1985 EPA memo says glyphosate causes kidney tumors

A recently found archived document form 1985 shows, before the EPA was bought off by Monsanto, that the EPA thought glyphosate caused kidney tumors. Monsanto claims tumors are unrelated to glyphosate exposure by showing past studies. EPA claims past studies have too much variation to nullify the no tumor claim.

Sources
PDF here. Get it before it's taken down! Alt link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180131074049/https://archive.epa.gov/pesticides/chemicalsearch/chemical/foia/web/pdf/103601/103601-170.pdf

U.S. experts doubt EPA curbs on Monsanto, BASF herbicides will halt crop damage

US specialists doubt that reducing the sale of dicamba, sold by Monsanto and BASF, will actually slow down crop damage. Monsanto is releasing dicamba-resistant soy beans. Does dicamba get into every cell, so that it ends up in the food system?

Overspray of dicamba, trade name Xtend, to neighboring fields is responsible for millions of dollars in crop damage. Depending on soil conditions, Roundup can remain in the soil for up to 4 years, damaging future years of crops. Does dicamba do the same?

Links
Article: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-agriculture-dicamba/u-s-experts-doubt-epa-curbs-on-monsanto-basf-herbicides-will-halt-crop-damage-idUSKBN1CI21K

News briefs: DuPont, Teflon, EWG, Michael Dourson and EPA, alachlor, acetochlor

Walmart pushes companies to get verified by EWG... for personal care products. More about EWG verified is here. The EWG Skin Deep program rates products based on the safety of their ingredients. Many lipsticks contain lead, which causes irreversible brain damage.

Marion Nestle presents a round up of sugar industry reports. Fat isn't the biggest problem, sugar is. Read the reports and look for things like them minimizing the dangers of sugar, or focusing on the "good points". "Sugar gives you energy! But don't worry about it being an inflammatory agent."

Attorney who exposed the dangers of DuPont's Teflon wins alternative Nobel Prize called the Right Livelihood Award. Info on Teflon and studies here.

Trump's chemical safety nominee, Michael Dourson, could be bad for consumers. The EPA is already pro-poison, and frequently downplays the dangers of Roundup and other pesticides, even as farmers complain about the failure of Roundup, so this is a bad move.

Dourson was also paid by Dow and Monsanto to propose safe exposure levels for breakdown products of two widely used herbicides, alachlor and acetochlor, in an attempt to counter water standards developed by Wisconsin and Minnesota. Both chemicals are associated with higher cancer rates in male agricultural worker...

And the CDC is not much better.

Pediatricians urge EPA to ban pesticides that hurt developing brains

Chlorpyrifos was scheduled to be banned but the EPA is not going to ban it after all. The American Academy of Pediatrics is a nonprofit professional organization, sent a letter to the EPA about this pesticide. Children and their brains are especially vulnerable to chemicals because chemicals can cause brain changes which are permanent. Big Big-Agro is more about money than safety, and this is why many dangerous chemicals are still used on food.

Some portions of the letter:

Children come into contact with pesticides daily through air, food, dust, and soil, and on surfaces through home and public lawn or garden application, household insecticide use, application to pests, and agricultural product residues

Epidemiologic studies associate pesticide exposure with adverse birth outcomes, including preterm birth, low birth weight, congenital abnormalities, pediatric cancers, neurobehavioral and cognitive deficits, and asthma. The evidence is especially strong linking certain pesticide exposure with pediatric cancers and permanent neurological damage. 

Chemicals are especially dangerous if they affect brains (which affects later behavior) or act as hormones like other chemicals do, or remain in the food or environment long-term (like glyphosate).

Source
Environmental Working Group.

The REAL story behind Trump and clean water

During Obama's reign, he extended the Clean Water Act to small streams, some of which only contain water for some months of the year. Trump's rollback of this rule would only roll back that addition: small streams that would be covered under the Clean Water Act.

The Obama rule tried to expand the definition of "navigable waters", waters where you can travel on a boat on them, to included 1 inch deep streams, and stream beds that didn't even have have water in them for parts of the year! This includes drainage ditches on the side of the road.

The claim behind the hysteria: 117 million people in the US get their drinking water from small streams. (The footnote says "Streams classified by the U.S. Geological Survey as intermittent, ephemeral or headwater streams.") Intermittent, and ephemeral, mean the stream is not even there the whole year! From the USGS PDF:

• Intermittent: "Contains water for only part of the year, but more than just after rainstorms and at snowmelt."
• Ephemeral: "Contains water only during or after a local rainstorm or heavy snowmelt."
• Headwater from here: "(1) the source and upper reaches of a stream; also the upper reaches of a reservoir. (2) the water upstream from a structure or point on a stream. (3) the small streams that come together to form a river. Also may be thought of as any and all parts of a river basin except the mainstream river and main tributaries."

