CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 349Pesticide Residue Analysis and SafetyAgricultural safety and regulationsOrganic Food and Agriculture

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets

Baker, B. P., Benbrook, C. M., III, E. Groth, Benbrook, K. Lutz·2002·Food Additives and Contaminants
DOI 10.1080/02652030110113799
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

An analysis of pesticide residue data was performed to describe and quantify differences between organically grown and non-organic fresh fruits and vegetables. Data on residues in foods from three different market categories (conventionally grown, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown/no detectable residues (NDR), and organically grown) were compared using data from three test programmes: The Pesticide Data Program of the US Department of Agriculture; the Marketplace Surveillance Program of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation; and private tests by the Consumers Union, an independent testing organization. Organically grown foods consistently had about one-third as many residues as conventionally grown foods, and about one-half as many residues as found in IPM/NDR samples. Conventionally grown and IPM/NDR samples were also far more likely to contain multiple pesticide residues than were organically grown samples. Comparison of specific residues on specific crops found that residue concentrations in organic samples were consistently lower than in the other two categories, across all three data sets. The IPM/NDR category, based on data from two of the test programmes, had residues higher than those in organic samples but lower than those in conventionally grown foods.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/02652030110113799

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Citations

Cites

Show all 10 references

Research works printed but not linked: 32

  1. AVERY A., 2001, New York Post
  2. AVERY D. T., 2000, National Review
  3. BENBROOK C. M., 2000, IPM in Oregon: Achievements and Future Directions, 19
  4. 2001, California Food and Agricultural Code
  5. 1999, Residues in fresh produce 1997 monitoring program
  6. 1998, Consumer Reports, 63, 13
  7. 2001, Database on ‘green labels’
  8. GROTH E., 2001, A report card for the EPA: successes and failures in implementing the Food Quality Protection Act, Consumers Union of USA
  9. GROTH E., 2000, Update: pesticides in children's foods, Consumers Union of USA
  10. HARTMAN H., 1996, The Hartman Report, food and the environment: a consumer's perspective, Phase 1 and 2
  11. MACCORMACK H., 1993, The Transition Document
  12. MANDAVA N. B., 1985, CRC Handbook of Natural Insecticides: Methods
  13. MEISTER R. T., 1999, Insect and Disease Control Guide
  14. MILLOY S., 2001, Washington Times
  15. 2000, The Future Role of Pesticides in US Agriculture
  16. 1999, Certification standards
  17. 2001, Generic Materials and Brand Name Products List
  18. 2001, Nutriclean no-detected-pesticide-residue testing program
  19. STOSSEL J., 2000, ABC 20/20 News
  20. TRACY D., 1992, Establishing Limits for Pesticide Residues in Produce
  21. 2000, National Organic Program
  22. 2000, Science and Technology Programs, Pesticide Data Program, Agricultural Marketing Service
  23. 1996, Food Quality Protection Act implementation plan
  24. 2000, Dietary exposure assessment science policy documents
  25. 2000, Organophosphate pesticides: documents for methyl parathion
  26. 2000, Organophosphate pesticides: documents for chlorpyrifos
  27. 2000, Cumulative risk: a case study of the estimation of risk from 24 organophosphate pesticides
  28. 1999, Pesticide Analytical Manual
  29. 2000, Pesticide Residue Monitoring Database User's Manual
  30. 2000, Pesticide program: residue monitoring reports
  31. WALZ E., 1999, Final Results of the Third Biennial National Organic Farmers' Survey
  32. WALZ E., 2000, National organic farmers survey. Organic Farming Research Foundation

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–349 of 349

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Baker, B. P., Benbrook, C. M., III, E. G., & Benbrook, K. L.
ORCID
Venue
Food Additives and Contaminants
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2002-05
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
427-446
ISSN
0265-203X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1080/02652030110113799
OpenAlex
W2150165474
Cited by
349
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
FWCI
15.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Food Additives & Contaminants (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
California Department of Pesticide Regulation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Pesticide Residue Analysis and Safety
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Organic Food and Agriculture
Keywords
pesticide residues, organic food, integrated pest management, conventional farming, fresh produce, residue concentration, food safety
MeSH terms
Food Contamination, Fruit, Humans, Pesticide Residues, United States, Vegetables, Food, Organic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review