
More Than 90% of Americans Have Pesticides or Their Byproducts in Their Bodies - howard941
https://www.thenation.com/article/pesticides-farmworkers-agriculture/
======
korethr
Okay, this Environmental Working Group found traces of pesticides on produce.
That's not terribly unexpected, given how most produce is, well, produced.
What this article annoyingly neglects to mention, is the _numbers_ attached to
those traces of pesticides. Where there large amounts of trace chemicals, such
that the levels exceed the EPA's recommended safe exposure levels? Were they
so high that dangerous levels of bio-accumulation were likely? Absent numbers,
it's difficult to tell if the people mentioned in the article are justified in
feeling very worried, if it's a bunch of hand-wringing about nothing of
significance, or somewhere between.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- _nobody_ actually has any idea
what's definitely safe.

Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it can't
be wrong?

Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure
level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe after
all?

Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and
cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can even decide
yet if coffee is good for me?

~~~
korethr
> Well, so here's the other side of the coin-- nobody actually has any idea
> what's definitely safe.

I'm going to disagree with that. I think there is a great deal of information
available on what is and is not safe, available to those who will look. I
think it is a gross overstatement that _nobody_ has any idea what's definitely
safe. Is that data perfect? No. But the data I'm able to find seems to have
been workable so far.

> Do you trust that because the EPA has put a number on a chemical that it
> can't be wrong?

> Why don't you guess what percent of the time when the EPA calls an exposure
> level safe does it go back and change its mind and decide it wasn't safe
> after all?

Nope, I don't blindly trust the EPA, they've been wrong in the past, and
they're going to be discovered to have been wrong here in the future, because
like you and I, they are fallible humans, and sometimes shit slips through.
However, I am willing to look at the data available and evaluate for myself
whether the declaration of safe or not (and to what degree) is correct, and
what to do about it.

> Also, why are you confident the EPA knows all the long-term biological and
> cross-generational effects of all these chemicals when nobody can decided
> yet if coffee is good for me?

I'm not necessarily, and I think you misrepresent my point above to insinuate
that I do. My protest with the original article is that it is thin on data.
That someone is worried about pesticide residues on food is not immediately
actionable data for me absent other data which the article lacks. Absent said
data, I'm going to stick to my currently successful MO of washing my produce
before use, and not worrying about it until given a convincing reason to do
so.

~~~
alexandercrohde
>> I think there is a great deal of information available on what is and is
not safe

It's not like the EPA does no testing, but what about the unknowns? For
example, men's sperm counts have gone down 50% over the last 30 years and
scientists have no solid explanation (despite >1000 journal articles on the
topic).

Are you confident that pesticides play no role in this? Or autism? Or immune
disorders?

The EPA doesn't even _try_ do testing on long-term exposure to a low-dose of
substances, which is exactly what is described in the article.

Calling the EPA "fallible humans" is laughable. The question is - is the EPA
process systematically too trusting of new chemicals? I have my answer.

I recommend you start your education on this topic with "The precautionary
principle."
[http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E8...](http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/91173/E83079.pdf)

~~~
bigmit37
This was an enlightening article about how the standards set by the EPA don’t
seem to be safe standard according to Harvard scientists:
[https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-
safe-2621578...](https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-
safe-2621578745.html)

It seems there are different classes of pesticides: some really unsafe
pesticides that should be banned but aren’t.

What can we possibly do in this case? Grow our own food?

------
cesnja
The article doesn't mention meat and dairy as a source of surprisingly high
levels pesticides and their byproducts.

[1] [https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-
meat...](https://medium.com/center-for-biological-diversity/does-meat-contain-
pesticides-c587f6b252e7)

~~~
gabbygab
What does that matter? If we get it from directly from plants we eat or
indirectly through meat, you are still getting pesticides.

~~~
jdietrich
_> What does that matter?_

It's actionable information. If you're worried about ingesting pesticides, you
might believe that eating fewer vegetables and more meat would be a safer
option. The simple fact of bioaccumulation means that this would be the wrong
approach.

------
geddy
Watched a great documentary on Netflix called `Stink!` that was about all the
crap found in all sorts of products under the hidden phrase "fragrance" (or in
some cases, "parfum"). All sorts of chemicals you've never heard of to make
those garbage bags smell like apple orchards.

Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that
everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it.

~~~
rubicon33
Curious about this part:

> Very informative and, if you're like me and are constantly panicked that
> everything's trying to kill you, I recommend it.

So are you saying this will help me STOP worrying that everything is trying to
kill me? I'm kinda to the point where I feel like if you aren't eating organic
broccoli for breakfast lunch and dinner, than you're killing yourself. So I'm
not sure I need any MORE information to enforce that.

~~~
driverdan
I hate to be the one to inform you but organic broccoli isn't any healthier
than conventional broccoli.

