What a poor argument. They are toxic and therefore can't be good for you? He could have said something more accurate that related to the LEVELS of their toxicity. Many things can be toxic at certain levels. And if EWG is trying to reach a larger demographic they might want to leave Dr. Weil on a side burner. His appearance does little for the movement if EWG is seen as extreme environmentalist or too liberal or as another one of those "alarmist" groups.

In response to the above comment, can anyone argue that there is nutritive benefit in pesticides? I think that's all he's saying... that the jury may be out on exactly how these pesticides act on our bodies (this was probably filmed prior to headline-making ADHD study), and yet we can still say with some certainty that they pose no benefit to us. Dr. Weil has been ahead of his time for a long time, and if you were familiar with his work you would know that. Furthermore, he speaks in plain language, and I think that makes him easily digestible to large audiences.

Three words - risk assessment science. Toxicity is very small with respect to the benefit of a safe, plentiful, low cost food supply. Has anyone considered the toxins produced as a plant tries to protect itself against a pest. It all comes down risk/benefit, one example/question. Would you rather eat crops (peanuts, corn, & many others) without aflatoxin (known carcinogen made by pests on food) along with a tiny residue of pesticide (stopped the microbes/pests from spoiling the food) or be pesticide free & get liver cancer.

I would argue that Dr. Andrew Weil - in my opinion, a near-shameless mercenary and self-promoter - does not do EWG or its readership or the "clean foods movement" much good pontificating and self-promoting while using his celebrity to hawk everything on the planet, from books and personal appearances to dietary supplements. It's not that he is a bad person on not an expert, it is that he has, in the pursuit of celebrity and money, in my view, sullied his reputation and name, and the reputation and names of those he associates with, i.e., in this case, EWG. Sorry, but I no longer put much stock in Dr. Weil or his advice. In my view, it always comes with a price tag - self promotion and non-transparent motivations - that I, as a consumer and researcher, find unsavory, to be kind.

To Anon #1, did you watch the video? Dr. Weil DID address levels of toxicity in recommending the use of EWC's lists.

To John Doe, sounds like B.S. Minimizing ingestion of toxins is generally a good thing. It sounds like you're arguing that organically grown foods are going to be MORE toxic than conventionally grown stuff. Where do you pull this stuff out of?