Alliance for Food and Farming | Food Safety News

Triple play: AFF says rest easy, eat your fruits and vegetables

Alliance for Food and Farming — Tue, 10 Apr 2018 04:35:59 +0000

Editor’s note: This opinion contribution by the Alliance for Food and Farming is part of a three-piece presentation today by Food Safety News. To read views on the same topic from the Environmental Working Group and an independent nutritionist, please refer to the links at the bottom of this column.

Today the Environmental Working Group (EWG) released their so-called “dirty dozen” list. Before covering or using this “list,” we ask reporters, bloggers and consumers to consider a dozen facts about the “dirty dozen” list and produce safety:

A fact of primary importance: A farmer’s first consumer is his/her own family so food safety is always the priority.

‘Dirty Dozen’ recommendations unsupportable

A peer reviewed study found that EWG’s suggested substitution of organic forms of produce for conventional forms did not result in any decrease in risk because residues on conventional produce are so minute, if present at all.
EWG’s list may be negatively impacting produce consumption, according to peer reviewed studies. Researchers at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s (IIT) Center for Nutrition Research found that EWG’s “dirty dozen” list messaging results in low income shoppers reporting that they would be less likely to purchase any fruits and vegetables – organic or conventional.
USDA’s Report Says the Exact Opposite of EWG Claims. The actual findings of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Pesticide Data Program Report (which EWG says they use to generate their list), shows that 99% of residues found on fruits and vegetables, if present at all, are well below stringent safety levels set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Federal Food and Drug Administration sampling shows that 50 percent of those foods had no detectable residues at all.
USDA further states: “Pesticide residues pose no risk of concern for infants and children. The results provide consumers confidence that the produce they buy for their families are safe and wholesome.”

Experts agree we should eat more fresh produce every day

According to the Centers for Disease Control, only one in 10 Americans eat enough fruits and veggies each day. Health experts encourage consumers to eat whatever type of produce they prefer, is affordable and accessible. Just eat more.
Decades of nutritional studies confirm that increasing consumption of conventional and organic produce improves health and prevent diseases. Not only are conventionally and organically grown fruits and vegetables safe and nutritious, Americans should be consuming more of both to reduce their risk of cancer, heart disease, diabetes and obesity.
Health experts agree that consumption of fruits and veggies is especially important for pregnant women and those wishing to become pregnant. A 2018 study in human reproduction found females under 35 undergoing in vitro fertilization had a 65 percent to 68 percent increased chance of success with a stronger adherence to the Mediterranean diet style, which includes eating lots of fruits and veggies.
If just half of all Americans increased their consumption of a fruit or vegetable by a single serving each day, 20,000 cancer cases could be prevented every year, according to peer reviewed research.

Final considerations

A University of California toxicology analysis found that a child could eat hundreds to thousands of servings of a fruit or vegetable in a day and still not have any effects from pesticide residues. This shows how minute residues are, if present at all.
According to the FDA, washing produce under running tap water can reduce and often eliminate pesticide residues, if they are present at all.
Scientists and health experts have urged consumers not to rely on this type of list to make produce shopping choices since these lists are not science based and often provide contrasting recommendations.

There are numerous health initiatives targeted toward increasing consumption of healthy and safe fruits and veggies to prevent diseases and promote longevity. EWG is a multi-million dollar organization which enables them to use celebrities, celebrity chefs and politicians among their many spokespersons. Imagine what EWG could do if they joined these efforts to improve diets and put their considerable resources toward consistently promoting produce consumption, instead of a list with unsupportable recommendations which may be negatively impacting consumption.

Read, learn, choose but eat more organic and conventional fruits and veggies every day for better health and a longer life.

