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

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds

The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution

Nearly Half of Americans Still Live With High Levels of Air Pollution, Posing Serious Health Risks, Report Finds The most recent State of the Air report by the American Lung Association found that more than 150 million Americans breathe air with unhealthy levels of ozone or particle pollution Lillian Ali - Staff Contributor April 25, 2025 12:50 p.m. For 25 of the 26 years the American Lung Association has reported State of the Air, Los Angeles—pictured here in smog—has been declared the city with the worst ozone pollution in the United States. David Iliff via Wikimedia Commons under CC BY-SA 3.0 Since 2000, the American Lung Association has released an annual State of the Air report analyzing air quality data across the United States. This year’s report, released on Wednesday, found the highest number of people exposed to unhealthy levels of air pollution in a decade. According to the findings, 156 million Americans—or 46 percent of the U.S. population—live with levels of particle or ozone pollution that received a failing grade. “Both these types of pollution cause people to die,” Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University, tells NPR’s Alejandra Borunda. “They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates.” Particle pollution, also called soot pollution, is made up of minuscule solid and liquid particles that hang in the air. They’re often emitted by fuel combustion, like diesel- and gasoline-powered cars or the burning of wood. Ozone pollution occurs when polluting gases are hit by sunlight, leading to a reaction that forms ozone smog. Breathing in ozone can irritate your lungs, causing shortness of breath, coughing or asthma attacks. The 2025 State of the Air report, which analyzed air quality data from 2021 to 2023, found 25 million more people breathing polluted air compared to the 2024 report. The authors link this rise to climate change. “There’s definitely a worsening trend that’s driven largely by climate change,” Katherine Pruitt, the lead author of the report and national senior director for policy at the American Lung Association, tells USA Today’s Ignacio Calderon. “Every year seems to be a bit hotter globally, resulting in more extreme weather events, more droughts, more extreme heat and more wildfires.” Those wildfires produce the sooty particles that contribute to particulate pollution, while extreme heat creates more favorable conditions for ozone formation, producing smog. While climate change is contributing to heavy air pollution, it used to be much worse. Smog has covered cities like Los Angeles since the early 20th century. At one point, these “hellish clouds” of smog were so thick that, in the middle of World War II, residents thought the city was under attack. The Optimist Club of Highland Park, a neighborhood in northeast Los Angleles, wore gas masks at a 1954 banquet to highlight air pollution in the city. Los Angeles Daily News via Wikimedia Commons under CC-BY 4.0 The passage of the Clean Air Act and the creation of the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in 1970 marked a turning point in air quality, empowering the government to regulate pollution and promote public health. Now, six key air pollutants have dropped by about 80 percent since the law’s passage, according to this year’s report. But some researchers see climate change as halting—or even reversing—this improvement. “Since the act passed, the air pollution has gone down overall,” Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the American Lung Association, tells CBS News’ Kiki Intarasuwan. “The challenge is that over the last few years, we’re starting to see it tick back up again, and that’s because of climate change, in part.” At the same time, federal action against climate change appears to be slowing. On March 12, EPA administrator Lee Zeldin announced significant rollbacks and re-evaluations, declaring it “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.” Zeldin argued that his deregulation will drive “a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion.” Included in Zeldin’s push for deregulation is a re-evaluation of Biden-era air quality standards, including those for particulate pollution and greenhouse gases. The EPA provided a list of 31 regulations it plans to scale back or eliminate, including limits on air pollution, mercury emissions and vehicles. This week, the EPA sent termination notices to nearly 200 employees at the Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights. “Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk,” Kate Bender tells CBS News, citing the regulation rollbacks and cuts to staff and funding at the EPA. “If we see all those cuts become reality, it’s gonna have a real impact on people’s health by making the air they breathe dirtier.” Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

Nearly Half of Americans Breathe Unhealthy Air, New Report Finds

By I. Edwards HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting...

FRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) —Breathing the air in nearly half of the United States could be putting your health at risk.A new American Lung Association report shows that 156 million people live in areas with unhealthy air.The group’s annual "State of the Air" report found that smog and soot pollution are getting worse, not better. The report looked at air quality data from 2021 to 2023. It found that 25 million more people than in the group's last report were breathing "unhealthy levels of air pollution." That's more than in any other "State of the Air" report in the last decade, the association said.Since the Clean Air Act became law in 1970, air pollution has gone down overall, said Laura Kate Bender, an assistant vice president at the lung association, told CBS News."The challenge is that over the last few years, we're starting to see it tick back up again and that's because of climate change, in part," she said. "Climate change is making some of those conditions for wildfires and extreme heat that drive ozone pollution worse for a lot of the country."The city with the worst year-round and short-term particle pollution? Bakersfield, California, for the sixth year in a row.What's more, it was ranked third worst for high ozone days. In contrast, Casper, Wyoming, was listed as the cleanest city for year-round particle pollution, CBS News said.Here are the top 10 cities with the worst year-round particle pollution, according to the association:Bakersfield-Delano, Calif. Visalia, Calif. Fresno-Hanford-Corcoran, Calif. Eugene-Springfield, Ore. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. Detroit-Warren-Ann Arbor, Mich. San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Houston-Pasadena, Texas Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Ohio Fairbanks-College, Ark. The report warned that pollution isn't just an issue in the west. Extreme heat and wildfires are spreading pollution across the country.In fact, smoke from Canada's wildfires in 2023 caused unhealthy air quality even in the eastern parts of the U.S., the report pointed out.Some of the findings came as a surprise, according to Kevin Stewart, the association’s environmental health director."I think we knew that the wildfire smoke would have an impact on air quality in the United States," he told CBS News. "I think we were surprised at the Lung Association by how strong the effect was, especially in the northeastern quadrant of the continental United States." Last month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it will roll back 31 environmental rules, including ones pertaining to vehicle emissions, CBS News reported.Bender said that puts decades of progress at risk."Unfortunately, we see that everything that makes our air quality better is at risk," she said. "The EPA is at risk — the agency that is protecting our health — through staff cuts, funding cuts. The regulations that have cleaned up our air over time are at risk of being cut. If we see all those cuts become reality, it's gonna have a real impact on people's health by making the air they breathe dirtier."Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator, argued that, instead, the deregulation will drive "a dagger straight into the heart of the climate change religion to drive down cost of living for American families, unleash American energy, bring auto jobs back to the U.S. and more," according to CBS News."This air pollution is causing kids to have asthma attacks, making people who work outdoors sick and unable to work, and leading to low birth weight in babies," Kezia Ofosu Atta, the Lung Association’s advocacy director, told CBS News.The report also found that Black Americans are more likely to suffer serious health problems from air pollution.SOURCE: CBS News, April 23, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Umbilical Cord Could Contain Clues For Child's Future Health

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health...

By Dennis Thompson HealthDay ReporterFRIDAY, April 25, 2025 (HealthDay News) -- Doctors might be able to predict a newborn's long-term health outlook, by analyzing their umbilical cord blood, a new study says.Genetic clues found in cord blood can offer early insight into which infants are at higher risk for health problems like diabetes, stroke and liver disease later in life, researchers will report at the upcoming Digestive Disease Week meeting in San Diego.“We’re seeing kids develop metabolic problems earlier and earlier, which puts them at higher risk for serious complications as adults,” lead researcher Dr. Ashley Jowell, a resident physician in internal medicine at Duke University Health System in Durham, N.C., said in a news release. “If we can identify that risk at birth, we may be able to prevent it.”For the study, researchers performed genetic analysis on the umbilical cord blood of 38 children enrolled in a long-term study based in North Carolina.The analysis looked for chemical patterns in infants’ DNA that switch genes on or off. When these switches occur in critical parts of DNA, their health effects can persist through fetal development and into later life.The research team compared these DNA changes to the kids’ health at ages 7 to 12, and identified multiple areas where genes in cord blood predicted health problems in childhood.For example, changes in a gene called TNS3 were linked to fatty liver, liver inflammation or damage, and excess belly fat as measured by waist-to-hip ratio, results show.Changes in other genes were connected to blood pressure, waist-to-hip ratio, and liver inflammation or damage, researchers said.“These epigenetic signals are laid down during embryonic development, potentially influenced by environmental factors such as nutrition or maternal health during pregnancy,” co-researcher Dr. Cynthia Moylan, an associate professor in the division of gastroenterology at Duke University Health System, said in a news release.Researchers noted that the sample size was small, but the links so powerful that these findings warrant further investigation. A larger follow-up study funded by the National Institutes of Health is underway.“If validated in larger studies, this could open the door to new screening tools and early interventions for at-risk children,” Moylan added.Jowell said disease may be preventable even with these markers."Just because you're born with these markers doesn't mean disease is inevitable," she said. "But knowing your risk earlier in life could help families and clinicians take proactive steps to support a child’s long-term health."Researchers are scheduled to present their findings May 4. Findings presented at medical meetings are considered preliminary until published in a peer-reviewed journal.SOURCE: American Gastroenterological Association, news release, April 25, 2025Copyright © 2025 HealthDay. All rights reserved.

