Every year, EWG releases its Shopper’s Guide to Pesticides in Produce™, relying on federal data to show which fruits and vegetables have the lowest and highest levels of pesticide residues.
Our goal is, and always has been, to provide consumers data on the pesticide residues that federal researchers found on produce, so they can make their own informed choices about what produce to buy, organic or not.
The guide includes the Clean Fifteen™ of the conventionally grown produce with the least amount of pesticide residues and the Dirty Dozen™ with the most residues. It also offers information on health risks associated with various pesticides detected.
What EWG’s Shopper’s Guide doesn’t do is tell people they must only buy organic produce.
For this year’s guide, spinach led the Dirty Dozen, with more pesticide residues than any other produce tested by the Department of Agriculture. The chemicals detected include the neurotoxic insecticide permethrin, banned from food crops in Europe due to concerns about its health harms.
And when we look at health harms, we’re considering the cumulative impact over a lifetime of eating produce with pesticide residue. EWG has never claimed that Americans face health risks from eating a single piece of produce with pesticide residue. What we have said is that the health risk comes from eating multiple types of produce with pesticide residue over a lifetime of consumption.
Take spinach – the USDA says the average American eats 2.5 pounds a year, and with life expectancy at 78.4 years, that’s 196 pounds. That adds up to a lot of potential pesticide exposure from just one type of produce.
EWG fully supports eating spinach for its health benefits. We encourage it. But we also believe you deserve all the information needed to make the best choices for yourself and your family.
And lifetime exposure is one of the factors the Environmental Protection Agency can consider when it sets a pesticide “tolerance” – a maximum level legally allowed to remain on crops. The EPA sets pesticide residue limits, and the USDA tests produce to help assess how well farmers comply with those limits.
Legal is not always safe
It’s also important to look at pesticide detections even when they do fall below EPA tolerances, because some of the agency’s safety thresholds might not fully protect health.
For example, acetamiprid is a neonicotinoid insecticide once thought to be a less-toxic alternative to harmful organophosphates like chlorpyrifos. But emerging evidence suggests acetamiprid may possibly harm the nervous and reproductive systems.
In 2024, the European Food Safety Authority recommended lowering the acceptable daily intake of acetamiprid – the maximum amount someone can consume daily over their lifetime without facing health risks – and its allowable limits on food. The European agency made this decision due to health concerns about acetamiprid, specifically harm to the developing nervous system.
Oversimplifying the complex world of pesticide risks as a pass/fail test based on existing EPA limits ignores situations where such standards are later found to be woefully unprotective of public health. It also doesn’t account for new findings about particular pesticides’ harms.
EWG’s Shopper’s Guide looks at the full picture of the cumulative exposure of multiple pesticides across many fruits and vegetables. Nobody eats just one particular piece of produce and nothing else in their diet. And everyone’s diet is unique, with serving sizes and types covering a huge variety. And some produce can have multiple pesticide residues in one serving.
Peer-reviewed research by independent experts increasingly shows that even low-level or real-world exposures can lead to health risks. Saying there is no possible concern because you are unlikely to be acutely harmed from one huge serving of strawberries, or other type of produce, shows a misunderstanding of how environmental health is studied.
Our goal is to provide clear, science-based guidance so consumers can make informed decisions about their food. Any claims to the contrary are truly misinformation.
Areas of Focus
