren’t actually wearing the earbuds. It makes using them as hearing aids or out on the street with some dampening of sudden loud sounds very good indeed.Call quality is first-rate, and my voice sounded clear and natural in quiet or noisy environments with only a hint of road noise from some loud streets audible on the call.SustainabilityThe case charges via USB-C, MagSafe, Qi or Apple Watch charger, and has a new feature to limit charging of the earbuds to prolong their battery health. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The GuardianApple does not provide an expected lifespan for the batteries. Those in similar devices typically maintain at least 80% of their original capacity for 500 full charge cycles. The earbuds are not repairable, but Apple offers a battery service for £49 per earbud or case and offers replacements for those lost or damaged costing from £79 an item. The repair specialists iFixit rated the earbuds zero out of 10 for repairability.The AirPods and case contain 40% recycled material by weight including aluminium, cobalt, copper, gold, lithium, plastic, rare earth elements and tin. Apple offers trade-in and free recycling schemes and breaks down the environmental impact of the earbuds in its report.PriceThe AirPods Pro 3 cost £219 (€249/$249/A$429).For comparison, the AirPods 4 start at £119, the Beats Powerbeats Pro 2 cost £250, the Sennheiser Momentum TW4 cost £199, the Google Pixel Buds Pro 2 cost £219, the Sony WF-1000XM5 cost £219 and the Bose QuietComfort Ultra earbuds cost £300.VerdictThe AirPods Pro 3 take what was great about the ubiquitous second-generation models and improves almost everything.Longer battery life and a better, more comfortable fit for extended listening sessions are very welcome, as is the bigger, wider sound. Proper water resistance and built-in heart rate monitoring makes them useful for workouts, particularly those such as powerlifting that make wearing a watch difficult. The live translation feature worked better than expected, but has limitations that make it less useful for real-life conversations.The best bit is very effective noise cancelling that rivals some of the greatest over-ear headphones, but in a tiny set of earbuds that are much easier to carry around.Audiophiles will find they sound a little too clinical. While they work with any Bluetooth device, including Android phones, PCs and games consoles, they require an iPhone, iPad or Mac for full functionality. But the biggest letdown remains repairability, which remains a problem for most true wireless earbuds and loses them a star. Pros: very effective noise cancelling, great sound, best-in-class transparency, water resistance, built-in HR monitoring, great controls, advanced features with Apple devices including spatial audio, very comfortable, excellent case, top class call quality. Cons: extremely difficult to repair, expensive, no hi-res audio support, lack features when connected to Android/Windows, look the same as predecessors, only available in white. The AirPods Pro 3 are some of the very best earbuds you can buy, particularly if you use an iPhone. Photograph: Samuel Gibbs/The Guardian

If You Want to Stay Healthy and Care About Humanity, Here’s What to Eat

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by […]

