Search Results

Why should you avoid cheap supermarket bread and switch to sourdough — or even better, make your own using organic flour?   Here are five good reasons : 1. Questionable preservatives  Commercial breads often include preservatives such as propionates (280–283; labelled propionic acid , propionate , or cultured/fermented anything ). These are used to prevent mould in warm bread kept in plastic. A clinical trial found that children challenged with calcium propionate (282) showed behavioural changes (Dengate 2002). Other research links chronic propionate exposure to neurological and depressive symptoms in animal models and humans (Dengate 2021). 2. Pesticide and herbicide residues Wheat grown in Australia and New Zealand are usually sprayed post-harvest with insecticides (or pre-harvest) with herbicides such as glyphosate to aid harvest and pest control. Other countries may use cold storage of grain and avoid the heavy residues we have here. Bread and wheat items always feature in NZ's dirty dozen . Residues of glyphosate and its metabolites show up in wheat-based foods here and around the world (Nomoreglyphosate 2025) (Soares 2021). Glyphosate has been classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as "probably carcinogenic" and other reviews express concerns about endocrine disruption and gut-microbiome effects (Myers 2016). 3. Limited microbial diversity in standard bread Traditional sourdough fermentation uses a richer range of beneficial microorganisms (lactic-acid bacteria + wild yeasts) rather than a single commercial yeast strain. This microbial diversity can contribute to improved flavour, texture and potentially nutritional outcomes (for example through longer fermentation and acidification). 4. Lower fibre and fewer nutrients in many supermarket breads Supermarket bread — especially white and even some "wholemeal" types — is typically made from refined flour that has had the wheatgerm and much of the bran removed. (Flour containing wheatgerm has a short shelf life.) This process strips away valuable fibre, minerals (like zinc, magnesium and iron) and B-vitamins naturally present in the grain. Whole-grain and stoneground flours, by contrast, retain all parts of the grain and therefore offer more nutrients and dietary fibre. This extra fibre not only supports gut health but also helps regulate blood sugar and cholesterol levels, and keeps you feeling full for longer. In fact, one slice of genuine wholemeal bread can satisfy you as much as two or three slices of white bread. Over time, diets low in fibre — common in populations relying heavily on refined carbohydrates — have been linked to higher rates of constipation, bowel disease and heart disease (Harvard 2023)  5. Shorter fermentation time reduces nutrient availability Many commercial breads are produced with short fermentation times and high-speed processes, which limit the breakdown of antinutrient compounds such as phytic acid in whole-grain flours. Longer, slower fermentation (as in sourdough) greatly reduces phytic acid and thereby increases mineral solubility and bioavailability (for example magnesium, phosphorus) (Brouns 2021).  In other words: by fermenting longer, you get more out of the grain. How much bread is good for you, then? Bread made from wholegrain, organic, and freshly milled flour — especially sourdough — is far better for your health. For centuries, bread has been a staple food, but only in relatively recent times has it become highly refined and often made from grain sprayed with chemicals. Today, more people are choosing gluten-free options to avoid some of these problems, or they’re simply cutting back on carbohydrates and eating more vegetables and protein instead. What’s right for you depends on your culture, upbringing and stage of life. Most importantly, notice how you feel after a meal — with or without bread. Do you feel hungry again in half an hour? Sluggish? Or comfortably satisfied for two or three hours? In the end, eating a variety of foods and grains — such as buckwheat, corn, rice, soy, quinoa, and chickpeas — is likely to be healthier than relying on wheat several times a day, especially when it’s refined. Alison White October 2025 References Brouns 2021: Brouns F. (2021). Phytic Acid and Whole Grains for Health Controversy. Nutrients , 14 (1), 25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8746346/   Dengate 2002 : Dengate, S., & Ruben, A. (2002). Controlled trial of cumulative behavioural effects of a common bread preservative. Journal of paediatrics and child health , 38 (4), 373–376. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12173999/   Dengate 2021: Harm from bread preservative confirmed - Food Intolerance Network   Several references given Harvard 2023: Department of Nutrition , Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health Nutrition Source . https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/what-should-you-eat/whole-grains/   Myers 2016:  Myers, J.P., Antoniou, M.N., Blumberg, B. et al.  (2016) Concerns over use of glyphosate-based herbicides and risks associated with exposures: a consensus statement. Environ Health  15, 19   https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-016-0117-0   Nomoreglyphosate.nz  2025: Bread test results. https://nomoreglyphosate.nz/september-2025-bread-glyphosate-test-results/   Ribet 2022: Ribet, L., Dessalles, R., Lesens, C., Brusselaers, N., & Durand-Dubief, M. (2023). Nutritional benefits of sourdoughs: A systematic review. Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) , 14 (1), 22–29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10103004   Soares 2021: Soares, D., Silva, L., Duarte, S., Pena, A., & Pereira, A. (2021). Glyphosate Use, Toxicity and Occurrence in Food. Foods (Basel, Switzerland) , 10 (11), 2785. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8622992/

