I am a little confused by that article, LeN. I'm willing to accept their numbers for the amount of pesticides until more testing is done, but some of their language is hinky--they never define quality as far as I saw, but maintain they're proving Teavana is low quality. If they are equating quality with being pesticide free, 1/4 of the article is redundant, because they already said that.
I admit that I wasn't paying attention to whether my favourite tea from them was supposed to be organic or not--I don't recall seeing that, and it doesn't often play into my purchase decisions of something whose taste I already know. So that portion of it isn't pertinent to me.
They are cheating, also, with at least some of the pesticide section, because showing that picture of an affected child is not cricket, even if the text goes on to say that Teavana's use of it is not in quantities related to the photo. And some of their math confuses, but that could totally be me too early:
Fipronil, a GroupC Possible Human Carcinogenaccording to the EPA, exceeded EU limits in five of the pure teas tested. Monkey Picked Oolong stood out with a concentration of Fipronil at 45times the limit, or 4400%. The other four teas, which included Silver Yin Zhen Pearls, Black Dragon Pearl, Golden Jade, and Phoenix Mountain, exceeded their respective Fipronil limits by a range of 120% to 380%, with an average of 265%, or around four times the EU’s legal limit
If their numbers about the pesticide contamination are correct (which I'm still assuming) that's all the reason in the world needed to stop drinking their products. But the article is not just fact reporting, it's deliberately inflammatory, which makes me all the more curious about what Teavana does or says in response. What can they do? It would seem their backs are against the wall.
However, no study can convince me to like Tazo tea. I've got many tea options that I'm drinking right now, and none of them are Tazo. Maybe Teavana is using tasty pesticides or something.