Research and analysis

Quarter 3 2023 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme: findings by food in Great Britain and UK detailed risk assessments

Updated 25 September 2024

Summary

For more information on the results, read the:

• summary table of results
• survey design
• glossary
• HSE assessment of risk
• detailed pesticide residues in food quarterly data, which includes brand name, sampling point and origin information, pesticides sought and residues found

Beans (dried)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.

Black turtle

2 samples came from the UK. 2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Black eye

2 samples came from the UK.

Cannellini

3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Chickpea

2 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Haricot

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Kidney

4 samples came from the UK.

Mung

One sample came from the UK.

Pinto

One sample came from the UK. 4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Soya

One sample came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the dried beans were produced. It may be where the dried beans were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

9 samples contained no residues from those sought. 15 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained residues above the maximum residue level (MRL). None of the samples were labelled as organic.

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment, there was one sample of black eye beans containing a residue of chlorpyrifos at a level of 0.02 mg per kg (above the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg) where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail. Based on the HSE assessment for chlorpyrifos (see Dietary intake assessments), we conclude a short term effect on health is unlikely. As outlined in HSE’s full risk assessment (see Dietary intake assessments), the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a 2019 statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos which included a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). We conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. Due to the low level of chlorpyrifos (0.02 mg per kg) in the sample of black eye beans we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to ‘how HSE perform the risk assessments’ for further details.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF)

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos in one black eye bean sample. This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that at the levels present, any risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

We are pleased to note that an additional survey is being carried out by HSE on dried beans following adverse results reported in quarter 2 and quarter 3.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 residue above the MRL in dried beans. Details are available in Table 4.

HSE have passed details of the following sample to the Food Standards Agency (FSA) for further consideration. Further details are in Table 4.

One sample from the UK containing chlorpyrifos at 0.02 mg/kg

Beans with pods

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.

Dwarf beans

One sample came from the UK.

Green beans

3 samples came from the UK. 7 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Runner beans

One sample came from the UK.

Speciality beans

9 samples were imported from outside the EU. 3 samples came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the Bean with pods were produced. It may be where the Beans with pods were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

12 samples contained no residues from those sought. 12 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. 4 samples contained residues above the MRL. One sample was labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment, there was one sample of yard long beans containing a residue of omethoate at a level of 0.2 mg per kg (above the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg)  where the effect on short term health needed to be considered in more detail.

Dimethoate and omethoate are chemically related pesticides and for toxicology purposes are considered together. Omethoate is also the main metabolite of dimethoate.

See Dietary intake assessments for HSE’s full assessment of risk.

In 2018, EFSA reviewed dimethoate and concluded that no toxicological reference values could be determined for dimethoate and omethoate, due to a lack of a fully supporting toxicological database (EFSA Conclusion for dimethoate, 20182). We conclude that, at the anticipated highest exposures following consumption of this beans with pods sample (yard long beans containing omethoate at 0.2 mg per kg), there is unlikely to be acetylcholinesterase inhibition when the basis of recent evaluations of the ARfD (EFSA, 2018 and JMPR, 2019) are considered. We consider risk of ill health effects based on short term toxicity unlikely.

The EFSA Conclusion (2018) for dimethoate also includes a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). We conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of omethoate are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. See HSE risk assessment methodology which provides further details on the topic of genotoxicity including an update on previous positions on omethoate. We consider any risks of adverse health effects arising from the omethoate residue reported here are low.

A different sample (Valore Papdi beans) contained monocrotophos. Although a short term risk was not identified for this sample containing monocrotophos following screening assessment, we conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of monocrotophos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. For the finding of  monocrotophos at the level of 0.2 mg per kg in the sample of Valore Papdi beans we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to ‘how HSE perform the risk assessments’ for further details.

Tricyclazole was found in one sample of beans with pods at a level of 0.01 mg per kg. HSE has provided an updated position on tricyclazole in HSE risk assessment methodology based on new genotoxicity studies that have been recently evaluated by HSE as part of an ongoing MRL assessment of tricyclazole.  We conclude that findings of tricyclazole residues are no longer a concern because tricyclazole is now considered unlikely to have genotoxic potential.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. One of these contained residues from pesticides which belong to similar chemical groups, and may have similar toxicological effects. So the risk assessors needed to consider their possible impacts on human health, both on their own and in combination.

HSE carried out a combined risk assessment of the relevant sample, a yard long bean sample containing omethoate (at 0.2 mg per kg) and diazinon (at 0.01 mg per kg). The Chemicals Regulation Division’s (CRD) combined risk assessment on this combination showed that the presence of diazinon does not contribute significantly to the overall risk and these pesticides together will be unlikely to inhibit acetyl cholinesterase, the known effect from exposure to each of these residues. HSE concludes, in line with the single substance assessment referred to above for omethoate, that a short term effect on health for the combined residues of omethoate and diazinon in this sample of yard long beans is unlikely.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the risk assessment for a sample of yard long bean, in more detail, containing omethoate singularly and in combination, with diazinon. The conclusion relating to short term risk is that an effect on health overall, considering omethoate singularly and in combination with other pesticides is unlikely.

In addition, we needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of omethoate in the yard long bean sample and monocrotophos in a sample of Valore Papdi bean. These pesticides are not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that at the levels present, any risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

In view of the findings and that 7 residues above the MRL were found in one product, we have been briefed on the level of follow up.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 10 residues above the MRL in beans with pods. Details are available in Table 4.

HSE have passed details of the following samples to FSA for further consideration. Further details are in Table 4.

FSA have communicated with INFOSAN about the following samples:

• one sample of yard long beans from Thailand containing omethoate at 0.2 mg/kg
• one sample of Valore Papdi beans from India containing monocrotophos at 0.2 mg/kg

Bread

Samples tested

157 samples were tested for up to 408 pesticide residues.