After 25 years of failed and secretive genetic engineering trials, every GE animal in New Zealand has been terminated. Hundreds of animals suffered through abortions, cancers, deformities and sterility — all for nothing. A new GE Free NZ report reveals the shocking truth: evidence from 20 failed trials was hidden from MPs and officials when drafting the Gene Technology Bill. Lawmakers were told no such data existed. The reality of cruelty, scientific failure, and risks to New Zealand’s reputation was buried. “We are appalled by the sheer cruelty to the animals involved in these genetically engineered experiments,” said Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign. “We are also very concerned that the Gene Technology Bill could unleash another wave of animal suffering with no ethical or animal welfare safeguards.” “Consumers want ethical, compassionate treatment of animals — not gene-altered products,” continued Ms White. “Organic farming already provides healthy food, protects our animals and environment, and strengthens New Zealand’s reputation.” See the report and GE Free media release

Listen to Alison White's 11-minute interview with Paul Brennan on Reality Check Radio (RCR), where she discusses the ongoing struggle to ban the brain-damaging pesticide chlorpyrifos in New Zealand—despite its ban in 44 other countries. It has been linked to damage to the prenatal brain, disrupted puberty, reduced sperm production, and overall neurotoxicity — even in minute quantities. Chlorpyrifos remains present in a wide range of foods in NZ, including baby food, with children's primary exposure coming through diet. Alison shares her experience presenting to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and exposes serious flaws in our regulatory system, including a lack of local toxicology expertise and failure to apply the precautionary principle. In this urgent and eye-opening conversation, Paul Brennan speaks with Alison White of the Safe Food Campaign about the pesticide Chlorpyrifos—still found in food on New Zealand supermarket shelves, including baby food. Despite being banned in over 40 countries due to its links to brain damage in children, NZ is only now reassessing its use. Alison shares her experience presenting to the EPA (Environmental Protection Authority) and highlights the gaps in our regulatory approach, lack of local toxicology expertise, and the pressing need for a precautionary principle. Audio recording, image and blurb from RCR website

A pesticide linked to brain damage in children should be urgently red-flagged due to its presence in food, says the Safe Food Campaign. “A red alert is needed for chlorpyrifos, a brain-damaging pesticide still found in our food” “A red alert is needed for chlorpyrifos, a brain-damaging pesticide still found in our food,” says Alison White, Co-convenor of the Safe Food Campaign. “Young children are particularly at risk from exposure through what they eat.” Ms White will present oral evidence to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on Wednesday, 9 April. The EPA is proposing to ban the pesticide within a 6 or 12 month timeline. “We fully support the EPA’s proposal to ban chlorpyrifos due to the unacceptable risks it poses to users and the environment,” she says. “However, the significant risk from food residues has not been addressed.” Chlorpyrifos, already banned in 44 countries, is classified as a persistent organic pollutant under the United Nations Stockholm Convention. It persists in the environment, builds up in the body, travels long distances, and has serious health effects — especially for children — even at low levels. Although the EPA placed chlorpyrifos on its reassessment list in 2020, no timeframe was set, in breach of legal requirements. In February 2023, the Safe Food Campaign presented a petition to Parliament urging an immediate ban. “We were spurred into action after a 2022 study showed New Zealand children had higher levels of a chlorpyrifos metabolite in their bodies compared to children overseas,” says Ms White. “This indicates food residues are a major source of exposure.” Residues of chlorpyrifos (and its close chemical relative, chlorpyrifos-methyl) have been found in a wide range of everyday foods in New Zealand — including baby food, raisins, peanut butter, wheat products, frozen mixed berries, grapes, tomatoes, avocados, pears, mandarins, broccoli, and other green vegetables. “The scientific evidence is deeply concerning,” says Ms White. “Chlorpyrifos has been linked to damage to the prenatal brain, disrupted puberty, reduced sperm production, and overall neurotoxicity — even in minute quantities.” A 2016 US EPA reassessment concluded that chlorpyrifos residues in food are unsafe for all populations. Children aged 1–2 face the highest risk, with exposure levels 140 times above the food safety limit. We are calling on the EPA to issue a red alert — just as they did with DCPA weedkillers last August — to ban uses of chlorpyrifos on food immediately “We are calling on the EPA to issue a red alert — just as they did with DCPA weedkillers last August — to ban uses of chlorpyrifos on food immediately,” says Ms White. “Babies in the womb are particularly vulnerable.” NOTE: Full references to the studies mentioned can be found in the parliamentary chlorpyrifos petition