~~~
rubicon33
And I hate to be the one to inform you, that I tend not to take random
internet comments to heart. But if you're saying that eating organic food in
general has no health benefits vs. conventional food, I'd love to read
whatever source you've derived that from. I always keep an open mind.

~~~
driverdan
There have been many studies on the topic. The occasional differences are
statistically significant but not significant enough to impact health. Here
are a few reviews:

[https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxto...](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/92/1/203/4597310?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=organic&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT)

> Conclusion: From a systematic review of the currently available published
> literature, evidence is lacking for nutrition-related health effects that
> result from the consumption of organically produced foodstuffs.

[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19640946)

> CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a systematic review of studies of satisfactory
> quality, there is no evidence of a difference in nutrient quality between
> organically and conventionally produced foodstuffs. The small differences in
> nutrient content detected are biologically plausible and mostly relate to
> differences in production methods.

[https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-
food...](https://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1355685/organic-foods-safer-
healthier-than-conventional-alternatives-systematic-review)

> Conclusion: The published literature lacks strong evidence that organic
> foods are significantly more nutritious than conventional foods. Consumption
> of organic foods may reduce exposure to pesticide residues and antibiotic-
> resistant bacteria.

Discussion of those papers: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-
benefits-from-org...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/no-health-benefits-
from-organic-food/)

Discussion of meat and milk: [https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-
conventional-mea...](https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/organic-vs-conventional-
meat-and-milk/)

~~~
mirimir
There's ~no correlation between nutrient content and levels of toxic
contaminants. If one added a lethal dose of botulism toxin to some food, it
wouldn't change the nutrient content. But it would still kill you.

------
devmunchies
Is it possible to grow enough food in your backyard to live off of (plus
chickens as a yard waste disposal) if you also work full time? I can't even
eat at a restaurant without knowing if they use organic produce.

~~~
Deestan
Organic produce uses tons of pesticides some of which are really nasty (but
hey it's "natural" copper sulfate), so that's not a solution to anything.

~~~
devmunchies
i thought organic by definition meant that it didn't use pesticides.

~~~
mamon
The term "organic" only means something in Europe, because EU has much
stricter rules regarding food quality and safety. In US it basically is just a
marketing term meaning "overpriced food for hipsters".

~~~
cies
Really? We get a lot of "EU-ORG" (the leaf of stars logo) stuff that is also
"USDA Organic" labelled. I wonder how many of those products do not have the
EU-ORG label in the US.

> EU has much stricter rules regarding food quality

And within the EU the standards are also widely different, especially in the
non-EU-ORG stuff.

------
noobermin
If the US government is willing to directly subsidize corporate farms with
corn subsidies, the least they can do is regulate them.

~~~
maxxxxx
totally agree. If subsidies are given then the it should be possible to tell
farms to go organic or whatever.

------
sbzodnsbd
Only 90?? What does the other 10 do to avoid pesticides????

~~~
jacquesc
Maybe 1/10 Americans only eat meat and over processed grains. They have
different problems.

~~~
bilbo0s
Meat and grain also have the pesticides in them though.

------
pepijndevos
I wonder if organic food is any better. I recall reading they use _much more_
"natural" pesticides on organic produce. Is growing your own stuff in a
backyard I don't have really the only way to avoid pesticides?

~~~
ip26
Most of what I've seen has shown that it is indeed better, although not
perfect. E.g. glyphosate is detectable in organic wine, but at much lower
levels (5x?) compared to regular wine.

~~~
hammock
Glyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point.

Whether total pesticide load (however you want to measure that) is higher or
lower for organic vs conventional, varies widely with crop, location and
farming method.

There are toxic organic pesticides like copper-based compounds that persist in
the soil. And things like strawberry fields are fumigated with methyl bromide
regardless of organic or conventional.

There is not perfect data on the harmfulness of many synthetic pesticides, so
it's really hard to make a great judgment on whether it's worse or better for
you - unless you have general faith that petroleum derived mystery cocktails
are pretty much always going to be harmful.

It's all bad when it comes down to it, we should prefer something like
permaculture.

~~~
Tobani
> Glyphosate is not approved for organic use so that's an irrelevant point.

Actually it is a pretty interesting point.

~~~
likpok
Saying "there's less glyphosate therefore less pesticide" is poor reasoning,
because glyphosate is replaced with other, generally more toxic, pesticides in
organic crops.

It's interesting that organic crops have glyphosate despite it being banned
for use with them, but that's a separate discussion.

~~~
thatcat
No it isn't. Glyophosate is broadspectrum herbicide for use with gmo
glyophosate resistant crops only, there is no organic analogue to this. Also
consider that the concentration used is much higher for glyophosate
application and the reduced ability for it to be filtered from ground water
creates additional externalities.

~~~
likpok
There is indeed no organic analog for glyphosate. But there are other
pesticides that are routinely applied to organic crops, such as copper
sulfate, pyrethrin or rotenone. Both copper sulfate and rotenone are
moderately toxic to people, and rotenone is highly toxic to fish.

