Letting Your Baby Cry Himself To Sleep Is Safe, Study Finds

You just put your baby in his crib for the night, and he’s wailing up a storm. You just want to watch a little Netflix before getting some sleep, but you’re wracked with guilt. If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Not by a long-shot. But a recent study finds that letting your baby cry himself to sleep won’t harm him, so grab the remote control.

Researchers in Australia worked with 43 sets of parents who had babies between 6 and 16 months of age, all of whom had the same problem: their little ones had trouble sleeping. The researchers taught about 1/3 of the parents about graduated extinction, or simply “crying it out.” Parents were asked to leave the room within 1 minute of putting their baby back to bed and, if their baby cried, to wait increasingly longer periods of time before going back into the room and comforting them.

Another third of the parents were asked to try an approach called bedtime fading, in which parents put their baby to bed closer to the time he or she usually fell asleep and were allowed to stay in the room until their child dozed off.

The rest of the parents, the control group, did not attempt any sleep training and instead received information about infant sleep.

Three months after the experiments began, the babies in the cry-it-out group were falling asleep 15 minutes faster than babies in the control group. The babies in the bedtime fading group fell asleep about 12 minutes faster compared with the control group.

Michael Gradisar, associate professor of psychology at Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia, said:

“What our data probably does not capture is the peace of mind surrounding bedtime that we see when we work with families.”

Additionally, the graduated extinction group bested the fading group in other measures, including the number of times the babies awoke during the night and their total sleep time. [1]

One of the concerns that parents and medical professionals share is that letting a baby cry itself to sleep could cause the child stress, which could lead to bigger problems. The study measured levels of the stress hormone cortisol in the infants’ saliva both in the morning and in the afternoon, looking for elevated levels that could indicate long-term stress.

The study did not find elevated levels of cortisol in the infants in the graduated extinction group, and no significant differences were observed in parental attachment or behavioral problems in those infants 12 months later.

Gradisar said of the findings:

“It looks like you’ve got two effective treatments that don’t necessarily lead to negative outcomes.”

He acknowledged, however, that listening to your child cry himself to sleep could make you want to rip your hair out. He said:

“It is a stressful thing for parents to go through.”

A 2012 study of 326 children with sleep problems at age 7 months had similar results. There was no evidence that letting babies cry themselves to sleep had any long-term negative impact on their sleep or behavior 5 years later. [2]

Letting your baby cry it out might be tough to handle, but it might be worth it for those extra 15 minutes of “grown-up time.”

The new study is published in the journal Pediatrics.

Sources:

[1] CNN

[2] CBC News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

5 Reasons Breastfeeding Is Awesome

Many mothers choose breastfeeding because of the close bonding experience and the fact that it’s the most nutritious option for their baby. Commercial formulas, even the organic ones, simply can’t compare. Let’s take a look at 5 proven reasons why breastfeeding is just plain awesome.

1. Breastfeeding Provides the Best Nutrition

The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics suggests the best strategy for nutrition and health protection is “exclusive breastfeeding […] for the first 6 months of life” and “breastfeeding with complementary foods from six months until at least 12 months of age.” ^[1] Breastfeeding your child during the first few months of life could also influence the makeup of the gut microbiome—making the transition to solid foods easier. ^[2]

2. Breastfeeding Shapes the Immune System

But breastfeeding does more than just help your baby with that transition to solid food. A recent study suggests breastfeeding your baby could even influence a developing immune system by, once again, influencing the microbiome. This, in turn, could also lessen your child’s chances of developing allergies or asthma. ^[3]

3. Breastfeeding Promotes Healthy Gut Flora

Preventing allergies (and asthma) is just the tip of the iceberg. Many studies have already suggested children who are breastfed also have a “lower incidence of obesity […] diabetes and inflammatory bowel disease later in life.” (4) Because babies are born without gut bacteria, they need help developing a healthy microbiome. ^[4] Recent evidence suggests breastfeeding could help with that.

     4. Breastfeeding Makes Kids Smarter and Richer

OK, that’s probably one bold statement, but it’s not quite far off. One study out of Brazil found babies who were breastfed actually had higher IQs, went to school longer, and made more money as adults. ^[5] But it’s more than just breastfeeding–the amount of time a child is breastfed could be very important as well: “for example, an infant […] breastfed for at least a year gained a full four IQ points, had 0.9 years more schooling […], and a higher income of 341 reais”—about 112 dollars—“per month at the age of 30 years, compared to those breastfed for less than one month.”

