A Few Bad Apples

A Few Bad Apples...

Pesticides in Your Produce Why Supermarkets should ‘Test and Tell’

TODD HETTENBACH E NVIRONMENTAL TM W ORKING GROUP RICHARD WILES Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Clark Williams-Derry and Laurie Valeriano for collecting samples from supermarkets and to Chris Campbell for designing and producing this report.

One Bad Apple was made possible by grants from The Pew Charitable Trusts, the Turner Foundation, the W. Alton Jones Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Pew Charitable Trusts or other supporters listed above. Environ- mental Working Group is responsible for any errors of fact or interpretation contained in this report.

Environmental Working Group

The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C. The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Center, a California Public Benefit Corporation based in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects.

Kenneth A. Cook, President Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research Mike Casey, Vice President for Public Affairs To order a copy

Copies of this report may be ordered for $20.00 each (plus 6% sales tax or $1.20 for Washington, D.C. resi- dents) and $3.00 for postage and handling. Payment must accompany all orders. Please make checks payable to:

Environmental Working Group 1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20009 (202) 667-6982 (phone) (202) 232-2592 (fax) [email protected] (e-mail)

www.ewg.org

This report and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org

www.foodnews.org

To find out which pesticides are on the food you eat every day along with information on their health risks and what you can do to reduce them, visit our new web site at www.foodnews.org. Big Bad Apple

Foreword

You stroll into the produce Of course, in the back of your Some crops of apples department of your local super- mind you hear a voice scolding and other produce you for this “emotional” purchas- market—a Kroger, a Safeway, simply come to market almost any supermarket—and the ing behavior (albeit in a food much cleaner than first thing you see are those store that assaults you with gorgeous mounds of fresh, ripe emotional appeals on every others. apples. aisle…). Could be the voice of a pesticide company flack. Could Granny Smiths, Fuji’s, Red be a grocery executive or an Delicious, Golden Delicious, apple industry lobbyist or a Gala…. All your favorites. government official. Same differ- Which ones go in the cart? ence.

Would it help to know that “There’s absolutely no pesti- this particular display of Golden cide risk to either apple” the Delicious apples has residues of voice reassures. three different bug killers, all of which the government is scruti- Uh huh. Make that five nizing right now, all of which pounds without the pesticides. disrupt the nervous system in the same way, and one of which The next time it might well be regulators finally banned last the Golden Delicious that are year, after decades of suspicion cleaner, or the Fujis or the Galas. and study and stalling, when they It happens all the time. You just concluded the chemical posed an don’t know—unless you happen unacceptably high risk to chil- to test your own foods on the dren? spot. For years, the government has tested, and found the same Would it help to know that the thing we found testing Washing- adjacent pile of Red Delicious has ton state apples this winter: wide no insecticides at all on it? variations in pesticide contamination for most fruits and veg- Decisions, decisions. You love etables. And we’re not talking both varieties. They’re the same organic versus conventional food. price. Which do you buy? We’re talking conventional versus conventional. We are comparing No brainer. I’ll take three apples to apples. It turns out pounds without the bug killers. that some crops of apples and

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP i The government other produce simply come to apple crop. We found the bug spends millions of market much cleaner than others killer at unsafe levels in two out your tax dollars testing because they’re grown cleaner— of twenty-five bags of Washing- even if they’re not organic. ton state apples—almost exactly produce every year, the rate the government found in then sits on the results But these facts are rarely of its “most recent” tests, made for two years. any use to you as you cruise the public in 1998 from the apple produce section. The govern- crop of 1996. One bag of apples ment spends millions of your tax went over EPA’s safety limit by a dollars testing produce every factor of ten. year, then sits on the results for two years or more before making Couldn’t grocery stores help them public. The findings never you out? Sure. But most don’t get to shoppers in plain English. tell you anything at all about And if they did, the government’s pesticide levels in produce. message would be that “Every- They don’t really want to bring thing is safe.” That’s what up the subject. The unwritten they’re pressured to say by code of silence in the grocery lobbyists for pesticide companies biz says they won’t compete and agribusiness. with one another on anything but price, appearance and taste. As this report shows, the When the subject of pesticides pesticide lobby is remarkably comes up, most grocers prefer to Couldn’t grocery successful in convincing govern- say, “Everything meets federal stores help you out? ment officials to mislead consum- standards.” Sure. ers into believing the food supply is perfectly safe—right up They might as well hang a until regulators ban a dangerous sign over their produce depart- pesticide. That’s what happened ments. just last August, when the highly toxic bug killer methyl parathion PesticidesOnOurFruits was abruptly yanked by federal andVegetables? officials for use on apples and other foods kids eat by the ton. Goodenoughfor This “safe” insecticide had been governmentwork! contaminating apples and other foods at “safe levels” for decades. With this report, EWG Then—poof!—it had to be launches a project to change all banned. that. It’s a food testing program, web site and newsletter system But with the pesticide lobby to give shoppers real-time infor- hammering away, the govern- mation on pesticide levels in ment dithered so long in making foods. Information you can’t get the decision last year that mil- anywhere else. We’re starting lions of consumers—and millions with a food we love (and kids of kids—ate methyl parathion all love) that happens to be one of through this winter on the 1999 the dirtier crops from a pesticide

