2025 produce ‘dirty dozen,' ‘clean 15' revealed
Spinach takes top dishonors in the 2025 'Dirty Dozen' list of nonorganic fruits and vegetables with the most pesticide contamination. The "2025 Shopper's Guide to Pesticides in Produce" is an annual report by the Environmental Working Group.
The group also on Wednesday released its 'Clean 15″ list, noting 60% of those are 'free from harmful pesticides.' Nine in 10 samples on the dirty list contained pesticide residue, the group said.
Per the news release, 'The overall toxicity is one of four factors EWG used to assess pesticides on produce. To calculate the overall pesticide toxicity for produce, EWG compared the average concentration of pesticide detected on fruits and vegetables to toxicological reference values – levels below which health harms are not expected."
'The updated methodology reflects important aspects of pesticide exposure for people,' said Dayna de Montagnac, an EWG associate scientist. 'Our research takes into account the potency of each chemical and can help shoppers reduce their overall pesticide burden.'
The list has been produced annually for decades, but is not without critics. The Alliance for Food and Farming, which represents organic and conventional produce farmers, sent out a news release noting that the 'dirty dozen list recommendations cannot be substantiated.'
'There is growing concern about the impact of inaccurate safety fears becoming a barrier to increased consumption of produce,' the alliance said. 'One peer-reviewed study found that when low-income consumers were exposed to 'Dirty Dozen" list messaging, they stated they were less likely to purchase any produce — organic or conventional."
Alexis Temkin, EWG vice president of science, told CNN the goal is not to get people to skip eating fruits and vegetables, which are important to a nutrient-rich diet. Rather, it's to help families decide whether to buy organic versions of certain fruits or vegetables.
'The guide is there to help consumers eat a lot of fruits and vegetables while trying to reduce pesticide exposure,' Temkin said. 'One of the things that a lot of peer-reviewed studies have shown over and over again (is) that when people switch to an organic diet from a conventional diet, you can really see measurable levels in the reduction of pesticide levels in the urine.'
The group said it analyzed 47 items to come up with the 12 it called most contaminated by pesticides. EWG also noted that the analysis didn't include risk assessment, weighting all pesticides equally, nor did it 'factor in the levels deemed acceptable by the EPA.'
Spinach
Strawberries
Kale, collard and mustard greens
Grapes
Peaches
Cherries
Nectarines
Pears
Apples
Blackberries
Blueberries
Potatoes
The group said the average American eats about eight pounds of strawberries a year. Blackberries made their debut this year on the dirty dozen, as did potatoes, which are the 'most consumed vegetable in the U.S.'
As for No. 1, according to EWG, 'Spinach is a nutrient-rich vegetable, making it a staple for healthy eating. But it also has more pesticide residues by weight than any other type of produce — three-fourths of non-organic, or conventional samples are contaminated with a neurotoxic insecticide, permethrin, which is banned from use on food crops in Europe."
EWG said it used tests conducted by the Department of Agriculture to rank the fruits and vegetables. It notes the most recent tests of spinach, however, were conducted in 2016. Asked if that was correct, an EWG spokesman reiterated for Deseret News the methodology in the report: 'This year's guide incorporates data from a total of more than 53,000 samples of 47 fruits and vegetables. EWG uses USDA data for non-organic samples of fruits and vegetables from the most recent sampling periods, which typically spans one to two years for each item. For example, to analyze residues on spinach, we used 1,295 samples the USDA collected between 2015 and 2016, as that's the most recent data range for that type of produce.'
EWG also pointed out that most of the pesticides found on conventional spinach samples were 'sanctioned as legal and safe' by the Environmental Protection Agency, but note that permethrin at high doses creates health risks, including increased chance of attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children.
The items with the least amount of pesticide in the EWG report were:
Pineapples
Sweet corn (fresh and frozen)
Avocados
Papaya
Onion
Sweet peas (frozen)
Asparagus
Cabbage
Watermelon
Cauliflower
Bananas
Mangoes
Carrots
Mushrooms
Kiwi
The alliance reported that 'the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Pesticide Data Program consistently finds that over 99% of foods sampled had residue levels well below EPA safety standards with 40% having no detectable residues at all."
Still, public health experts say fresh produce should be cleaned, including the fruits and vegetables that have peels that will not be consumed. Advice from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for safely consuming produce:
Wash your hands for 20 seconds with warm water and soap before and after handling fresh produce.
Cut away damaged or bruised areas before preparing or eating.
Rinse produce BEFORE you peel it. Otherwise, that knife could transfer contamination.
Gently rub produce while holding under plain running water. You do not need to use soap.
Use a clean vegetable brush to scrub produce such as melons and zucchini.
Dry produce with a clean cloth or paper towel. That can remove even more bacteria.
Remove the outermost leaves of cabbage or lettuce, which are potentially exposed to more contamination.
