Before we dive into what we discovered, it might be helpful to define what pesticides are. Pesticides are a broad category of compounds that are used to eliminate or reduce pests, such as weeds, insects or fungus. Pesticides are used by farmers to protect animals from insects, the same way people use pesticides to protect their pets from fleas and ticks. Pesticides are also used in homes and gardens. They may be made from natural or synthetic products.  The series will look at Are Pesticides Safe for Food Consumption?  Are Pesticides Safe for the Environment? What’s the Difference Between Pesticide-Free and Organic?

For detailed information about why farmers use pesticides on crops they grow, we got in touch with Dr. Steve Savage, a plant pathologist who works with the non-profit CropLife Foundation and creates a bi-weekly podcast called POPAgriculture. We also talked to a farmer to find out about pesticides used on crops.

“Most farmers, including both conventional and organic, need to use pesticides because there are various organisms that depend on plants, but do so in ways that are damaging to the crops in terms of yield, quality and even viability,” Dr. Savage said. “These pests include insects, mites, nematodes, fungi, bacteria and viruses. Weeds also compete with the crop for nutrients, water and light.”

Jenny Burgess and her husband raise wheat, corn, soybeans and grain sorghum in Kansas. They are first-generation farmers who have built and work their farm themselves.

“On our farm, we use technology and tools to help our crops grow to the best of our ability. Herbicides and insecticides are just a couple of those tools,” Burgess said. “When used correctly, these tools or technologies will help our crops grow to their best potential. Anything that has room to grow without weeds taking water and nutrients away from the crop, or bugs that don’t eat up it, can grow.”

Herbicides, a type of pesticide that kills weeds, and insecticides, which target insects, are important to enable farmers to grow food crops. These compounds enable farmers to use land, water and resources more efficiently, which also helps improve the “footprint” of carbon and energy use, Dr. Savage said. Benefits also show up in shopping carts and pantry shelves. Because farmers can minimize crop losses by using herbicides, we have access to a more diverse, high-quality and affordable food supply.

“If there were no pesticides, some crops would not even be practical to grow. The quality of many crops would be lower, and they would definitely be more expensive,” he explained. “Organic growers use approved natural pesticides, but these are often not as effective or even as safe. The lower yield for organic is a major reason for its higher cost. It is an indicator of the impact pests could have on the price of food without pesticides.”

In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency evaluates all pesticides before they are approved for use.

“We assess a wide variety of potential human health and environmental effects associated with the use of the product. The company that wants to produce the pesticide must provide data from studies that comply with our testing guidelines. We develop risk assessments that evaluate the potential for harm to humans, wildlife, fish and plants, including endangered species and non-target organisms; and contamination of surface water and groundwater from leaching, runoff and spray drift,” the EPA states.

Since the EPA was established in 1970, some of the older pesticides that had more serious environmental impact have been banned, Dr. Savage said.

“With the investment of billions of dollars in new chemical discovery programs over the next several decades, the overall hazard levels of pesticides have dropped dramatically such that most now fall into the EPA’s categories ‘slightly toxic’ or ‘essentially non-toxic,’” he said. “This is because they are mostly now much more specific in that they typically affect enzyme pathways in the pests that do not even occur in animals. Quite a few live biological agents have also been developed with are also very pest-specific in their effects.”

The EPA regulations also include requirements for worker personal protective equipment and re-entry intervals, meaning how soon someone can return to the field after the application and pre-harvest intervals to ensure that those who work on farms as well as those who consume food are safe.

“Each year the U.S. Department of Agriculture evaluates around 10,000 samples from the food supply and consistently finds that residues found are below to well below the conservative tolerances.  Also, farmers and other pesticide applicators are required to take part in detailed and continuing safety training so that they know very well how to follow the regulations,” Dr. Savage said.

Farmers have an important role in making sure pesticides are used properly.

“Pesticides are most commonly used in ‘integrated pest management programs’ which also include genetic resistance, pest avoidance, fostering of beneficial organisms, crop rotations, plant biotechnology and other approaches. This diversity of strategies increases the resilience and efficacy of the pest control system,” Dr. Savage said.

“Many times, I hear or read that we ‘drench’ our crops with so much chemical and don’t care when or where we spray,” Burgess said. “That’s disheartening to hear. My husband and I are very responsible with what we do every day. Special nozzles that create uniformed droplet size combined with speed of tractor, and proper amounts of chemical make it minimal spray”

“Chemicals should be used only when needed and used sparingly. Using too much could cause harm to our soil health as well as run off could harm any wildlife in the area. Chemical are a great tool to help us, but they are expensive,” she said.