ii A FEW BAD APPLES... standpoint—apples. We focus The result? An extremely clean Gerber wouldn’t buy on apples grown in Washington product. An infant would get far most of the apples we state because they dominate the less pesticide from a jar of Gerber tested. So why should domestic and export market. apple sauce than it would from a you? The apple trade association— batch home-made from most appropriately named U.S. Apple bags of Washington state apples —has rigorously defended we tested. Why? Because as a the most dangerous pesticides at result of its grower contracts and every turn. food monitoring, Gerber wouldn’t buy most of the apples We want grocery stores to do we tested. what government is incapable of doing: test and tell consumers So why should you? which crops of food have which pesticides in them. Where is our government in all this? Snoring away at the Will grocery stores say they wheel of the strongest regulatory can’t afford it, citing their razor- vehicle they’ve ever had to get thin profit margins? Sure they dangerous pesticides out of the will, and it’s a crock. If a small food supply, particularly the nonprofit group can spend tens foods little kids eat the most: the of thousands of dollars each landmark Food Quality Protec- year on food testing, imagine tion Act of 1996. (Don’t take our what a multi-billion dollar chain word for it. See the investigative like Safeway or Kroger could expose of government pesticide accomplish. And as soon as regulation in the Oregonian last they even contemplated a test December at and tell system, the apple indus- www.oregonlive.com/news/99/ try would begin to change. So 12/st120501.html). There isn’t a would growers of other produce single consumer or environmen- crops. They’d rapidly find ways tal group in the country that to grow fruits and vegetables believes this government is going without the most dangerous to stand up for consumers and chemicals. We’d get much purer against the pesticide lobby, based produce at the same price. on performance to date.

That’s what happened with But we think consumers will Gerber Baby Foods a few years stand up. ago. When EWG tested baby foods for pesticides, Gerber Turn the page or go to listened and responded to con- www.foodnews.org. We’ll show sumer concerns our testing you how. It’ll only take a provoked. Gerber not just minute. directed but helped its growers to slash pesticide use, and KENNETH A. COOK eliminate the highest risk com- PRESIDENT pounds from their product line.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP iii iv A FEW BAD APPLES... A Few Bad Apples...

Executive Summary

Laboratory tests of apples four. Eight different pesticides Given the extent of grown in Washington State and were found in all. More extensive the contamination, purchased in Seattle supermar- tests probably would have found and the types and kets over the past five months additional chemicals, based on found widespread insecticide government studies. levels of pesticides contamination. Eight percent of detected, consumers apple samples had unsafe levels The testing program was com- should purchase of a bug killer abruptly banned missioned by the nonprofit Envi- certified organic for use on apples and other ronmental Working Group, a apples this season if foods in August, 1999 by federal public health watchdog organiza- they wish to avoid authorities because of nervous tion, to help consumers and exposure to chemicals system risks to children. grocers respond to growing fed- Twenty percent of the samples eral concerns about major apple that have raised safety had residues of another potent pesticides and to help fill a three- concerns with federal insecticide that Washington year information gap in federal regulators. State’s Department of Ecology pesticide tests on apples. has targeted for a ban because of health and environmental Given the extent of the con- concerns. Several other highly tamination, and the types and toxic compounds were found, levels of pesticides detected, including chlorpyrifos consumers should purchase certi- (Dursban/Lorsban), a widely fied organic apples this season if used roach and bug spray that, they wish to avoid exposure to according to the U.S. EPA, is chemicals that have raised safety unsafe for children in all com- concerns with federal regulators. mon indoor applications, even when used as directed (EPA The government last published 1999). results of pesticide tests for apples in 1998, based on samples col- In all, 84 percent of the more lected in 1996. The next round of than 125 pounds of Washington apple test results, for samples State apples sampled tested taken this season, will not be positive for pesticides in a available from the U.S. Depart- battery of laboratory analyses. ment of Agriculture until mid-2001 Half of the five-pound bags or later—long after grocers have tested had more than one pesti- stocked and sold the current apple cide, and some had as many as crop and consumers have eaten it.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 1 Washington State The results indicate that Wash- banned pesticide, methyl par- apple growers have ington State apple growers have athion, and to another pesticide, done little to reduce done little to reduce insecticide Guthion, that was nearly banned contamination of their crop since insecticide in 1999. In the end, it was 1996, when federal pesticide merely restricted after last minute contamination of their laws were overhauled to protect concessions to chemical compa- crop since 1996, when children. Lab tests EWG com- nies and farm groups. Guthion federal pesticide laws missioned closely match the was found in 14 (56 percent) of were overhauled to contamination patterns found in the 25 bags of apples that EWG protect children. government tests of apples tested. grown five years ago.