Ordinary bread: other

12 samples came from the UK.

Ordinary bread: white

58 samples came from the UK.

Ordinary bread: wholemeal

32 samples came from the UK.

Speciality bread: bagels

17 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.

Speciality bread: brioche

2 samples came from the UK. 2 samples came from the EU.

Speciality bread: croissants

4 samples came from the UK. 7 samples came from the EU.

Speciality bread: crumpets

10 samples came from the UK.

Speciality bread: muffins

3 samples came from the UK.

Speciality bread: pancakes

One sample came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.

Speciality bread: pikelets

2 samples came from the UK.

Speciality bread: scones

2 samples came from the UK.

Speciality bread: waffles

2 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the bread was produced. It may be where the bread was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

7 samples contained no residues from those sought. 150 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. One sample was labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. One of these contained residues from pesticides which belong to similar chemical groups and may have similar toxicological effects. So, the risk assessors needed to consider their possible impacts on human health, both on their own and in combination.

HSE carried out a combined risk assessment of the relevant sample. We would not expect this combination to have an effect on health.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Carrot

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 385 pesticide residues.

Fresh

24 samples came from the UK. 6 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

17 samples contained no residues from those sought. 13 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained a residue above the MRL. 10 samples were labelled as organic (1 contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Linuron was withdrawn in 2016. Carrots were last tested in 2020 and no residues were found.

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Further information on chlorate residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in carrots. Details are available in Table 4.

Cauliflower

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Fresh

10 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.

Frozen

One sample came from the UK.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

7 samples contained no residues from those sought. 5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained residues above the MRL (none of the samples were labelled as organic).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

The residue above the MRL was for chlorate in frozen cauliflower. Further information on chlorate residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in cauliflower. Details are available in Table 4.

Fish (oily)

Samples tested

37 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.

Mackerel

4 samples came from the UK. 8 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Monkfish

2 samples came from the UK. 3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Salmon

3 samples came from the UK. 5 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Sardine

2 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Trout

7 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Whitebait

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Where no sea area information is available, the country of origin on the packaging does not necessarily indicate where the fish was caught or farmed. It could be where it was landed, processed or where it was packed for retail sale.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

31 samples contained no residues from those sought. 6 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. One sample was labelled as organic (one contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

DDT 

3 samples of salmon contained a residue of DDT. The use of DDT is banned or heavily restricted in many countries because these residues take a long time to breakdown in the environment and can accumulate in fatty tissue.  

An interpretation of the analytical results shows that the DDT residue found was in the form of DDE which indicates historical use. The residue may originate in fishmeal fed to farmed salmon rather than the local environment. More detailed information about DDT residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

BAC 

One sample of mackerel and two samples of monkfish contained a residue of BAC. This substance is widely used as a biocide (disinfectant) during food preparation and processing. This is the most likely source of the residue. 

Grapes

Samples tested

23 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.

6 samples were imported from outside the EU.

17 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

All samples contained residues. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Infant formula

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 409 pesticide residues.

Follow-on

8 samples came from the EU.

Infant Formula

16 samples came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the infant formula was produced. It may be where the infant formula was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

24 samples contained no residues from those sought. None of the samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. One sample was labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The laboratory did not detect any residues, so we did not carry out a risk assessment.  

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Kiwi fruit

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 384 pesticide residues.

30 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

10 samples contained no residues from those sought. 20 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 2 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

Lemons

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 377 pesticide residues.

28 samples were imported from outside the EU.

2 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

3 samples contained no residues from those sought. 27 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained a residue above the MRL. 3 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

A lemon sample contained dichlorvos at 0.01 mg per kg (at the level of the MRL 0.01* mg per kg). Although short term risks were not identified for any lemon samples following screening assessment, we conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of dichlorvos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. For the finding of dichlorvos at the low level of 0.01 mg per kg in the sample, we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to Dietary intake assessments for further details.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of dichlorvos in one lemon sample. This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that at the level present, any risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in lemons. Details are available in Table 4.

Milk

Samples tested

78 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.

Cows milk

63 samples came from the UK.

Goats milk

15 samples came from the UK.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

77 samples contained no residues from those sought. One sample contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 20 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residue detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

DDAC 

One sample of skimmed milk contained a residue of DDAC. This substance is widely used as a biocide (disinfectant) during food preparation and processing. This is the most likely source of the residue. 

Onions

Samples tested

18 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.

Fresh

9 samples came from the UK. 9 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

15 samples contained no residues from those sought. 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 8 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Orange juice

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 404 pesticide residues.

20 samples came from the UK.

4 samples came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the oranges were produced. It may be where the oranges were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

21 samples contained no residues from those sought. 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 3 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Two samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

It is unusual to find post-harvest residues in orange juice as in most cases they are not treated prior to juicing.

Oranges

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 409 pesticide residues.

23 samples were imported from outside the EU.

One sample came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought. 22 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. 3 samples contained residues above the MRL. 2 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment there were three pesticides, glufosinate, imazalil and thiabendazole, where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail.

HSE always undertakes assessments that consider both when the peel is not eaten, and one where it is assumed that all of the peel is eaten where we have relevant information to account for the impact on residues by removing the peel. These assessments are detailed in Dietary intake assessments and should be consulted for the full assessment of risk.

For glufosinate, an effect on health is not expected, in both of the cases of consuming with the peel on or removing the peel before eating the fruit. For thiabendazole and imazalil, if the oranges are consumed without the peel an effect on health is not expected. In the worst-case form of the assessment for thiabendazole and imazalil, assuming that all the peel is consumed with the fruit, an effect on health would be unlikely. Additionally, an effect on health would only be anticipated if a number of factors came together at the same time: the high residue found in the orange sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to ‘how HSE perform the risk assessments’ for further details.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the risk assessments for some samples of orange containing imazalil, glufosinate and thiabendazole. Further information about the risk assessment carried out can be found in Dietary intake assessments.

