Scientists Find a Better Way To Wash Pesticides Off Your Apples (cnet.com)

According to a new study, the best way to reduce pesticides from your supermarket apple is to use a baking soda solution. The discovery was made by a team of scientists from the University of Massachusetts at Amherst. They compared the effectiveness of plain tap water, a commercial bleach solution and a baking soda/water mix in removing pesticides from apples. CNET reports: The scientists started with organic Gala apples and applied the fungicide thiabendazole and the insecticide phosmet before testing the different washing liquids. "The baking soda solution was the most effective at reducing pesticide," a release on the study notes. "After 12 and 15 minutes, 80 percent of the thiabendazole was removed, and 96 percent of the phosmet was removed, respectively." The researchers say the industry-standard approach of washing fruit in a bleach solution for two minutes after harvest is not an effective way to completely remove pesticides. They also found the fungicide thiabendazole penetrated into the apple peel much more than the insecticide. Apple lovers would need to remove the peel to also get rid of the pesticide that wasn't washed off with the baking soda solution. The researchers published the findings this week in the American Chemical Society's Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry.

Comments

Re:Dose

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend who was a fruit farmer blamed pesticides on his cancer, and years ago started what we now shop as "organic"

Re: This is excellent.

[guruevi]

The bleach solution is per FDA requirements more dilute than lots of tap water. The primary reason is not to remove any chemicals but to prevent common bugs and harmful microbes from remaining on the fruit.

The other problem with this âoetestâ is that organic apples are sprayed with more chemicals than regular apples, worse yet, organic farming has zero oversight on the chemicals they spray as long as the chemicals are considered âoecertified organicâ

Re:Dose

[dwywit]

Phosmet, as used in the experiment, is an organophosphate compound.

This from wikipedia:
"Even at relatively low levels, organophosphates may be hazardous to human health. The pesticides act on acetylcholinesterase,[14] an enzyme found in the brain chemicals closely related to those involved in ADHD, thus fetuses and young children, where brain development depends on a strict sequence of biological events, may be most at risk.[15] They can be absorbed through the lungs or skin or by eating them on food. According to a 2008 report from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, âdetectableâ traces of organophosphate were found in a representative sample of produce tested by the agency, 28% of frozen blueberries, 20% of celery, 27% of green beans, 17% of peaches, 8% of broccoli, and 25% of strawberries.[16]"

So tell me please, what's your "evidence that shows it doesn't". I'd really like to know.

And, just a bit of insight here - we evolved alongside most/all of the foods "that can be poisonous at certain levels". That's one of the reasons we evolved, i.e. we learned not to eat too much of those foods. We have *not* evolved alongside many, if not all of the synthetic compounds commonly used as biocides in agriculture, so we don't know the effects of long-term exposure - not just one or two generations, but centuries of low-level exposure.

Here's a list for you. Organic more poisonous

[raymorris]

I'm afraid the marketing has tricked you.
EU organic regulations are that the pesticides must be of natural (impure) origin rather than being produced synthetically (and more pure). Safer pesticides which aren't readily available from natural sources aren't allowed, so organic farms must use the following more dangerous pesticides.

Here are some pesticides used in organic agriculture, with their median lethal doses:

Copper(II) sulfate is used as a fungicide and is also used in conventional agriculture (LD50 300 mg/kg). Conventional agriculture has the option to use the less toxic Mancozeb (LD50 4,500 to 11,200 mg/kg)
Boric acid is used as stomach poison that target insects (LD50: 2660 mg/kg).
Pyrethrin comes from chemicals extracted from flowers of the genus Pyrethrum (LD50 of 370 mg/kg). Its potent toxicity is used to control insects.
Lime sulphur (aka calcium polysulfide) and sulfur are considered to be allowed, synthetic materials[177] (LD50: 820 mg/kg)
Rotenone is a powerful insecticide that was used to control insects (LD50: 132 mg/kg). Despite the high toxicity of Rotenone to aquatic life and some links to Parkinson disease the compound is still allowed in organic farming as it is a naturally occurring compound.[178]
Bromomethane is a gas that is still used in the nurseries of Strawberry organic farming[179]
Azadirachtin is a wide spectrum very potent insecticide. Almost non toxic to mammals (LD50 in rats is > 3,540 mg/kg) but affects beneficial insects.

Re:Here's a list for you. Organic more poisonous

[Anonymous Coward]

Boric acid is pretty harmless to humans, but it really kills insects. My grandma used to put it in our eyes as a gentle antiseptic. I still add it to absolutely every load of laundry I do, since it lowers the surface tension of water and saves on detergent, while also deodorizing synthetic fabrics. You can buy it in most discount or drug stores, sold as "Borax" and the most common brand is 20 Mule Team which has been around forever. If you've ever developed your own photographic film, you'll also know boric acid as "fixer."

Population studies vs self diagnosis

[sjbe]

A friend who was a fruit farmer blamed pesticides on his cancer, and years ago started what we now shop as "organic"

Problem with your friend's logic is that he (she?) has a sample size of one. While it's not unreasonable that pesticides could have played a role, it's impossible to determine the likelihood of pesticides as a cause without some form of population study. We know that smoking causes cancer because we have population studies so that we can confidently say what the increased risk is and that there is a clear causal (and correlated) link. While it wouldn't be surprising at all if pesticides resulted in cancer, if there aren't properly scientific population studies then it is little more than an educated guess which should be frustrating to all of us.

The whole organic movement is based on this misapprehension. The idea of organics is logical. Less exposure to toxic stuff logically should in principle correlate with improved health. Good idea. Problem has been that it has turned out to be really hard to pin down any actual measurable health benefit from organic foods. All evidence seems to indicate there is no nutrition advantage and so far it's unclear if there are any meaningful secondary health benefits. Some companies have realized economic benefits but it's not (yet) clear if organic foods really result in better health for consumers. As logical as the idea of organics is, sometimes what seems logical doesn't actually result in the expected outcome. I'm not arguing that eating organic foods is a bad idea (I think it's very reasonable if you can afford it) as long as you understand that there isn't (yet) any clear evidence that it results in better outcomes.