The claim: 117 million people get 100% of their water from these sometimes-dry streams. The 2009 EPA map classified counties according to the percent of people in that county that use these types of streams for drinking water. In fact, the 2009 EPA study that EWG used shows somecounties use these streams for 87-100% of their drinking water.

Since "headwaters" were grouped with temporary streams in the 2009 EPA study, this makes the 72 million number suspicious.


Sources

1. EPA 2009 study about drinking water from streams. This has a similar map to the EWG map. PDF of data by county.
2. EWG article. 
3. EWG analysis.  They provide an interactive map of US states and counties.

Bee-killing neonicitinoids approval violated the law

1. A Federal Court in San Francisco has ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) systematically violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) – a key wildlife protection law – when it approved bee-killing insecticides known as neonicotinoids.
2. The EPA also has rules where the cost of approval (or non-approval) must also be taken into account. This lets industry influence the approval process far too much if the company asking for approval simply reports there is little cost associated with the pesticide.
3. Judge Maxine Chesney of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that EPA had unlawfully issued 59 pesticide registrations between 2007 and 2012 for a wide variety of  uses.
4. The more recent theory of bee colony collapse disorder is various pesticides, including neonicotinoids, harm the bees' immune system and allow infections of fungus and mite infestations on the bees, which eventually kills multiple hives. Hobby bee keepers have also reported large bee deaths when their hives are near a farmer's field.
5. Neonics., as they are often called, can be sprayed on plants, and their flowers, and when bees touch the flowers the pesticide gets on them.

Source
Center for Food Safety.

1985 memo: Monsanto suspected glyphosate caused cancer

Twitter pic.

The letter is as follows:

April 3, 1985

To: T. F. Evans

The following item of information is in addition to those included in the current monthly report.

Senior management at EPA is reviewing a proposal to classify glyphosate as a class C "possible human carcinogen" because of kidney adenonomas in male mice. Dr. Marvin Kuschner will review kidney sections and present his evaluation of them to EPA in an effort to persuade the agency that the observed tumors are not related to glyphosate.

George J. Levinskas

cc: G Rousch Jr MD

Monsanto used army of shills to stop negative comments?

At least one news site is reporting that Monsanto used an army of shills to crack down on people who posted negative things about Monsanto or its products.

The case challenges Monsanto’s corrupt relationship with members of the Environmental Protection Agency and their attempts to manipulate scientific publications and crack down on online dissent. Monsanto’s ‘Let Nothing Go’ campaign allegedly hired online ‘shills’ to quickly respond to social media chatter about the carcinogenic properties of their ‘RoundUp’ product.  

1. Not much surprise if Monsanto colluded with EPA. EPA fired a scientist who started talking about the dangers of toxic sludge being put on farms all over America.  
2. The EPA claims Bt is safe for people when research shows otherwise (studies at link). 
3. EPA toxicity levels for neonics in water are far too lax.
4. Monsanto even claimed PCBs were safe right up to the last lawsuit. 
5. And Monsanto exec admits they faked study data.

Read more here.

EPA to reevaluate Neonics, as possibly responsible for bee deaths around the US

1/16/2017

EPA documents say that the EPA will reevaluate neonicotinoids as they are possibly responsible bee devastation around the US. Assessments to be finished in 2018.

On Jan 12, 2017, the EPA released its preliminary pollinator-only risk assessments for the neonicotinoid insecticides clothianidin (Poncho), thiamethoxam (Cruiser), and dinotefuran, a preliminary aquatic risk assessment for imidacloprid (Gaucho). The risk assessment plan is open to public comment until about Mar 12, 2017. The actual risk assessments wil be released in mid-2018.


Source
DTNPF.
EPA risk assessment for neonics. This is just a timeline that shows they are reassessing several pesticides. Alt link.
Comment on the EPA's risk assessment plan here.

97% of threatened species likely harmed by 2 pesticides

The EPA recently released its analysis of 1800 species protected under the Endangered Species Act are likely harmed by 2 pesticides: chlorpyrifos and malathion. It appears decades later, that neither government nor industry has learned a thing after the PCB and other fiascos of the 1960s and 1970s.