We consider it less likely that all the peel would be consumed on a single occasion but more likely that the peel be used in other cooking when smaller portions are eaten.

Glufosinate detection requires separate analysis. The residue discussed would not have been detected if HSE had only commissioned a standard multi-residue analysis.

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 3 residues above the MRL in oranges. Details are available in Table 4.

Pears

Samples tested

25 samples were tested for up to 412 pesticide residues.

3 samples came from the UK.

7 samples were imported from outside the EU.

15 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought. 23 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 2 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section. 

Peas with edible pods

Samples tested

29 samples were tested for up to 380 pesticide residues.

Mange tout

12 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Sugar snaps

2 samples came from the UK. 15 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

8 samples contained no residues from those sought. 21 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. 5 samples contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. One of these contained residues from pesticides which belong to similar chemical groups and may have similar toxicological effects. So, the risk assessors needed to consider their possible impacts on human health, both on their own and in combination.

HSE carried out a combined risk assessment of the relevant sample. We would not expect  this combination to have an effect on health. Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

A new MRL for chlorothalonil was introduced from 5 March 2023 in Great Britain changing it from 5 mg/kg to 0.01 mg/kg.  

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 6 residue above the MRL in peas with edible pods. Details are available in Table 4.

Pineapples

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 381 pesticide residues.

Canned

3 samples came from the UK. 3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Fresh

14 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Frozen

3 samples came from the UK.

Prepared

1 sample came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the pineapple was produced. It may be where the pineapple was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

6 samples contained no residues from those sought. 18 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on chlorate residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

Potatoes

Samples tested

31 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.

29 samples came from the UK.

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

21 samples contained no residues from those sought. 10 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained a residue above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in potatoes. Details are available in Table 4.

Poultry meat

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.

Chicken

11 samples came from the UK.

Duck

5 samples came from the UK.

Turkey

8 samples came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the poultry meat was produced. It may be where the poultry meat was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

23 samples contained no residues from those sought. One sample contained a residue above the reporting limit. One sample contained residues above the MRL. One sample was labelled as organic. None contained residues from those sought.

Risk assessments

The residue detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

BAC 

One sample of turkey mince contained a residue of BAC. This substance is widely used as a biocide (disinfectant) during food preparation and processing. This is the most likely source of the residue. 

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in turkey mince. Details are available in Table 4.

Pulses (dahls or lentils)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 408 pesticide residues.

Chana Dal

One sample came from the UK.

Lentils (brown)

One sample came from the UK.

Lentils (green)

3 samples came from the UK. 4 samples were imported from outside the EU. One sample came from the EU.

Lentils (red)

8 samples came from the UK. 4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Split peas

2 samples came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the pulses were produced. It may be where the pulses were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

5 samples contained no residues from those sought. 19 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. 2 samples contained residues above the MRL. 3 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in lentils. Details are available in Table 4.

Rice

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.

Basmati

5 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Brown

6 samples came from the UK. 2 samples came from the EU.

White

4 samples came from the UK. 4 samples came from the EU.

Wholegrain

One sample came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the rice was produced. It may be where the rice was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

13 samples contained no residues from those sought. 11 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 5 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment, there was one sample of rice containing a residue of chlorpyrifos at a level of 0.009 mg per kg (below the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg) where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail.

Based on the HSE assessment for chlorpyrifos (see Dietary intake assessments), we conclude a short term effect on health is not expected. As outlined in HSE’s full risk assessment (see Dietary intake assessments), EFSA issued a 2019 statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos which included a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). We conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. Due to the low level of chlorpyrifos (0.009 mg per kg) in the sample of rice we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to ‘how HSE perform the risk assessments’ for further details.

Tricyclazole was found in one sample of rice at a level of 0.01 mg per kg. HSE has provided an updated position on tricyclazole in Assessment of genotoxicity based on new genotoxicity studies that have been recently evaluated by HSE as part of an ongoing MRL assessment of tricyclazole.  We conclude that findings of tricyclazole residues are no longer a concern because tricyclazole in now considered unlikely to have genotoxic potential.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos in one rice sample. This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that at the level present, any risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

Snacks (cereal)

Samples tested

26 samples were tested for up to 403 pesticide residues.

Corn (maize) based

18 samples came from the UK. 2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Oat based

One sample came from the UK.

Rice based

2 samples came from the UK. 2 samples came from the EU.

Tapioca based

One sample came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the snacks were produced. It may be where the snacks were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

20 samples contained no residues from those sought. 6 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 2 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on fosetyl (sum) residues can be found in the Issues arising in this report section.

Soft citrus

Samples tested

31 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.

Clementine

4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Easy peelers

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Mandarin

13 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Satsuma

7 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Tangerine

5 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought. 29 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained a residue above the MRL. 2 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment there were two pesticides, imazalil and thiabendazole, where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail.

HSE always undertakes assessments that consider both when the peel is not eaten, and one where it is assumed that all of the peel is eaten. These assessments are detailed in Dietary intake assessments and should be consulted for the full assessment of risk.

For these pesticides, if the soft citrus are consumed without the peel an effect on health is not expected. HSE has conducted a worst-case form of the assessment, assuming that all the peel is consumed with the fruit. In this case, an effect on health would be unlikely. Additionally, an effect on health would only be anticipated if a number of factors came together at the same time: the high residue found in the soft citrus sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, toddlers, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to ‘how HSE perform the risk assessments’ for further details.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the risk assessments for some samples of soft citrus containing imazalil and thiabendazole. Further information about the risk assessment carried out can be read in Dietary intake assessments.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in tangerines. Details are available in Table 4.