Washington State authorities Detailed Findings test apples and other foods for pesticides but do not publicize Independent testing commis- results for direct use by consum- sioned by the Environmental ers. The state accounts for 60 Working Group found eight percent of the U.S. apple market different pesticides in 21 out of and the majority of the nation’s 25 bags (84 percent) of Washing- fresh apple exports. ton State apples purchased in Seattle supermarkets from No- The tests indicate that con- vember 1999 through January sumers are being exposed to the 2000.

Table 1. Pesticides were found on over 80 percent of Washington State apples

Apple Type Packer Store Chemicals Detected Golden Delicious Domex Marketing Thriftway Azinphos-methyl (0.200), Methyl Parathion (0.020), Phosmet (0.020), Endosulfan (0.009), Jonagold Sage Marketing Thriftway Azinphos-methyl (0.040), Chlorpyrifos (0.040), Diphenylamine (0.230), Thiabendazole (0.070) Red Delicious Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.002), Diphenylamine (1.510), Thiabendazole (0.980), Endosulfan (0.040) Golden Delicious* Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.079), Chlorpyrifos (0.059), Methyl Parathion (0.005) Granny Smith Brewster Heights QFC Azinphos-methyl (0.007), Diphenylamine (8.900), Endosulfan (0.120) Red Delicious Sage Marketing Thriftway Diphenylamine (0.950), Thiabendazole (0.980), Endosulfan (0.050) Fuji Columbia Mktg Thriftway Diphenylamine (0.04), Thiabendazole (1.18), Captan (0.006) Golden Delicious^ Columbia Mktg QFC Azinphos-methyl (0.060).Diphenylamine (1.5), Thiabendazole (0.98) Akane^ Crow's Nest Greenwood Azinphos-methyl (0.050), Phosmet (0.180), Thiabendazole (1.3) Gala QFC Azinphos-methyl (0.030), Thiabendazole (2.300) Red Delicious QFC Phosmet (0.005), Thiabendazole (0.240) Braeburn Sage Marketing Thriftway Diphenylamine (0.260), Thiabendazole (0.990) Golden Delicious QFC Endosulfan (0.017) Fuji* Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.012) Jonagold* Safeway Phosmet (0.110) Golden Delicious* Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.086) Golden Delicious^ Crow's Nest Greenwood Azinphos-methyl (0.070) Red Delicious* Safeway Chlorpyrifos (0.037) Golden Delicious^ NW Fruit & Produce Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.050) Fuji* Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.030) Fuji* Safeway Azinphos-methyl (0.023) Fuji* Safeway Red Delicious* Safeway Gala* Safeway Granny Smith^ Brewster Heights Safeway Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from EWG Testing Data. * - Samples were only tested for organophosphate pesticides. ^ - Samples were only tested for orgnnophosphate and nitrogen pesticides.

