NBC summarizes Winters's study:
There are theoretical concerns about pesticides, which, as a parent, worry me. Winter doesn't think we should and says “these concerns are based on values, not science.”
His research, published in the Journal of Toxicology, found that consuming foods on the EWG’s Dirty Dozen list didn’t pose a real threat, and substituting the so-called worst ones for organic versions didn’t result in any appreciable reduction in risk. “The actual risk is tiny,” he says.
But this Reddit user counters him:
I'm not /u/2cant but FWIW, I think this is overstating the certainty dramatically. Winter's study looked at "estimated exposures" (so, nothing to do with actual humans at all) using fairly old (at this point) PDP data (so, washed and peeled items). It also doesn't seem to (although I may have missed this) [have] looked much at endocrine disruptors, which a fair amount of research (much of it that has come after this study) suggests can be dangerous even in incredibly low and traditionally considered "safe" doses. In fact, based on a quick Google search for the years in question, I'm not sure the EPA even had specific exposure standards for them as part of the EPA RfDs that were used for the study that's discussed in your link.
Who's correct?