Source

1. EcoWatch. Jan 19, 2017. EcoWatch did not provide a link to the EPA report.
2. Possible related reports: EPA report on malathion. The date of the report is conspicuously absent. EPA report on chlorpyrifos. EPA report on diazinon.
3. Possible draft of the report from the EPA, April 2016. "As part of the Endangered Species Act consultation process with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), EPA has released for public comment the first-ever draft biological evaluations analyzing the nation-wide effects of chlorpyrifos, diazinon, and malathion on endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat. Partial evaluations, without the effects determinations, were released in December 2015."

EPA says atrazine threatens wildlife

1. Atrazine likely poses a threat to both land and water animals. 
2. Atrazine is banned in Europe but found in the drinking water of over 27 million people in the U.S. (About 8%.)
3. Atrazine is a potent endocrine disruptor. One study shows it changes the sex of frogs. 
4. EPA found that mammals are exposed to 198 times more atrazine than the “level of concern for chronic risk” and fish are exposed to 62 times that level.

Source
EWG.
Nature study of frogs changing sex.

EPA scientist fired for telling the truth about biosludge

Dr. David Lewis was fired from the EPA for telling the truth about the toxicity of biosolids from sewage sludge, which is often put on food crops.

A few points:

1. Sewage sludge is mostly feces and animal fats that settle out after water is treated. Once the sewage sludge is treated with lime, it is called biosolids and these are put onto food crops. 
2. The EPA regulates only nine of 27 heavy metals found in sewage sludge (As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Hg, Mo, Ni, Se, Zn), and no toxic organic chemicals. 
3. Most of these unregulated chemicals are highly persistent in the environment and get more concentrated up the food chain. 
4. They are already known to cause problems in animals and humans. These chemicals are linked to autism, ALS, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease.
5. "EPA’s solution to pollution was dilution. But, with the promulgation of the 503 sludge rule, EPA’s approach changed to concentrating pollutants on land—where we live, work and play—at millions of times higher levels than allowed elsewhere under the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts." The EPA thus contradicted itself by making the sewage sludge much more concentrated and more dangerous on land, where more people would be exposed to the toxins. 
6. The EPA claims this more concentrated sludge on land is not harmful due to little understood magical properties: "Sludge magic [means] there are unique properties in the biosolids matrix that sequester metals [and] organics [and] significantly reduce, if not eliminate, movement of pollutants from the biosolids out to the environment."
7. Studies showing the "safety" of biosolids and biosolid dust blowing around town were fabricated, like the one at University of Georgia. 

It's time to make your own gardens and grow your own food. Your gov't isn't protecting you.


Source
Mother Earth News. Feb 2016.

Annual usage of glyphosate on 70 US crops

An EPA memo lists the average annual usage of glyphosate on US crops from 2004-2013. This average isn't useful because glyphosate use has gone up so high in recent years. The memo also lists the average percent of that crop treated, and max percent crop treated.

These are estimates only, and subject to being very underreported. I actually don't see a single crop that ISN'T sprayed with glyphosate.


Source
EPA memo on Google Drive. This only covers pesticides with a SINGLE active ingredient. There are many more pesticides which have to use a combination of active ingredients because glyphosate has been making superweeds.

Bad chemicals in rivers and streams messing with body development

Starting in 2002 the first major studies of chemicals and pharmaceuticals in waterways was conducted. In 2008, the AP found at least one drug in every one of 24 major metro areas' drinking water.

1. Out of 28 cities where the drinking water was tested, only 3 found no chemicals. 
2. Test protocols varied. Some tested for one chemical, some for more than one chemical. 
3. Some water tests were negative but independent studies refute this. 
4. See the page for a list of cities and what each one found. 

Some points from PEER.org:

From 1999 to 2002, the United States Geological Survey studied surface and groundwater samples from around the country to determine whether pharmaceutical chemicals were present. They found at least one compound in 80% of streams and 93% of groundwater – the most commonly found compounds were steroids, over-the-counter medications, and insect repellents.

Some argue that these chemicals are found in our drinking water in such tiny amounts (parts per trillion or ppt) that they cannot possibly cause human harm. However, insulin, estrogen (and EDCs that act like estrogen), and other hormones are exceptionally potent chemicals that operate at concentrations of ppt, and fetuses are sensitive to chemicals in the parts per quadrillion range.

American River reports that in the Potomac River, male bass are producing eggs.