She said they use about 24 ounces of herbicide per acre, which is the equivalent of two cans of soda pop for an area about the size of a football field. The rest of the liquid being applied to the field is water.

Summary

Pesticides are used on farms to help grow food by protecting plants from things that would harm them. They help farmers to use land and water more efficiently and enable us to enjoy more variety of foods with better quality. Regulations are in place to make sure pesticides are used safely.

Other articles in this series:

Are Pesticides Safe for Food Consumption?

Are Pesticides Safe for the Environment?

What’s the Difference Between Pesticide Free and Organic?

The post Are Pesticides Needed to Grow Food? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

How do pesticides affect the environment where they are used? If they can harm things such as insects or weeds, could pesticides affect other things?

We asked a farmer for perspective and interviewed three university scientists to find out how pesticides impact the environment. Dr. William Vencill is a Professor of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia; Jeff Graybill is an Extension Educator in Agronomy, Penn State University; and Dr. Stephen Baenziger is a Professor of Plant Sciences, University of Nebraska. In addition, we talked to a farmer.

These experts emphasized that all pesticides sold in the United States are thoroughly tested to determine if they could cause harm.

“The compounds that become pesticides by law must be safe for the environment using rigorous tests and their review,” Dr. Baenzinger said. “If they were determined to be unsafe, they could not meet the regulatory requirements for their release. Also remember that after a pesticide is approved for release, it is still periodically reviewed to ensure no new information has been developed that may affect at how the compounds can be used.”

All systems of raising food cause some disruption to the natural environment, Dr. Vencill noted. In some cases, using pesticides is the best option.

“If we do not use herbicides, growers will use tillage for weed control that increases soil erosion, losing precious soil in the field, and also contaminating water supplies. Maximizing agricultural production so that each unit of land produces as much as possible allows society to set aside natural areas such as wildlife habitat,” he said.

Janna Splitter explained that protecting the soil is part of the reason why they use pesticides on their farm.

“My husband and I own and operate our fifth-generation family farm in central Kansas. Along with our two young daughters, we grow wheat, corn, soybeans and grain sorghum on drylands and irrigated acres,” she said. “We are a no-till farm. We choose the use of pesticides to control weeds and harmful insects vs conventional tillage (working the ground and turning the soil).”

Splitter said they take steps to use only the amount of pesticide that is needed.

“The ultimate goal each year is to raise the highest quality product in the most sustainable fashion. Having a safe and sustainable product requires intervention throughout the growing season. If there is a weed or a bug that would be detrimental to the quality of the crops we are raising, we have the obligation to control it,” she said. “It is common for us, when needed, to use an insecticide that would only target a specific insect rather than all insects. For instance, when trying to kill headworms in grain sorghum, you use a product that specifically kills headworms without damaging other beneficial insects such as ladybugs, bees, etc.”

We asked the experts for more detailed information about pesticides and the environment.

Are pesticides safe for the environment?

Vencill: “It depends on how one defines ‘safe.’ For 10,000 years, humans have been disrupting the environment to grow crops. Except for hunter-gatherers, most food production systems cause some harm to the environment. Nothing is risk free. What we must ask is, does this pesticide when used as labelled have the potential to harm ecological systems? Pesticides must undergo years of rigorous testing in a wide range of environments to show that these risks are minimal.”

Graybill: “All pesticides are thoroughly tested. It generally takes a new product 10 years or more before they are approved for market. During this time, they are tested for water quality, environmental safety and food safety.”

Baenziger: “The compounds that become pesticides by law must be safe for the environment using rigorous tests and their review. If they were determined to be unsafe, they could not meet the regulatory requirements for their release.  Also remember that after a pesticide is approved for release, it is still periodically reviewed to ensure no new information has been developed that may affect at how the compounds can be used.”

What safeguards are in place to ensure unsafe levels of pesticides are not degrading our air and water?

Vencill: “Any pesticide shown to have adverse environmental effects will be pulled from the market or its use will be severely restricted. I have seen the use of several products be severely restricted over the years for environmental reasons. Regulatory agencies use developing science to adjust pesticide labels to try to protect the environment. Product labels provide critical information about how to handle and safely use the pesticide product and avoid harm to human health and the environment. But, even when label requirements are closely followed, we can’t say there is zero risk for environmental harm. Nothing is risk free.

