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

These 5-Second Hand Exercises For Dementia Are Going Viral. Here's What Neurologists Think.

Is boosting your brain health really this simple?

Social media is full of health hacks for better sleep, clear skin, a functioning gut, you name it. Lately, a tip for aging and cognitive function is gaining traction. Videos showing hand and finger exercises have racked up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram, with users suggesting these movements can help prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s disease.The exercises include things like alternated clapping, tapping, arm circles and pointing your fingers in different directions. And although they might look easy enough, exasperated folks in the comments sections highlight that some of these motions are a lot harder than they appear. But does failing at intricate finger movements and hand coordination exercises mean you’re cognitively doomed? And can these exercises really ― as the captions claim ― prevent dementia or Alzheimer’s? HuffPost asked a neurologist to weigh in. “While there are a few studies showing that aspects of mild cognitive impairment might be improved with these types of hand exercises, I would put forward that there is nothing magical about these movements,” said neurologist Dr. Chris Winter.Hand exercises are a way to practice motor skills, which can be beneficial for maintaining cognitive abilities as we age. But it might be a stretch to suggest that specific movements are going to remove your risk of developing dementia or Alzheimer’s disease. Can simple hand exercises really prevent dementia?Winter explained that hand and finger coordination can be beneficial as part of a larger pattern of mental and physical activity, but it’s not the hand gestures themselves that matter ― it’s the engagement and concentration involved.“Learning to play the piano or other activities that force concentration and the practice of improved hand/eye coordination are potentially just as useful,” Winter said. “I recommend that people stay active and engage in appropriately challenging activities. Learn a new language, pick up a guitar or a used set of drums, play pickleball. If you have the capacity to do these things, get off of TikTok and go do these things instead.”Brain function is less about hand gestures and more about movement and mental engagement that challenge your mind and body overall. “While no single exercise can prevent Alzheimer’s disease, regularly engaging your brain in complex, novel activities helps build what we call ‘brain reserve.’ A higher brain reserve can delay the onset of dementia symptoms or reduce their severity later in life,” said Dr. Majid Fotuhi, a neurologist and author of “The Invincible Brain: The Clinically Proven Plan to Age-Proof Your Brain and Stay Sharp for Life.”Board-certified neurologist Dr. Luke K. Barr emphasized that TikTok viewers shouldn’t mistake their inability to do some of these hand exercises as a red flag for cognitive decline. If you have trouble alternating pointing your thumbs and pinkies, that doesn’t mean you’re “already developing dementia,” as some commenters fear. “These are complex exercises that are difficult, especially at first, and require a lot of concentration and practice,” Barr said. “Just because someone is not able to do it easily right away, does not necessarily mean that they have dementia.”As with most anything complicated, practice makes perfect. “I think there are a variety of reasons why one could not do these gestures ― or rub their stomach while patting their head,” Winter added. “While someone with significant dementia is probably not likely to be able to do these activities, the fact that someone struggles with coordination does not indicate dementia or progression in this direction. Ability to pat your hands together is not a diagnostic test for cognitive decline.”So while those quick coordination challenges might be fun or stimulating, experts say, your best bet for brain health still lies in the basics: regular exercise, quality sleep, a balanced diet and staying mentally and socially active.“Factors such as poor diet, sedentary lifestyle, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, sleep problems, chronic stress and excessive alcohol can contribute to shrinkage in the brain,” Fotuhi said. “Along with genetic and environmental factors, these lifestyle and medical factors can damage small blood vessels, reduce rinsing mechanisms in the brain, cause ‘leaky brain’ and increase brain inflammation ― which over time lead to cognitive decline and Alzheimer’s disease. So rather than worrying about one task, it’s better to focus on overall brain health habits.”Ultimately, what exercise and mental stimulation mean can vary based on individuals’ abilities. “If you only have the capacity to practice hand gestures, then that’s OK too,” Winter said. But just remember that the real “hack” for keeping your brain sharp isn’t a social media exercise ― it’s a holistic approach to living a healthy, mindful and engaged life.

