PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

E Groth

Publications and source records attributed to E Groth.

7 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2002

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

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.

Food Contamination↗
PubMed2001

The debate over food biotechnology in the United States: is a societal consensus achievable?

Unless the public comes to agree that the benefits of food biotechnology are desirable and the associated risks are acceptable, our society may fail to realize much of the potential benefits. Three historical cases of major technological innovations whose benefits and risks were the subject of heated public controversy are examined, in search of lessons that may suggest a path toward consensus in the biotechnology debate. In each of the cases--water fluoridation, nuclear power and pesticides--proponents of the technology gathered scientific evidence that they believed established that the innovations were safe. In each case, the federal government was heavily involved in oversight, safety regulation, and in the first two cases, active promotion of the technology. Supporters of the technologies employed a variety of communications strategies, ranging from massive "educational" campaigns (e.g. "Our Friend The Atom") to vituperative ad hominem attacks on leading opponents. None of these strategies succeeded in achieving broad societal acceptance of the technologies. Fluoridation today is opposed as vigorously by activist groups as it was when first introduced around 1950; it has not been universally adopted even in the U.S., and it has been rejected in most other countries. The American nuclear power industry is moribund, and the public has essentially rejected the technology. The pesticide industry is thriving, with new generations of products succeeding older more hazardous chemicals in a constant cycle. However, strong regulation has failed to prevent adverse health and ecological effects, which have been empirically associated with pesticide uses after the chemicals were dispersed in the environment. Debate over whether risks of such effects are acceptable has been heated for four decades, with scientists and the public divided.

Biotechnology↗
PubMed1989

Alar in apples.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Food Contamination↗
PubMed1984

Olfactory cuing of autobiographical memory.

In Experiment 1, subjects were presented with either the odors or the names of 15 common objects. In Experiment 2, subjects were presented with either the odors, photographs, or names of 16 common objects. All subjects were asked to describe an autobiographical memory evoked by each cue, to date each memory, and to rate each memory on vividness, pleasantness, and the number of times that the memory had been thought of and talked about prior to the experiment. Compared with memories evoked by photographs or names, memories evoked by odors were reported to be thought of and talked about less often prior to the experiment and were more likely to be reported as never having been thought of or talked about prior to the experiment. No other effects were consistently found, though there was a suggestion that odors might evoke more pleasant and emotional memories than other types of cues. The relation of these results to the folklore concerning olfactory cuing is discussed.

Cues↗