Spring onions

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 401 pesticide residues.

18 samples came from the UK.

3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

3 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

10 samples contained no residues from those sought. 14 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 5 samples were labelled as organic (none contained residues from those sought).

Risk assessments

The residues detected by the laboratory would not be expected to have an effect on health.

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. We do not expect these residues to have an effect on health, either separately or in combination. The pesticide residues found in each sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the HSE consider separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Risk assessment - dietary intake assessments

Screening assessments have been done for all pesticides to check that predicted intakes are within the relevant health-based reference values. A short term (acute) exposure assessment is not done for pesticides which are not acutely toxic where it has been established that an ARfD is not required. EU toxicological endpoints can be found in the EU Pesticides database.

Toxicological reference values set by the JMPR (The Joint FAO and WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues) can be found in individual pesticide evaluations at JMPR Evaluations (an up to date index to pesticide evaluations is available in the latest report).

The screening assessment uses the internationally agreed approach to long term (chronic) and short term (acute) consumer exposure assessment with UK food consumption data as detailed within the UK NEDI and NESTI models which are available on the HSE website.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

For the Q3 2023 assessments, the following approaches have been taken to refine these assessments according to case by case issues and to ensure that appropriate consumption values are used for less frequently consumed commodities where available food consumption data may be limited:

• data on dried beans (pulses) were used for all types of dried beans, including speciality dried beans
• data on beans with pods were used for all forms of green beans, including speciality beans
• data on bread were used for all forms of bread
• data on fish were used for all forms of oily fish
• data on lentils and dried peas were used, although there are a low number of consumers in some of the sub-groups for lentils and for dried peas. However, use of these consumption data was considered reasonable after comparison with alternative data.
• data on liver were used for samples of lamb and pig liver
• Specific consumption data on orange juice was used
• data on peas with pods were used despite a low number of consumers in several of the sub-groups. However, use of these consumption data was considered reasonable after comparison with alternative data
• data on poultry were used for all forms of poultry meat
• although a relatively low number of consumers for a few of the sub-groups for the spring onion consumption data, these data were used for the spring onion assessments as the use of these data was considered reasonable.
• data on crisps (potato based), maize and wheat were used for all forms of snacks

Short-term dietary risk assessment – single substance assessments where exceedance of the ARfD has been identified during screening

Beans (dried) GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Black eye beans	chlorpyrifos	0.02	0.00011	0.00037 (infants) 0.00025 (toddler) 0.00023 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.00016 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.00015 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.00013 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.00013 (vegetarian) 0.00011 (adult) 0.000065 (elderly own home) 0.000060 (elderly residential)	No toxicological reference values established	EU, 2019

Comment on risk assessment

EFSA (2019)^{[footnote 1]} has indicated that no toxicological reference values could be determined for chlorpyrifos, due to concerns over genotoxicity. Additionally, EFSA raised concerns over neurological effects in the developing foetus and young child. Chlorpyrifos is not approved in the EU and UK and pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos were withdrawn in 2020.

HSE considers that for short-term risk assessment, an indicative toxicological reference value of 0.0003 mg per kg bw can be used based on the LOAEL set by EFSA for a developmental neurotoxicity study and applying a safety factor of 1000 to account for the severe nature of the findings (effects on brain measurements in a developmental neurotoxicity study). Toxicologists usually use safety factors of between 100 and a 1000 when a NOAEL cannot be determined within a study. HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value is conservative as it uses the highest uncertainty factor applied by toxicologists and is based on a LOAEL from a study with repeated dosing. Overall, HSE’s approach is considered precautionary in protecting the nervous system in the developing foetus and child.

The intakes for infants exceeded the HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short term exposure. Intakes for all other consumer groups were below the reference dose.

If infants ate large portions of black eye beans containing chlorpyrifos at 0.02 mg per kg, their intake of chlorpyrifos could be 122 percent of the above mentioned HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short term exposure. Intakes are approximately 810 times lower than the lowest intake in repeat-dose animal studies which was reported to cause effects in a developmental neurotoxicity study where pregnant rats were dosed from day 6 of pregnancy through until the pups were 11 days old. The proposed (short term) indicative toxicological reference value from HSE is precautionary. These exposures are undesirable but are unlikely to cause any adverse short term effect.

Refer to the Assessment of genotoxicity (Q3 2023) and conclusions section for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

Beans with pods GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Beans with pods (yard long beans)	omethoate	0.2	0.00046	0.0010 (infants) 0.0010 (toddlers) 0.00075 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.00056 (vegetarians) 0.00055 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.00046 (adults) 0.00043 (elderly own home) 0.00040 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.00039 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.00022 (elderly residential)	Not established	EFSA, 2018 and EU, 2019 (dimethoate)

Comment on risk assessment

The EFSA Conclusion (2018) for dimethoate has indicated that no toxicological reference values could be determined for dimethoate and its metabolite omethoate, due to a lack of a fully supporting toxicological database. Both dimethoate and omethoate are not approved in the UK and pesticide products containing dimethoate were withdrawn in the EU and UK in 2020.

For dimethoate, EFSA (2018) stated an indicative value for a hypothetical toxicological reference value for short term exposure of 0.0001 mg per kg bw per day. Using this indicative value, all the estimated dietary intakes of omethoate for the consumer subgroups exceed this reference value. The highest intake was for infants and toddlers.

If infants and toddlers ate large portions of beans with pods containing omethoate at 0.2 mg per kg their intake could be 1000 percent of the hypothetical toxicological reference value for dimethoate. This indicative toxicological reference value is a precautionary value intended to protect the nervous system in the developing foetus and child, which has been set well below intakes which caused no observed effects in animal studies.