Under Current Guidelines, Most Lung Cancer Patients Weren't Eligible for Cancer Screening

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 24, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Under current screening guidelines, almost two-thirds of Americans with...

By Ernie Mundell HealthDay ReporterMONDAY, Nov. 24, 2025 (HealthDay News) — Under current screening guidelines, almost two-thirds of Americans with lung cancer would not have qualified for the CT chest scans that could have spotted tumors early and extended their lives, new research shows. The finding hits home for 38-year-old Carla Tapia, a mother of three from Beltsville, Maryland. She smoked a bit in her youth but had kicked the habit by 18. Nevertheless, Tapia first developed respiratory symptoms in 2018, and was diagnosed with inoperable stage 4 lung cancer in 2020. After numerous chemotherapies failed, Tapia received a life-saving double-lung transplant at Northwestern Medicine in Chicago in 2024. She’s now attending college back at home in Maryland.According to Tapia, it's an ordeal timely screening might have prevented.“I keep hearing stories about young people being diagnosed with lung cancer, and if we could expand the screening guidelines, I believe more lung cancers could be caught at earlier stages, and more lives would be saved,” she said in a Northwestern Medicine news release.Current guidelines from the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) advise annual CT chest scans for adults ages 50 to 80 who have a 20 pack-year smoking history and currently smoke or have quit within the past 15 years. According to study senior author Dr. Ankit Bharat, those eligibility guidelines are too restrictive and miss many people still at risk for the leading cancer killer.“We moved to universal age-based screening for breast and colon cancer with tremendous success, and we need to move to the same approach for lung cancer,” Bharat said in a Northwestern news release. “Chest screening offers something unique — with one low-dose scan, we can assess lungs, heart and bones comprehensively. This baseline scan becomes invaluable for monitoring their health over time,” said Bharat. He is chief of thoracic surgery and executive director of the Northwestern Medicine Canning Thoracic Institute.Lung cancer can strike anyone, including people who only smoked a short amount of time and even never-smokers. And, as happened in Tapia’s case, nearly 80% of the time lung cancers are first diagnosed in an advanced stage. The new study was published Nov. 20 in JAMA Network Open. It tracked nearly 1,000 consecutive patients whose lung cancers were treated at Northwestern Medicine.Based on their history of smoking (including never-smokers), Bharat’s group estimated that only 35% would have been eligible under USPSTF guidelines to be referred to annual lung CT scanning. Women and never-smokers made up a significant number of those who would have been excluded from eligibility for screening, the researchers said.They believe that moving to a universal screening approach — recommending lung screens for everyone ages 40 to 85 — could spot more tumors early, boost the cost-effectiveness of lung cancer care, and help level the playing field for disadvantaged Americans. According to the researchers, a typical lung CT scan takes less than 10 seconds and doesn’t require any intravenous imaging dyes. Bharat notes that the leftover effects of the COVID-19 pandemic could mean heightened risks of other lung illnesses among relatively young Americans."Nearly six years after the pandemic's start, we're seeing increasing numbers of patients with lung scarring and fibrosis from COVID-19, especially those who get reinfected with respiratory viruses," he said. “The damage compounds with each infection. Early detection through comprehensive screening can help us intervene before these conditions progress to requiring [lung] transplantation.”Northwestern’s Lung Health Center created a list of patient types who might want to consider lung screening:COVID-19 survivors who are having ongoing respiratory issues People exposed to contaminants such as wildfire smoke, industrial pollution or high radon levels People with family histories of lung disease or pulmonary fibrosis Those exposed to secondhand smoke, vaping or marijuana use Asian women and other demographics at elevated risk for lung conditions Anyone seeking baseline chest health assessment “We're seeing younger patients with respiratory problems from vaping, environmental exposures and COVID-19 who would never qualify for traditional screening,” said study co-author Dr. Scott Budinger, chief of pulmonary and critical care at the Canning Thoracic Institute.A more inclusive approach to screening “allows us to catch interstitial lung disease, pulmonary fibrosis, lung cancer and other conditions years before they'd typically be diagnosed,” he said in the news release.SOURCE: Northwestern Medicine, news release, Nov. 20., 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

New Flu Variant Could Bring Another Severe U.S. Season

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterTHURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough...

