On 8/20/20 Que Choisir, France’s premier consumer association, published a survey on ‘pesticide residue-free’ food products. Which, it should be noted, have nothing to do with organic farming.
Laboratory tests carried out by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF, Ministry of the Economy, France) disproved 1 in 3 labels, revealing agrotoxin contamination even to a significant degree. (1)
‘Pesticide residue-free’ meaning
‘Pesticide residue-free‘ (or ‘glyphosate-free‘ or ‘zero residue‘) is a claim that is becoming increasingly popular in the transalpine market as in other countries. To address consumers’(well-founded) concerns about the presence of products-in conventional, i.e., non-organic products-of agrotoxin residues that can accumulate in the body.
Such a claim, as noted above, does not mean that foods so labeled are derived from agricultural raw materials grown without the use of chemically synthesized pesticides, herbicides (e.g., glyphosate) and fungicides (as organic products are). But only that the final products do not contain the residues. It is therefore worth attesting that integrated farming practices have been adopted that are effective to the point of ‘leaving no trace’ of the chemistry used in the fields (or greenhouse).
‘Pesticide residue-free,’ reliability?
Some operators submit ‘residue-free’ or similar claims for special certification. To attest to the seriousness of its commitments through procedures and records subject to third-party audits. But because each dictates its own rules, procedures can vary significantly in their crucial elements (e.g., supplier selection and procurement criteria, agricultural practices and product specifications, segregation of commodities, processing, sample testing of finished products).
In any case, the reliability of these claims is linked to the reliability of the operator who carries it on their own branded food products, as well as the certifying body. (2) In both cases of IDM (Industria Di Marca) and MDD (Marca Del Distributor), the owner of the brand under which the food is sold is in fact primarily responsible for the truthfulness of the information provided to the consumer. (3)
‘Zero residue’ vs. organic
Products labeled as ‘zero residue,’ it is reiterated, are conventional foods. This approach can address two needs:
– present as ‘not harmful to health’ conventional foods that are derived from integrated agriculture, without facing the higher costs of organic production (e.g., mechanical weeding). With a view to offering food that is still preferable to ordinary food, at similar prices, (4)
– offer guarantees on greenhouse-grown fruits and vegetables (e.g., strawberries, mushrooms, vegetables) that are currently excluded from the organic system.
Organic remains an entirely different matter. Both in terms of the substantive criteria that apply to them-which are first and foremost focused on the protection of the environment, soils and biodiversity-and the rigorous system of controls to ensure their compliance. Based on established and binding European regulations covering the entire supply chain from seed to fork and from feed to fork, which are mandatory and non-negotiable.
The French inquiry
Que Choisir
points to the names of several operators in France who present ‘pesticide residue-free‘ product lines. Bonduelle (which also offers two ‘residue-free’ products on the shelf in Italy, a canned corn and an iceberg salad), Savéol, Nouveaux Champs, Demain la Terre, Natura e Sapori, etc. Good prices and ‘promising’ offer. At least until the promise is broken.
‘According to the analysis conducted in 2018 by the Directorate-General for Competition, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control (DGCCRF), which we exclusively reveal, in 94 products checked bearing this type of declaration, more than a third showed pesticide residues at significant doses (above a threshold called the ‘limit of quantification’).’ (1)
The tests, conducted on fruits and vegetables labeled‘Pestid residue-free,’ were repeated in 2019 (still awaiting publication of results). But neither the government authority nor the consumer association revealed the brands of products with claims found to be misleading and outlawed.
Criticality
France, it may be recalled, is the European leader in agricultural production and is the first country in the Old Continent where large-scale retailing (GDO) has taken root. Therefore, it is worth considering some critical issues that may be repeated in other EU countries:
– confusion of consumAtors about the meaning of a variety of statements expressing different concepts that are difficult to understand. Examples are cited of the Nature and Taste brand, which expresses the non-use of agrotoxics after flowering. And that of ‘almost (or fake) organic), in the words‘grown without pesticides‘ under the collective label Demain la terre,
– unsuitability of some do-it-yourself rule schemes to ensure product compliance with respect to the warranties offered. The nonconformity rate detected by DGCCRF on the labels of emblazoned brands is emblematic in this regard (not being able to believe in widespread aptitude for fraud),
– Complexity and excessive burden of official public controls.
Possible solutions
Harmonization of the wording under consideration is indispensable and must be integrated into a standard (e.g., the Uni 11233:2009, Integrated production systems in agricultural food chains) or in a certification scheme (e.g., Global G.A.P.+).
Guidelines should also be shared and adopted without delay to ensure that the procedures adopted and product characteristics are consistent with consumer information. More importantly, the average consumer’s ability to understand its meaning-as well as the difference with organic foods.
Dario Dongo and Marta Strinati
Notes
(1) Elsa Abdoun. Labels “sans pesticides,” La méfiance s’impose. Que Choisir, 24.8.20 https://www.quechoisir.org/actualite-labels-sans-pesticides-la-mefiance-s-impose-n82235/
(2) Certification bodies should in turn be held accountable, not only in cases of overt fraud but also for guilty omissions or carelessness. So that consumers and the market can truly trust the certification system. As was not the case in the recent Coccodí and StraBerry scandals.
(3) The distributor is in turn responsible for complying with any applicable standards you sell, including supplier-branded products. See previous article
(4) Sustainability in agriculture, as noted above, is not confirmed by data on agrotoxin consumption. ‘Pesticide residue-free‘ products therefore offer at least a sign of effective care in their use
Dario Dongo, lawyer and journalist, PhD in international food law, founder of WIISE (FARE - GIFT - Food Times) and Égalité.
Professional journalist since January 1995, he has worked for newspapers (Il Messaggero, Paese Sera, La Stampa) and periodicals (NumeroUno, Il Salvagente). She is the author of journalistic surveys on food, she has published the book "Reading labels to know what we eat".