The alliance said not to use soaps or detergents, which can create their own issues.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Under RFK Jr., Vaccine Approval Is Getting More Politicized, Not Less
"Vaccines have become a divisive issue in American politics," asserted Health and Human Services Secretary (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his June 9 Wall Street Journal op-ed. "Public confidence is waning." This is true. But the HHS secretary bears responsibility for much of that division and waning confidence. And he's just made it worse. How? Kennedy has politicized the U.S. vaccine approval process by summarily firing all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) earlier this week. Typically appointed to four-year terms, Kennedy has taken the unprecedented step of prematurely sacking the entire panel. Two days later, he announced his selection of eight new members, many of whom are chiefly famous for espousing contrarian views with respect to vaccine safety and efficacy. So what did Kennedy find wrong with the original ACIP panel? The secretary asserted that it "has been plagued with persistent conflicts of interests" stemming from members' "immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms that enforce a narrow pro-industry orthodoxy." At least in his Journal op-ed, the secretary offers no evidence of any unreported or improper conflicts of interest among those he just fired. It is worth noting that the fired ACIP members were vetted before they were appointed and that they each declare any conflicts that later emerge before each of the committee's meetings. What about RFK Jr.'s vague claims hinting at nefarious "immersion in a system of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms" on the part of committee members? If your automobile keeps stalling out, you take your jalopy to a trained mechanic for diagnosis and repair. If your computer system has been hacked, you seek help from qualified computer engineers. You earnestly hope that your mechanics and computer engineers are fully immersed in their respective systems of industry-aligned incentives and paradigms—that is, you hope they are experts who know what they are doing. Looking over the pre-firing ACIP membership list, they chiefly appear to be immersed in the fields of immunology, vaccinology, and epidemiology. In other words, they, on the face of it, have the training you would expect them to have in order to expertly diagnose the relative safety and efficacy of vaccines. For the most part, the new appointees are notably lacking in such professional expertise. The HHS secretary gives his game away when he characterizes his wholesale firing as being "above any pro- or antivaccine agenda." With respect to his new ACIP appointees, Kennedy promised that "none of these individuals will be ideological anti-vaxxers." That's great. After all, an anti-vaccine agenda makes as much sense as anti–automobile repair or anti–computer debugging agendas. The agendas we want are pro–making cars run, pro–computers correctly ciphering, and pro–vaccines that protect against diseases. However, in looking over the backgrounds of the new ACIP members, several of them can be fairly characterized as being at least anti-vaxxer-adjacent. First, there is physician researcher Robert Malone, who has made exaggerated claims about being the inventor of the mRNA technologies that led to the development of the successful mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Eventually, Malone became a COVID-19 vaccine skeptic, asserting that "they are not working." In 2023, he credulously cited a bogus analysis that claimed COVID-19 vaccines were responsible for 17 million excess deaths worldwide. Later epidemiological research suggests that the vaccines averted around 4 million deaths globally. A 2024 Brookings Institution report suggests "the delivery of vaccines to a substantial majority of the American population by mid-2021 saved close to 800,000 American lives relative to what would have occurred had vaccines not been developed." Then there is public health nurse Vicky Pebsworth. She is a board member of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC). NVIC continues to peddle the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, as does our HHS secretary. Next up is Massachusetts Institute of Technology management professor Retsef Levi. In 2023, Levi called for the immediate suspension of all COVID-19 vaccination programs. His chief concern was the reported detection of heart inflammation (myocarditis) cases in young males who had been vaccinated. Subsequent research has shown that post-vaccination myocarditis is considerably less harmful than post–COVID infection myocarditis and conventional myocarditis. In his announcement of the new ACIP members, Kennedy declared, "All of these individuals are committed to evidence-based medicine, gold-standard science, and common sense." Maybe so, but the backgrounds of several of these appointees provide good reasons for skepticism. The post Under RFK Jr., Vaccine Approval Is Getting More Politicized, Not Less appeared first on
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - Would you hit a dog? Then why hit a child?
