Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets

B. Baker, C. Benbrook, E. Iii, K. Benbrook
{"title":"Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets","authors":"B. Baker, C. Benbrook, E. Iii, K. Benbrook","doi":"10.1080/02652030110113799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"An analysis of pesticide residue data was performed to describe and quantify differences between organically grown and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Data on residues in foods from three different market categories (conventionally grown, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown/no detectable residues (NDR), and organically grown) were compared using data from three test programmes: The Pesticide Data Program of the US Department of Agriculture; the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and private tests by the Consumers Union, an independent testing organization. Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods, and about one-half as many residues as found in IPM/NDR samples. Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets. The IPM/NDR category, based on data from two of the test programmes, had residues higher than those in organic samples but lower than those in conventionally grown foods.","PeriodicalId":12310,"journal":{"name":"Food Additives & Contaminants","volume":"20 1","pages":"427 - 446"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"349","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Food Additives & Contaminants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02652030110113799","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 349

Abstract

An analysis of pesticide residue data was performed to describe and quantify differences between organically grown and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Data on residues in foods from three different market categories (conventionally grown, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown/no detectable residues (NDR), and organically grown) were compared using data from three test programmes: The Pesticide Data Program of the US Department of Agriculture; the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and private tests by the Consumers Union, an independent testing organization. Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods, and about one-half as many residues as found in IPM/NDR samples. Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets. The IPM/NDR category, based on data from two of the test programmes, had residues higher than those in organic samples but lower than those in conventionally grown foods.
传统、综合病虫害管理(IPM)种植和有机食品中的农药残留:来自三个美国数据集的见解
对农药残留数据进行了分析,以描述和量化有机种植和非有机新鲜水果和蔬菜之间的差异。使用三个测试项目的数据比较了三种不同市场类别(传统种植、病虫害综合管理(IPM)种植/无检测残留物(NDR)种植和有机种植)食品中的残留物数据:美国农业部农药数据计划;加州农药监管部门的市场监督计划;以及由独立测试组织消费者联盟进行的私人测试。有机食品的残留物一直是传统食品的三分之一,大约是IPM/NDR样品中残留物的一半。与有机种植的样品相比,常规种植和IPM/NDR样品含有多种农药残留的可能性也要大得多。对特定作物的特定残留物进行比较发现,在所有三个数据集中,有机样品中的残留物浓度始终低于其他两类。根据两个测试项目的数据,IPM/NDR类别的残留物高于有机样品,但低于传统种植食品。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信