THURSDAY, Nov. 20, 2025 (HealthDay News) — A new flu variant spreading overseas may set the stage for another tough winter in the United States, experts warn.The strain, called subclade K, has caused a rise in flu cases in the United Kingdom, Canada and Japan. And now signs suggest it is beginning to take hold across the United States as flu activity rises.According to the latest U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FluView report, reported flu activity in the United States remains low but is climbing quickly.Last year’s flu season was the worst the United States had seen in nearly 15 years and led to at least 280 child deaths, according to the CDC.Most cases this year are from the H3N2 virus and about half of those belong to the subclade K variant, the same strain that fueled a difficult flu season in the Southern Hemisphere.Because it wasn’t circulating widely when strains were selected for the vaccine update, this year’s flu shot targets close strains of the virus."It’s not like we’re expecting to get complete loss of protection for the vaccine, but perhaps we might expect a little bit of a drop-off if this is the virus that sort of dominates the season, and early indications are that’s probably going to be the case," Richard Webby, a researcher at St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee, told CNN.Early findings from the UK Health Security Agency suggest the variant carries seven genetic changes on a major part of the virus, making it a bit harder for the body's immune system to recognize.Even so, they found that the flu shot has reduced the risk of hospitalization or emergency care by about 75% in children and 30% to 40% in adults so far this season.What worries experts even more is that fewer Americans appear to be getting the flu shot.Data from IQVIA shows that pharmacies gave 26.5 million flu vaccinations from August through October, down from 28.7 million during the same period last year."I’m not surprised," Jennifer Nuzzo, professor of epidemiology and director of the Pandemic Center at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, said.She said recent debates about vaccine safety have "left people confused but possibly at the worst have left people worried about getting vaccinated."Australia’s flu shot rates also fell this year and the country went on to record more than 443,000 cases."What they saw in Australia is that they had a bad season. And so it’s concerning for you and us, what’s coming," Dr. Earl Rubin, division director of infectious disease at Montreal Children’s Hospital, told CNN.Several early indicators already show flu levels rising in the U.S.The WastewaterSCAN network found type A flu in 40% of samples in November, up from 18% in October, according to Marlene Wolfe, an assistant professor in the department of environmental health at Emory University in Atlanta.Only four U.S. monitoring sites in Maine, Vermont, Iowa and Hawaii have officially crossed the threshold for declaring flu activity high, but experts say the trend is clear.While it’s not yet clear whether subclade K could cause more severe illness, a rise in infections alone could cause hospitalizations to skyrocket, Rubin noted."It’s not too late. Go and get your flu shot," Dr. Adam Lauring, chief of the division of infectious diseases at the University of Michigan Medical School, in Ann Arbor, said.These results are preliminary and have not yet been peer-reviewed.The Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) has more on the flu vaccine.SOURCE: CNN, Nov. 18, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Thousands of US Hazardous Sites Are at Risk of Flooding Because of Sea Level Rise, Study Finds

A new study finds that thousands of hazardous sites across the U.S. are at risk of flooding due to sea level rise that could pose public health threats to neighboring communities

