Were you ever sure in math class that you reached the correct answer only to find out that your process to solve the equation was flawed?  Once your errors were clear, you learned, corrected and found the right answer.

Unfortunately, the Environmental Working Group (EWG) doesn’t learn or correct and instead steadfastly stands by inaccuracies and bad equations.

EWG’s latest example? Their study 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).

EWG’s new study, conducted by their own employees, claims 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. It is likely EWG will use this during its next “Dirty Dozen” list release in an attempt to support their recommendations to consume only organic produce.

A new Expert Review of Temkin et al exposes a flawed process, numerous errors and manipulated data, which has again led EWG to promote incorrect and unsupportable findings when it comes to produce safety.  In addition to biased authors, here are just a few examples of why EWG’s study results cannot be substantiated:

• Intentionally and admittedly excluding one highly consumed produce item from their analysis in order to manipulate the findings and study conclusions;
• Using older data when newer data is readily available;
• Errors made in the selection of representative food codes using NHANES;
• The lack of acknowledgement of differing sources of urinary metabolites;
• The failure to conduct a proper risk assessment although the data exists to do so.

The Expert Review:

As is our standard procedure when a study is released concerning produce safety, the Alliance for Food and Farming (AFF) reached out to scientists with expertise in risk analysis, toxicology and nutrition to learn more about Temkin et al.

For the expert review and analysis, 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.

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.”

EWG has a 30-year history of promoting misinformation when it comes to produce safety.  Temkin et al adds to this body of misguided work.

Consumers should not be discouraged from purchasing the produce they enjoy and is affordable and accessible to them.  They should be reassured by decades of toxicology studies and government sampling data which show the exceptional level of safety of all produce as well as nutritional studies that verify a diet rich in fruits and vegetables improves overall health and increases lifespans.

Those are scientific facts.  While Temkin et al is just another failed equation resulting in more wrong conclusions.

And what a poor use of time and resources by EWG. Why not spend your considerable resources advocating for healthier diets instead of trying to scare consumers away from the very fruits and vegetables that health experts agree we should be eating more of every day?

Read, learn, choose but eat more organic and conventional produce for better health and a longer life.

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