The JMPR established an ARfD for dimethoate of 0.02 mg per kg bw per day in 2019 and established an ARfD for omethoate of 0.002 mg per kg bw per day in 2022; this supports the view that the proposed hypothetical reference value from the EFSA Conclusion is precautionary.

These exposures are undesirable but it is not clear if they may cause any adverse effect. Both the JMPR, EFSA (2018) and the previous EU evaluations observe that omethoate is more toxicologically potent than dimethoate. Despite this, the estimated exposures are unlikely to inhibit acetylcholinesterase, the basis of previous evaluations of the safety of dimethoate and its metabolite omethoate.

Based on this assessment, HSE concludes that a short term effect on health is unlikely after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of beans with pods containing the levels found in this report.

Refer to the Assessment of genotoxicity (Q3 2023) and conclusions section for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

Oranges GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Oranges	glufosinate	0.3	0.0068	0.040 (infants) 0.030 (toddlers) 0.022 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.011 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.0092 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.0077 (vegetarians) 0.0068 (adults)	0.045 (general population) 0.021 (females of child bearing potential)	EFSA, 2005[footnote 2]

Comment on risk assessment

The residue definition includes the sum of glufosinate isomers, its salts and its metabolites including 3-[hydroxy(methyl)phosphinoyl]propionic acid (MPP) and N-acetyl-glufosinate (NAG), expressed as glufosinate. All of these were sought in the monitoring and all of the residue determined in the orange sample was in the form of MPP. This is unsurprising since this is the major metabolite in plants. EFSA (2005) and JMPR (2012) observe that MPP is less toxic than glufosinate, although in concluding this they do not define by how much. The derivation of toxicological reference values is applicable to all of the residues, including glufosinate itself which is more toxic than MPP.

The EFSA conclusion (2005) proposed two different ARfD values. For females of child bearing potential an ARfD of 0.021 mg per kg bw was based on a NOAEL of 6.3 mg per kg bw from a rabbit developmental study, with an additional safety factor of 3 (overall safety factor 300) based on reproductive toxicity effects not relevant to consumer groups that do not include females of child bearing potential. For general population (excluding females of child bearing potential) an alternative ARfD of 0.045 mg per kg bw was proposed based on a NOAEL of 4.5 mg per kg bw from the 1-year dog study (safety factor 100).

Oranges flesh after peeling

A specific peeling factor for glufosinate is not available so it is not possible to apply a specific refinement in this case. We do not know whether (or if so, by how much) residues could be reduced in the orange flesh after removing the peel compared to the whole fruit with the peel. Glufosinate is not applied post-harvest treatment, where it might be expected that the residues would predominate in the peel. Therefore, for oranges consumed as flesh after peeling we have not estimated a reduction in residue due to peeling, although we note that the conclusion for the assessment below (assuming all of the peel is consumed with the fruit) is that an effect on health is not expected.

We conclude that a short term effect is not expected, in line with the risk assessment below, for when oranges are consumed with all of their peel.

Whole oranges, including all the peel

Females of child bearing potential

The intakes for 11 to 14 year olds, 15 to 18 year olds, adults and vegetarians are all below the ARfD of 0.021 mg per kg bw for females of child bearing potential, and an effect on health is not expected.

General population

The intakes for all consumer groups are below the ARfD of 0.045 mg per kg bw for the general population, and an effect on health is not expected.   

These assessments assume that all of the peel of the fruit is consumed. There is no specific information on whether a reduction in the residue would arise from peeling oranges, and in this case, we do not know how the residue arose in the sample.  Therefore we have not assumed any reduction in residue due to peeling before eating the oranges. For the current consideration, the residue in the sample is as the metabolite MPP, which is of a lesser toxicity than glufosinate on which the ARfDs are based. Whilst we are not applying any adjustment for peeling or a relatively lower toxicity of the residue, the assessment is considered protective and the overall conclusion is that an effect on health is not expected.

Oranges GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Oranges	imazalil	3.7	0.084	0.49 (infants) 0.37 (toddlers) 0.27 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.19 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.13 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.11 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.095 (vegetarians) 0.084 (adults)	0.1 (General population) 0.05 (Pregnant and nursing female)	EFSA, 2007

Comment on risk assessment

Oranges flesh after peeling

The dietary intakes calculated based on the peel being removed before consumption indicate that there are no exceedances of the ARfD. In this case, an effect on health is not expected. This is in line with the risk assessment performed when the MRL was established.

The below risk assessment only applies if all of the peel is consumed. This is because it has been reported that only 7 percent of the residue of imazalil remains (EFSA, 2017) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole orange, including all the peel

We consider that an effect on health would be unlikely. Any effect on health would depend on a number of factors which would need to come together at the same time (the high residue found in the sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed).

We are presenting the following risk assessment which assumes all of the peel is consumed. However, the PRiF considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

Pregnant and nursing women

The intakes for 11 to 14 year old children, 15 to 18 year old children, vegetarians and adults exceed the acute reference dose of 0.05 mg per kg bw (for pregnant and nursing females). The highest intake was for 11 to 14 year old children (0.13 mg per kg bw per day). These initial assessments are based on a residue level of 3.7 mg per kg and consumption data which include all forms of the commodity being considered. Orange juice is a significant portion of the total amount of orange consumed. In this case, imazalil residues are mainly on the peel, peel is not included in juice, and residues of imazalil have only been found at low determinable levels (up to 0.1 mg per kg) in orange juice from 30 out of 344 samples (2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2020 and 2023 surveys). Therefore, the intakes shown here will overestimate representative exposures.

