Pesticide methodology
The combined view uses official monitoring from the US, UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Canada. Country tabs recalculate the pesticide position only among familiar produce with data in that market. The All, US and Germany views offer organic and non-organic comparisons. The All comparison pools only the qualifying country-level pairs, currently from the US and Germany, and uses one shared pesticide scale for both production groups. The US comparison uses California DPR 2020–2023 produce monitoring with at least 20 organic and 40 non-organic samples per food. Germany uses 2020–2024 EFSA files with explicit Organic production and Conventional (non-organic) production codes, requiring at least 40 samples per group. Only foods meeting both thresholds are compared, and each country's organic and non-organic observations share one pesticide scale so tab changes remain directly comparable; uncoded samples stay in each country's All view. These monitoring groups can differ in food mix, origin and sampling strategy, and California intentionally targets commodities more likely to have residues, so the comparison is descriptive rather than causal. US and UK All views use up to their five most recent sampled years through 2024; EFSA country files include objective and selective monitoring while excluding suspect samples. Italy's explicit non-organic sample pool is too sparse for a useful same-food comparison. Portugal reports some explicitly organic samples but no explicitly conventional samples for the familiar produce shown, so its uncoded records are not relabeled and no misleading production toggle is exposed. France and Spain currently use 2024 only. Canada uses official 2019–2022 aggregate tables, so its detection rate is a conservative lower bound and no multi-residue rate is shown. Pesticide load estimates the dose from a 100 g serving for a 70 kg adult and compares it with EPA health-protective oral reference levels. For one-off exposure, it uses a high-residue concentration that only 5% of samples exceed; for repeated exposure, it uses the average across all samples. The pesticide that comes closest to its reference level sets each food's relative rank, so unrelated pesticides are not added together. Taiwan FDA pass/fail monitoring is context only and never changes the rank. This is not a probability of harm or a complete dietary risk assessment.
Longevity methodology
Produce Compass compares only the fruits, vegetables and legumes shown in this app, not burgers or the rest of the food supply. It averages the matched Food Compass 2.0 score for a plain food with an app-defined produce-profile tier. The final 50–100 score equally blends that composite's midrank position among the foods shown with its min–max-scaled strength, reducing artificial jumps around large ties while keeping the map relative. A score of 50 means the lower end of the healthy produce shown here, not unhealthy food; 100 means the strongest end. The raw Food Compass score and match remain visible. Produce Compass is app-derived, not a validated medical score, and does not predict lifespan.