This story was originally published by Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. Adoption of a plant-rich “planetary health diet” could prevent 40,000 early deaths a day across the world, according to a landmark report. The diet—which allows moderate meat consumption—and related measures would also slash the food-related emissions driving global heating by half by 2050. Today, a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system and taming the climate crisis is impossible without changing how the world eats, the researchers said. Food production is also the biggest cause of the destruction of wildlife and forests and the pollution of water. The planetary health diet (PHD) sets out how the world can simultaneously improve the health of people and the planet, and provide enough food for an expected global population of 9.6 billion people by 2050. “This is not a deprivation diet…” It “could be delicious, aspirational and healthy.” The diet is flexible, allowing it to be adapted to local tastes, and can include some animal products or be vegetarian or vegan. However, all versions advise eating more vegetables, fruits, nuts, legumes and whole grains than most people in the world currently eat. In many places, today’s diets are unhealthy and unsustainable due to too much meat, milk and cheese, animal fats and sugar. People in the US and Canada eat more than seven times the PHD’s recommended amount of red meat, while it is five times more in Europe and Latin America, and four times more in China. However, in some regions where people’s diets are heavily reliant on starchy foods, such as sub-Saharan Africa, a small increase in chicken, dairy and eggs would be beneficial to health, the report found. North American adult diets in 2020 versus planetary health recommendation, daily per capita intake in grammesGuardian Severe inequalities in the food system must also be ended to achieve healthy and sustainable diets, the researchers said. The wealthiest 30 percent of the world’s population generates more than 70 percent of food-related environmental damage, it found. Furthermore, 2.8 billion people cannot afford a healthy diet and 1 billion are undernourished, despite enough food being produced globally. The food system is also failing the 1 billion people living with obesity, the report said. The report recommends shifting taxes to make unhealthy food more costly and healthy food cheaper, regulating the advertising of unhealthy food and using warning labels, and the shifting of today’s massive agricultural subsidies to healthier and more sustainable foods. “What we put on our plates can save millions of lives, cut billions of tonnes of emissions, halt the loss of biodiversity, and create a fairer food system,” said Prof Johan Rockström, who co-chaired the EAT-Lancet Commission that produced the report. “The evidence is undeniable: transforming food systems is not only possible, it’s essential to securing a safe, just, and sustainable future for all.” “This is not a deprivation diet,” said Prof Walter Willett of the Harvard TH Chan school of public health, and another commission co-chair. “This is something that could be delicious, aspirational and healthy. It also allows for cultural diversity and individual preferences, providing flexibility.” “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience.” The report, published in the Lancet, was produced by 70 leading experts from 35 countries and six continents. It builds on the 2019 report that introduced the PHD, but includes new evidence of the health benefits of the diet. “We have been able to look at this diet in relation to health outcomes such as total mortality, diabetes, respiratory diseases, heart disease, stroke, etc and we found very strong inverse relationships” said Willett. The diet was also linked to reduced cancer and neurodegenerative diseases. Overall, the researchers estimated global adoption of the PHD could prevent 15m early deaths a year in adults. The estimate did not include the impact of the diet reducing obesity, meaning it is probably an underestimate. The PHD recommends plant-rich, flexible diets, including: Fruits and vegetables—at least five portions a day Whole grains—three to four portions a day Nuts—one portion per day Legumes (beans, peas, lentils)—one portion per day Dairy—one serving of milk, yoghurt or cheese portions a day Eggs —three to four a week Chicken—two portions a week Fish—two portions a week Red meat—one portion a week Marco Springmann from UCL in the UK and an author of the report said the differences between the PHD and current diets vary: “What needs to be reduced differs a lot. In low income countries, it’s the starchy foods and grains, whereas in high income countries it is animal-sourced foods, sugar, saturated fats, and dairy. It’s insane how much dairy is consumed in Europe and North America.” The data underlying the report is available online and can be used to tailor different planetary health diets for the tastes of people in specific countries and of different ages. The website also shows how much the diets reduce deaths, improve nutrition, and cut environmental impacts. “Hopefully this will lead to more science-based policymaking,” said Springmann. The PHD is better than current average diets for many nutrients, including fatty acids, fibre, folate, magnesium and zinc. Adequate iron and vitamin B12 could be provided by green leafy vegetables, fermented soy foods and algae, the researchers said. Moving diets towards the PHD could be achieved by helping consumers make better everyday choices, said Line Gordon, director of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, for example by shifting taxes to make healthy foods cheaper, and putting warning labels on unhealthy foods. “But it is not just about getting prices lower, it’s also about bringing purchasing power up so that people can afford a healthier diet” she said. “Our recommendations are grounded in scientific evidence and real-world experience,” Gordon said. “Changes are already under way, from school meal programmes to regenerative agriculture and food waste reduction initiatives.” England banned price promotions on unhealthy foods on Wednesday and will ban advertising such foods online. The report estimates that food-related ill health and environmental damage costs society about $15 trillion a year. It said investments to transform the food system would cost $200 billion to $500 billion a year, but save $5 trillion. Alongside a shift in diets, the report calls for other changes to the food system, including cutting the loss and waste of food, greener farming practices, and decent working conditions, as a third of food workers earn below living wages. The launch of the PHD in 2019 led to attacks from meat industry interests. Rockström said: “The [new report] is a landmark achievement. It is a state-of-the-art scientific assessment that quantifies healthy diets for all human beings in the world and the environmental boundaries all food systems need to meet to stay safe. So we have a really rigorous foundation for our [results]. We are ready to meet that assault.”

Seasonal Allergies Might Increase Suicide Rate, Study Says

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Oct. 6, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Seasonal allergies are considered an annoyance to most, and maddening to some.Few think of seasonal sniffles and sneezes as potentially fatal — but we might be overlooking the danger they pose, a new study warns.High pollen counts are linked to a significant increase in suicide risk, according to findings published in the December issue of the Journal of Health Economics as the U.S. enters fall allergy season.Further, suicide risk increases as airborne levels of pollen rise, researchers found.The physical misery caused by seasonal allergies likely contributes to this increase, by wrecking people’s sleep and increasing mental distress, researchers speculated."During our study period, there were nearly 500,000 suicides in the U.S.," said lead researcher Joelle Abramowitz, an associate research scientist at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research."Based on our incremental data, we estimate that pollen may have been a contributing factor in up to 12,000 of those deaths over the period, or roughly 900 to 1,200 deaths per year,” she said in a news release.For the study, researchers compared suicides reported between 2006 and 2018 with daily pollen counts from 186 counties in 34 metropolitan areas across the United States.Results showed an association between suicide and pollen counts that increases in strength, after the research team divided pollen levels into four tiers.Suicide risk jumped 7.4% at the worst pollen counts; 5.5% higher at the third-highest level; and 4.5% at the second level, all compared to the lowest level of airborne pollen.People with known mental health problems were more vulnerable, experiencing a nearly 9% increase in their risk of suicide on days with the highest pollen counts, results showed.“A small shock could have a big effect if you're already in a vulnerable state," Abramowitz said.The results indicate that seasonal allergies should be taken more seriously, and not seen as a mere nuisance, researchers said.More accurate pollen forecasting and better public communication on the mental health impact of seasonal allergies could save lives, by providing people the opportunity to protect themselves, researchers said.This will become even more important as climate change progresses, extending and intensifying pollen seasons, researchers said."We should be more conscious of our responsiveness to small environmental changes, such as pollen, and our mental health in general," Abramowitz said."Given our findings, I believe medical providers should be aware of a patient's allergy history, as other research has also established a connection between allergies and a higher risk for suicide,” she added. “I hope this research can lead to more tailored care and, ultimately, save lives."SOURCE: University of Michigan, news release, Sept. 29, 2025Copyright © 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.