“However, not applying pesticides for pest control also has potential to harm the environment. If we do not use herbicides, growers will use tillage for weed control that increases soil erosion, losing precious soil in the field, and also contaminating water supplies. Maximizing agricultural production so that each unit of land produces as much as possible allows society to set aside natural areas such as wildlife habitat.”

Graybill: “All pesticides go under a review process every 10 or 15 years by the EPA. Companies are required to provide data about the use of the product. Residue levels must be checked and reported, new toxicology testing is done and any university and governmental reports of contamination must be studied and evaluated. Only then will a sales license be renewed. Most products also have a MCL (maximum contaminant level) at which they are safe to use. These are typically in parts per million (PPM). If residue is found in the environment or on the food item in excess of this limit, the EPA will take action to correct the problem or ban the chemical.”

What are some common misconceptions about how pesticides effect the environment?

Vencill: “Some people seem to feel that some pesticides are not regulated, and many do not know how tightly they are regulated. Another is that the mere presence of a compound equals harm.”

Graybill: “Pesticides are only one class of chemicals with potential toxicity. When misused they can potentially contaminate the environment and harm humans. This, however, is no different than any industrial product. Gasoline is highly explosive and can easily contaminate water supplies, etc.  Yet, would we consider not using it as an energy source? When used appropriately, agricultural chemicals have given us a safe, reliable food supply. The benefits far outweigh the risks.”

Baenziger: “Many people seem to think pesticides do not break down and are with us forever. There is also a misconception that pesticides are not well regulated. A prominent notion is that we know very little about how pesticides impact the environment, but there’s actually a great depth of knowledge.”

How are pesticides impacting pollinators like bees and butterflies?

Graybill: “Certain insecticides can harm insects such as bees and butterflies. The agricultural industry is aware of this and most insecticide labels have instructions on how to reduce and minimize the risk to these insects. Also, many of the more toxic compounds have now been banned and replaced by newer ones which are more targeted to specific pests.”

Some say widespread use of herbicides is resulting in weeds becoming resistant to pesticides. What’s your view of this issue?

Vencill: “It is true that herbicides select for weeds that have a resistance trait in a given field. Without herbicide use, no one would notice if these resistant weeds were present. A common misconception is that the herbicide causes a mutation leading to resistance.

“There was an interesting study in France a couple of years ago where they looked at dried samples of blackgrass (a serious weed in Europe) from the 1700s through the 1900s. They found herbicide-resistant blackgrass from 1875 – 100 years before this particular herbicide was commercialized! If growers use a diverse set of weed control tactics, then herbicide resistance can be delayed and managed. It is when growers rely on a single herbicide for weed control and use it year after year, we see more rapid herbicide resistance develop.”

Graybill: “As weeds grow and continually adapt to their environment, they will develop resistance to herbicide. It’s a natural process. This is to be expected and there are ways which farmers are working to minimize this. One practice is to no longer use just a single product, but partner two products together. Glyphosate (Roundup) is one herbicide for which some weeds have become resistant. This was due to it being over used. It was also often used as the only product. Today, when farmers are spraying herbicides they will use multiple products which slows or even prevents the development of resistant weeds.”

Baenziger: “This is a biological concern. All herbicide -resistance genes separate a resistant crop from a susceptible weed. Through mutations, weeds eventually become resistant to the herbicide (similar to the crop). That’s the way nature works. Weeds becoming resistant to a chemical is a very common process. But remember that you started with a susceptible weed, which became resistant to a herbicide, thus the pesticide is no longer useful to control that weed. Farmers were able to grow very good crops for the years the herbicide worked well. When the pesticide fails, you’re back to where you started in that the weed and the crop cannot be separated through the use of the herbicide (the herbicide has become ineffective to control that weed). However, before the weed became resistant, the producer had good choices on how to control weeds.”

Summary

Pesticides help farmers raise crops so that people have food to eat. Pesticides can have an impact on the environment and that is why they are closely tested and regulated. Guidelines help to make sure the products are used in the proper way so that they do not cause harm to the environment.

Other articles in this series:

Are Pesticides Needed to Grow Food?

Are Pesticides Safe for Food Consumption?

What’s the Difference Between Pesticide Free and Organic?

The post Are Pesticides Safe for the Environment? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

Is food that is grown using pesticides safe to eat?  We got in touch with three scientists to ask them about pesticides and food safety. Dr. William Vencill is a Professor of Crop and Soil Sciences, University of Georgia; Jeff Graybill is an Extension Educator in Agronomy, Penn State University; and Dr. Stephen Baenziger is a Professor of Plant Sciences, University of Nebraska.