If heat-trapping pollution from burning coal, oil and gas continues unchecked, thousands of hazardous sites across the United States risk being flooded from sea level rise by the turn of the century, posing serious health risks to nearby communities, according to a new study.Researchers identified 5,500 sites that store, emit or handle sewage, trash, oil, gas and other hazards that could face coastal flooding by 2100, with much of the risk already locked in due to past emissions. But more than half the sites are projected to face flood risk much sooner — as soon as 2050. Low-income, communities of color and other marginalized groups are the most at risk.With even moderate reductions to planet-warming emissions, researchers also determined that roughly 300 fewer sites would be at risk by the end of the century. “Our goal with this analysis was to try to get ahead of the problem by looking far out into the future," said Lara J. Cushing, associate professor in the Department of Environmental Health Sciences at the University of California, Los Angeles who co-authored the paper published in the science journal Nature Communications.“We do have time to respond and try to mitigate the risks and also increase resilience," she added, speaking at a media briefing Wednesday ahead of the study's release. The study was funded by the Environmental Protection Agency and builds on previous research from California. Climate change is driving and accelerating sea level rise. Glaciers and ice sheets are melting, and the sea's waters are expanding as they warm. In many places along the coastal U.S., sea level rise is accelerating faster than the global average because of things like erosion and land sinking from groundwater pumping, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Thomas Chandler, managing director at the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University who was not involved in the research, said it’s “a really important study” that the public, policy makers and government agencies “need to make note of.” Derek Van Berkel, an associate professor in the school for environment and sustainability at University of Michigan who was also not involved in the study, wasn't surprised to learn about the disproportionate risks. What was “alarming” was considering the magnitude of “feedback effects” from flooding, he said. How researchers approached the data The study's researchers started by identifying and classifying tens of thousands of hazardous sites near the coasts of Puerto Rico and the 23 states with coastline. Next, they wanted to know each site's projected future flood risk. They did this by calculating how likely each year coastal flooding could inundate a site using historical sea level measurements and projected sea level rise in 2050 and 2100 under low and high emissions scenarios. Lastly, they identified and classified communities as being at-risk if homes are located within 1 kilometer (0.62 miles) of a hazardous site with a high threat of future flooding, and compared those communities' characteristics with other coastal neighborhoods with no at-risk sites nearby. But researchers did not include all types of hazardous facilities, such as oil and gas pipelines, nor did they account for groundwater upwelling or more intense and frequent storms in the future, which could lead to underestimates. On the other end, the flood-risk model they used could have overestimated the number of threatened sites. “It is important to note that previous disasters, such as hurricanes Katrina, Rita and Harvey, did result in a lot of toxic contamination from oil and gas pipelines,” Chandler said. The 5,500 at-risk sites includes 44% that are fossil fuel ports and terminals, 30% power plants, 24% refineries and 22% coastal sewage treatment facilities. Most of the sites — nearly 80% — are in Louisiana, Florida, New Jersey, Texas, California, New York and Massachusetts. Potential health impacts from exposure to hazards People exposed to flood waters near industrial animal farms or sewage treatment plants could be exposed to bacteria like E. coli, said Sacoby Wilson, professor of global, environmental and occupational health at the University of Maryland during the briefing. Symptoms can include bloody or watery diarrhea, severe stomach cramps or vomiting and fever. Those living near industrial sites like refineries could be exposed to heavy metals and chemicals that can cause rashes, burning of the eyes, nose and throat, headaches or fatigue, added Wilson, who was not involved in the study. “For folks who are vulnerable, maybe have an underlying health condition, those health conditions could be exacerbated during those flood events.” Longer term, some of these exposures could contribute to cancer, liver, kidney or other organ damage, or have reproductive effects, he said. For Chandler, the Columbia University director, the study highlights the need to heavily invest in hazard mitigation. “It's really important for federal, state and local governments in the United States to address these factors through multi-stakeholder resilience planning and encouraging local governments to integrate climate risk assessments into their mitigation strategies.”The Associated Press receives support from the Walton Family Foundation for coverage of water and environmental policy. The AP is solely responsible for all content. For all of AP’s environmental coverage, visit https://apnews.com/hub/climate-and-environment.Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.Photos You Should See – Nov. 2025

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.