Within a month of each other, an environmental group and consumer advocacy group released two different produce “shoppers guides.” While both “shoppers guides” were supposedly based upon pesticide residue sampling results from the USDA Pesticide Data Program, they are in direct conflict with each other and feature different items on their “buy/don’t buy” lists creating even more consumer confusion.
A recent study from the John Hopkins Center for A Livable Future showed that conflicting information about food safety and nutrition may be having a detrimental impact on the dietary choices of consumers, especially those with lower incomes. Now we can add conflicting and competing “shoppers guides” to that mix. Just think through scenarios a consumer would go through if they actually tried to follow these “shoppers guides.”
Let’s imagine arriving at the produce aisle with both “shoppers guides” in hand. You head to one produce display with the intent to purchase, but the first "guide" you check says you shouldn’t buy this item if it is conventionally grown unless the product originates from Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico or Costa Rica. You track down the produce manager to ask about the country of origin. You learn that the product wasn’t grown in any of the “approved” countries. You then double-check the other “shoppers guide” where you see the product is listed on the “Clean 15” and this guide says you can buy the conventionally grown version.
To read the rest of the story, please go to: Alliance for Food and Farming