2 A FEW BAD APPLES... Seventeen (17) out of 25 bags trated at even more dangerous Small children could (68 percent) were positive for levels in just a few apples in the easily be exposed to highly toxic organophosphate bag. unsafe doses of (OP) insecticides, including 14 pesticides by eating with azinphos-methyl (Guthion), In the long run, exposures to relatively small two with methyl parathion, three methyl parathion on children’s chlorpyrifos, and four with foods will be eliminated as grow- amounts of some of phosmet (Table 1). In ten of the ers stop spraying the banned these apples. 25 samples that were more pesticide on their crops. Even thoroughly tested, four other then, however, exposure to pesticides were found, including organophosphate insecticides will the probable human carcinogen not be anywhere near what the captan, and the highly toxic agency itself has defined as safe DDT relative, endosulfan that (EWG 1998, EWG 1999). More- was targeted for elimination by over, there is no reason to think the Washington State Depart- that Guthion levels in apples and ment of Ecology in 1998. In other fruits will be any lower fact, half of the ten more thor- next year than they were this oughly tested samples were year. Indeed they may be higher contaminated with endosulfan. as growers apply more Guthion to make up for the loss of methyl Small children could easily be parathion. Restrictions on exposed to unsafe doses of Guthion production, per acre pesticides by eating relatively small amounts of some of these apples. Two bags were so Figure 1. One bag of apples purchased in January, 2000 was contaminated that less than one contaminated with nearly ten times EPA’s ‘safe’ level of methyl apple would expose an average parathion, a pesticide banned on children’s food last year 2-year-old to an unsafe dose of 0.020 organophosphate insecticides, according to EPA standards 0.018 (Figure 1). For three additional 0.016 bags, the safety limit for a 2- year-old was exceeded by eating 0.014 between one and two and a half 0.012 apples over the course of a day. These calculations underestimate 0.010 actual risk because they assume 0.008 that the child is exposed to no Parts-per-million 0.006 other OP insecticides on that day. Because the entire bag of 0.004 apples is tested together, these 0.002 figures assume that the pesticides were evenly distributed on 0.000 Safe Level Golden Delicious Golden Delicious all the apples in the bag. In from Safeway from Thriftway reality it is more likely that the Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from EWG Testing Data. methyl parathion was concen- Note: The ‘safe’ level is the level at which the average 2-year-old could eat an apple without gettingan un acceptable dose according to EPA standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 3 In the long run, use, and food residues are so have been certified by Nutriclean exposures to methyl weak that they will do nothing or other independent, third party parathion on to prevent this perverse out- auditors. come. And the agency has yet children’s foods will to take any action to regulate For more information on be eliminated as another OP, chlorpyrifos, on pesticides and other contamina- growers stop spraying apples, even as it declared it tion in foods, visit EWG’s the pesticide on their unsafe under all common home foodnews.org site crops. use scenarios in October 1999. (www.foodnews.org) for our latest pesticide test results and other information on how to Recommendations shop your way to safer food.

For Parents: For Supermarkets:

Parents should continue to We call on all supermarkets to feed their children plenty of begin targeted pesticide testing fresh fruits and vegetables but programs, and to make the re- avoid conventially-grown foods sults immediately available to that contain relatively high levels consumers. Shoppers have a Even then, however, of pesticides. Apples, peaches, right to know about pesticides in exposure to pears, strawberries, and green the foods they buy, and retailers organophosphate beans typically have the highest are in the best position to provide insecticides will not levels of pesticides. Bananas, this information. be anywhere near oranges, pineapples, most melons, and broccoli are typi- Choice is important to con- what the agency cally lower in pesticides. sumers. We urge all supermar- itself has defined as kets to stock organic and certified safe If your kids love apples, try low residue produce that have to feed them certified organic been accredited by reputable, apples, or low residue fruits that independent programs.

4 A FEW BAD APPLES... Chapter 1

Bad Apples

In 1993, the National Acad- calling it the “peace of mind” Act. The foods most emy of Sciences published the More than three years after Presi- frequently eaten by landmark study, Pesticides in the dent Clinton’s declaration, the children, such as Diets of Infants and Children, government has yet to implement which concluded that existing the full protections of the law for apples, are still laws were not adequate to even one pesticide. The foods contaminated with protect children against the risk most frequently eaten by chil- toxic pesticides at of pesticides in food and the dren, such as apples, are still levels that pose a environment. Largely in re- contaminated with toxic pesti- significant health risk sponse to this report, the United cides at levels that pose a signifi- to infants and States Congress unanimously cant health risk to infants and children. passed the Food Quality Protec- children. tion Act (FQPA), which for the first time required that infants As part of its implementation and children be protected from of FQPA, the EPA identified all sources of exposure to pesti- organophosphate (OP) insecticides. President Clinton signed cides as the most dangerous class the Act on August 3, 1996, of pesticides in the food. Heavily

Figure 2. Apples and apple products present more risk from neurotoxic pesticides (OPs) than all other foods combined.

250,000

200,000

150,000

100,000

50,000 of Organophosphates

0 Fresh Apple Peaches Fresh Grapes The Next Apples Sauce and Green 10 Foods Juice Beans Combined Number of Children Exceeding EPA “Safe” Dose Source: Environmental Working Group. How ‘bout them apples (Feb. 1998)