What are the best pots and pans to use if you want to avoid the nasty chemicals PTFE (Teflon), PFOA and PFAS? It’s not surprising that nonstick frying pans outsell all other types by a considerable margin. They’re easy to use and clean, and well-priced. But the nonstick coatings don’t last forever. Most nonstick pans have to be replaced every few years, which adds to the waste stream. Included in the best options are cast iron and stainless steel, but carbon steel can also be included. Both cast iron and carbon steel require seasoning or oiling and stainless steel can be hard to clean, needing an oil or fat during cooking (difficult to cook eggs and fish in them). #nonstickpan #nonstickpans #nonstickcookware #pfas #pfasfree

The Safe Food Campaign applauds the call for submissions by the   Environmental Protection Authority NZ (EPA) on a proposed ban of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, which has already been banned in 39 countries. The EPA has instigated this because of  "new information about health and environmental risks", and is calling for submissions, especially from those who use this insecticide by 12 February. “We applaud the EPA for judging the sprayer applicator and environmental risks to be too high to continue using the controversial insecticide,” said Alison White, co-convenor of the Safe Food Campaign.  “However it is not just horticultural and agricultural workers who are at risk. The continued use of this brain-damaging pesticide is putting everyone at risk – and particularly children and babies in the womb – because of pesticide residues in food.” Chlorpyrifos (and its chemical cousin chlorpyrifos-methyl) is found in a wide range of food in New Zealand, including baby food, raisins, peanut butter, anything containing wheat, frozen mixed berries, grapes, tomatoes, avocados, pears, mandarins, a range of summer fruit, broccoli and various green vegetables. The Safe Food Campaign presented a petition to parliament in February 2023, asking for the insecticide to be banned and to use a provision in the HSNO Act for an immediate ban while the insecticide is being reassessed.  “A study has shown New Zealand children have high levels of this insecticide in their bodies compared to children overseas,” Ms White said, “and this is likely to come from food.” “The evidence of harm to the prenatal brain, pubertal development, sperm production and neurotoxicity is alarming: chlorpyrifos, even in minute quantities such as is found in food, can cause this damage to those exposed, especially pregnant women, children and young adults.” Chlorpyrifos in food is unsafe for ALL POPULATIONS, a US EPA reassessment of the insecticide concluded in 2016. The highest risk is for children aged 1–2 years old, with exposure levels in the USA 14,000%  above the safety threshold for food. Residues of chlorpyrifos have been found in the environment right around the world, including New Zealand. It has been detected in water, soil, sediment, crops, air, and also in the Southern Alps, the Arctic and Antarctica. Chlorpyrifos has been detected in 83% of NZ streams measured, with the chlorpyrifos concentration being higher than other pesticides. The highest levels found were in the Waikato. Adverse effects on bees and fish have been found in NZ. Chlorpyrifos has been classified as a persistent organic pollutant (POP) under the United Nations Stockholm Convention because of its persistence, bioaccumulation, potential for long-range environmental transport and adverse effects, particularly on young children even at low levels. It is a signal to all countries to no longer use this pesticide. NZ’s continued use of this pesticide threatens its exports. “We are pleased that our EPA is finally considering that this pesticide should no longer be used, and we urge them to issue a red alert for it, as they did for DCPA weedkillers in August this year. A much greater number of people are exposed to the brain-damaging chlorpyrifos, and babies in the womb especially are at risk,” said Ms White. Note: Full references to studies quoted above are to be found in the Safe Food Campaign’s parliamentary chlorpyrifos petition pdf