Biden let California get creative with Medicaid spending. Trump is signaling that may end

California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs.

In summary California uses Medicaid to pay for a range of nontraditional health care services, including housing. The Trump administration wants to scale back those programs. In 2022, California made sweeping changes to its Medi-Cal program that reimagined what health care could look like for some of the state’s poorest and sickest residents by covering services from housing to healthy food. But the future of that program, known as CalAIM, could be at risk under the Trump administration.  In recent weeks, federal officials have signaled that support for creative uses of Medi-Cal funding is waning, particularly uses that California has invested in such as rent assistance and medically tailored meals. Medi-Cal is California’s name for Medicaid. The moves align with a narrower vision of Medicaid espoused by newly confirmed Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services head Dr. Mehmet Oz, who said during his swearing-in ceremony that Medicaid spending was crowding out spending on education and other services in states with the federal government “paying most of the bill.” “This one really bothers me. There are states who are using Medicaid — Medicaid dollars for people who are vulnerable — for services that are not medical,” Oz said. It also fits with broader GOP calls to slim down the federal government. Medicaid is under scrutiny as part of a GOP-led budget process in the House of Representatives that calls for $880 billion in cuts over 10 years to programs including Medicaid. “The messaging that we want to go back to the basics of Medicaid puts all of these waiver programs in jeopardy,” said John Baackes, former chief executive of L.A. Care, the state’s largest Medi-Cal health insurer. CalAIM is authorized under a federal waiver that allows states to experiment with their Medicaid programs to try to save money and improve health outcomes. Under the waiver, California added extra benefits for high-cost users to help with food insecurity, housing instability,  substance use and behavioral health challenges. Roughly half of all Medi-Cal spending can be attributed to 5% of high-cost users, according to state documents. But in March, the federal government rescinded guidelines supporting Medi-Cal spending for social services. It also sent states a letter in April indicating that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services would no longer approve a funding mechanism that helps support CalAIM, although that money will continue until 2026. Together, these moves should worry states that operate programs like CalAIM, said Kathy Hempstead, senior policy officer at the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. “Under the Biden administration states were encouraged to experiment with things like that: To prescribe people prescriptions to get healthy food, to refer people to community-based services,” Hempstead said. “This administration is not receptive at all to … that vision of the Medicaid program.” In a press release, CMS said it is putting an end to spending that isn’t “directly tied to health care services.” “Mounting expenditures, such as covering housekeeping for individuals who are not eligible for Medicaid or high-speed internet for rural healthcare providers, distracts from the core mission of Medicaid, and in some instances, serves as an overly-creative financing mechanism to skirt state budget responsibilities,” the press release states. These signals from the federal government apply to future applications for Medicaid changes, and do not change California’s current programs or funding. The state’s CalAIM waiver expires at the end of 2026, and another similar waiver that supports California’s efforts to improve behavioral health care expires in 2029. According to a statement from the Department of Health Care Services, the agency that oversees Medi-Cal, all programs “remain federally approved and operational.” “We appreciate our Medi-Cal providers and community partners, and together we will push full steam ahead to transform our health system and improve health outcomes,” the department said. Physician assistant Brett Feldman checks his patient, Carla Bolen’s, blood pressure while in her encampment at the Figueroa St. Viaduct above Highway 110 in Elysian Valley Park in Los Angeles on Nov. 18, 2022. Photo by Larry Valenzuela, CalMatters/CatchLight Local Paul Shafer, co-director of the Boston University Medicaid Policy Lab, said decades of public health research show that people have worse health outcomes that require more expensive treatment when their social needs aren’t met. “We’ve spent the last few decades in public health and health policy, arguing that so much of health and medical costs is driven by environmental factors — people’s living conditions, income, etc.” Shafer said. But, Shafer said, programs like CalAIM are relatively recent and the research hasn’t had enough time to show whether paying for non-traditional services saves money. For example, California’s street medicine doctors who take care of people who are homeless say that their patients often cycle in and out of the emergency room — the most expensive point of service in the health care system. They have no place to recover from medical procedures, no address to deliver medications, and the constant exposure to the elements takes years off of their lives, doctors say.  CalAIM gives them options to help their clients find housing.  The federal government’s decision not to fund programs like this in the future is a “step backward,” Shafer said.  “I think we can all read the tea leaves and say that that means they’re sort of unlikely to be renewed,” he said. Supported by the California Health Care Foundation (CHCF), which works to ensure that people have access to the care they need, when they need it, at a price they can afford. Visit www.chcf.org to learn more. more on california health care They live in California’s Republican districts. They feel betrayed by looming health care cuts March 11, 2025March 12, 2025 California has big plans for improving mental health. Medicaid cuts could upend them April 7, 2025April 7, 2025