From a 2010 report from the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency reports these chemicals in Minnesota streams:

1. Methylparabens were found in 32 percent of samples. MP is an anti-fungal used in cosmetics. (A study on methylparabens on fruit flies.)
2. Propylparabens were found in 21 percent of samples. 
3. Carbamazepine (an ADD drug) was found in 6 percent of samples at up to 34ng/L.
4. Venlafaxine (an SSRI used to treat depression) was found in 9.4% of samples. 
5. Citalopram (an SSRI) found in 4%, sertraline in 2.7%, bupropion in 2% of samples. Fluxetine was found in one sample.

Biofilm, also called slime, indicates a healthy stream. Slippery rocks illustrate a good biofilm, and healthy water. Rocks next to a stream that have little or no slime are a big red flag. From the Cary Institute, diphenhydramine (Benedryl) reduce photosynthesis by 99% in biofilm.

A study in 2013 from Environmental Science and Technology shows that triclosan (TCS), a broad-spectrum bacteriocide in many anti-bacterial soaps, creates super bacteria harmful to human health. (Super bacteria can only be treated with a limited number of antibacterials, and in some cases, there are no medicines to treat it at all.) It ends up in streams and as suburbs grow up around the area, TCS contamination increases in stream sediments.

A study in 2014 shows that TCS (triclosan) also affects anaerobic bacteria in digesters.

In April 2013, Wired magazine reports that pharmaceuticals escape into streams from treated sewage from treatment plants that are not equipped to remove drugs from water. Even occurring at 3 parts per trillion, these chemicals have a bad effect on life in the water.

A study in 2010 from the journal Pediatrics, found seven year old girls are now developing breasts.

The baseline cohort included 1239 girls. The proportion of girls who had attained breast stage 2 varied by age, race/ethnicity, BMI percentile, and site. At 7 years, 10.4% of white, 23.4% of black non-Hispanic, and 14.9% of Hispanic girls had attained breast stage ≥2; at 8 years, 18.3%, 42.9%, and 30.9%, respectively, had attained breast stage ≥2.

Another study from 1997 also shows early development, likely from EDCs which act like estrogen in the body. Overweight girls are more likely to have early breast development, and EDCs are linked to being overweight also.

A July 2010 study from Environ Health Perspect tested urine of people, and found correlation to phytoestrogens (chemicals found in plants, like soy, that act like hormones), phthalates, and phenols (like Bisphenol A, BPA).

There is a lot of correlation between EDC, early development in girls, and being overweight. But the scientific community seems inconsistent when admitting correlation is a problem or not. It seems best to avoid EDCs as much as possible.

Links

• American Rivers.org. PDF about pharmaceuticals in rivers.
• Chemistry Factors in Water Treatment and Distribution Relating to Lead Release. Presentation to Dept of Health and Human Services, Flint, Mi. Feb 10, 2016.  
• Pharmaceuticals in streams. ENN, April 2013. 
• EPA research on water issues.
• EPA search for water research papers.
• EPA's Healthy Watersheds Program. They have a Watershed Health Index. I  couldn't find any watersheds with the WHI though. 
• Human pharmaceuticals in US surface waters: A human health risk assessment. Aug 2005.
• Organic Consumer's Association reports on drugs in processed drinking water. 
• PEER.org. More research papers. Pharma pollution of waters. PEER news releases.

Are crops that produce the Bt protein dangerous for people?

Bt crops are genetically modified to create a crystal protein from the Baccillus thurigensis bacterium, which, when ingested by insects feeding on the crops, kills the insect pests. The Bt toxin, one common one is called CRY1A, pokes microholes in the gut of the insect, and the insect dies. Bt spores do not spread to other plants or insects on their own and Bt powder spread on plants is easily washed off and becomes ineffective.

Created in 1995, potatoes which create Bt crystal proteins were approved for crops in the US. In 1996 corn was approved for growth in the US. By 2014, 7 million farmers were using Bt cotton in India.

Bt powder is a preferred method of insect control for backyard farmers as it can be washed off easily before the food is eaten, but when the cry protein is in the plant itself, it cannot be washed off, and is consumed by people.

Bt action is very specific. Different strains of Bt are specific to different receptors in insect gut wall. Bt toxicity depends on recognizing receptors, damage to the gut by the toxin occurs upon binding to a receptor. Each insect species possesses different types of receptors that will match only certain toxin proteins, like a lock to a key. It is because of this that farmers have to be careful to match the target pest species with a particular Bt toxin protein which is specific for that insect. This also helps the beneficial insects because they will usually not be harmed by that particular strain of Bt.