“We applaud the  Food Safety Minister Andrew Hoggard  [1] for opting New Zealand out of the joint standard on infant formula labelling,” said Alison White, Co-convenor of the Safe Food Campaign.  However, undisclosed genetically engineered (GE) ingredients are being added to baby formula, and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), does not require the labelling of GE ingredients on baby and other infant formulas.  “We believe parents have the right to know the full ingredient details, especially if they are genetically engineered”, Ms. White said. “We urge the Minister to require formula labels to disclose such information.”  FSANZ approved another GE ingredient , in June 2024 for addition to baby formula, follow-on formula and formulated supplementary foods for young children. The approved GE protein is a synthetic protein, 2'-O-fucosyllactose (2'-FL), produced by microbial fermentation using genetically modified bacteria. This adds to the three already approved proteins and many unlabelled vitamins and soy ingredients that are also derived from GE processes. [2] [3] [4] [5] The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)  panel report noted in 2022 that there was no history of use for such a novel food. The EFSA assessment is far from comprehensive, but they have adopted much more of a precautionary approach than FSANZ. The EFSA considered that the acute toxicity studies were not pertinent to the assessment. They recommended that 2’-FL should not be used as a complement to breast feeding and only approved it for babies over 1 year. Their report found that human cell lines treated with the low dose 2’-FL protein had a statistically significant increase in chromosomal aberrations in the 24 hours exposure period. The follow-up results on animals showed some significant changes occurred to the blood parameters, limb weakness with diarrhoea and low food consumption leading to weight loss. [6] (EFSA, sec:3.10.1-5)  “Babies and young children who are being fed infant formulas that contain unlabelled GE derived ingredients, are being used as guinea pigs at the most vulnerable time of their lives,” said Claire Bleakley, President of GE Free New Zealand. “We believe that formula-fed babies face health risks and parents need to be made aware of these risks through proper labelling of the formula.” References: [1] https://www.farmersweekly.co.nz/politics/nz-to-go-it-alone-on-infant-formula-labels/ [2] https://www.foodstandards.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-06/A1283%20Approval%20report.pdf   [3] A1155 - 2-FL and LNnT in infant formula and other productsApplication A1155 sought permission for two new substances in infant formula products and formulated supplementary foods for young children. The permission is for the voluntary use of 2'-O-fucosyllactose (2'-FL produced by microbial fermentation using genetically modified bacteria) alone or in combination with Lacto-N-neotetraose (LNnT).  [4] A1233 - 2'-FL from new GM source for infant formulaThis application seeks to permit 2²-fucosyllactose (2²-FL), produced by genetically modified Escherichia coli K-12, in infant formula products. [5] A1190 - 2'-FL in infant formula and other productsThe purpose of this Application is to permit 2'-fucosyllactose (2'-FL), produced by microbial fermentation using genetically modified Escherichia coli (E.coli) strains, in infant formula products, follow-on formula and formulated supplementary foods for young children (FSFYC). [6] https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7647

Michael Cooper’s Listener column (27 July) provided a useful list rating some organic New Zealand wines. He concludes from the studies he has looked at that the jury is still out as to whether organic wine tastes better. There is a helpful 2017 French study to counter this conclusion. The study found that 77% of 71 professionals rated organic wine better in a blind tasting. The study carefully matched 16 organic wines with conventional ones in regard to soil, climate, year and varietal.  Of the non-organic wines 89% contained pesticides. Most of the 11 pesticides detected have been classified as potential or actual endocrine or nervous disruptors, or carcinogens. A unique feature of this French study is that it had experts compare water containing pesticides to mineral water in a blind test. Eleven pesticides detected in the non-organic wines were added to water at the same levels as in the wine samples. 85% of the experts detected at least one pesticide, describing the most commonly detected pesticide, folpet, as “alcohol, medical drug, drying, bitterness”, and iprodione (found in NZ wine) as “irritant, bleach, old burned plastic”. This study is the first time experts have attempted to describe the taste of pesticides, demonstrating an ability to detect levels well below those typically found in non-organic wine. Indeed, some experts can taste distinctive natural compounds at the low level of 0.07 ppb. Boscalid and folpet were found in this study to be present in some bottles at levels up to 9,000 times higher. Another study in 2021, assessing the quality of 128,182 French wines, with experts using blind and semi-blind tasting, rated organic wines 6.2% higher, and biodynamic wines (organic, following the principles of Rudolf Steiner) even higher at 11.7% than non-organic wines. Interestingly, this study pointed out: “The world’s most sought-after, awarded, and expensive bottles of wine are biodynamic.” In the last 2016 NZ Total Diet Study, 5 pesticides (almost all fungicides) were found in 16 wines. The most frequently detected fungicide was iprodione, a known carcinogen and suspected endocrine or hormonal disruptor. No safe level has been scientifically established for carcinogens and endocrine disruptors. An increasing number of consumers around the world want organic wine, and it is a premium export for NZ, as research shows. Non-organic viticulture applies pesticides made from fossil fuel, thus contributing to climate change. Industrial agriculture in general with its use of pesticides and artificial fertilisers pollutes our water, soil and air. Apart from the taste, there are plenty of reasons to buy organic wine! References Séralini, G. E. (2017). Douzelet (2017) The Taste of Pesticides in Wines. Food Nutr J: FDNJ-161. DOI , 10 , 2575-7091. Delmas, M. A., & Gergaud, O. (2021). Sustainable practices and product quality: Is there value in eco-label certification? The case of wine. Ecological Economics , 183 , 106953. https://www.mpi.govt.nz/food-business/food-monitoring-surveillance/new-zealand-total-diet-study/