5. Breastfeeding Makes the Best Economic Sense

Let’s look past the immediate health benefits for a moment. When it comes to the economy, breastfeeding could save countries millions in future health costs—and those savings make a lot of sense. ^[6] A UK research team figured out that savings from “reducing the incidence of common childhood diseases and curbing the subsequent risk of breast cancer” in mothers “all of which have been linked to low rates of breastfeeding” could save the equivalent of close to 60 million dollars each year!

One Final Thought

Breastfeeding can be a rewarding experience for you as a mother, and your child’s health can only benefit. Make sure that you are getting enough nutrients during pregnancy and while lactating. In addition to a daily multi-vitamin, you also want to make sure that you are getting enough iodine: “the addition of 150 mcg of iodine in all prenatal vitamins will ensure that the developing brain of the baby during pregnancy and early infancy will have sufficient iodine to develop to its maximal potential.” ^[7]

Do you know of any other health benefits of breastfeeding? Tell us about them in the comments!

References:

1. Lessen, R. & Kavanagh, K. Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Promoting and Supporting Breastfeeding. Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. 115 (3).


2. Thompson, A. L. Milk- and solid-feeding practices and daycare attendance are associated with differences in bacterial diversity, predominant communities, and metabolic and immune function of the infant gut microbiome. Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology.


3. Henry Ford Health System. Breastfeeding, other factors help shape immune system early in life. ScienceDaily.


4. Bergström, A. et al. Establishment of Intestinal Microbiota during Early Life: a Longitudinal, Explorative Study of a Large Cohort of Danish Infants. Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 80 (9).


5. Victora, C. G. et al. Association between breastfeeding and intelligence, educational attainment, and income at 30 years of age: a prospective birth cohort study from Brazil. The Lancet Global Health. 3 (4).


6. Pokhrel, S. et al. Potential economic impacts from improving breastfeeding rates in the UK. Archives of Disease in Childhood.


7. Public Health Committee of the American Thyroid Association. Iodine supplementation for pregnancy and lactation-United States and Canada: recommendations of the American Thyroid Association. Thyroid. 16 (10).

Brain Scans Catch Autism Months Before Symptoms Appear

The symptoms of autism generally begin to emerge in a person between 12 and 18 months of age. Oftentimes, babies develop normally until this age, but then they start regressing and lose skills. Now, a recent study suggests it may be possible to spot autism on an MRI scan months before symptoms start. [1]

Geraldine Dawson, a clinical psychologist and autism researcher at Duke University who was not involved in the new work, says:

“We’re learning that there are biological changes that occur at [the time] or before the symptoms start to emerge. It’s the ability to detect autism at its very earliest stages that’s going to allow us to intervene before the full syndrome is manifest.”

Read: New Scientific Discovery Could Make it Easier to Diagnose, Treat Autism

For the study, researchers conducted MRI scans on 150 children, 3 times: at 6 months old, 1 year, and 2 years. More than 100 of those children were at high risk for autism because they had an older sibling diagnosed with the disorder. Infants with older siblings who have autism have about a 1 in 5 chance of developing autism spectrum disorder (ASD).

The team found that 8 times out of 10, they could correctly predict which children would go on to develop autism based on the faster growth rate of the surface areas of their brains. They detail their findings in the journal Nature. [1] [2]

Source: ABC News – A 2011 study found that people with certain types of autism have bigger brains.

Washington University child psychiatrist Dr. Kelly Botteron, explains:

“It was basically 80, 85% predictive of being able to basically make a diagnosis based on just their MRI scan changes from 6 to 12 to 24 months.” [3]

The study’s lead author, Heather Hazlett, a psychologist at the University of North Carolina’s Carolina Institute for Developmental Disabilities (CIDD), says that enlargement of the brain seemed to correlate with the onset of symptoms, but more research is needed. The study was small, and doctors shouldn’t start conducting MRIs on children in an effort to diagnose them. [1]

