One Threads video (archived) had a voiceover claiming that "America's number one strawberry brand is directly tied to cancer" and that Driscoll's strawberries are sprayed with "up to 371 chemical pesticides" before reaching consumers:
It has now been confirmed that America's number one strawberry brand is directly tied to cancer. Driscoll's, which controls 1/3 of all U.S. strawberries, gets sprayed with up to 371 chemical pesticides before it ever reaches your family's table.
They are coating your children's strawberries in mosquito spray and marketing them as organic. Nearly every US strawberry begins as a lab engineered clone blanketed in captan, the exact same chemical found in paint preservatives submerged directly into fungicide baths, allowing three separate carcinogens to seep deep into the flesh. And that is only the beginning. Those berries then get bleached in chlorine and sealed inside plastic so thoroughly that no amount of rinsing can remove the residue.
Similar posts circulated on Facebook, Instagram and other social media platforms, often urging viewers to scan food with a third-party app or to avoid conventional strawberries. Readers also messaged us and searched our website to check whether the rumor was true.
Other versions focused on a related claim involving California's Pajaro Valley. Those posts said children living near Driscoll's strawberry farms there had elevated cancer rates, often citing a figure of roughly 38% above the California average.
In short, we rated this claim false because available evidence did not show that Driscoll's strawberries are sprayed with hundreds of pesticides or that eating them has been confirmed to cause cancer.
The claims in the posts touched on some real issues, including a limited May 2026 residue test of one conventional Driscoll's sample and concerns about pesticide use near farm communities. Legitimate questions about pesticide exposure exist, but they do not prove that Driscoll's strawberries cause cancer when eaten or that the berries are sprayed with hundreds of pesticides.
Driscoll's told the Daily Mail that the company "takes seriously and closely follows scientific best practices and regulatory guidance on research related to food-safety risks." The company also said Driscoll's and its independent grower partners "operate in full compliance with applicable US federal, state and local pesticide and food-safety regulations," including oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Driscoll's added that its growers undergo third-party audits.
In a statement emailed to Snopes, a Driscoll's spokesperson said the company's berries are "safe to eat" and that "nothing is more important to us than quality, safety and value." The spokesperson said food safety was "core" to how the company grows and harvests its berries, and described the recent online claims as "misinformation and non-scientific claims" about Driscoll's berries and growing standards.
Claim traces to a limited test
The most likely origin of the pesticide residue claim was a May 2026 article from Mamavation, a website that describes itself as a source for "Independent Laboratory Investigations into Everyday Products." Science communicators have previously criticized the site for overstating the implications of scientific studies, so we focused on what the test itself did and did not show.
Mamavation said it purchased two Driscoll's strawberry products in Southern California — one conventional and one labeled USDA Organic — and sent them to a laboratory to be tested for more than 500 pesticides. According to Mamavation, the conventional Driscoll's strawberries tested positive for 12 pesticide residues. The article argued that some of the reported levels would be prohibited under standards used in the European Union, Taiwan, Chile, Korea and Russia. Mamavation did not report that the residues exceeded U.S. legal limits for strawberries. The organic Driscoll's sample came back "non-detect," indicating that the test did not find pesticide residues on those berries.
Still, Mamavation did not report that all Driscoll's strawberries contained pesticide residues, nor did it report that Driscoll's strawberries contained hundreds of pesticides or caused cancer. Mamavation itself described its testing as a limited "spot-check," not a representative survey of Driscoll's strawberries nationwide.
Residue does not equal cancer risk
Moreover, finding a pesticide residue on food is not the same as proving that the food causes cancer.
Regulators assess risk by considering the chemical involved, the amount detected, how often consumers are exposed, the route of exposure and whether residues exceed legal limits. Under the U.S. system, EPA sets tolerances for pesticide residues on foods, and residues above those limits can trigger enforcement action. Social media posts treated the existence of pesticide residues as if it automatically proved a cancer risk, but residue testing alone does not establish that eating Driscoll's strawberries causes cancer.
Regulators have reviewed some chemicals used in or around strawberry farming for possible cancer concerns. But that does not mean eating Driscoll's strawberries causes cancer, as the risk depends on the specific chemical, the amount of exposure and how a person is exposed.
The '371 pesticides' number is unrelated
Some social media posts claimed that Driscoll's strawberries are sprayed with "up to 371 chemical pesticides." We found no evidence showing that Driscoll's or its growers sprayed any strawberry sample, shipment or crop with 371 pesticides.
The number appears to come from a U.K. government pesticide-residue monitoring report that said officials "tested for up to 371 pesticides" in some food commodities. That meant laboratories screened samples for as many as 371 possible pesticide residues — not that a food contained 371 pesticides.
In Mamavation's test, the lab reportedly screened for more than 500 pesticides but found 12 residues in one conventional sample. Therefore, the claim that Driscoll's strawberries are sprayed with "up to 371" pesticides is unsupported.
Claims about farm areas and childhood cancer
A related set of posts focused on children living near strawberry farms. Some cited California's Pajaro Valley or Watsonville area and claimed childhood cancer rates there were about 38% higher than the state average.
That figure appeared to come from a March 2025 Lookout Santa Cruz opinion piece that cited National Cancer Institute State Cancer Profiles data. The National Cancer Institute's State Cancer Profiles table lists Santa Cruz County's childhood cancer incidence rate for children under 15 at 22.6 cases per 100,000 for 2018 through 2022, compared with California's statewide rate of 16.3.
Those data show a higher reported rate in the county, but they do not identify a cause. Cancer rates at the county level alone do not prove that Driscoll's strawberries caused cancer, and they do not show that eating berries bought in stores is linked to childhood cancer.
The claims about farm areas concern possible exposure in the environment, such as pesticide drift or water exposure, but that is a different question from whether residues on berries bought in stores cause cancer when eaten.
What about washing strawberries?
Some posts claimed that no amount of rinsing could remove pesticide residues from strawberries.
Washing produce does not guarantee that all residues will be removed, especially if residues are systemic or have penetrated the fruit. But the National Pesticide Information Center says washing produce under flowing water can reduce dirt, germs and pesticide residues on produce surfaces. It recommends holding fruits or vegetables under running water rather than simply dunking them. That does not mean washing eliminates all pesticide exposure, but the claim that rinsing is useless overstates the evidence.