Recently, the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) was alerted to a new study from the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which claimed a correlation between the levels of pesticide residues found on fruits and vegetables on the so-called “Dirty Dozen” list with increased pesticide biomarkers in urine.  EWG also created a “dietary pesticide exposure score.”

As is our standard procedure when a study is released concerning produce safety, the AFF reached out to scientists with expertise in risk analysis, toxicology and nutrition to learn more about EWG’s study formally titled “A cumulative dietary pesticide exposure score based on produce consumption is associated with urinary pesticide biomarkers in a U.S. biomonitoring cohort” (Temkin et al., 2025).

In a newly published expert review and analysis, this team of scientists found that the EWG study is riddled with scientific inconsistencies and errors.  Some examples include:  Excluding one highly consumed produce item in order to manipulate the findings and study conclusions; using old data when newer data is readily available; errors made in the selection of representative food codes using NHANES; lack of acknowledgement of differing sources of urinary metabolites; and, the failure to conduct a proper risk assessment although the data exists to do so. All of these equated to Temkin et al (2025) reaching flawed and inappropriate conclusions.

According to the new expert review:  Temkin et al. (2025) is not justified in asserting that dietary pesticide exposure scores are associated with urinary pesticide metabolite levels, given that the findings contradict this conclusion. The analyses contained flaws including, but not limited to removing an unjustified singular type of produce out of 43 types and including irrelevant foods to assess dietary consumption. The methodology utilized to develop the dietary pesticide exposure score and support the alleged conclusion should not be applied to assess impact on health outcomes, to inform future research, or to educate consumers, as the study does not meaningfully add to the scientific literature.

While Temkin et al findings are scientifically lacking, it is likely EWG will use the study during its “Dirty Dozen” list release in an attempt to support their recommendations to consume organic produce instead of conventionally grown.  It should be noted that a previous peer reviewed study found that EWG’s “Dirty Dozen” list recommendations do not result in any decrease in consumer risk since residues on conventional produce are so minute, if present at all.

To further illustrate how low residues are on fruits and vegetables, if present at all, try using the pesticide residue calculator.  The calculator is based on an analysis by toxicologists with the University of California’s Personal Chemical Exposure Program and found a child could eat hundreds to thousands of servings of a fruit or vegetable in a day and still not have any effects from pesticide residues.

You can read the full expert review and analysis of Temkin et al (2025) here.

For the analysis of Temkin et al (2025), the AFF worked with the scientific consulting firm, Exponent. In addition to Exponent scientists, experts involved in the analysis included Dr. Carl Winter, a Professor Emeritus of Food Science and Technology at University of California, Davis, and Dr. Joan Salge Blake, a Clinical Professor of Nutrition at Boston University.