The experts all pointed out that pesticides, because they do involve an amount of risk, are very closely regulated by government agencies to make sure food is safe.

“Since these chemicals are designed to kill a specific weed or pest, they must be respected, so when looking at human and animal health implications, regulatory agencies have very stringent standards,” Mr. Graybill noted. “Any pesticide that comes to market must be approved and certified by the EPA, USDA and FDA. Toxicology data is peer reviewed and is combed over very intensely. The government agencies then make a determination if there are any negative impacts and whether those negative impacts are outweighed by the good that the chemical will do.”

Pesticides have been used in some form for thousands of years, dating back to the ancient Romans. Synthetic compounds were developed in the 1940s. Over the course of time, these chemicals have undergone extensive testing. Some of those that were determined to be less safe have been removed from the market. Each year, the FDA tests many samples of food to determine if they have unsafe levels of pesticide present.

Even though the presence of a pesticide may be detected, that does not mean that it would have an effect on humans, Dr. Vencill said.

“A misconception is that pesticides at any level are bad for you,” he said. Sometimes, pesticides make a food safer by removing fungus that can be toxic to humans.

Check out these detailed answers from the experts to address questions about pesticides and food safety.

 Are pesticides safe for food consumption?

Vencill: “I would say that nothing is totally safe – there is a risk to whatever we do and this applies to pesticide residues in food. Pesticides are rigorously tested for short-term and long-term health impact by the EPA and other regulatory bodies around the world. They weigh the risks against the benefits of a pesticide in question. In this risk analysis, safety factors of 100 to 1,000-fold are built in to the levels of pesticide residues that could cause harm with a calculated exposure of 70 years.

“So, when a person sees a media report that some group has discovered the presence of a pesticide in a given food product, a couple of things need to be considered. Presence does not equal danger. Analytical chemists are now able to identify pesticide residues at levels far below any possible concentration that has been shown to cause harm.”

Graybill: The United States has an extensive regulatory system, and whether it’s household chemicals or agricultural herbicides and insecticides, all chemicals go through extensive toxicology testing to look at the benefits and the risks of the product. This is especially true of pesticides used on food crops.

“Since these chemicals are designed to kill a specific weed or pest, they must be respected, so when looking at human and animal health implications, regulatory agencies have very stringent standards. Any pesticide that comes to market must be approved and certified by the EPA, USDA and FDA. Toxicology data is peer reviewed and is combed over very intensely. The government agencies then make a determination if there are any negative impacts and whether those negative impacts are outweighed by the good that the chemical will do.”

Baenziger: “Clearly, some levels of pesticides would be toxic to humans, but at low levels they are safe to consume. Also, keep in mind that plants naturally produce many chemicals to protect themselves from the effects and damages caused by insects and pathogens. We have eaten these “natural” pesticides for millennia and foods containing these compounds. If the natural pesticides or the applied synthetic pesticides are known to be harmful to humans, they are monitored and checked before the food product can be sold.”

How long have pesticides been used by farmers … can you give us a brief history of pesticide usage?

 Vencill: “In some forms, pesticides have been used for thousands of years. The ancient Romans used table salt as a pesticide. In the 19th century, many farmers used inorganic salts such as copper and sulfur as pesticides for plant pathogen control. These materials are still used and can be used for certified organic foods.

“The use of synthetic compounds for pesticides really began in the 1940s. A number of halogenated chlorine insecticides such as DDT were used for insect control. Around this same time, 2,4-D, a different molecule, was introduced. It was the first compound that could kill weeds without harming crops (known as selective herbicides).”

In fact, 2,4-D is still used today because it continues to meet all safety standards that have been established by regulatory agencies. It has been studied extensively and approved by more than 90 counties.

“Throughout the 1960s, a number of herbicides that are still the standard of weed control in some systems were introduced (atrazine for weed control in corn, metolachlor in corn and soybean, the dinitroanilines in a number of crops). These materials were typically soil applied at 1-to-4 pounds of product per acre. In the early 1980s, we saw a revolution of sorts in the herbicide world as materials were introduced for weed control that could be applied at very low rates. Since the 1980s, most new herbicide introductions have been low-dose herbicides. The next revolution came in the mid-‘90s with the introduction of glyphosate-resistant, commonly called “Roundup Ready” crops due to the first product name for glyphosate. By the mid-2000s, greater than 90 percent of corn, soybean, and cotton were glyphosate-resistant.”