Please also see: Triple play: EWG posts ‘Dirty Dozen’ list of fresh produce items

Please also see: Triple play: ‘Pro-choice nutritionist’ calls out produce guides

(To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

Fear-based safety messages may be hurting poorest consumers

Alliance for Food and Farming — Sat, 01 Oct 2016 05:00:59 +0000

New peer reviewed research published in Nutrition Today shows fear-based messaging tactics used by activist groups and some organic marketers that invoke safety concerns about non-organic produce may be having a negative impact on consumption of fruits and veggies among low-income consumers. Researchers at the Illinois Institute of Technology’s (IIT) Center for Nutrition Research surveyed low-income consumers to learn more about what terms and information about fruits and vegetables may influence their shopping intentions. Among the key findings, misleading messaging which inaccurately describes certain fruits and vegetables as having “higher” pesticide residues results in low income shoppers reporting that they would be unlikely to purchase any fruits and vegetables — organically or non-organically grown. “We were surprised to see how informational content that named specific fruits and vegetables as having the highest pesticide residues increased the percentage of shoppers who said they would be unlikely to purchase any type of fruits and vegetables,” says Britt Burton-Freeman, associate professor of food science and nutrition at ITT’s Center for Nutrition Research. “The concern is that depending on the structure of the communication about pesticides and fruits and vegetables this could turn people away from wanting to purchase any fresh produce.” “Despite efforts by the health community, consumption of fruits and vegetables is stagnating,” says Elizabeth Pivonka, president of the Produce for Better Health Foundation. “This new study shows what we have been concerned about for some time, that safety fears may be another barrier to consumption of these healthy and nutritious foods. The impact of the fear-based messaging on low-income consumers is especially troubling since many don’t have access or can’t afford non-organic produce.” The findings are also concerning since the safety claims carried predominantly by groups like the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and Only Organic about pesticide residues have been repeatedly proven to be scientifically inaccurate. For the past 20 years, EWG annually releases a so-called “dirty dozen” list which urges consumers to only eat organic versions of popular produce items accompanied by misleading and unscientific claims regarding pesticide residue levels. In fact, a peer reviewed analysis of EWG’s list showed that substitution of organic forms of produce for non-organic produce did not result in any decrease in risk because residue levels are so minute on these fruits and vegetables, if they are present at all. “Their tactic clearly isn’t working and it’s actually backfiring since this research shows that consumers may react to their message by deciding not to buy any produce at all – organic or non-organic,” says Teresa Thorne of the Alliance for Food and Farming. “For the benefit of consumers, especially low-income consumers, this study shows it is time for groups like EWG to rethink their strategy for promoting organics and move away from tactics intended to scare consumers from buying the more affordable and accessible produce items.” This IIT research compliments the peer reviewed study by John Hopkins University’s Center for a Livable Future published in January 2015 in the journal Culture, Agriculture, Food and Environment. Those researchers conducted interviews with study participants to learn more about the way organic food is understood within consumers’ definitions of healthy food. John Hopkins researchers also focused on low-income consumers because “this group is particularly important demographically given the disparate burden of diet-related diseases they carry and the frequency of diet-related messages they receive.” The study authors also found conflicting health and safety messages, including those about pesticide residues, were having a negative impact on consumers. Among their findings and recommendations: “The issue of organic can swamp or compete with other messages about nutrition, as evidenced by the data presented here. Perceiving that there is an overwhelming amount of sometimes contradictory information about healthy eating could make some consumers defeatist about trying to eat healthily. Given the potential implications of competing messages about healthy eating, it is important that those who want to improve food production techniques and those who want to improve nutrition cooperate to create consistent messaging about healthy eating.” Burton-Freeman reached a similar conclusion: “Hearing that the majority of shoppers in this survey trust dietitians/nutritionists, scientists and physicians for health and safety information about fresh fruits and vegetables, this is an important opportunity for these professionals working in low-income populations. It is an opportunity to educate shoppers about organic and conventionally grown produce, particularly about best practices for washing, storing and preparing all fruits and vegetables to maximize their enjoyment and nutritional value and minimize their confusion and safety concerns.” “Hopefully the peer-reviewed research from IIT and John Hopkins will have an impact on groups like EWG especially since the science clearly shows both organic and non-organic produce is very safe and can be eaten with confidence,” AFF’s Thorne says. “And, decades of nutritional research primarily conducted using non-organic produce shows that a plant rich diet leads to better health and a longer life. So choose either or both organic or non-organic produce, but choose to eat more every day.” Author’s disclosure: A gift from the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) to the Illinois Institute of Technology’s Center for Nutrition Research helped fund this research, however, the AFF was neither involved in any facet of the study nor made aware of the study findings until after the paper was peer reviewed and accepted by the publication. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)