When excluding the dietary contribution of orange juice, 11 to 14 year olds remain the critical group and their intake could be 0.091 mg per kg bw per day, 182 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 55 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a 13 day repeat dose rabbit developmental study (the ARfD is based on a NOAEL of 5 mg per kg bw per day for fetal toxicity (increased resorptions). The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account the uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. The remaining margin of 55 is considered to still be sufficient to account for the uncertainties associated with the use of animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. It is not possible because of the way data were reported, to attribute effects at higher doses to single or multiple treatments. Therefore, the ARfD is suitably protective when considering single day exposures and might be overprotective. Based on this assessment an effect on health is unlikely.

General population

The intakes for infants, toddlers, 4 to 6 year old children, 7 to 10 year old children, 11 to 14 year old children and 15 to 18 year old children exceed the acute reference dose of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day (for the general population excluding pregnant and nursing females). The highest intake was for infants (0.49 mg per kg bw per day). These initial assessments are based on a residue level of 3.7 mg per kg and consumption data which include all forms of the commodity being considered. Orange juice is a significant portion of the total amount of orange consumed. In this case, imazalil residues are mainly on the peel, peel is not included in juice, and residues of imazalil have only been found at low determinable levels (up to 0.1 mg per kg) in orange juice from 30 out of 344 samples (2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2020 and 2023 surveys). Therefore, the intakes shown here will overestimate representative exposures.

When excluding the dietary contribution of orange juice, toddlers become the critical group and their intake could be 0.29 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 34 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a rabbit developmental study, used as the basis of the ARfD (the ARfD is based on a NOAEL of 10 mg per kg bw per day for reduced bodyweight gain and food consumption in dams). The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. We consider this significant reduction in the factor of 100 to a level of 34 undesirable. It is noted that an ARfD based on maternal toxicity in a developmental study with repeated dosing (13 days) might be over-protective for the general population. Based on this assessment, we consider the reduced factor of 34 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

This risk assessment assumes that peel of oranges is consumed. However, if the peel is not consumed then the risk assessment on which the MRL is based applies (see the assessment above under ‘orange flesh after peeling’). Then intakes in all groups are within the ARfD and an effect on health is not expected.

Oranges GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Oranges	thiabendazole	1	0.023	0.13 (infants)	0.1	EU, 2017

Comment on risk assessment

Oranges flesh after peeling

The dietary intakes calculated based on the peel being removed before consumption indicate that there are no exceedances of the ARfD. In this case, an effect on health is not expected. This is in line with the risk assessment performed when the MRL was established.

The below risk assessment only applies if all of the peel is consumed.  This is because it has been reported that only 4.7 percent of the residue of thiabendazole remains (EFSA, 2021) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole oranges, including all the peel

We consider that an effect on health would be unlikely. Any effect on health would depend on a number of factors which would need to come together at the same time (the high residue found in the sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed).

We are presenting the following risk assessment which assumes all of the peel is consumed. However, the PRiF considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

The intakes for infants exceeded the ARfD. Intakes for all other consumer groups were below the reference dose.

If infants ate or drank large portions of oranges containing thiabendazole at 1 mg per kg, their intake of thiabendazole could be 133 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 78 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a developmental study in rats over 11 days. The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. We consider the reduced factor of 78 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

This estimate assumes that peel of oranges is consumed. However, if the peel is not consumed then the risk assessment on which the MRL is based applies. Then intakes in all groups are within the ARfD and an effect on health is not expected.

Rice GB

(a)indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Rice	chlorpyrifos	0.009	0.000055	0.00011 (toddlers) 0.00010 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.00010 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.000077 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.000074 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.000068 (vegetarians) 0.000055 (adults) 0.000050 (infants) 0.000035 (elderly own home) 0.000016 (elderly residential)	No toxicological reference values established	EU, 2019

Comment on risk assessment

EFSA (2019)^{[footnote 1]} has indicated that no toxicological reference values could be determined for chlorpyrifos, due to concerns over genotoxicity. Additionally, EFSA raised concerns over neurological effects in the developing foetus and young child. Chlorpyrifos is not approved in the EU and UK and pesticide products containing chlorpyrifos were withdrawn in 2020.

HSE considers that for short term risk assessment, an indicative toxicological reference value of 0.0003 mg per kg bw can be used based on the LOAEL set by EFSA for a developmental neurotoxicity study and applying a safety factor of 1000 to account for the severe nature of the findings (effects on brain measurements in a developmental neurotoxicity study). Toxicologists usually use safety factors of between 100 and a 1000 when a NOAEL cannot be determined within a study. The HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value is conservative as it uses the highest uncertainty factor applied by toxicologists and is based on a LOAEL from a study with repeated dosing. Overall, the HSE approach is considered precautionary in protecting the nervous system in the developing foetus and child.

None of the intakes exceeded the HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short term assessment. Based on the low intakes, HSE concludes that a short term effect on health is not expected.  

Refer to the Assessment of genotoxicity (Q3 2023) and conclusions section for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

Soft citrus GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Soft citrus	imazalil	2.6	0.029	0.14 (toddlers)	0.1 (General population) 0.05 (Pregnant and nursing female)	EFSA, 2007

Comment on risk assessment

Soft citrus flesh after peeling

The dietary intakes calculated based on the peel being removed before consumption indicate that there are no exceedances of the ARfD. In this case, an effect on health is not expected. This is in line with the risk assessment performed when the MRL was established.

The below risk assessment only applies if all of the peel is consumed. This is because it has been reported that only 7 percent of the residue of imazalil remains (EFSA, 2018) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole soft citrus, including all the peel

We consider that an effect on health would be unlikely. Any effect on health would depend on a number of factors which would need to come together at the same time (the high residue found in the sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed).We are presenting the following risk assessment which assumes all of the peel is consumed. However, the PRiF considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

Pregnant and nursing women

The intakes for 11 to 14 year old children, 15 to 18 year old children, adults and vegetarians are all below the ARfD of 0.05 mg per kg bw per day for pregnant and nursing females, and an effect on health is not expected.

