The regulatory action is a separate thing. We actually classify the residue that way in our data. If a product contains a pesticide residue for which EPA has not set a tolerance, at any level, it is adulterated. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) residue expert Chris Sack: ![]() In such cases, the presence of a pesticide-related chemical in the food commodity means the product is considered “adulterated," but that does not mean the product is necessarily subject to regulatory action, as explained to us via email by U.S. Setting such limits is a scientifically demanding process, and not all pesticides that show up in tests have established limits for dried tea products. In some cases, residue limits are set for dried tea, which is the type of testing highlighted in Fraser’s story. These limits, termed maximum residue tolerances or limits (MRLs) are different depending upon both the chemical used and the commodity type because the level of exposure to pesticide residue a consumer might experience through diet differs depending upon the food type. This form of regulation is different than the rules that govern the application of pesticides it instead governs the small amounts of pesticide residue allowed to remain in, or on, food products. In the United States, governmental bodies regularly test domestic and imported agricultural food commodities to determine how much pesticide residue they might contain. With this context in mind, and with the understanding that the referenced test results are five years out-of-date, we will dissect each of the claims made by Fraser and explain how she has muddied the science behind food residue testing. "I am an affiliate of Amazon and link to tea companies I currently drink, trust and recommend," Fraser told us via email. The reality is that this post is a textbook example of affiliate marketing, and Fraser’s blog receives money from Amazon if people purchase the teas she linked to. However, the article inaccurately describes three different testing results that are currently five years out of date.Īt the article’s conclusion, Fraser suggested that other brands that were allegedly healthier. I was able to find refuting research, done at the behest of Hain Celestial, by National Food Lab (NFL).A 26 October 2016 post written by Carly Fraser on her website “Live Love Fruit,” which has been shared over a million times on Facebook, alleges that various popular brands of tea contain dangerous levels of pesticides. I researched ten internet articles about Celestial Seasonings’ pesticide content, and each one referred to the Glaucus report, either directly, or to another article that in turn referred to Glaucus, or the laboratory which actually did the research for Glaucus, Eurofins Scientific. What is the true motivation of this report from Glaucus? Is it really to inform the public? Or is it to disinform the public, enabling a short sale of Hain stock, therefore enabling Glaucus to make huge profits on the sale. My concern with this type of “research” is motivation. However I have no relationship with Celestial Seasonings® or its parent company, Hain Celestial Group, other than a consumer who has enjoyed their products for many years. Yes, I am a major coffee drinker! In the interest of full disclosure, I will also say I have financial interest in a website that sells tea.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |