Viewpoint: Pesticide residues on food could be 100,000 times higher—and still wouldn’t harm your health

The idea that “nonorganic” produce, typically referred to as “conventional” produce, is unsafe to eat is pervasive, and it largely hinges on a narrow definition of “safe” (i.e., pesticide-free) as well as a black-and-white view of what goes into the production of organic and conventional crops.

What do we mean when we say “safe”?

Many substances are safe unless they are used excessively. Alcohol is a toxin, but it’s not a problem for most people if consumed in moderation ….

“The first principle of toxicology is ‘the dose makes the poison,’” said Carl Winter, who was a food toxicologist at University of California Cooperative Extension for 32 years …. “It is the amount of exposure to a chemical, not its presence or absence, that determines the potential for harm. In the case of pesticide residues, the levels are typically far lower than those required to produce harm.”

[In September], the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued its annual Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Report for 2018 …. Of the 1,448 samples produced or grown in the U.S., 96.8% were in compliance and 47.1% had no detectable residues.

“If consumers were exposed to 100,000 times more pesticide residue than they are typically exposed to on a daily basis throughout their lifetimes,” Winter said, “their levels of exposure would still be lower than levels that don’t even produce any noticeable toxicological effect in long-term animal toxicology studies.”

Read the original post

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

Screenshot-2026-04-22-at-12.21.32-PM
Viewpoint: Why the retracted Monsanto glyphosate study doesn’t change the science—the world’s most popular herbicide is safe 
Picture1
The FDA couldn’t find a vaccine safety crisis, so it buried its own research
ChatGPT-Image-May-1-2026-11_42_59-AM-2
Viewpoint: NAD is the wellness grifters latest evidence-lite longevity fad. At least the mice are impressed.
ChatGPT-Image-Apr-16-2026-02_56_53-PM
Financial incentives, over diagnosis, and weak oversight: Autism claims are driving up Medicare costs
global warming
‘Implausible’: Top climate scientists reject worst-case scenario—soaring temperatures and fast-rising sea levels
ChatGPT-Image-May-12-2026-11_27_01-AM-2
AI likely to improve health care, research shows—but not for blacks and ethnic minorities
ChatGPT-Image-May-7-2026-01_23_27-PM-2
Viewpoint: Will AI democratize personalized cancer treatment or fuel medical misinformation?
vax-misinformation-main
Facts & Fallacies Podcast: Limit free speech to blunt social media misinfo?

Sorry. No data so far.

glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.