The EPA has found Bt to be safe yet we already know the track record of the EPA: it's in the pocket of big biotech and conveniently ignores facts that will affect biotech profits. In the 1990s the EPA was also the agency which declared meltwater ditches next to roads on private property a "protected watershed" (even though the water was temporary) and even quarantined property from homeowners and prevented from doing something as simple as planting flowers too close to the "watershed". (When a property was declared a "watershed" it became protected. So even though the owner paid money for the property, they were unable to develop it for commercial or residential purposes.) Past performance is the best indicator of future performance. 

Bt pellets work well in controlling mosquito larva in ponds, but it appears to kill all other invertebrates, in my experience. The good part is the Bt does not survive the winter in my pond. (The next spring I added back ostracods and daphnia and they survived.)

In 2011 a study found that Bt toxins (cry proteins) killed fetal cells inside human mothers.

In 2013, scientists found the Bt cry toxin (aka cry protein) CRY1AB was affecting blood cells in mice. Their conclusion was that cry proteins cause some problems in vertebrates and the toxic effects increase with long-term exposure.

In the cast of GMO crops that produce the Bt toxin, it may be better to avoid them altogether. Better safe than sorry. See also "The Failure of the Scientific Establishment" which lists more items mainstream science claimed was safe.

Links

1. Arisa, Aziz and Samuel Leblancc (University of Sherbrooke). Maternal and fetal exposure to pesticides associated to genetically modified foods in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada. Reproductive Toxicology. May 2011. Link to Elsevier abstract.
2. Bt info from UCSD.
3. EPA Biopesticide fact sheet. 
4. Mezzomo BP, Miranda-Vilela AL, Freire IdS, Barbosa LCP, Portilho FA, et al. (2013). Hematotoxicity of Bacillus thuringiensis as Spore-crystal Strains Cry1Aa, Cry1Ab, Cry1Ac or Cry2Aa in Swiss Albino Mice. J Hematol Thromb Dis. 1: 104. doi:10.4172/jhtd.1000104. Link to PDF. 
5. Wikipedia. 

Supreme Court decision hampers EPA on protecting citizens

The the 1976 Toxic Substances Control Act, or TSCA, is a broken law and contributes much to the delay of addressing poisons all round us. Part of the TSCA is it requires the EPA to consider economic costs of regulation. At this point, industry can argue that asbestos, cigarettes, or BPA is safe, or the costs of regulation is just too high, thus preventing the EPA from protecting citizens. The cost of balancing cost vs results often results in delay for the EPA in taking action, or taking no action at all.


Source
Environmental Working Group, Mar 31, 2016.

CDC says neonics poison water

Source: "Water Hazard. Aquatic Contamination by Neonicotinoid insecticides in the United States."  CDC PDF here. Sep 2015. 40 pgs.

Neonicotinoids, or "neonics", have widespread use, but also as seed coatings. The neonics are water soluable, and so they are taken up by the plant that grows from the treated seed, making the whole plant toxic to almost all insects. But the neonics are not controlled, they are also dispersed in the land, air and water. Neonics include: acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, and thiamethoxam. They are systemic insecticides meaning the plant absorbs the pesticide, and no matter what part of a plant an insect eats, the insect dies.

Scientists across Canada, the US, and Europe keep finding neonic levels that exceed safe levels, and which harm aquatic creatures. The hundreds of neonic products approved by the EPA are supported by sparse and incomplete studies, with huge gaps in knowledge at important areas. What's more, the FDA appears to be on collusion, with employees taking bribes, and finally a lawsuit against the FDA itself.

The report of neonics in waterways considered the most comprehensive is one from October 2014 by University of Saskatchewan toxicologist Professor Christy Morrissey. The study is called "Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertegrates: a review." The abstract from ScienceDirect is here.

1. The EPA's toxicity levels are far too lax for these chemicals and lack common scientific support, especially outside the US. 
2. Runoff cannot be controlled and neonics end up in streams, then in rivers, and in the lakes they dump into. 
3. Even bird declines correlate to neonic contamination.  
4. Coated seeds are exempt from pesticide polices, per EPA rules. Exemptions almost always mean a company lobbied for said exemption. 
5. These chemicals are very persistent. They do not go away easily on their own. Thiamethoxam can degrade in water from sunlight, but degradation is almost non-existent below 3 inches of water. 
6. Most toxicity studies are acute studies, and only look at how many animals die at a certain level of pesticide. There are almost no studies about the effects of repeated exposure or low exposure over time. 
7. Daphnia magna, a type of water flea, is used in 116% of all neonic studies, yet D. magna is known to be resistant to neonics on the level of 200-300% more than other species. D. magna is simply a very large species of daphnia. The studies that use D. magna are inappropriate for determining toxicity. 
8. The highest concentrations of neonics were found in the Southern High Plains states where farming is common. The highest level there was 225ppb. There is a graph in the PDF showing other states. 
9. A 2015 report by the USGS and Michelle Hladik and Dana Kolpin, found neonics in 63% of US waterways. 
10. The same report finds that neonics were found in all 79 water samples from Iowa. 
11. A 2011 California study report found imidacloprid in 89% of 67 samples.
12. 15 million households rely on well water taken from aquifers. Some aquifers can span 2-5 states. Once neonics get into an aquifer it spreads to household wells of other counties and states.