In much of the world, we have outlawed physical violence against adults, including the physical punishment of women, prisoners and military recruits. It is also illegal in many places to hit a dog. In the U.S., for example, kicking or hitting a dog can result in criminal charges. And yet, parents' spanking and hitting of children in the name of 'discipline' is legal in the U.S. and in more than 130 other countries around the world. A recent study found that American parents are significantly more likely to consider it acceptable to hit a child than to hit a dog. We are in a cultural moment where physically punishing a dog is viewed as more morally objectionable than doing the same to human children. Despite decades of research showing that physical punishment is harmful and ineffective, its use persists in households around the U.S. and the world. The question is not whether hitting children causes harm, rather, it's why society allows it, knowing that it does. My colleagues and I analyzed data from 195 studies in 92 countries and found no evidence that physical punishment has any benefits. On the contrary, our findings show that physical punishment of children is linked to exclusively negative consequences, including increased aggression, lower academic performance and a higher risk of depression, anxiety and other emotional difficulties later in life. Imagine for a moment that your boss, supervisor or teacher hits you for not meeting expectations. Your immediate response would likely include physical stress reactions such as sweating and a racing heart, as well as emotional responses such as anger, sadness, anxiety or fear. These responses are evolutionary and adaptive, designed to prepare us for fight or flight in the face of threats. When such violence is repeated, it can lead to a state of constant anxiety and fear that the next blow could come at any moment. The same happens to a child. Parents tend to use spanking and other forms of physical punishment with good intentions, hoping to correct or manage children's misbehavior. Yet, the physical stress and emotional responses from physical punishment can be particularly consequential early in life, when brains and biological systems are developing in response to experience. In a neuroscientific study, my team examined brain activity in a group of children who had been spanked in their first 10 years of life, compared to a similar group who had never been spanked. Using fMRI, we showed the children images of happy, neutral and fearful or threatening faces. The children who had been spanked exhibited heightened brain activation in response to fearful/threatening faces, specifically in regions associated with detecting and responding to environmental threats. Other studies have also found reduced cortex gray matter volume in adults who experienced corporal punishment during childhood. Many adults who were hit as children remember it as 'discipline,' not violence, and often insist they 'turned out fine.' But this reasoning overlooks the broader picture. Millions of people around the world smoke without visibly seeing lung damage, yet we widely accept the health risks of smoking because science has made them clear. Similarly, even if physical punishment doesn't leave visible marks, research shows that it significantly increases the risks to children's mental, emotional and developmental health. Some argue that the government shouldn't interfere in private family matters, such as how parents choose to discipline their children. But let's reconsider that argument, and apply it to women. We rightly find it unacceptable for a man to hit his wife, regardless of it being a 'private' matter. Why should it be acceptable to hit children, who are smaller, more vulnerable and entirely dependent on adults for their safety and well-being? Protecting children from harm is not government overreach; it is a fundamental moral and societal responsibility. The right to physical safety that is afforded to adults, including prisoners, soldiers, and even to dogs, should be extended to children. Simply put, all countries should prohibit the physical punishment of children in the home, school and all settings. Such legislation should not be punitive, but written into family codes instead of criminal codes, and paired with educational campaigns, similar to those that shifted social norms around smoking. Additionally, support for parents through initiatives like parenting programs is essential to promote non-violent discipline strategies. We've long stopped justifying hitting adults, and we recoil at hurting an animal. It's time we ensure the same standard applies to children, so we can one day say with pride that they, too, are fully protected from violence. Jorge Cuartas, assistant professor at NYU Steinhardt, is an internationally recognized expert on the health and developmental impacts of physical punishment in childhood. He has authored over 30 scientific articles on the subject, published in leading journals such as Nature Human Behaviour, The Lancet and Child Development. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What is ‘tech neck' and how can you fix it?
With nearly 86 percent of full-time American workers spending long, unhealthy hours sitting at their desks, leaning over computers, or staring down at their phones, many have found themselves suffering from 'tech neck.' The condition, sometimes also referred to as 'text neck," is used to describe pain and discomfort in the neck that can happen when someone bends their head down. The problem is pressure, with experts saying that holding your head at a 45-degree angle can feel like 50 pounds of weight. "That's like having an 8-pound bowling ball as your head. Then you have 72 pounds at your elbow and 96 pounds on your shoulder," Brian Langenhorst, industrial and ergonomics specialist at Wisconsin's La Crosse Mayo Clinic Health System, said. "I probably see tech neck on a weekly basis at businesses, schools and industry." There has been an increase in cases in recent years, but there are ways to prevent the condition. Here's how to fix it. Stretches should be done frequently for the best benefits, according to sports medicine Dr. Jeffrey Peng. "Five minutes is really all you need to stretch out the neck," he said. "But the key is to do these stretches frequently — ideally, three times per day. That way, you are slowly increasing mobility and range of motion of the neck muscles that often get tighter and tighter throughout the day.' He recommends touching your ear to your shoulder to stretch the upper trapezius, a large shoulder muscle. For further pressure, put gentle pressure on your head using your hand. Hold it for 30 seconds. You can also stretch the levator scapula: a neck muscle that runs along the upper back on neck on either side of the spine. With the head turned diagonally, pull down on it with one hand and guide the other hand to rest on the base of the neck. To target the anterior scalene — which helps to flex the neck and elevate the first rib — pull the ear toward the shoulder, look up, and lean back. Adjust your monitor to the right level, with eye height about a half inch to one and a half inches higher than the top characters on your screen. Sit with your head, hips, and spine stacked, and keep your wrists straight and elbows bent at a 90-degree angle. Your feet should be flat on the floor and your knees should be aligned with your hips. When using a phone, place pillows on your lap to support your forearms and try to hold the phone or tablet in an upright and angled position. By looking straight ahead, your muscles get a chance to relax, preventing uneven pressure. "It's not great, but it's better than not being supported," said Langenhorst. Take frequent screen breaks and get up and move! That will get blood circulating and it will get your neck in a different position. Or, even just stand. 'Humans are upright creatures, and our bodies aren't designed to look down for long periods of time, which puts extra pressure on the cervical spine,' Dr. Kavita Trivedi, an associate professor at UT Southwestern Medical Center, said.
