Quarter 4 2023 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme: findings by food in Great Britain and UK detailed risk assessments
Updated 25 September 2024
© Crown copyright 2024
This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk.
Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned.
This publication is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/pesticide-residues-in-food-quarterly-monitoring-results-for-2023/quarter-4-2023-report-on-the-pesticide-residues-monitoring-programme-findings-by-food-in-great-britain-and-uk-detailed-risk-assessments
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) (GB)
Samples tested
12 samples were tested for up to 415 pesticide residues.
Black beans
One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Butter
One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Cannellini
3 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Chickpea
One sample came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Mung
One sample came from the UK.
Pinto
4 samples were imported from outside the EU.
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
6 samples contained no residues from those sought. 6 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
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 one residue above the MRL in dried beans. Details are available in Table 4.
Beans with pods (GB)
Samples tested
21 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.
Dwarf beans
One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Fine beans
One sample came from the UK. 8 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Green beans
One sample came from the UK. 5 samples were imported from outside the EU. One sample came from the EU.
Speciality beans
4 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
11 samples contained no residues from those sought. 10 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.
Risk assessments
One sample contained carbofuran at 0.008 mg per kg below the MRL of 0.01 mg per kg. Although short term risks were not identified for any beans with pods samples following screening assessment, we conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of carbofuran are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. For this low level finding of carbofuran finding below the MRL in the sample of fine beans we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low. For details see Assessment of genotoxicity.
Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to HSE assessment methodology for further details.
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
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in beans with pods. Details are available in Table 4.
Bread (GB)
Samples tested
59 samples were tested for up to 408 pesticide residues.
Ordinary bread: other
19 samples came from the UK.
Ordinary bread: white
5 samples came from the UK.
Ordinary bread: wholemeal
18 samples came from the UK.
Speciality bread: bagels
5 samples came from the UK.
Speciality bread: brioche
One sample came from the UK.
Speciality bread: croissants
One sample came from the EU.
Speciality bread: crumpets
6 samples came from the UK.
Speciality bread: muffins
One sample came from the UK.
Speciality bread: waffles
3 samples came from the UK.
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
One sample contained no residues from those sought. 58 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. Two of these samples included residues that are 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 combined risk assessments for the relevant samples. We would not expect any of these combinations 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
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Carrot (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 385 pesticide residues.
Fresh
23 samples came from the UK.
Frozen
One sample came from the UK.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
12 samples contained no residues from those sought. 12 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 7 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Cauliflower (GB)
Samples tested
30 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.
Fresh
15 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.
Frozen
9 samples came from the UK. 5 samples came from the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
8 samples contained no residues from those sought. 22 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. 2 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 Health and Safety Executive (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.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in cauliflower. Details are available in Table 4.
Crisps (potato based) (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 404 pesticide residues.
24 samples came from the UK.
The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the crisps were produced. It may be where the crisps were processed, where they were packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.
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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail, including processing factors, and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Fish (oily) (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.
Anchovies
One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Mackerel
One sample came from the UK. 2 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Monkfish
2 samples came from the UK.
Salmon
10 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU.
Trout
6 samples came from the UK.
Tuna
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.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
22 samples contained no residues from those sought. 2 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
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 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.
DDT
One sample 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 is in the Issues arising in this report section.
Grapes (GB)
Samples tested
26 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.
7 samples were imported from outside the EU.
19 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
Following screening assessment, we found three pesticides where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail:
- ethephon at 0.9 mg per kg, below the MRL of 1 mg per kg
- lambda-cyhalothrin at 0.05 mg per kg, below the MRL of 0.08 mg per kg
- cypermethrin at 0.04 mg per kg, below the MRL of 0.5 mg per kg
Based on the HSE assessment of short-term risk (see Dietary intake assessments) we conclude an effect on health would be unlikely. See section 3 for full details.
Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Read HSE risk assessment methodology for further details.
Combined risk assessments
Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. Some of these residues are 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 combined risk assessments for the relevant samples. We would not expect any of these combinations 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
HSE discussed their detailed risk assessments with us for some samples of grapes containing residues of ethephon, lambda-cyhalothrin and cypermethrin. HSE would not expect any of these pesticide residues to have an effect on health.
Further information about the risk assessments carried out can be read in Dietary intake assessments.
Kiwi fruit (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 384 pesticide residues.
7 samples were imported from outside the EU.
11 samples came from the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
7 samples contained no residues from those sought. 11 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. 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Lemons (GB)
Samples tested
12 samples were tested for up to 378 pesticide residues.
8 samples were imported from outside the EU.
4 samples came from the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
One sample contained no residues from those sought. 11 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
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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Liver (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.
Chicken
3 samples came from the UK.
Lamb
8 samples came from the UK. 4 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Ox
6 samples came from the UK.
Pig
2 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.
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. None of the samples were labelled as organic.
Risk assessments
The laboratory did not detect any residues, so we did not carry out a risk assessment.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
None.
Milk (GB)
Samples tested
72 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.
Cows milk
49 samples came from the UK.
Goats milk
23 samples came from the UK.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
72 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. 18 samples were 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.
Onions (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.
Fresh
12 samples came from the UK. 5 samples came from the EU.
Frozen
One sample came from the UK.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
13 samples contained no residues from those sought. 5 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
None of the samples contained more than one residue, so we did not carry out a combined risk assessment.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Orange juice (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 404 pesticide residues.
22 samples came from the UK.
2 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
19 samples contained no residues from those sought. 5 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Oranges (GB)
Samples tested
17 samples were tested for up to 409 pesticide residues.