Fact No. 1: Genetic engineering (GE) is a laboratory technique. Genetic engineering is a laboratory created seed technology that was commercialised for farming in 1995. It is an artificial process that cannot occur naturally. To date, no crop plant has been engineered for higher yield. Transgenics: where a cell has been altered by the random insertion of DNA from another species through laboratory engineering. Gene Editing: (CRISPR, TALENS, ZFN) an RNA enzyme cuts the chromosome and either deletes a gene/s or inserts an artificial gene. Gene drives force harmful genes through the whole population of a species posing major risks to ecosystems as they can't be recalled. These may easily spread to related native species and have potential to cause extinction of keystone species. GE usually employs bacterial and viral vectors to transport the foreign DNA/RNA into cells. These altered genes end up in every cell of the plant. Fact No. 2: Genetic engineering is imprecise and uncontrollable Gene editing tools like CRISPR can create unintended alterations (off target effects). The random insertion of foreign gene or genes may cause unexpected changes in the function. Existing molecules may be manufactured in incorrect quantities, at the wrong times, or new molecules may be produced. GE foods and food products may therefore contain unexpected toxins or allergens that could harm our health. Nature has developed processes that ensure genes in seeds are passed onto the next generation. Genes do no operate in isolation, but interact in complex ways that are not yet fully understood. Their expression can change in response to internal influences and to environmental triggers. eg day-length or temperature. Although a gene can be cut out from the DNA of an organism, its insertion into the DNA of another organism is entirely random. This results in the disruption of the chromosome’s DNA, which can lead to unexpected changes in the functioning of the cells, whole plants or animals. Imported GE food that is processed or prepared on site (eg. supermarket bread, restaurant foods), containing less than 1% GE ingredients, is exempt from being labelled as GE. Fact No.3: GE food has not undergone trials for safety We rely on the assessments carried out by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), usually based only on data supplied by the biotechnology companies. These companies normally own the patents for the GE organisms, thereby standing to benefit financially from the use of GE food. Gene editing can force genetic changes by overriding cellular repair systems that protect vital areas of DNA from random mutations. Food from gene-edited crops could not have occurred in nature, so these plants have no history of safe use as food. Independent long-term testing of each new gene-edited crop is required before we can be sure that GE food is safe to eat. New Zealand currently requires this stringency and this regulating should continue. Fact No.4: Produce grown in New Zealand and all certified organic food is currently non-GE GE products may be found in foods containing the following imported ingredients: Soya flour (often in breads, sausages, etc.) Soya flour (often in breads, sausages, etc.) Lecithin (in chocolate, ice cream etc.) Vegetable Oils (canola, soy, cotton seed, corn, rice oil) Corn (maize) Potato flour Wheat flour Yellow Rice Fact No.5: GE crops have substantially increased herbicide and pesticide use Crops engineered to be resistant to specific herbicides often have multiple genes (stacked genes), allowing the crop to be sprayed with up to 6 toxic herbicides, often several times per growing season. Since 1998, pesticide use in crops have increased by approximately 200 times. Weeds resistant to herbicides (“super weeds”) and insects resistant to pesticides are now plaguing farmers in the US & South America. This has lead to the increased use of even more toxic herbicides and pesticides. Cross-pollination occurs between GE crops and non-GE crops and their wild relatives. This can occur via insects, birds and the wind carrying GE pollen and seed into fields, often far away from the source. There is also evidence that GE crops, engineered to produce their own insecticide can kill beneficial insects (eg. bees) and soil organisms (eg earthworms and soil microbes). These insect-resistant GE plants exude toxins that poison the soil and have caused a devastating decline in pollinator species (bees and butterflies) and birds. Fact No. 6: GE crops do not benefit farmers or the environment Seeds of GE crops are patented and thus more expensive than those of conventional crops. Farmers have reported that yields on average are no higher and have not improved profitability. Insurance companies in the USA and UK do not insure farmers for losses from growing GE crops. Farmers growing GE crops have to sign binding contracts with the biotechnology companies. This means they can only use herbicides produced by the biotechnology companies. They must buy more expensive GE seeds each growing season. Fact No. 7: Organics is climate action A 30-year study carried out by the Rodale Institute, USA, found that GE crops have no overall improvement in yield compared to the same non-GE crops. The study showed that crops, performance, cost and yield from organic growing outperformed conventional growing methods, especially in climate-disturbed (eg floods, droughts) years. The breeding of improved, often heritage, seed varieties is now faster than GE, because of non-GE lab techniques. Heritage varieties of crop plants are often well adapted to a range of climatic and soil conditions. Notes: Edited by: Claire Bleakley & Elvira Dommisse, PhD Biotechnology Sept 2023 Please find supporting documentation on the GE Free website Download the PDF here