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 5 used in apple production, these (EWG 1998, EWG 1999). Apples bug killers were developed from account for the lion’s share of World War II nerve gases. Our this risk (Figure 2). analyses show that about 600,000 children between the ages of one Infants and children are and five years eat an unsafe dose particularly vulnerable to OPs of OP insecticides each day because their central nervous systems are still developing. In Table 2. 20 pesticides considered highly hazardous August, 1999, the EPA con- by the EPA are heavily sprayed on apples. cluded, after years of scientific study, that children were being Percent of Crop exposed to unsafe levels of two Pesticide Treated (1996) Pesticide Type widely used OP insecticides, Azinphos-methyl 82 Insecticide Guthion and methyl parathion. Chlorpyrifos 74 Insecticide Myclobutanil 39 Fungicide On August 2, 1999, the EPA Carbaryl 38 Insecticide Captan 36 Fungicide “restricted” the use of Guthion Mancozeb 32 Fungicide (azinphos-methyl) due to its Methyl parathion 30 Insecticide potential to damage the brains Paraquat 26 Weed-killer and developing nervous systems Benomyl 25 Fungicide Endosulfan 20 Insecticide of infants and young children. Simazine 19 Weed-killer As discussed below, the restric- Phosmet 19 Insecticide tions have just about zero likeli- Triflumizole 19 Fungicide hood of reducing infant or child Methomyl 18 Insecticide exposure to Guthion in food. Oxymyl 18 Insecticide Metiram 17 Fungicide Guthion is applied to 82 percent 2,4-D 14 Weed-killer of the U.S. apple crop, and 91 Thiophanate-methyl 14 Fungicide percent of the apples grown in Malathion 12 Insecticide Washington State (USDA 1998). Methoxychlor 12 Insecticide Formetanate-HCL 9 Insecticide Hexythiazox 9 Insecticide On the same day, the EPA Oryzalin 7 Weed-killer banned the use of methyl par- Dimethoate 7 Insecticide athion on all foods consumed by Permethrin 6 Insecticide children, effective January 2000. Triadimefon 6 Fungicide Oxyfluorfen 4 Weed-killer Prior to the ban, methyl par- Diazinon 4 Insecticide athion was applied to 30 percent Terbacil 3 Weed-killer of the nation’s apples and 33 Dicofol 3 Insecticide percent of the apples grown in Methidathion 2 Insecticide Maneb 2 Fungicide Washington (USDA 1998). Thiram 2 Fungicide Phosphamidon 1 Insecticide In October 1999, the EPA Chlorothalonil 1 Fungicide found another widely used Zinc phosphide 1 Other organophosphate, chlorpyrifos, Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S.D.A. was unsafe for children in all National Agricultural Statistics Service, Survey of Agrichemical Usage 1997. common home use applications. In spite of this finding, EPA

6 A FEW BAD APPLES... currently plans no action to 36 different chemicals on EPA’s Overall, 36 different restrict the use of chlorpyrifos in top priority high-hazard list are chemicals on EPA’s apple production, even as use sprayed on at least one percent top priority high- on apples increased from of the U.S. apple crop (Table 2). 468,000 pounds in 1991 to hazard list are sprayed 571,000 pounds in 1997 (USDA The total pesticide load on on at least one percent 1992, USDA 1998)1. apples after washing and coring of the U.S. apple crop. held steady from 1992 through The use of other toxic pesti- 1995 and then increased sharply cides on apples is also increas- in 1996 (USDA 1997). There is ing, even as the total number of no evidence that residues have orchard acres is decreasing. decreased since that time. In Application of EDBC fungicides, 1995 and 96, USDA technicians carcinogens that are poorly found apple samples with up to monitored in the food supply by 12 pesticides and breakdown the federal government, in- products after being washed and creased seven-fold, from a few cored. The health risks of these hundred thousand pounds in toxic mixtures of pesticides are 1991 to more than 1.4 million neither regulated by the EPA, nor pounds in 1997. The use of studied by the scientific commu- methoxychlor, a potent hormone nity. The test results reported disrupter and DDT derivative, here show nearly identical pesti- grew from virtually no usage in cide residue patterns on this the beginning of the decade to year’s harvest of apples from 50,000 pounds in 1997. Overall, Washington State.

Endnotes:

1. We used data from the National Agricultural Statitistics Service’s (NASS) surveys of agrichemical usage to track changes in pesticide use between 1991 and 1997. NASS did not survey the same states in both years, having sampled growers in Virginia and Arizona in 1991 and in California in 1997; therefore, we limited our comparison to the states that were surveyed in both years: Georgia, Michigan, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Washington. These state produce nearly 80 percent of the nation’s apple crop.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 7 8 A FEW BAD APPLES... Chapter 2

Test, But Don’t Tell

The apple industry has cre- children most frequently eat. Although PDP ated a hazard for children by its The program has been an im- researchers found an profligate use of highly-toxic mense resource for researchers apple sample on pesticides. As the EPA and the and policy-makers and has January 23, 1996 with industry battle over what levels enabled the EPA to pinpoint of pesticides on apples are safe risks in its implementation of enough methyl for children, parents have no FQPA; however, it is not de- parathion on it to give way of knowing which apples signed to give rapid results to a child an unsafe dose are heavily contaminated and the public. The last time that the with just one bite, which are not. As a result, they program tested apples and those results were not cannot make informed buying published the results was in released to the public decisions other than purchasing 1996, and USDA did not release for another 26 organic or certified low-residue a report with the results until apples, which are not widely February 1998. There have been months—well after available to the public. no apple data published at all by that year’s crop was the USDA since that time. consumed. It is not that the government doesn’t test apples for pesticides. This delay can have unfortu- They do. The problem is that nate consequences. Although they generally sit on the results USDA researchers found an for about two years before they apple sample on January 23, release them to the public. And 1996 with enough methyl par- when the information is finally athion on it to give a child an released, it is typically in un- unsafe dose with just one bite, wieldy reports that are useless to those results were not released parents and other consumers. to the public for another 26 months—well after that year’s Even the best government crop was consumed. PDP testing program, USDA’s Pesti- researchers tested 530 bags of cide Data Program (PDP), lacks apples that year and found a a usable turn-around time to total of 35 different residues on help concerned parents to 99.6 percent of those samples. choose their children’s diets. The apples in one bag had 10 Started in 1991, the PDP tests pesticides plus two distinct by- thousands of food samples each products on them, more than year for pesticide residues, any other food tested by the focusing on the foods that USDA.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 9 Apples were chosen EWG’s Testing Initiative • 84 percent of all samples because our very small (21 out of 25), were posi- testing budget limited In an attempt to give the tive for one of eight different pesticides (Table 2). A us to one food, and public some timely information on pesticides in children’s foods, sample is a slurry made because apples EWG has begun a residue testing from a five pound bag of present the greatest program that will provide up-to- apples. pesticide risk to date information to the public. infants and children of The apple test results in this • 17 out of 25 samples, 68 any single food in the report are the first findings from percent, had residues of U.S. food supply. this project. Future results will organophosphate insecti- be posted even more quickly cides. than these, on the world wide web, and distributed to the • 14 samples had residues of media. the OP Guthion and two of these also had residues This round of tests took a look methyl parathion. One of at some of the pesticides found these apples was so con- on apples grown in Washington taminated that three bites State and sold in Seattle super- (15 grams) would expose markets. Apples were chosen the average 2-year-old to because our very small testing more OP insecticides than Apples are so loaded budget limited us to one food, deemed safe by the U.S. with different and because apples present the EPA. Another would pesticides that we greatest pesticide risk to infants overexpose a 2-year-old and children of any single food with just one third of an could not, with in the U.S. food supply. Indeed, apple. existing funds, look for apples are so loaded with differ- all the pesticides that ent pesticides that we could not, • Nine out of the 10 samples are likely to be found with existing funds, look for all that were tested more on just this one crop. the pesticides that are likely to be thoroughly were positive found on just this one crop. for pesticides.

Twenty-five, five pound bags • Five of these had endosul- of apples were purchased in fan on them, a toxic rela- Seattle supermarkets in October tive of DDT that was listed 1999 and January 2000. The first for elimination by the 10 were tested only for organo- Washington State Depart- phosphate insecticides, the next ment of Ecology in 1998. five were tested for OPs and One had residues of cap- organonitrogens (ONs), and the tan, a fungicide classified last ten bags were tested for OPs, as a probable human ONs, and organochlorines. We carcinogen by the U.S. found: EPA.

10 A FEW BAD APPLES... The names of individual any better than Safeway when it apple brands and supermarkets comes to pesticide contamination were included to give consum- on its produce and Thriftway is ers a snapshot of what out tests not necessarily any worse. In the found; however, our sample size coming months, EWG will work was too small to draw any with supermarkets to develop and conclusions regarding relative publish a policy regarding pesti- pesticide contamination between cides and will make that informa- stores. QFC is not necessarily tion available to the public.