General population

The intakes for toddlers exceed the acute reference dose of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day (for the general population excluding pregnant and nursing females).

If toddlers ate or drank large portions of soft citrus containing imazalil at 2.6 mg per kg their intake of imazalil could be 145 percent of the ARfD of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 71 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effects in a rabbit developmental study, used as the basis of the ARfD (the ARfD is based on a NOAEL of 10 mg per kg bw per day for reduced bodyweight gain and food consumption in dams). The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. It is noted that an ARfD based on maternal toxicity in a developmental study with repeated dosing (13 days) might be over-protective for the general population. We consider the reduced factor of 71 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

This risk assessment assumes that peel of soft citrus is consumed. However, if the peel is not consumed then the risk assessment on which the MRL is based applies. Then intakes in all groups are within the ARfD and an effect on health is not expected.

Soft citrus GB

(a) indicates the highest intake of all ten consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Crop	Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Critical group intake (a) (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Soft citrus	thiabendazole	2.4	0.027	0.13 (toddlers)	0.1	EU, 2017

Comment on risk assessment

Soft citrus flesh after peeling

The dietary intakes calculated based on the peel being removed before consumption indicate that there are no exceedances of the ARfD. In this case, an effect on health is not expected. This is in line with the risk assessment performed when the MRL was established.

The below risk assessment only applies if all of the peel is consumed. This is because it has been reported that only 4.7 percent of the residue of thiabendazole remains (EFSA, 2021) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole soft citrus, including all the peel

We consider that an effect on health would be unlikely. Any effect on health would depend on a number of factors which would need to come together at the same time (the high residue found in the sample being consumed by the most critical consumer, a particularly high residue in an individual fruit, peak consumption levels (97.5th percentile), and a large proportion of peel from the fruit being consumed).

We are presenting the following risk assessment which assumes all of the peel is consumed. However, the PRiF considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

The intakes for toddlers exceeded the ARfD. If toddlers ate or drank large portions of soft citrus containing thiabendazole at 2.4 mg per kg, their intake of thiabendazole could be 134 percent of the Acute Reference Dose. This intake is 77 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a developmental study in rats over 11 days. The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. We consider the reduced factor of 77 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

This estimate assumes that peel of soft citrus is consumed. However, if the peel is not consumed then the risk assessment on which the MRL is based applies. Then intakes in all groups are within the ARfD and an effect on health is not expected.

Short-term dietary risk assessment – multiple assessments needed following screening assessment of samples

Samples which contain more than one pesticide from the groups we consider, and where a more detailed assessment was needed following screening:

• triazoles
• organophosphates and, or carbamates
• captan and folpet
• DDAC and BAC
• chlormequat and mepiquat

Beans with pods – values represent the critical consumer group (infants) for a sample containing this combination of active ingredients.

Pesticide	Residue (mg per kg)	Intake (mg per kg bw)	Intake percentage ARfD	ARfD	Source
diazinon	0.01	0.000050	0.2	0.025	EFSA, 2006
omethoate	0.2	0.0010	Not applicable	Not established	EFSA, 2018 and EU, 2019 (dimethoate)

The total (sum of the dietary intakes of each pesticide taken together in that commodity (when expressed as a percentage of its own reference value)) could not be calculated in this screening assessment.

Comment on risk assessment

The presence of diazinon in the sample does not significantly contribute to the overall combined intake when compared to the presence of omethoate alone. The overall risk is covered by the single substance risk assessment for omethoate in beans with pods (see table above for details).

Overall, HSE concludes that, when taking into account the known effect that diazinon and omethoate can have on acetyl cholinesterase, the presence of these pesticides in the same sample is unlikely to inhibit acetyl cholinesterase.

HSE concludes that a short term effect on health for the combined residues of diazinon and omethoate in this sample of beans with pods (Yard long beans) is unlikely.

Refer to the Assessment of genotoxicity (Q3 2023) and conclusions section for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

Long-term dietary risk assessments needed following screening assessment of samples 

As noted in HSE risk assessment methodology total long-term dietary assessments across all commodities are not performed for these quarterly assessments. The issue is more fully considered in regulatory contexts pre-authorisation and at the time of MRL review. Then the issue is considered across all commodities (so more precautionary) by pesticide levels determined in GAP compliant trials, intended to address highest likely residues that might arise following pesticide use according to label recommendations. 

However, for the PRiF quarterly assessments, HSE do perform a screening exercise for all of the residues found for an individual commodity to see if the long-term intakes (commodity by commodity) show any indication of exceedance of the ADI. If an exceedance was observed then HSE would consider further and we would present a more detailed risk assessment. 

None of these individual commodity long term exposure screening assessments performed in this quarter (for each of the pesticides found in this report) indicated potential for adverse long term health effects. HSE assessed the dietary intakes to be below the ADI or other established long term health based reference value.

Substances that might be genotoxic

See explanation in HSE risk assessment methodology.

During regulatory assessment, careful consideration is given to any pesticides that may exhibit any potential to be genotoxic (able to damage genetic material) in live animals, so we need to consider the significance to the consumer when these residues are found. There are small number of examples of older pesticides that might be genotoxic, where modern data to investigate the true genotoxic potential is not expected to be made available. It is likely that these will only be found in imported foods. For many of these old pesticides, the toxicological reference doses are low and HSE uses low reporting limits to ensure that these residues are found even at very low levels, as we know they are of particular interest to consumers. The evaluation of possible health implications for these findings is complex as tests for genotoxicity are commonly performed at higher doses (orders of magnitude higher) than the dietary exposure levels that are assessed in the quarterly monitoring reports. As such it is difficult to conclude specifically, and to extrapolate the findings in the laboratory to the context of findings in the monitoring programme and the presence of residues at low levels in foods. Where relevant some reassurance that any risks are likely to be small can be gained if increased cancer incidence, which may be due to gene mutations, does not occur in long term animal feeding studies, designed to detect such observations. Where relevant we will indicate this. Due to the uncertainty about the potential for genetic damage (genotoxicity) at low doses, HSE will always conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of genotoxic substances in food are undesirable.