Graybill: “Modern agricultural chemicals began to be used in the mid to late 1960s. Many products have a long track record of safety, while the more toxic ones have been weeded out and replaced with new products which are less dangerous to humans and the environment.”

Baenziger: “Pesticides have a long history of use. Most people think of synthetic pesticides of the 1940s and thereafter. However, Bordeaux Mixture, a fungicide containing copper sulphate and lime, has been used on grapes for hundreds of years. Copper can be a detriment or pollutant to the environment.”

What are some common misconceptions about how pesticides effect food safety?

 Vencill: “One misconception is that we can have a food supply with zero risk of harm. There are natural pesticides in plant products that are present, but usually cause minimal risk. Since they are natural, most people do not think about them. A corollary to this is that the presence of a compound equals danger. If a pesticide is found, at what level to approved residue levels were present?

“Another misconception is that some pesticides are not regulated. All pesticides used in the U.S. are regulated. Finally, there is a misconception that organically certified products do not have pesticide residues. They do; they are just from a different list.”

Graybill: “Many people don’t realize that pesticides can actually increase the quality of foods. This is because they will control the diseases and insects which can destroy a crop or cause it to become rotten. When crops have less disease and insect damage they can be stored longer and shipped longer distances, giving us a great variety of food products to choose from.”

Baenziger: “Some believe if a pesticide is toxic to an insect, weed or disease, it must also be toxic to humanity. Some pesticides affect one or a few organisms, but not humans. Another misconception is that pesticides at any level are bad for you and that the effect of pesticides on human health are greater than would be the effects of the insects or fungus they are meant to control. For example, some plant fungal pathogens produce very high levels of toxins if they are not controlled. Fungicides actually control some fungi and prevent them from making very severe health-affecting chemical products such as mycotoxins. The presence of mycotoxins is strictly monitored and must be lower than a well-defined level for the crop to be sold legally or ethically into the food system.”

What safeguards are in place to ensure people are not consuming unsafe levels of pesticides?

 Vencill: “All pesticides are rigorously evaluated for their potential impact on human health. Any compound that shows a potential for harm is pulled from development and commercialization is stopped. Regulatory agencies determine the safe levels of residues in all food products. These residue levels have 100 and 1,000-fold safety factors built-in. Furthermore, the FDA regularly conducts market surveys of food products where they purchase food products from a grocery store and analyze for a wide range of pesticide residues. These market basket surveys do show some food products that contain pesticide residues, but they are usually below any residue limit which could cause harm to people.”

Graybill: “All pesticides used in farming have strict labels with instructions on their use. The label is actually the law. It’s a legal document which, if violated, the farmer can incur a fine or other punishment. Also, farmers must have training and a pesticide license in order to apply pesticides. This shows that they are knowledgeable about the risks and benefits of pesticides and how to use them safely for their own farm family and for their customers.”

Baenziger: “Imported foods and domestic food markets are heavily monitored to ensure everyone has a safe food supply.”

What’s your advice to people who would rather not purchase food from producers who use pesticides?

 Vencill: “One beauty of our free-market system is that foods that claim to be pesticide free are available to those who can afford them. However, I feel it is unjust to try to impose that view on others in the U.S. and worldwide because of the potential to deprive people of access to what I think is the healthiest and safest food supply in the history of humanity.

“A diet with a variety of fruits and vegetables is considered the healthiest. Many people cannot afford to buy organic produce and to spread opinion that consuming traditional food products is not safe because of pesticides is troublesome. It can cause those without the means to purchase other processed food products that are probably less healthy. For developing countries, limiting the food supply because of narrow choices can lead to starvation.”

Graybill: “You can purchase USDA certified organic if you have specific concerns. These products are monitored to ensure that they were grown without synthetic pesticides. Many will, however, have been sprayed with ‘organically certified natural pesticides’.”

Baenziger: “People are free to buy regulated organic food products, but that is a choice. A perceived need to purchase organic food for food safety reasons is not based on science.”

Summary

Pesticides used on crops are closely regulated in the United States to make sure the food supply is safe. Samples are routinely tested to make sure no chemicals are present at unsafe levels on the food we eat. Food that is certified organic is raised without synthetic pesticides, but may be raised with organically certified pesticides.

 Other articles in this series:

Are Pesticides Needed to Grow Food?

Are Pesticides Safe for the Environment?

What’s the Difference Between Pesticide Free and Organic?