~~~
thatcat
Rotenone (which has it's usage restricted in omri) and pyrethrin are
pesticides, copper sulfate is anti fungal; these non synthetic moderately
toxic treatments are replaced with other, generally more toxic treatments in
non-organic crops.

------
mirimir
Human milk could not be sold commercially, because levels of many contaminants
exceed legal limits. And ironically, indigenous peoples in the far north have
among the highest levels. Because they live in a global cold trap.

------
Illniyar
Is this supposed to be novel in some way that I'm missing? Of course you have
chemicals in your body which are heavily sprayed on your food.

~~~
standardUser
I just see it as a reminder that our food production system is set up in such
a way that it is almost impossible not to regularly consume poison. Similar to
the occasional article that reminds us, yes, the animals we eat were
unnecessarily tortured before they made it to our plate.

------
maerF0x0
At this point it becomes difficult to find a proper control group for testing
the absence of these items.

------
throw16383
I'm a farmer from the UK and have an agronomist who advises us on pesticide
applications.

He visited the USA and said, when he stepped into their spray sheds, it was
like going back in time 40 years: all kinds of chemicals that have been banned
in the UK were still allowed in the USA (organophosphates etc).

Of course if the article doesn't state the amount of pesticides found, it
doesn't tell you anything really, but I wouldn't trust American food standards
based on my anecdotal experience, flawed may it be.

------
perl4ever
Assuming pesticides are widespread and pervasive, it seems rather improbable
to suggest that up to 10% of Americans _don 't_ have trace amounts of
pesticides. Is there anyone who doesn't have, for instance, uranium, in their
bodies?

------
Grue3
I'll go you one better, 100% of Americans have _chemicals_ in their bodies,
such as _dihydrogen monoxide_ which causes certain death if inhaled in
sufficient quantities.

------
shdh
Plastics and pesticides

~~~
devmunchies
both of which should be illegal. (at least banning plastics for single-use
items)

------
tzs
One problem is that we usually take the easy approach to designing pesticides.
They tend to be poisonous to a wide variety of animals, instead of just to the
specific pests we are actually trying to kill.

Then we have to come up with some way to try to keep things other than the
pests from getting exposed. Maybe we try to make it break down into something
safe before it gets farther up the food chain. Maybe we make it so it washes
off easily so cleaning the food is good enough (and hopefully we do something
sensible with the runoff from that washing...).

There's another way, but it takes a lot more work and so it isn't done much.
This is to study each specific insect you want to control, to develop a deep
understanding of its life cycle. You identify the hormones that are involved
in regulating and timing the life cycle.

You then make your pesticide based on those hormones, so that when exposed to
it the insect's life cycle gets messed up. For example, suppose you've got an
insect that mates and lays eggs during the warmer part of summer, and you find
that the eggs need that heat to develop and hatch. Identify the hormones that
regulate that, and you might be able to make a pesticide that causes that
insect to lay its eggs too early, and the next generation dies out.

The beauty of this approach is that since the hormone your pesticide is based
on already occurs naturally in your target insects, whatever is above them in
the food chain has already evolved to not be bothered by it. All you are doing
is messing with the timing of it in the insect, not its existence. So that
hormone based pesticides are inherently much much safer than the general
poison based pesticides.

But as I said, this is more expensive. Each species is probably going to
require a pesticide specifically for it. This would probably take several PhD
entomologists per species working for years.

If you do study a given insect and its life cycle to that extent, you also
might be able to learn to control it without pesticides, especially in the
case of invasive insects.

For example, lets say you've got an invasive moth that is attacking your crops
and devastating them. In its native habitat, that moth's population is kept in
check by parasitic wasps that lay their eggs in the moth's larvae. You might
be able to deal with the invasive moths by importing those wasps. But you only
would want to try that if you knew enough about the wasps to know that they
would not become a problem too. If you know that the wasps only lay eggs on
the larvae of that one moth species, great...bring a ton of the wasps, they'll
wipe out the moths, and then the wasps won't have any place for their eggs and
they die too.

Something like this was actually tried once, with an invasion of some Florida
pest attacking California citrus groves. They brought in the wasps (or
whatever--I don't actually remember if it was wasps, or something else)...and
the wasps all died without harming the moths.

Later, they figured out that what they had thought was one species of
parasitic wasps was really two very similar species, and only one of those two
would control the particular pest they were trying to eliminate. There were
only something like two parasitic wasp experts in the whole US at the time,
and there are an unbelievable number of different parasitic wasp species so
most of them have never been studied extensively.

------
modzu
aka, food. do you eat it?