Look at their ingredients: White Rice, Rice Bran Oil (Contains Antioxidant (307b)), Maltodextrin, Salt, Emulsifier (322 (Soy)), Sugar, Soy Sauce Powder, Yeast Extract, Flavour Enhancer (635). These are an example of an ultra-processed food, with ingredients coming out of a laboratory. Yeast extract is a manufactured free glutamate, like MSG. The flavour enhancer 635 is added to manufactured free glutamates to enhance their effects, make them taste better than they actually are. Many may react to this flavour enhancer ('ribo rash') and to MSG, especially those who are young with an underdeveloped blood-brain barrier, and the elderly with a porous one. MSG, like aspartame, is an excitotoxin, overstimulating brain cells to death, depending on the dose. If you want rice crackers without suspect additives, look for organic rice crackers. Read more about The truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth about MSG . Read stories about ribo rash from the fedup website .

Is the new technique gene editing more precise and controllable than older techniques of genetic engineering (GE)? Knowing about this is especially relevant now as our present coalition government intends to relax the rules concerning genetic engineering, and specifically allow gene editing. Hasn’t GE food undergone trials for safety for it to be allowed in NZ and Australia?  What food in NZ is currently genetically modified? Does GE have any advantage for the farmer and the environment? Read more in 7 facts about genetic engineering

Why should you choose organic strawberries? Conventional strawberries are heavily sprayed, being in NZ's dirty dozen, food available here that is more likely to contain pesticide residues. All 20 samples last tested had pesticides, with one having 9 pesticides (that was from Australia). The total number of pesticides in all the samples was a staggering 25! The total number of pesticides in all the samples was a staggering 25! Does this matter, you may ask? Doesn’t our regulatory authority in New Zealand MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries) ensure that pesticides are at safe levels? One of the many problems with current regulations is that pesticides are tested individually, not in the cocktail we actually consume. Another problem is that it is assumed a little bit of something that could cause cancer, suppress the immune system or disrupt the hormones won’t hurt us, when there is research indicating the contrary, especially in animals. In these 20 samples of strawberries there are at least nine pesticides that are carcinogens or that could cause cancer In these 20 samples of strawberries there are at least nine pesticides that are carcinogens or that could cause cancer, and as well at least seven of them are endocrine disruptors, or substances that can have an effect on our hormones, even in minute quantities. There is some scientific data that suggests soaking conventional produce in vinegar and water (1:4) for 20 minutes will remove some pesticides, but not all, some of which go right through. Rinse in water afterwards. Peeling also removes some residues, but that’s not an option for strawberries! We don’t really know the effects of all these pesticide residues on our health, but what cannot be disputed is that the environmental effects of using pesticides are bad, including the effects on soil, water, bees and climate change. We argue that by buying organic we are supporting a system that is better not only for the environment but also for us. #strawberries #pesticidesinstrawberries Data from NZ FRSP 2017-2019 & TDS 2016, on the NZMPI website.