Table 3. Pesticides were found on over 80 percent of Washington State apples

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 11 12 A FEW BAD APPLES... Chapter 3

Faking it – EPA’s Implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act

The insecticide found most EWG analyses published in EPA’s so-called often in Washington State apples March 1999 estimated that 40,000 restrictions on is Guthion. This was the conclu- children between the ages of 1 Guthion will do sion of five years of testing by and 5 eat an unsafe dose of nothing to lower levels the USDA Pesticide Data Pro- Guthion each day. This estimate gram and it was confirmed by was based on the most recent of this insecticide in our test results. Indeed, the government data on apple con- food. ubiquity of Guthion in apples sumption and pesticide residues was the principle reason that in food (EWG 1999a). The EPA initially proposed to ban the results of our supermarket testing insecticide on this crop. program show that children face the same unacceptable risks On March 19 1999, scientists today from Guthion, as before at the EPA’s Office of Pesticide the EPA’s decision. Worse, it is Programs finished a study of the likely that EPA’s so-called restric- risks posed by Guthion. That tions will do nothing in the future study, like the one sponsored by to lower levels of this insecticide the pesticide’s manufacturer, in food. concluded that Guthion use on food—especially apples—posed Guthion is applied to 82 an unacceptable risk to children percent of the U.S. apple crop, (Eiden 1999). Shortly therafter, and 91 percent of the apples the agency completed a study grown in Washington State on another organophosphate, (USDA 1998). Recognizing what methyl parathion, that concluded it called Guthion’s “high” risks to that children were exposed to children (USEPA 1999), the nine times the safe level of the agency decided in the spring of pesticide. Under the Food 1999 to ban all uses of the insec- Quality Protection Act (FQPA), ticide on children’s foods. But the EPA was required to take after intense pressure from the action to reduce those risks. apple industry and their allies in Methyl parathion was ultimately the pesticide lobby, the EPA banned although it remains in issued a final decision on apples to this day. Guthion Guthion that will do virtually largely escaped government nothing to protect children. action. (Walth 1999.)

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 13 EPA’s Guthion Instead of banning Guthion have no effect on actual decision ignored the on apples and other children’s use of Guthion. Nation- cumulative risk from foods, the EPA: ally, apple farmers use an average of 2.4 pounds of the 12 other OP 1. Lowered the legal limit for Guthion per acre; farmers insecticides that are Guthion on apples—the in Washington State use routinely found in biggest risk-driver—from 2.77 pounds per acre. food. 2.0 to 1.5 parts-per-million 3. The high 4.5 pounds per 2. Lowered the maximum acre application rate en- application rate from 6 to sures that lengthening the 4.5 pounds per acre time between the last application and harvest 3. Increased the length of time will have little effect on between the last pesticide actual residue levels. spraying and harvest from 7 Bayer, the maker of to 21 days if the last appli- Guthion, only agreed to cation is more than 1 accept the 21 day pre pound of Guthion per acre. harvest interval after pres- suring EPA to adopt high 4. Set a maximum annual per acre poundage limits production level of 1.92 (Walth 1999). million pounds to keep farmers from increasing 4. The agency’s production applications of Guthion in cap will have no effect on response to the loss of Guthion use in apples methyl parathion. largely because the cap does not limit the amount The action will do nothing to of Guthion that can be protect children because: used on individual crops. Apples are the top market 1. Lowering the legal limit for Guthion, and if it is from 2 to 1.5 ppm does not needed, Guthion use on make Guthion on apples apples will increase at the safe for children. Guthion expense of smaller crops at 1.5 ppm is five times the like cherries and blueber- amount that a 2-year-old ries. could safely eat in one day and is significantly higher Chlorpyrifos: the risk from other than the real world Guthion OPs levels on apples that prompted EPA “action” in As with all regulatory actions the first place (Figure 3). to date under FQPA, EPA’s Guthion decision ignored the 2. Reducing the maximum cumulative risk from the 12 application rate from 6 to other OP insecticides that are 4.5 pounds per acre will routinely found in food. Indeed,

14 A FEW BAD APPLES... it is only by ignoring these risks and mice link the compound to Twelve other that the EPA was able to con- problems with the blood cells, organophosphate clude that Agency restrictions on brain formation, nervous system pesticides are Guthion would make the pesti- development and reproductive commonly found on cide “safe” for chlidren. ability. children’s food (at Twelve other organophos- The October EPA analysis also least five others on phate pesticides are commonly included an assessment of apples alone). found on children’s food (at chlorpyrifos in food. Here the least five others on apples agency use the same flawed alone). Under FQPA, the EPA is analysis that it used in the required to make sure that the Guthion decision. By ignoring combined exposure to all these risks from Guthion and all other OPs is safe for infants and chil- OPs, and by ignoring all non- dren. In EPA parlance, the food risks from chlorpyrifos agency must leave room in the itself, the agency concluded that ‘risk cup’ for all of these chemi- chlorpyrifos’s dietary risks to cals when it sets the safe limits children age five and under were for individual pesticides like barely within safe exposure Guthion. The Agency’s action, limits. however, allowed Guthion to fill the entire risk cup by itself. Of course in the real world, Guthion, therefore, is only safe where children are exposed to under the law, if exposure to all other OP pesticides is ignored. Figure 3. The new legal limit for Guthion on apples is not safe for small children. In reality, children are exposed to many other OPs each 1.6 day. Chlorpyrifos, another OP insecticide and the most heavily 1.4 used insecticide in the United States, provides a good example. 1.2 Government studies show that 82 percent of American adults 1 and 92 percent of children 0.8 studied have traces of the chemical in their urine (Smegal 0.6 1999b). In October 1999, the

