Hacker News Reader

Comment by korethr | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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?

> 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.

>> 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...

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...

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?

Problem is as presidents change , the EPA staff changes as well.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/court-orders-...

And certain pesticides are unbanned.

The EPA also isn’t listening to independent scientists who’s research is showing ill effects even within the current limits.

https://www.ehn.org/when-safe-may-not-really-be-safe-2621578...

The fact that farmers are getting sick from pesticides is what scares me. It’s another version of second hand smoke.

Strokes, heart attack and cancer among young people seem to be on rise ,and doctors seem to be puzzled. Sperm count is getting lower and lower and we have no idea why.

It’s not just pesticides, but we are getting exposed to other carcinogens, pollution, x-rays, contaminated water, Teflon that stays in your body etc etc and we have no studies determine the cumulative effects of everything.

Body is very complex and it could be that this combination could result in a lot more genetic mutations and health problems.

I wish we had something like community farming where one day a week (mandated day off from regular work)the community members help sustain their community farm, which is the farm that supplies food for the community. This way there is more autonomy and knowledge about which pesticides are used etc.

Right but chemists can detect things at vanishingly small concentrations so "detected" often provides almost no information without further context.

If you look hard enough you're very often going to find the molecule you're looking for.

Was it detected at 0.1%, 100% or 10000% of an arbitrary EPA limit? This provides at least some quantitative indication of what's going on.

Unfortunately, some these chemicals can also have significant negative effects at vanishingly small doses, we're talking 1 part per billion. This is especially true for developing embryos (which share blood with the mother).

Also worth noting the EWG's reports have been questioned in the past for their bias. Heck, even the type of report this article mentions is commonly criticized: https://www.accountablescience.com/how-dirty-are-your-fruits...

There's another factor that I think the OP fails to account for and that's washing produce before cooking and consumption. It's a habit I've been in for as long as I can recall cooking with produce, which I probably picked up from my parents, and have seen in just about every kitchen I've been in.

As far as I recall, it was less out of a concern over pesticide residue, but more to make sure all soil was removed from the produce before consumption. That latter point is very important! It _sucks_ to bite into a grain of sand when eating a salad because I neglected to wash the lettuce well. And even if the trace levels of pesticides were close to the unsafe chronic threshold, washing the produce to remove remaining trace dirt is, IMO, likely to take those trace levels of pesticides down far enough that I don't need to worry.

Ever heard of systemic pesticides?

"Pesticides can be classified based upon their biological mechanism function or application method. Most pesticides work by poisoning pests. A systemic pesticide moves inside a plant following absorption by the plant. With insecticides and most fungicides, this movement is usually upward (through the xylem) and outward. Increased efficiency may be a result. Systemic insecticides, which poison pollen and nectar in the flowers, may kill bees and other needed pollinators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pesticide

No, I had not. Today I learned a thing. Thank you.

Clearly systemic pesticides will need to be addressed differently from those which simply coat the crop and leave residues, but I remain confident that washing produce before cooking and consumption is enough to reduce the latter to safe levels.

Sadly, it's probably not universally true: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.jafc.7b03118

In my country, washing things isn't some kind of oddity some people do so that realizing why they do it makes it some cool new trick. Rather, everyone washes their produce for exactly this reason, but this study suggests it's far from foolproof.

I don't think the final question is how much do we need to avoid. We are protecting ourselves and the things we want to keep alive in the future. We have to then ask, "Will this permanently destroy us or our living space?".

Also, science determines LD50 all the time. What they often do not check is what amount of pesticide needs to be consumed before your health or intelligence drop by 10%. Those would be excellent numbers to have available.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com