A Dozen Things to Consider When Choosing Produce
1. Is the Dirty Dozen reliable?
The Dirty Dozen (and accompanying Clean Fifteen) are lists annually compiled by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) to inform consumers about pesticide residue levels on fruits and vegetables.
The produce items on the Dirty Dozen are highlighted to contain the highest levels of pesticides, meaning an organic option should be prioritized when possible.
On the other hand, the Clean Fifteen items do not necessarily need to be organic because they have low levels of pesticide residue.
The validity of these lists has come under attack, as the methods used to create them seem to be “unscientific”.
The EWG uses publicly available reports from the USDA Pesticide Data Program to assess the average NUMBER of pesticides on each item rather than the total AMOUNT of pesticide residue.
Critics point out that these lists end up confusing consumers because they do not account for the overall RISKS of pesticides, making them unreliable and misleading.
As a nutrition educator, I believe that people need straightforward resources that cut through confusing nutrition messages and that simplify food decisions.
In that sense, the EWG gets an A+ for the simplicity of their resources.
As a scientist, I am unimpressed by the methods used to compile these lists, as they do not provide a helpful risk assessment for consumers.
In fact, they may actually be detrimental as they seem to discourage total fruit and vegetable consumption for consumers who cannot afford organic produce.
2. Is the EWG biased?
The Environmental Working Group is an organization that advocates for consumer safety in areas of toxic chemicals, agricultural subsidies, and corporate accountability.
It is commonly cited by news sites and influencers as a source of scientific research and analysis.
However, the scientific claims this group makes are surrounded by a great deal of controversy.
An internet search of “EWG junk science” yields hundreds of articles written by fact-checking websites which call the EWG’s reports “pseudoscience”.
It has been called the “Environmental Worry Group” by those who condemn its methods.
I think it is fair to say that the EWG has contributed to consumer confusion and distrust of corporations.
At the same time, the presence of the EWG as an environmental watchdog has led to increased accountability, regulation, and transparency of corporations.
So in short, yes, the EWG is biased.
But is bias inherently bad?
Can we trust any organization or expert that is biased?
If you said “no”, good luck trying to find someone who is not.
In fact, I am biased.
I am biased towards science, towards optimal nutrition, towards having a healthy relationship with food, towards farmers, and generally away from the use of synthetic pesticides and toxins.
But I have to weigh these priorities against one another because they are often in tension.
For example, should I fully enjoy my salad without guilt OR stress about the potential residues on my tomatoes?
3. Are pesticides bad?
One of the biggest criticisms of the EWG is that it uses large, scary-sounding scientific terms that actually describe perfectly harmless things.
For example, “beware of retinyl palmitate in sunscreen” is actually just referring to vitamin A.
To an individual that is uneducated in scientific terminology, these technical terms sound intimidating and dangerous.
Even words like “chemical”, “pesticide”, and “preservative” have scary connotations to many consumers.
However, these things are not inherently harmful.
For example, our bodies are made up of chemical reactions.
Antioxidants are produced by plants to serve as pesticides.
Salt is a natural preservative.
To be fair, I do my best to minimize exposure to synthetic chemicals and pesticides.
There is an increasing number of research studies evidencing the detrimental effects of pesticides on conditions like cancer, metabolic issues, Alzheimers, and Parkinson’s.
We are still learning about the long-term consequences of their widespread use.
While I do not approve of heavy pesticide use, I also cannot excuse poor science communication.
So while I generally try to minimize synthetic pesticide exposure, I am wary of fear-mongering claims that intend to scare rather than empower.
4. What does it mean to be a scientific nutritionist?
I consider myself a scientist first, a nutritionist second.
This means that I am open to changing my perspective on issues if there is enough evidence to support a different conclusion (I used to follow the Dirty Dozen list very closely, for the record).
I also strive to ask good questions, which is actually the definition of science.
Science is not a body of truth in the sky, but rather a process of observing, questioning, testing, and assessing.
As a nutritionist, I am very passionate about empowering people with the truth about their bodies and food.
This requires balance between providing clear-cut guidance and healthy skepticism.
It is our responsibility as health educators to be precise in our language, to hold our own opinions lightly, and to always be learning.
5. What is the precautionary principle?
This leads to the important concept of the precautionary principle.
The precautionary principle is based on the idea that something (in this case, a certain amount of pesticide) is harmful until proven safe.
It proposes that risks should be minimized because the potential consequences cannot be undone.
The precautionary principle underlies many of the arguments for organic produce: “better safe than sorry”.
While an attractive philosophy, it is not practical when it comes to making broad policies or recommendations.
These decisions also have to weigh other risks and consequences.
In the context of food production, the potential long-term effects of pesticides have to be weighed against the possibility of an entire crop being destroyed by pests or disease, the benefits of increased production and food accessibility, and the sustainability of the food system.
So while pesticide use does have consequences, so does not using pesticides.
6. Are scientists and regulators evil?
I think it is unfair to paint scientists (and I may even go so far as to say regulators) as the bad guys, as they are both doing their job within the system they find themselves in.