EPA published a detailed risk Parts-per-million Guthion 0.4 assessment for chorpyrifos that found all common home appli- 0.2 cations of the insecticide to exceed safety margins for chil- 0 dren (Smegal 1999a). Maximum Guthion level at New Legal Limit which a 2-year-old could safely Chlorpyrifos exposure is of eat an apple particular concern because EPA

and Dow studies on rats, rabbits Source: Environmental WorkingGroup

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 15 Guthion, chlorpyrifos, methyl Not to mention the fact that parathion and many other OP being barely safe by EPA stan- pesticides, sometimes on the dards is no guarantee of protec- same apple, the safety of expo- tion for small children. The EPA sure to individual pesticides considers OP’s like Guthion and from one source is not relevant chlorpyrifos safe if up to 20,000 to the overall risk faced by children exceed federal limits children. each day, for each pesticide in food alone. This is like saying that the highways are safe if only a few people a day are driving drunk.

16 A FEW BAD APPLES... Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommendations

For Parents: For Supermarkets:

Parents should continue to We call on all supermarkets to feed their children plenty of begin targeted pesticide testing fresh fruits and vegetables but programs, and to make the avoid conventially-grown foods results immediately available to that contain relatively high consumers. Shoppers have a levels of pesticides. Apples, right to know about pesticides in peaches, pears, strawberries, the foods they buy, and retailers and green beans typically have are in the best position to pro- the highest levels of pesticides. vide this information. Bananas, oranges, pineapples, most melons, and broccoli are Choice is also important to typically lower in pesticides. consumers. We urge all supermarkets to stock organic and If your kids love apples, try certified low residue produce that to feed them certified organic have been accredited under apples, or low residue fruits that Nutriclean or other reputable, have been certified by independent programs. Nutriclean or other independent, third party auditors.

For more information on pesticides and other contamination in foods, visit EWG’s foodnews.org site (www.foodnews.org) for our latest pesticide test results and other information on how to shop your way to safer food.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 17 18 A FEW BAD APPLES... References

References

Eiden, Catherine (1999). “HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT: Azinphos- Methyl.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs. 19 May 1999.

Environmental Working Group (EWG), 1998. “Overexposed: Organophosphate Insecticides in Children’s Foods.” Washington, D.C. January, 1998.

Environmental Working Group (EWG), 1999. “How ‘bout them Apples: Pesticides in Children’s Food Ten Years after Alar.” Washington, D.C. February, 1999.

Environmental Working Group (EWG), 1999a. “Children are Overexposed to Guthion.” Washington, D.C. April, 1999.

Smegal, Deborah and Timothy Leighton (1999a). Memo to Mark Hartman, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C). SUBJECT: Occupational/ Residential Handler and Postapplication Residential Risk Assessment for Chlorpyrifos. DP Barcode: D259612. Case No. 818975. PC Code: 059101. Submission: S568580. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. October 5, 1999.

Smegal, Deborah (1999b). Memo to Mark Hartman, Special Review and Reregistration Division (7508C). SUBJECT: Chlorpyrifos: HED Preliminary Risk Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED) Document. Chemical No. 059101. Barcode: D260163, Case: 818975, Submission:S568580. U.S. EPA, Office of Pesticide Programs. October 18, 1999.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1998a. “1996 Pesticide Data Program.” http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1992. “Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1991 Fruits Summary.” National Agricultural Statistics Service, Ag Ch 1(92), June 1992.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), 1998. “Agricultural Chemical Usage: 1997 Fruits Summary.” National Agricultural Statistics Service, Ag Ch 1(98), July 1998.

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA),1999. “Azinphos-Methyl Summary”. Office of Pesticide Programs. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/op/ azinphos/azmsum.htm

Walth, Brent (1999). “Government Brokers a Deal on Insecticide.” The Oregonian. 9 December 1999.

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 19 20 A FEW BAD APPLES... E NVIRONMENTAL TM W ORKING GROUP

1718 CONNECTICUT AVE., NW, SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20009 TEL 202-667-6982 FAX 202-232-2592 [email protected] www.ewg.org