The post Are Pesticides Safe for Food Consumption? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

In a news release, the AAP notes that the U.S. allows the use of more than 10,000 additives to preserve, package, or modify the taste, appearance, texture, or nutrients in foods. Many were grandfathered in for approval during the 1950s, and around 1,000 additives are used under a GRAS designation process that doesn’t require U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

We went to a pair of our experts to learn more about the GRAS designation and how food additives are regulated. Dr. Carl Winter is a specialist in Cooperative Extension in Food Science and Technology at the University of California at Davis. Dr. James Hollis is an associate professor in the Department of Food Science and Nutrition at Iowa State University.

Can you give us a general explanation of how the GRAS designation works? Is the process viable?

Dr. Winter: This GRAS classification basically grandfathers in historically-used food additives as approved food additives without the need for additional toxicological testing. It is a controversial classification but one that has nevertheless streamlined the regulation of food additives in the U.S.  In cases where additional toxicological information suggests an additive does not meet the GRAS criteria, the FDA is allowed to remove the GRAS classification. The burden for doing toxicological testing rests with others outside of the food additive manufacturer, however.

 Dr. Hollis: Under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic act, any food that is intentionally added to a food is viewed as a food additive. Food additives are required to undergo review and approval by the FDA before it is marketed. However, if a food additive can be shown to be safe under the conditions of intended use, to the satisfaction of a panel of experts, it is deemed generally recognized as safe (GRAS).   

The AAP says the additives of most concern are bisphenols, phthalates, perfluoroalkyl chemicals, perchlorates, artificial food colors, and nitrates and nitrites. What’s the concern here?

Dr. Winter: As is the case with all chemicals in food, the key component is how much are consumers exposed and whether this level of exposure provides a sufficient buffer of safety. All of the above chemicals listed above obey the basic principle of toxicology, meaning that all can display toxicological effects at a high enough dose. This, by itself, is not justification for consumers to avoid foods containing such chemicals.

Dr. Hollis: While all chemicals are potentially toxic, it all depends on the dose. The level of exposure to food additives under normal use is highly unlikely to reach levels where toxicological effects appear. However, data exist that link several food additives with increased risk of chronic disease. For instance, nitrites and nitrates are food additives used to prevent the growth of pathogenic bacteria in processed meats. Studies have shown a modest association between dietary nitrite/nitrate and certain cancers. Other studies report that dietary nitrate is associated with reducing blood pressure and may reduce risk of cardiovascular disease. It is important to note that these studies only show an “association” between dietary nitrate/nitrite with these diseases and do not demonstrate that they are the causal factor in this relationship. At present, the data is imperfect, inconclusive and it is not possible to draw strong conclusions.

What’s your advice to parents who read about this policy statement? Are there steps they can take to play it safe?

Dr. Winter: The best thing parents can do is to make sure their children consume a healthy and balanced diet full of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. The theoretical risks posed by GRAS food additives pale in comparison to the health benefits of eating a good diet. There are mechanisms in place to revoke GRAS status if sufficient evidence warrants such an action.

Dr. Hollis: Consuming a diet that meets dietary guidelines and includes a variety of fruits, vegetables and whole grains is key to good health. There are still some unanswered questions in this area but I don’t think parents should be unduly alarmed.

Food additives are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration. Typical levels of exposure are not likely to affect health. For children, eating a balanced diet with lots of fruit, vegetables and whole grains is the best way to be healthy.

The post Pediatrics Group Calls for Change in Food Additive Regulation appeared first on Best Food Facts.

The Environmental Working Group released its annual report of what it calls the Dirty Dozen this week. The list ranks fruits and vegetables by the amount of pesticide residue detected. Pesticide on food? It sounds like something to worry about, but experts advise looking at the facts, such as the very small amount of pesticide found.

“Foods on the Dirty Dozen list pose no risks to consumers due to the extremely low levels of pesticides actually detected on those foods,” said Dr. Carl Winter, a Best Food Facts expert who was quoted in the Washington Post.

EWG advises consumers to only buy organic types of produces that it lists on the Dirty Dozen. Their advice, however, has had serious unintended consequences. A study by the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago found that confusion about the list has caused shoppers to buy less of all types of fruits and vegetables.

One possible reason is because organic produce often costs more. As Dr. Ruth MacDonald has shared with Best Food Facts, “There is a widely held thought that conventionally-grown fruits and vegetables are loaded with pesticide and herbicide (chemical) residue. This is simply not supported by facts. The FDA and USDA routinely monitor the food supply for chemical residues and post results on their websites.”