Chattanooga Just Became North America's First National Park City. Here's What That Means

The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: "greener, healthier and wilder"

Chattanooga Just Became North America’s First National Park City. Here’s What That Means The designation was awarded by a London-based charity that aims to make cities more like national parks: “greener, healthier and wilder” Sarah Kuta - Daily Correspondent April 23, 2025 4:20 p.m. Chattanooga was once one of the most polluted cities in the country. Now, it's North America's first National Park City. larrybraunphotography.com via Getty Images Chattanooga has been named North America’s first National Park City, a designation that acknowledges the city’s abundant green spaces and commitment to environmental stewardship. The city in southeast Tennessee, home to roughly 190,000 residents, is now the third National Park City in the world, following behind London and Adelaide, Australia. The title comes from the National Park City Foundation, a London-based charity that envisions a better future by thinking of cities more like national parks. The movement is not connected to the National Park Service, the federal agency that manages America’s national parks, monuments, historic sites and other protected lands. “[National parks] are special places where we have a better relationship with nature, culture and heritage and can enjoy and develop ourselves,” according to the foundation. “Combining the long-term and large-scale vision of national parks with cities has the potential to shift our collective understanding of what and who a city is for.” In Chattanooga, city leaders have used the initiative to encourage residents to “think about Chattanooga as a city in a park, rather than a city with some parks in it,” says Tim Kelly, the mayor of Chattanooga, in a video announcing the designation. “The outdoors is our competitive advantage,” he adds. “It’s at the heart of our story of revitalization, and it’s at the core of our identity as Chattanoogans. We’ve always known how special Chattanooga’s connection to the outdoors is, and now it’s going to be recognized around the world.” Chattanooga has been working toward the designation for nearly two years, per a statement from the city. In late 2023, officials collected more than 5,600 signatures of support and created a National Park City charter. Then, they filed an application describing how Chattanooga met the nonprofit’s criteria—such as being “a place, vision and community that aims to be greener, healthier and wilder.” Last month, delegates from the foundation visited Chattanooga to experience it first-hand. They toured an urban farm, explored several parks and met with various community leaders, per NOOGAtoday’s Haley Bartlett. The foundation’s experts were impressed by Chattanooga’s “culture of outdoor activity,” its “unrivaled access to nature,” its commitment to “inclusive and sustainable development” and its food and agriculture scene, among other factors. “We saw first-hand the extraordinary breadth and depth of engagement with the Chattanooga National Park City vision informed by outstanding experts in design, ecology, culture and arts,” says Alison Barnes, a trustee of the foundation, in a statement. “National Park City status introduces a new chapter for a city with a long history of revitalization and renewal through connecting its unique landscape and the history of its people.” Chattanooga has come a long way since 1969, when the federal government declared it the worst city in the nation for particulate air pollution. Hazy skies were the norm back then, as factories and railroads spewed unregulated emissions into the air, according to the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau. Air pollution was so bad that residents sometimes had to drive with their headlights on in the middle of the day. But the pollution was more than just an eyesore. It was also causing the city’s residents to become sick—and sometimes die—from diseases like tuberculosis. Eventually, voters approved aggressive new rules to reduce emissions. By 1989, Chattanooga’s air quality had improved so much that it met all federal health standards. Today, it’s a vibrant, outdoorsy city with more than 100 parks and more than 35 miles of trails—plus many more within a short drive. The once-neglected riverfront downtown has been revitalized, and Chattanooga has experienced steady population growth in recent years. What does the National Park City designation mean for the city’s future? That remains to be seen. But officials hope it will help guide policy decisions and “help city government and community partners prioritize connecting more people to the outdoors that have long defined our identity,” according to a statement from the Chattanooga Area Chamber. It will also encourage citizens and leaders to embrace “all aspects of outdoor life,” from forests and lakes to native plants, according to the chamber. Mark McKnight, who serves as the president and CEO of Chattanooga’s Reflection Riding Arboretum and Nature Center, hopes that the new status will “yield some really cool stuff that we can’t even imagine today.” “Hopefully, we’re having this conversation in ten years, and it’s like, ‘Oh, wow, we never knew we would get to there,’” he tells the Chattanooga Times Free Press’ Sam Still. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

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.