Thus, they view Charles Benbrook's two-year study titled Pest Management at the Crossroads with skepticism. Sponsored by Consumers Union, the publisher of Consumer Reports, the 288-page report was released Tuesday.

Alan Schreiber, pesticide coordinator for the Food and Environmental Quality Lab here at Washington State University - Tri-Cities, call Benbrook "one of the most vocal anti-pesticide activists in the country..." but noted that he "is well respected from a particular perspective."

Benbrook's claim that the overall risk from pesticides to humans and the environment is no less than it was 25 years ago is dismissed by Schreiber. He notes that newer, gentler pesticides don't make it through the "new, tough" Environmental Protection Agency unless they're low risk.

The majority of foods that are sampled for pesticide residues show no residues and 99 percent of the ones that do are well below the acceptable tolerances," Schreiber said.

"Anyone who thinks we have not made progress toward improving effects on human health and making the environment safer is an alarmist in my opinion."

Schreiber notes that most conventionally grown crops meet synthetic pesticide residue tolerances established in California for organic food.

Leonard Gianessi, senior researcher for the National Center for Food and Agricultural Policy, in Washington, D.C., knows Benbrook well, having supplied him with some of the data used for the report.

The data show significant declines in the use of some pesticides and increases in others. He disagrees that progress has not been made.

"When we look at the information we see things he doesn't see," Gianessi said. "Why not acknowledge the reductions that have taken place in the last 25 years?"

One has only to remember the days when arsenic was used on apples and other crops and organochlorines like DDT were used heavily, to understand how far agriculture has come, he said.

Benbrook champions Integrated Pest Management as the method to reduce pesticide use by 75 percent by 2020. His study prescribes steps that can be taken to approach that goal.

Gianessi said IPM practices have reduced pesticide use in some areas, but not always. Growers practicing IPM must scout their crops religiously and are often required to spray more than conventional growers to keep the program working.

"IPM deserves credit at both ends," Gianessi said. "If you look at the data, an enormous number of crops receive small amounts of pesticides. It may be that IPM could increase the use if they scout and monitor those crops the way they have to."

The cost to shift a large portion of U.S. agricultural production to IPM is enormous, Gianessi said. Much more research money needs to come forth and it requires considerably more labor to monitor crops.

"Sure, let's spend $100 million putting all sorts of advisors out there," Gianessi said. "And then it might not always lead to a decrease in pesticides."

Pesticides save millions of tons of sediment from washing into waterways, Gianessi added, because crops can be planted earlier to hold soil down.

U.S. farmers may be abel to reach a 75 percent reduction in pesticide use by 2020 -- depending upon the price of crops, Gianessi said. When growers are prosperous they can turn to more expensive IPM measures.

If Chuck can tell me what the price of wheat will be in 2020, I can tell him about IPM," Gianessi said.

Gianessi has more faith in the regulatory system than his friend Benbrook.

"To their credit, the chemical companies have all sorts of internal screening devices," he said. "They're not going to spend $40 to $50 million to register something the EPA won't approve."

Much of the disagreement between Gianessi and Benbrook is rooted in assumptions used in predictive models and analyzing data.

"If we make this assumption and that assumption we end up with a big risk," Gianessi said. "With another assumption in the same model the risk is zero."

Pesticide residues can now be detected at concentrations as low as parts per trillion, Gianessi said. Thus they turn up more often. If such detections are magnitudes below the levels believed to affect human health, is it still a problem?

"Are we going to learn to live with it or not?" Gianessi asks. "Some people want to turn back to pristine conditions. We are going to have to come to grips with the fact that we have parts per trillion."