Links

1. Van Dijk, Tessa C., Marja A. Van Staalduinen, and Jeroen P. Van der Sluijs. Macro-Invertebrate Decline in Surface Water Polluted with Imidacloprid. PLOS ONE. 2013; 8(5). e62374.  Full PLOS ONE study here. Link to NIH study here. 
2. Morrissey, Professor Christy, et al. Neonicotinoid contamination of global surface waters and associated risk to aquatic invertegrates: a review. Environment International. 2014. Abstract here.  PDF of full study here.

Pesticides in your foods and how the US deals with the issue

The issue of pesticides in or on your food is important. Scientists do not know how long exposure to low levels of pesticides, or other chemicals, affect people and their health. In 1997 the US FDA tested 4501 domestic and 5342 imported food. According to this source, imported foods account for 10% of the US market. Imported foods come from 97 countries. Pesticides were found on 34% of the combined imported and domestic foods. Pesticide residues that violated FDA guidelines made up 1.2% of domestic foods, and 1.6% of foods imported to the US.

The issue of pesticides on imported foods is important because some countries do not have laws regarding pesticide residue on foods, or they simply don't enforce them. And some countries have more pesticide risk on their foods than others.

Some notes from a Consumer Reports article about pesticides on foods:

1. The average American has 29 pesticides in their body. 
2. Eating one serving of US green beans is 200x more risky than eating one serving of US-grown broccoli. 
3. Consumer reports has a 31 page PDF paper entitled "From Crop To Table". It is a pdf that is free at the time of this blog post. 

Notes taken from "From Crop to Table".

1. 10,000-20,000 pesticide poisonings are confirmed by doctors each year among 2 million farm workers. That's about 1% of farm workers.
2. Studies show a correlation between fields where 2,4-D is used and people who live near these fields.  
3. Almost all, but not all, pesticides are banned on US organic farms (page 25).
4. PLU codes used on US produce are a standard code used to label produce in retail stores. A 4 digit code means it is not an organic product. A 5 digit code beginning with "9" means it is an organic product. (I am personally involved in making produce signs that use this PLU code.)
5. Consumer Reports created a DRI (Dietary Risk Index) that takes into account the serving size of the food, the amount and frequency of the residues found, and other factors. 
6. Starting on page 34, CR includes tables for each food and country of origin and calculates a DRI for each food based on the country, food, and farming method. Take a look, it's interesting. 
7. Here are some non-organic fruits that are in the Very High risk category: peaches, tangerines, plums, nectarines, apples, strawberries. For a strawberry crop to remain profitable the farmers must use some pretty dangerous pesticides. Always wash foods thoroughly.  
8. Here are some non-organic vegetables that are in the Very High risk category: green beans, sweet bell peppers, hot peppers. Here are veggies in the High risk category, excluding the duplicates from the Very High category: winter squash, cucumbers, summer squash, snap peas, tomatoes, sweet potatoes, cherry tomatoes. 
9. This report also has DRI risk scores over time. Some scores have gone down (now with lower risk).

On this page is an interactive "wheel". Click on the food in the horizontal bar, and it will tell you the country or origin that is the safest for you (has the lowest DRI). For examples, apples from New Zealand have a lower DRI than apples from the US. This is why Country Of Origin Labeling laws, very much opposed by industry, are so important.

And why the EPA guidelines are broken:

In a 2010 report on environmental cancer risks, the President’s Cancer Panel (an expert committee that monitors the country’s cancer program) wrote: “The entire U.S. population is exposed on a daily basis to numerous agricultural chemicals. … Many of these chemicals have known or suspected carcinogenic or endocrine-disrupting properties.” Endocrine disruptors can block or mimic the action of hormones, even at low doses. “Endocrine effects aren’t sufficiently factored into the EPA pesticide-tolerance levels...”