Assessment of genotoxicity (Q3 2023) and conclusions

Residues found in this report that have genotoxic potential (concluded from laboratory studies on animals): dichlorvos, monocrotophos 

Regarding monocrotophos, there is some evidence (in vitro and, or in vivo^{[footnote 3]}) that residues can damage genetic material (are genotoxic). There is some reassurance that risks of developing ill health effects following single or repeat exposures are likely to be low, since they did not increase cancer incidence in studies with repeat daily doses over their life-span in rats or mice. The doses used in both the genotoxicity tests and the cancer studies were orders of magnitude higher than the exposures estimated in this assessment (a sample of beans with pods). It is not known if lower doses which are not toxic also have this effect.

Dichlorvos was previously evaluated by the UK Committees on Mutagenicity and Carcinogenicity, which concluded that dichlorvos should be regarded as genotoxic at initial sites of contact in the body such as the oesophagus (gullet or food pipe) and there was some limited evidence of causing some tumours in studies in mice. They advised that exposure to dichlorvos should be as low as reasonably practicable. Therefore any residue finding of dichlorvos is undesirable. However, the dose levels that caused small numbers of tumours in mice following exposure over a lifetime were more than 100,000 times higher than the exposures estimated in this assessment (a sample of lemons containing the reported residue of dichlorvos) and therefore any risk is expected to be low.

Conclusions: HSE concluded that any residue finding of dichlorvos or monocrotophos is undesirable due to genotoxic potential and, for dichlorvos, the limited evidence for carcinogenicity. However, we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low at the highest levels of exposure expected after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of lemons and beans with pods containing the level of dichlorvos and monocrotophos respectively, found in this report. 

Residues found in this report where toxicological data are suggestive of genotoxicity but not certain: chlorpyrifos, omethoate (see below a recently updated position on the residues of omethoate (metabolite of dimethoate))

It is unclear whether these pesticides can damage genetic material (are genotoxic).

Regarding chlorpyrifos and omethoate, there is some evidence from studies performed in vitro and, or in vivo that they may be genotoxic. Whilst there are negative results in the available in vivo studies, the currently recommended follow up studies, that may clarify the genotoxic potential of these pesticides, have not been performed (however refer to the update on the previous positions on omethoate regarding genotoxicity below). There is some reassurance that risks of developing ill health effects following single or repeat exposures are likely to be low, since they did not cause cancer in cancer or other long-term studies with repeat daily doses in animals over their life-span. The doses used in these studies were orders of magnitude higher than the exposures estimated in this assessment. It is not known if lower doses which are not toxic also have this effect.

Update on previous positions on omethoate regarding genotoxicity

Based on assessment by EFSA (2018), there is some evidence (in vitro and/or in vivo) that omethoate is genotoxic.

JMPR (2022) assessed newer more modern genotoxicity in vitro and in vivo test data for omethoate and reported that these new test results were negative for genotoxicity. JMPR noted that the previous positive results for genotoxicity were only seen at either high or severely cytotoxic concentrations and with no dose response. Based on all the available data, JMPR (2022) concluded that omethoate is unlikely to be genotoxic in vivo and unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans at levels occurring in the diet.

HSE’s conclusions regarding the new information on omethoate: HSE notes the difference in approach taken by EFSA and JMPR to the assessment of the genotoxic potential of omethoate and the remaining uncertainties about these. HSE has not had the opportunity to evaluate the new genotoxicity data on omethoate and therefore considers it appropriate to conclude, taking a precautionary approach, that there is still a suggestion of possible genotoxicity associated with residues of omethoate (a metabolite of dimethoate).

Conclusions: Overall, HSE conclude that on a precautionary basis any residue finding of these pesticides is undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity at low doses; however, we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low at the highest levels of exposure after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of the foods containing the levels of these pesticides found in this report. 

Update on previous positions on tricyclazole regarding genotoxicity

Tricyclazole has previously been considered to have the potential to damage genetic material (is genotoxic). This was based on evidence from studies performed in vitro and while negative results from in vivo studies were available, these did not follow the recommended approach to investigate positive results from in vitro testing. The recommended in vivo follow up studies have now been performed and the new genotoxicity studies have been recently evaluated by HSE as part of an ongoing MRL assessment of tricyclazole.  These studies demonstrate that the genotoxic potential of tricyclazole observed in vitro is not seen in vivo.  Tricyclazole is therefore now considered unlikely to be genotoxic in vivo. These new genotoxicity studies have also been evaluated in the EU (EFSA Journal 2023;21(1):7757) and based on their assessment new toxicological reference values (TRVs) have been established for tricyclazole.  The JMPR has also evaluated tricyclazole recently and set TRVs. Overall, HSE concludes that findings of tricyclazole residues are no longer a concern because tricyclazole is now considered unlikely to have genotoxic potential.

This document is part 2 of 4 of the Quarter 3 2023 report.

Next: Quarter 3 2023 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme: findings by food in Northern Ireland and risk assessments.

Previous: Quarter 3 2023 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme: introduction, results summary and actions taken by HSE.

Quarterly reports homepage.

1. Chlorpyrifos: assessment identifies human health effects – EFSA (europa.eu) ↩ ↩²

2. Conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glufosinate ↩

3. in vivo and or in vitro: see Pesticide residues in food: glossary ↩