Imagine this: your task is to assess the toxicology of a chemical based on the information you have.
If the research supports its short-term safety (and you are doing your job well), you would give it a stamp of approval.
How are you supposed to know the generational effects of a chemical that has only existed for a few years?
The problem is not that there are “bad guys” per se, but that our longitudinal research capacity is limited.
In some ways, we are test subjects in a massive, large scale, long term experiment.
Will certain pesticides and fertilizers prove to be detrimental three generations from now? Probably.
Do I want the worry about something out of my control to decrease my quality of life right now? No.
We do not find solutions to broken systems by pointing fingers, but rather by listening, respecting, and being open to a different perspective.
7. Are organic farmers more responsible?
By the same token, I think it is unfair to paint conventional farmers as the bad guys.
I often encounter messaging that portrays them as ignorant, greedy “rapists of the land”, spraying pesticides carelessly just to increase production.
In contrast, organic farming is often portrayed as more responsible and respectful of the land.
I don’t think either characterization is fair.
The farmers I know (both conventional and organic) are hardworking, honest, knowledgeable, and have a deep respect for nature.
They are often at the mercy of a system that requires them to make difficult decisions and carry incredible risk.
I think it is unfair to characterize organic farmers as “more responsible” than conventional farmers; they are all essential for our food system.
8. Is organic farming more sustainable?
Organic farming is promoted to be more environmentally-responsible, sustainable, and regenerative. (Key word: promoted).
Just because industry advocates will tell you “organic is more sustainable” does not guarantee it is.
Just as organic farmers are not necessarily more responsible than conventional farmers, organic farming practices are not necessarily more sustainable.
Good and poor management exists in all types of agriculture.
Furthermore, the claim “organic is more sustainable” should not imply that conventional is not sustainable.
In fact, conventional production is sometimes even more regenerative for soil health because it requires less tillage than organic production.
So while it is true that organic farming results in decreased use of potent pesticides and synthetic fertilizers, it may not always be better for the environment.
9. Is organic produce more nutritious?
The short answer is no.
Nutritional quality is more influenced by soil quality, ripeness at harvest, transport time, and preparation.
In that sense, your food dollar will go much farther if you prioritize fresh, local, properly-prepared fruits and vegetables over an organic label.
10. What are the benefits of eating local produce?
In the real estate industry, the ideal property is all about: “location, location, location”.
Something similar can be said about the ideal food production system: “local, local, local”.
As mentioned in the previous point, optimal nutritional content is achieved and preserved by harvesting at peak ripeness and consuming as soon as possible.
Fruits and vegetables also taste better when eaten at peak ripeness and freshness (it’s all about the Brix!).
Locally grown (or homegrown) produce requires fewer resources to be spent on shipping and distribution, resulting in a higher quality product for the same price.
There is a smaller knowledge gap and increased connection when you know where (and from whom) your food is coming from.
Finally, if you are voting with your dollar, is it not best to support local producers and economies?
In my opinion, there are greater environmental, nutritional, and relational benefits from sourcing fresh, local produce than from buying organic produce according to the Dirty Dozen.
11. What are the benefits of eating seasonally?
Hand in hand with eating locally is eating seasonally.
Seasonal produce will supply more nutrition and flavor because harvest occurs closer to peak ripeness (a tomato never tastes as good in the winter because it was picked green in a land far, far away).
Fewer food miles and preservatives are needed if you are eating what is naturally in season for your area.
Furthermore, seasonal produce is often most affordable at the grocery store.
Have you ever noticed that seasonal foods seem to match your body’s metabolic needs?
For example, summer foods like berries, melon, and cucumbers are light and hydrating while winter foods like squash, potatoes, and onions are sustaining and easily stored.
From a nature-based nutrition standpoint, seasonal eating is an excellent way to eat with the rhythms of nature.
12. What are the benefits of dietary diversity?
The final benefit of eating local, fresh, and seasonal produce is that you can maximize dietary diversity.
Eating a diversity of different plant foods is best for maximizing micronutrients like vitamins, minerals, phytonutrients, and fibers.
It is the best way to support microbial diversity, the hallmark of a healthy gut microbiome.
A diverse diet also can reduce the risk of developing hypersensitivities or allergies to specific food antigens.
In short, a diverse diet is a healthy diet—something almost every nutrition professional will agree on.
In conclusion, while eating organic will minimize pesticide consumption, I do not think the Dirty Dozen is the best consumer guide for assessing produce quality (especially if it results in you consuming fewer fruits and vegetables out of fear of pesticides).
Instead, a more holistic approach is to source the most fresh, local, seasonal, diverse produce you can (your wallet, microbiome, and farmer will thank you).
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ellen Roufs, MS Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine, FNTP
Ellen Roufs is a functional nutrition researcher, educator, and content creator. Her business—Made Whole Nutrition—provides template content for holistic health professionals to use with their clients. Her goal is to empower others with a nature-informed approach to nutrition so they can experience healing and wholeness in their relationship with food.
