My post was about the latest "Dirty Dozen" list put out by the EWG.

There are links in the articles plus thousands of statistical reports on what you are asking for each individual type of produce. I'm really not going to dredge them all up, but feel free to do that yourself to compare the organic versus conventional. It's a huge subject and I'm not getting into that whole debate here.

My post was about not worrying so much about "The Dirty Dozen" and how the fear mongering against conventionally grown crops can actually keep some families from eating enough fruits and vegetables, if they are being told not to eat anything not labeled "organic" and they don't have access to or can't afford what the EWG recommends.

Eat what you want. I'm just saying that this organization telling people not to eat certain foods because they are poison just might be an exaggeration that hurts low income families who are food insecure as it is, and if they are led to believe the blueberries on sale, for example, will poison their kids, they might just feed them chips instead, feeling that's safer. I don't like to see that happening.

I have spent a lot of time on personal research over the years to come to my conclusions. I eat a combination of conventional and organic depending on availability, freshness, price, packaging and of course choose locally grown when possible.

My complaint isn't about organic food in general. It's about an organization that tries to discourage people from eating particular foods claiming they are "dirty" (read poisonous) unless organic, to which the scientists who contribute statistics to these articles disagree.

Hi - @Julie808

Reviewing the forbes link, it does provide this piece of information which is useful to me.

"...The analytical methods used by these labs are only designed to detect synthetic chemicals. With the exception of the natural fermentation product Spinosad, the PDP methods can’t detect the most frequently used organic-approved pesticides such as mineral-compounds like copper sulfate and sulfur, microbial products like Bt insecticides or fatty acids. Each such product would require its own specific testing method...."

Combining this with the information provided elsewhere in the article, we can say that if non-synthetic pesticides are not taken into account, then eating organic is going to reduce the likelihood of consuming pesticides, but if the additional pesticides are taken into account, then the article is not clear on this point. I do quite like that the article brings out this point (of the omission of some toxins from government testing) if it is true.

The author of the article apparently worked for an industry organization
"...Between 2017 and Q1 2021 I served as a Crop Protection Products Benefits Communicator for the CropLife Foundation - the non-profit arm of CropLife America which is the industry association for the crop protection industry. ..."
representing some of the largest synthetic toxin producers (Bayer, Syngenta, BASF, etc.) including ones that have gone through or are going through significant lawsuits for the deadly harm that their chemicals have done to humans.

He also referenced this page which I've seen claiming to support gmo.

[geneticliteracyproject.org]
Just once I'd like to see someone acknowledge that some of the genetic modifications are done to increase the resistance of crops to pesticides, so even if the genetic modifications in themselves do not cause any harm to humans (something that should always be considered a possibility until assessed) there is still the question of what the added pesticides will do.

Anyway, I respect that you are not going down a rabbit hole of research in order to answer my question. I also am avoiding research rabbit holes in order to address your post which was quite hostile to the EWG and the Dirty Dozen.

I quite value the EWG and the Dirty Dozen, and do so even more now that I have seen your points. It is highly imperfect for some of the reasons you gave, but until I see better answers to my questions, I'm going to continue to value taking it in once every year or so. I will also continue to value occasionally reading opposite point of view information, though it can be difficult to weed through the various loaded omissions and "facts" on both sides to get to forming my own point of view.

EWG is performing a nice value add by going through the government data and bringing it to us and analyzing it. The value add performed by critics of the EWG (such as that industry body) I suppose is also of some use, but I've had enough of some of their selective points or omissions. I suspect some of them have a higher priority to sell their pesticides than to get at the truth of which food purchases are best for me.

I'm open to the idea that toxins and genetic modifications may be ok, but I need to see vastly more analysis from unbiased parties that looks beyond an occasional short term study of this or that selected crop, acknowledges the ugly history (including false assurances of no harm, I suspect including from purported science-backed information) of harm to human health from some of the pesticides that some of the same companies have hawked in the past, and makes a real effort to take all factors into account.

I do agree that some of us inadvertently stop buying as much fruit and vegetables as we should because we become wary of pesticides and don't find the selection of organics we want, or can't afford it. I went through this and have corrected it. This was a strong point on your part.

Organic standards, in my opinion, should be criticized on the grounds that when they were finally set by the government, they were twisted to include some toxins as approved, that may be harmful. This is further compounded by the fact that apparently (going by the quote above) they are not tested for by the government? I don't have much recollection of this matter or information on it, but it is something that does show some of the weakness in the simplified "eat organic" point of view.

There's a lot of work to be done by consumers to arrive at good (even if necessarily imperfect) strategies for eating healthy clean food, and as someone who occasionally tries to read what others have to say on the matter, I am better able to make use of others' comments if they are more nuanced and reflect some of the pros and cons. I suppose you've tried to do some of that, but I disagree with some of your take on the value of the EWG Dirty Dozen.

Lastly, since we are on a board for atheists and agnostics, I"ll add that a function of some religions has been to prescribe diet and food cleanliness standards and rules, and although their dietary rules were primitive, and although we include freedom of consumers, awareness of the old ways can lead us to think about the importance of such matters in our own contemporary lives, and of continuing to improve our knowledge in this area, in my opinion.

In the same vein, I refuse to buy clothing which sports the brand name on the outside of the garment

In the UK we have the designation, High Welfare, as well. Which is not as widely known as it should be, but which gets more to the core issues of how the animals are treated.

Yes, my beef with the hype around the EWG's "dirty dozen" is that it creates a false sense of food risk where next to none exists. It also discourages the consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables when there aren't organic options. This can cause food waste and consumers not eating enough fresh fruits and vegetables, simply because they are led to believe conventional foods are poison.

Yes, copper sulfate used in organic farming, even though it's synthetic, can be very toxic at high levels from what I understand. There's just so much that doesn't make sense to paint all of conventional bad and organic good, etc.

I just feel that a lot of the push toward organic over conventional is misleading and often is funded with dark money for the benefits of the large conglomerates.

Our local farmers markets are geared more to the visitors than the actual residents, though some residents buy favorite items there, and to support our local farmers. They are not necessarily organic, but usually fresher and more satisfying to buy directly from the farmer than picking things up in the supermarket.

I choose to avoid the crowded farmers markets where I live, as they take place while I'm working, and it's just not my thing, but I do like to buy the local produce in our local grocery stores.

We have lots of little farms, not necessarily organic, that are fun to visit and pick your own fruit off the trees.