Best Food Facts dietitians agree wholeheartedly with this from EWG: “Eating plenty of fruits and vegetables is essential no matter how they’re grown.” The advice from dietitians is to wash all fruits and veggies under running tap water, then eat up – two to three cups of each per day.

Originally published March 10, 2017

_{“Harvest time: local farmers sell organic produce at the Ann Arbor Farmer’s Market” by University of Michigan School of Natural Resources & Environment is licensed under CC BY.}

The post Should I Be Worried About the Dirty Dozen? appeared first on Best Food Facts.

We received a question from Rob: “Just saw a report on glyphosate contamination in popular foods. Results were expressed in ppb versus ppm. Should consumers be concerned with this report?”

The report found that foods such as Cheerios, Goldfish Crackers, Oreos and Doritos contain residues of the chemical glyphosate. Also known by the name Roundup, glyphosate is used to kill weeds in crops. Wayne Parrott, PhD, and William Vencill, PhD, professors in the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences College of Agricultural & Environmental Sciences at the University of Georgia, provided some insight.

One of the things we wanted to know was how glyphosate could get into these foods. Dr. Parrott explained that the chemical has been used in agriculture since the 1970s.

“They are giving the impression that foods are contaminated with glyphosate, and if the glyphosate was not there, the foods would be otherwise pure, which is false. They found glyphosate in foods because they looked for it. Had they looked for other herbicides used in agriculture, they would probably have found them too,” he said.

Now to the first part Rob’s question. The report stated that Cheerios contained 1,125.3 ppb (or parts per billion) of the chemical. What’s the difference between ppb and ppm?

Dr. Vencill and Dr. Parrott: “Residues in foods are normally measured in ppm (parts per million) with 1 ppm being equivalent to about 7,500 people out of all the people on earth. A ppb is a part per billion, which is a really small unit of measurement, equal to 7 or 8 people out of everyone on the planet.”

The thing Rob and all of us really want to know is if this level of contamination is something to cause concern. The experts said these levels are “way too low” to worry about. The EPA conducts extensive safety tests, which are used to set the maximum level of chemical residues that food can contain and still be safe.

“On top of that, the EPA sets a safety margin by setting allowable residues at 100 to 1,000 times lower than the level that is considered hazardous,” he said. View the EPA safety levels for glyphosate. All of the foods that were tested showed to be below the EPA safe levels.

We also asked why glyphosate herbicide is used so much in growing crops.

Dr. Vencill and Dr. Parrott: “Glyphosate continues to be widely used because few, if any other herbicides, are as safe, effective, and economical.  By safe, I mean safer than table salt.”

Glyphosate shows up in many foods because it is used by farmers to raise food. The amount detected in foods is very small and well within the range determined to be safe by government agencies.

Originally published Dec. 9, 2016.

The post Glyphosate in Food appeared first on Best Food Facts.

The second article discusses the potential lack of effectiveness of those processing aids and how the test results obtained by both the USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) and the industry may be artificially low and are not indicative of what is really on the birds.

We went to Dr. John Marcy, professor and poultry processing specialist at the University of Arkansas, to find out more about this issue.

What about the contention that these chemicals are being used so that plant line speeds can increase?

Dr. Marcy:

The use of these “chemicals,” which are actually antimicrobial interventions or processing aids, has nothing to do with the line speeds. In my time working in or with the poultry industry (since 1975), processing aids have always been a valuable tool for meat processors to clean the birds as they move through the plant as well as keep equipment sanitized so that consumers have the safest food. The use of chlorinated water and other interventions in meat processing actually predates my time in industry. The majority of chemical use, separate from the sanitation function, is part of a multiple-hurdle approach at pathogen reduction as expected by the Salmonella and Campylobacter Performance Standards issued by USDA.

Why are chemicals used in poultry production?

Dr. Marcy:

Put simply, raw food products, including meat and poultry, are not sterile. In an effort to make them and the environment in which they are processed as safe as possible, the industry uses these processing aids to help prevent food borne illnesses.

Both articles discuss concerns around the safety and effectiveness of these chemical interventions. What does a manufacturer have to do to get approval of their product? 

Dr. Marcy:

All antimicrobial interventions are evaluated by the federal government for safety and effectiveness. This approval process includes not only interventions that reduce pathogens on poultry products, but also for equipment lubricants, antifoaming agents, and other substances that work to keep facilities clean. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates all chemicals approved for use in all food plants. The USDA FSIS evaluates all processing aids used in meat and poultry plants for their purpose and effectiveness, and to establish limits on their use to ensure the meat is fit for consumption. A complete listing of these aids, their use and limits, is contained in a single document here: USDA FSIS Directive 7120.1.