Read: 1st Trimester Ultrasounds may be Linked to Autism Symptoms in Children

Still, if the findings can be recreated in a larger study, MRI could become a new diagnostic tool for high-risk children before their symptoms begin, giving parents the opportunity to start treating their child at a time when treatment will be possibly most effective. We just have to be careful with recommending such measures, or we could see issues similar to those arising from mammograms (causing issues due to being unnecessarily overused). Currently, the average age of diagnosis is about 4 years. [2]

Botteron says:

“There’s pretty good evidence that the earlier we can make a diagnosis and begin interventions, even things like speech therapy, physical therapy, occupational therapy, kinds of behavioral interventions that we can have a much better long-term outcome.” [3]

Some of those interventions and treatments could include “hyper-parenting,” McPartland explains, meaning that a child headed for autism might benefit from more parental interaction such as cooing, singing, and laughing. He says:

“Supersaturate a child’s environment with social information as much as you can. And hope that it takes.” [1]

Sources:

[1] Scientific American

[2] USA Today

[3] CBS News St. Louis

ABC News

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.

Fracking Kills Baby

Parents-to-be beware: If you live in 10 of Pennsylvania’s most heavily fracked counties, your baby has a 29-percent greater risk of dying within the first 0 – 28 days of birth, than if you live elsewhere.

An epidemiological study published recently in the Journal of Environmental Protection revealed for the first time that fracking kills babies. The study examined early infant deaths 0-28 days before and after the drilling of fracking wells, using official data from the U.S. Centre for Disease Control to compare the immediate post-fracking four-year period (2007-2010) with the pre-fracking four-year period (2003-2006). According to the study:

There were about 50 more babies died in these 10 counties than would have been predicted if the rate had been the same over the period as all of Pennsylvania, where the incidence rate fell over the same period.

Think it’s about time to ban fracking? Or at the very least, regulate the chemicals that fracking dumps into local waterways? Sadly, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is still protecting the frackers—not the babies.

Read the study

Learn more

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Researchers: Delay Breastfeeding To “Improve” Vaccination?

Over the course of the past few years we have been gathering studies from the US National Library of Medicine on the adverse, unintended health effects of vaccination, in an attempt to offset the one-sided propaganda foisted upon the public, namely, that all vaccines are unequivocally “safe” and “effective” a priori.

Along the way, we happened upon a 2010 study published in the Journal of Pediatric Infections & Diseases which has been shared more than any other article on our database, and which suggests that breastfeeding should be delayed in order to prevent immune factors within breast milk from deactivating vaccine-associated antibody titer elevations and “vaccine potency.” The concluded the study with the following statement:

“INTERPRETATION: The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated.”

It is not difficult to comprehend what caused the flurry of interest in this study. Readers were obviously disturbed by the suggestion that women in the underdeveloped world temporarily stop breast feeding (often the only source of infant nutrition) in order to increase the vaccine’s purported “efficacy.”  Are we to assume that these breast milk deprived infants should consume formula in the interim, a synthetic ‘breastmilk alternative’ that has been linked to over 60 serious health conditions, as well as increased infant mortality?  And to what end? So that the vaccine can generate a temporary spike in antibody production, which is no measure of real-world effectiveness? [See: Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines]

First, it should be made clear that the term “efficacy,” when used in the context of a vaccine’s antibody-elevating effects, does not equate to effectiveness, i.e. whether or not a vaccine actually works in real life to protect against the infectious agent of concern.

It is this semantic trick (conflating and confusing “efficacy” with “effectiveness”) which convinces most of the “developed” world that vaccine research is “evidence-based” and focused on creating enhanced immunity, when in fact it is primarily a highly successful business enterprise dependent on defrauding its “customers” of both their money and health. The dangers of common vaccines are so well known by “health experts,” and the manufacturers who produce, them that their risk (like nuclear power) is underwritten by world governments. The importance of this fact can not be overestimated or understated.

Introducing foreign pathogenic DNA, chemicals, metals, preservatives, etc., into the body through a syringe will generate a response not unlike kicking a bee hive. The harder you kick that beehive, the greater will be the “efficacy” (i.e. elevated antibodies), but the actual affinity that these antibodies will have for the antigen (i.e. pathogen) of concern, can not be guaranteed; nor must the vaccine researchers prove antibody-antigen affinity to receive FDA approval.