The evolution of organic messaging moves away from fear

Alliance for Food and Farming — Sun, 24 Jul 2016 05:00:46 +0000

Editor’s note: This opinion piece was originally posted July 18, 2016, by the Alliance for Food and Farming. At the inaugural Organic Produce Summit in Monterey on July 14, we witnessed a messaging evolution happening among the strongest organic advocates. This messaging moves away from disparaging non-organic products and mirrors the main message of the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF): “Eat more organic and conventionally grown fruits and veggies every day for better health and a longer life — both are safe and can be consumed with confidence.” Some evolution examples from the summit’s keynote presentations included: “We need to distinguish organics in a way that is not disparaging so that we can promote the produce category overall,” Laura Batcha, CEO of the Organic Trade Association (OTA) “We know consumers react better to positive messaging to differentiate organic. Negative messaging appeals to just a small percentage (of consumers).” “For consumers, the first line shouldn’t be organic versus non-organic, it should be a discussion about real food versus non-foods (processed foods). And the lesson kids need to learn is that there is real food. We should be pushing consumption of plants — that’s No. 1,” Mark Bittman, author and former New York Times reporter. “I see consumers who want organic because they are afraid. I see signs of confusion among consumers. But what’s good for your family is real food. People should be eating more plants — there is no argument. … Both organic and conventional strawberries would get a five on my food scale.” Bittman’s “foodiness” scale rates foods on a scale of one to five with five being the best for consumers. We applaud this evolution of messaging and it is noteworthy since only a few months ago OTA was still engaging in tactics designed to scare consumers away from conventionally grown foods. An example of this marketing against tactic was a social media post that warned consumers if they served a popular and healthy produce item for dinner they would consume seven probable carcinogens, 12 suspected hormone disrupters, seven neurotoxins and six developmental or reproductive toxins. This infographic was scary, confusing and untrue, but something we have seen too often. But in another noteworthy turn, OTA has since removed these types of posts from their social properties and are promoting the more positive messaging about organics that Batcha referenced in her speech. Interestingly, Ken Cook of the Environmental Working Group (EWG), which is one of the main culprits of promoting negative and disparaging messaging about conventionally-grown produce, was in attendance at the Organic Produce Summit and heard both Batcha’s and Bittman’s presentations. For decades, EWG has released a “dirty dozen” list which makes inaccurate and unscientific claims about pesticide residues on the most popular fruits and veggies. Since 2010, the AFF has worked to counter erroneous claims from groups like EWG and provide science-based information to consumers about the safety of all produce. Over those years, AFF has also repeatedly asked Cook and EWG to stop calling healthy and safe fruits and veggies “dirty,” “toxic laden” and “contaminated” because of potential negative impact on consumers and produce consumption. But, EWG has remained steadfast in promoting its traditional messaging, which dates back to the mid-1990s. Maybe hearing firsthand that his colleagues at OTA as well as Bittman have evolved their messaging for the benefit of consumers will make Cook think more about his organization’s dated statements. We have some hope. For now, the AFF welcomes the end of disparaging messaging and OTA joining with the produce industry in promoting positive messaging that can help increase consumption of produce overall. This message evolution is good for consumers and it’s the right thing to do. Finally, we applaud the organizers of the Organic Produce Summit for bringing these influential speakers together for a meaningful and thought-provoking discussion. (To sign up for a free subscription to Food Safety News, click here.)