The first Washington Post article discusses the use of peracetic acid as being the cause of health issues experienced by some poultry plant employees and government inspectors. What is it?

Dr. Marcy:

Peracetic acid is a combination of hydrogen peroxide (the same kind you may have in your bathroom closet) and acetic acid. Acetic acid is the acid found in household vinegar. Both the hydrogen peroxide and acetic acid are diluted with water before being used in the plant as an antibacterial treatment. The outcome is that disease-causing bacteria, such as Salmonella, on the surface of the meat and poultry are reduced.

The allowable concentration levels set by FDA and USDA are measured in parts per million. To put one part per million into perspective, it is equivalent to one drop in two full bathtubs of water, or one minute in almost two years.

The second Washington Post article discusses the use of cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC). CPC is an antiseptic that kills bacteria and other microorganisms. It is commonly found in toothpaste, mouthwash and nasal sprays (check the label!).

Are there residues of antimicrobials on the chicken I buy in the supermarket?

Dr. Marcy:

These antimicrobials are diluted significantly when used and break down in water to non-harmful substances. To be considered a processing aid, USDA states that antimicrobials must have no technical effects after they are used, and manufacturers must provide significant data to USDA to demonstrate that is the case. As a result, the use of these processing aids create no food safety concerns; rather, they increase the food safety profile of the product.

Is it safe for workers to come in contact with these chemicals?

Dr. Marcy:

Though these chemicals are approved for use and are used in very low, allowable concentrations, the poultry industry takes very seriously the health and safety of their workforce and all others in a processing facility. There are a number of steps and precautions the industry has in place in order to minimize any exposure to them:

• When diluted antimicrobials are applied to carcasses, they are done so in controlled areas (inside of closed equipment or inside the chiller) to minimize any potential exposure to employees
• In order to ensure proper ventilation, poultry processing plants follow strict guidelines for airflow set by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Engineering controls, such as ventilation, are acceptable means to control employee exposure to hazards;
• Workers and companies must comply with OSHA standards, wear personal protective equipment and complete required training programs;
• The mixing of water and antimicrobials is a highly automated process. This ensures that workers rarely come into contact with any undiluted agents.
• Concentrations of all antimicrobials used in poultry processing are constantly monitored – not only in the diluted form – but also in the air. The monitoring tools can detect molecules in the air to determine if there is a need to change the process.

The Washington Post article mentions new regulations that are about to take effect. What does this involve?

Dr. Marcy:

USDA published the proposed rule in January 2012 and, from my perspective, there has been a lot of misinformation about what the rule would mean for the industry and for consumers. In a nutshell, traditional inspection involves USDA inspectors evaluating each bird for quality issues such as a broken bone or a bruise (neither of which poses a food safety concern), while also evaluating each bird for food safety parameters. Under the new modernized inspection system, USDA would continue to evaluate each bird for food safety parameters but would also have more time to do food safety evaluations and provide oversight to the entire process, not just at one stop in the plant. Employees would be trained to evaluate the birds for quality issues thereby allowing USDA to focus on their true mission of protecting public health.

Whether chicken plants operate under traditional inspection or choose to opt in to this voluntary, modernized inspection system, rigorous food safety standards are applied to all chicken products and these products must meet or exceed these safety standards set forth by USDA in order to reach consumers.

The second Washington Post article discusses concerns around the effectiveness of interventions at reducing foodborne bacteria.  Are these chemicals actually working?

Dr. Marcy:

Yes, they are working. Manufacturers of these products do extensive research and must document their safety and effectiveness before any product is approved for use by FDA and USDA. Both federal agencies must review all effectiveness and safety data prior to approving the product. Additionally, evaluation of these interventions is frequently repeated by others in the industry. With the help of effective processing aids and new technologies, the chicken industry has successfully reduced the prevalence of both Salmonella and Campylobacter in all raw chicken products.

The second Washington Post article discusses the need for a neutralizing agent.  What is that?

A neutralizing agent is a buffered solution that makes the solution neutral in pH – not acidic or basic. The thought is that a neutral solution would prevent further activity of the intervention on the bacteria, if present, in the rinsate (the solution left after rinsing).

_{“20130712-AMS-LSC-0628.jph” by USDA is licensed under CC BY.}

The post Why are Chemicals Used in Poultry Processing? appeared first on Best Food Facts.