Also, valuable immune resources are wasted by generating “false flag” responses to threats which may not readily exist in the environment, e.g. there are over 200 forms of influenza A, B & C which can cause the symptoms associated with annual influenza A, so the seasonal trivalent flu vaccine only takes care of little more than 1% of the possible vectors of infection – and often at the price of distracting resources away from real threats, as well as exhausting and/or damaging the entire immune apparatus. Truth be told, there is actually a shocking lack of evidence to support flu vaccines, in any age or population.

What’s worse, the vaccine response can “blow back” causing loss of self-tolerance and, via the resultant Th2 dominant immune system, the body can attack itself (auto-immunity).  In the meantime, the first line of defense against infection (Th1) is compromised and this “front door” can be left wide open to unmet infectious challenges.

It is clear that one can create a synthetic immune response through vaccination, but it is not likely to result in enhanced immunity, insofar as real-world effectiveness is concerned, which is the only true judge of whether a vaccine is valuable or not.  One might view the basic criteria used by vaccine researchers, namely, that generating elevated antibody titers proves the value of the vaccine, oppositely: proving the vaccine is causing harm to the developing infant by generating unnecessarily elevated antibodies by any means necessary, i.e. throwing the chemical and biological kitchen sink at the immune system, e.g. aluminum, phenol, diploid (aborted fetal) cells, peanut oil, pertactin, etc.

In the same way that secretory IgA from breast milk deactivates a broad range of “natural” antigenic challenges for the infant, this breast milk derived, indispensable immune factor also deactivates the inherently disruptive and immunotoxic antibody-generating vaccine antigens and adjuvants. Rather than view this as the “enemy,” the reduction in antibodies that accompanies a well-nourished breastfed infant’s blood work, after the highly invasive and unnatural introduction of a vaccine, is a sign of health, not disease.

This study struck a deep psychic chord out there. Images of phallic syringes stabbing away jealously at the symbolic breast of Nature come to mind, as the increasingly invasive ethos of modern medicine — always attempting to “improve on Nature” — drives us sick, mentally and physically. Can’t we just leave the timeless wisdom of mothering and nourishing that is woven into the mother-infant dyad alone?

© April 24, 2017 GreenMedInfo LLC. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of GreenMedInfo LLC. Want to learn more from GreenMedInfo? Sign up for the newsletter here http://www.greenmedinfo.com/greenmed/newsletter.

Study Shows Babies Are Born Polluted

Back in 2010, a report by the President’s Cancer Panel called for a change in the regulation of chemicals produced by industry. Why? Because a study had found that babies were polluted at birth ^[1]. Before they even had the privilege of joining the physical world, the unborn were found to be affected by the sins of it. Research showed that, almost universally, the bodies of newborn infants were already infested with upwards of 200 different chemicals – and those are only the ones that can be tested for ^[2]. The placenta, the safeguard nature has put in place for a developing baby in the womb can’t defend against the ugly side of industrialization. And now, nearly three years later, nothing has changed. That should make you both sick and angry.

No Surprise

Critics have long viewed “toxins” as a make-believe concept conjured up by natural medical practitioners, and “weirdos” who are rightfully skeptical of the safety of the wares produced by the food, drug, and chemical industries. Frankly, I don’t know how educated persons could be so blind. You don’t need a chemical engineering degree to figure this one out. Heck, go to the home goods section of any big box retailer and examine the warning labels on the various home cleaning (oxymoron?) products. This stuff is used en masse, every single day by, literally, hundreds of millions of people… and that’s not including the horribly caustic chemicals used, and dumped into the environment by large industry. No effect? The incidence of all degenerative diseases, cancer, autism, etc, is on the rise. A person would have to be purposely obtuse to believe this trash isn’t negatively affecting the environment and the human race.

Who is to Blame?

In 1976, the Toxic Substances Control Act was introduced. Like many pieces of legislation, the name of the act is far more misleading and feel-good than its substance is effective. Contrary to what you might think and hope, the TSCA doesn’t implement logical safeguards, restrictions, or safety testing. In fact, when the TSCA was passed, it included the rubber-stamp approval of 60,000 chemicals already being used by industry. Today, that list has grown to 80,000 chemicals, which includes known and suspected carcinogens, and only 200 (0.0025%) of them have been tested for safety by the EPA. Is it just me or does that sound horrendously unacceptable? These are the chemicals used to produce food containers, toys, and just about everything else most people use on a daily basis. In addition, the TCSA allows industry to keep some ingredients a secret, and upwards of 20% of the chemicals on that list ARE a secret.

