This time of year, food becomes a primary focus of conversation as we turn our thoughts to colder weather, cozy family dinners and the holidays.  Food should be a source of fun, healthiness and good flavors – it should not be a source of fear.  But, when it comes to fruits and vegetables, some groups actively promote inaccurate messaging designed to evoke fear in an effort to promote one farming method over others.

Study after study and government sampling programs repeatedly confirm the safety of produce.  Decades of studies also show the significant health benefits of a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, including the prevention of diseases and increased lifespan.  Yet these groups continue promoting disparaging messaging and have even increased the veracity of their statements in recent promotional efforts.

Even more concerning is this is done in light of peer reviewed research which is showing that when consumers are exposed to inaccurate messaging about “high” residues, they state they are less likely to purchase any produce – organic or conventionally grown.  With only one in 10 Americans eating enough produce each day, registered dietitians and nutritionists have a hard enough time working with clients and consumers on overcoming barriers to consumption, now they also have to counter safety fears?  Doesn’t seem right.

Now a new report seeks to reassure consumers by describing how information from complex risk assessments can be misinterpreted in news stories and by certain groups. “Consumers should feel confident, rather than uncomfortable, when purchasing fruits and vegetables,” says Dr. Carl K. Winter, Cooperative Extension Food Toxicology Specialist Emeritus at the University of California, Davis, and chair author of the Council of Agriculture Science and Technology publication.

The report states:

The innately complex findings from scientific publications can easily be shaped into unfavorable narratives that end up confusing grocery buyers more than aiding them.

 For example, results from U.S. federal regulatory monitoring programs are common sources used by advocacy groups to provide advice to consumers, such as what fruits and vegetables are most likely to contain pesticide residues. However, their guidance is in contrast to the actual findings from these federal programs, which often find most foods do not contain detectable amounts of pesticides. The foods that do have traceable amounts contain so little, they are considered harmless to human health.

“Recommendations made by advocacy groups that consumers avoid specific fruits and vegetables are not backed up with sound science,” Winter says. “The worst thing consumers can do is to reduce their consumption of healthy fruits and vegetables—organic or conventional—due to unwarranted concerns regarding pesticide residues.”

Dr. Winter is also the author of these peer reviewed papers published in the Journal of Toxicology and the International Journal of Food Consumption, which further address pesticide residue and consumer safety.