The TSCA is flawed from top to bottom and one of the largest problems is that chemical manufacturers are not required to demonstrate a product is safe, the government must prove it’s harmful. Well, clearly, that can only happen AFTER harm has already been inflicted; if it’s to happen at all. Abysmally, since inception of the TSCA in 1976, only 5 chemicals have been banned- PCBs, chlorofluorocarbons, dioxin, asbestos, and hexavalent chromium… and the asbestos ban was overturned, despite the fact that upwards of 10,000 people a year die of asbestos related causes.

What Needs to Happen?

Despite recommendations at the highest level, the TSCA remains unchanged. It’s a tall order, but congress needs to shape up and amend the TSCA, drastically, to require far more stringent safety testing and transparency for chemicals used in industry. The burden of safety needs to be on industry, period. Although we live in a polluted world, we also all need to be personally active and accountable for ourselves. This includes speaking up to our elected officials and demanding that issues like this not be ignored. It also includes making personal decisions that help offset the odds as much as possible. Your diet needs to be as organic as possible. Your water needs to be purified. Your home needs to be detoxified. The health of our children and nation, literally, depends on this.

References:

1. Laura LeBlanc. Babies are polluted at birth, new report says. PBS. 2010 May 13.


2. Environmental Working Group. First BPA detection in U.S. infant cord blood. EWG Public Affairs. 2009 December 2.

Don’t Forget About the 2017 Dirty Dozen List: Most Pesticide-Tainted Produce

Every year the Environmental Working Group (EWG) puts out a list of the 12 types of produce that contain the most pesticides. The group analyzes tests by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for the list. The list was released in the beginning of the year, but it’s important to browse the list multiple times so the information is at your fingertips. [1]

This year, the EWG found that close to 70% of samples of 48 types of conventional produce contained residues of 1 or more pesticides. In all, USDA researchers found 178 different pesticides and pesticide breakdown products in the samples of produce, which numbered in the thousands. These chemicals remained on the produce even after they were washed and, in some cases, peeled.

In a news release, Sonya Lunder, an EWG senior analyst, says:

“If you don’t want to feed your family food contaminated with pesticides, the EWG Shopper’s Guide helps you make smart choices, whether you’re buying conventional or organic produce.

Eating of fruits and vegetables is essential no matter how they’re grown, but for the items with the heaviest pesticide loads, we urge shoppers to buy organic. If you can’t buy organic, the Shopper’s Guide will steer you to conventionally grown produce that is the lowest in pesticides.” [1]

Choosing produce with the least amount of pesticides is vital to the health of children, Lunder says.

“Even low levels of pesticide exposure can be harmful to infants, babies and young children, so when possible, parents and caregivers should take steps to lower children’s exposures to pesticides while still feeding them diets rich in healthy fruits and vegetables.” [1]

The “Dirty Dozen” List

Strawberries are at the top of the list because the USDA found that the most contaminated sample of the fruit had 20 different pesticides. [1]

New to the list this year is pears and potatoes, displacing cherry tomatoes and cucumbers from last year’s list.

At least one pesticide residue was found on nearly all of the strawberries, spinach, peaches, nectarines, cherries, and apples.

On average, the spinach samples contained twice as much pesticide residue by weight than any other crop. In fact, EWG says 3/4 of spinach samples were contaminated with residues of a neurotoxic pesticide banned in Europe for use on food crops. It is part of a group of pesticides that have been linked to behavioral disorders in young children in recent studies.

Read: Pesticides as Dangerous as Secondhand Smoke to Kids

You can find the full list of 51 types of produce on EWG’s website.

The “Clean 15”

Not every fruit and vegetable is coated in chemicals, fortunately, and the EWG also made a list of the types of produce that are least likely to contain pesticide residues.

Sources:

[1] Environmental Working Group

[2] Environmental Working Group

---

---

About Julie Fidler:
	Julie Fidler is a freelance writer, legal blogger, and the author of Adventures in Holy Matrimony: For Better or the Absolute Worst. She lives in Pennsylvania with her husband and two ridiculously spoiled cats. She occasionally pontificates on her blog.