17 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
All samples contained residues. Two samples contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.
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 oranges 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 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 HSE risk assessment methodology for further details.
Combined risk assessments
All 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
HSE discussed their detailed risk assessments with us for some samples of orange containing residues of imazalil and thiabendazole. For both pesticide residues, we are satisfied that HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst case form of assessment underpinning the conclusion presented above.
Further information about the risk assessment carried out can be read in Dietary intake assessments.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in oranges. Details are available in Table 4.
Pears (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 413 pesticide residues.
9 samples came from the UK.
One sample was imported from outside the EU.
8 samples came from the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
2 samples contained no residues from those sought. 16 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 samples contained residues that are 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 any of these combinations 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
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Peas without pods (GB)
Samples tested
31 samples were tested for up to 381 pesticide residues.
Canned
9 samples came from the UK. One sample came from the EU.
Frozen
21 samples came from the UK.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
17 samples contained no residues from those sought. 14 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Pineapples (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 381 pesticide residues.
Canned
2 samples came from the UK. 3 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Fresh
One sample came from the UK. 9 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Frozen
3 samples 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. 12 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
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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in pineapple. Details are available in Table 4.
Potatoes (GB)
Samples tested
33 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.
32 samples came from the UK.
One sample came from the EU.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
11 samples contained no residues from those sought. 22 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. One sample contained residues above the MRL. None of the samples were labelled as organic.
Risk assessments
Following screening, one sample of potatoes contained a residue of fosthiazate at a level (0.06 mg per kg above the MRL of 0.02* mg per kg) where the short-term effect on health needed to be considered in more detail. Based on HSE’s risk assessment we conclude that the likelihood of an effect on health to be low. Any such effects would be expected to be minor, short-lived and reversible. See Dietary intake assessments for full details.
Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to HSE risk assessment methodology 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us for a sample of potato containing fosthiazate.
Further information about the risk assessment carried out can be read in Dietary intake assessments.
We discussed the importance of training and stewardship in the recommendation and use of this particular pesticide in potato growing.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in potatoes. Details are available in Table 4.
HSE have passed details of the above sample to FSA for further consideration.
One sample from the UK containing fosthiazate at 0.06 mg per kg. No further action was taken on this finding.
Poultry meat (GB)
Samples tested
24 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.
Chicken
2 samples came from the UK. 1 sample came from the EU.
Duck
8 samples came from the UK.
Turkey
13 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
22 samples contained no residues from those sought. 2 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
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
Two samples of turkey contained residues 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.
Rice (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.
Basmati
3 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU. One sample came from the EU.
Brown
5 samples came from the UK. One sample was imported from outside the EU. 3 samples came from the EU.
White
One sample was 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 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
7 samples contained no residues from those sought. 11 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 samples contained residues that are 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 any of these combinations 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
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Rye flour (GB)
Samples tested
30 samples were tested for up to 412 pesticide residues.
Other
2 samples came from the UK.
White
6 samples came from the UK.
Wholemeal
22 samples came from the UK.
The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the rye flour was produced. It may be where the rye flour was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
27 samples contained no residues from those sought. 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit. None of the samples contained residues above the MRL. 27 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Snacks (speciality) (GB)
Samples tested
36 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.
35 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 speciality snack was produced. It may be where the speciality snack was processed, where it was packed for consumer purchase or the address of the brand owner.
Pesticide residues detected from those sought
22 samples contained no residues from those sought. 14 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
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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
PRiF considered these results in some detail and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.
Residues measured above the MRL
The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in speciality snacks. Details are available in Table 4.
Soft citrus (GB)
Samples tested
18 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.
Clementine
3 samples were imported from outside the EU. One sample came from the EU.
Easy peelers
3 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Mandarin
7 samples were imported from outside the EU.
Satsuma
2 samples came from the EU.
Tangerine
2 samples were imported from outside 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
Following screening assessment there was one pesticide, imazalil, 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 imazalil, 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 HSE risk assessment methodology for further details.
Combined risk assessments
All 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 HSE consider separately.
Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments is in HSE risk assessment methodology.
Additional Comments by the PRiF
HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us for some samples of soft citrus containing residues of imazalil. HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst-case form of assessment.
Further information about the risk assessment can be found in section 3.
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. GB toxicological reference values are available at: GB Toxicological Reference Value Database - Pesticides - HSE. 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 Q4 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
- 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
- specific consumption data on orange juice was used
- data on poultry were used for all forms of poultry meat
- data on crisps were used for potato crisps
- data on crisps (potato based), lentils, dried peas and carrots were used for all forms of speciality snacks
- data on wheat flour were used for rye flour
Short-term dietary risk assessment – single substance assessments where exceedance of the ARfD has been identified during screening
Grapes GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapes | cypermethrin (alpha-cypermethrin) | 0.04 | 0.00079 | 0.0024 (toddlers) 0.0020 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.0019 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.0015 (11 to 14 year olds) |
0.00125 | EU, 2019 |
Comment on risk assessment
Cypermethrin is an insecticide which is available in different isomeric forms. The analytical data (chromatograms) supports the understanding that the residue found most likely comes from the use of a specific isomer of cypermethrin rather than cypermethrin (mix of isomers), so we have conducted the assessment based on alpha-cypermethrin, which is the more toxic form.
The intakes for toddlers, 4 to 6 year old children, 7 to 10 year old children and 11 to 14 year old children exceeded the ARfD. The highest intake was for toddlers.
If toddlers ate or drank large portions of grapes containing alpha-cypermethrin at 0.04 mg per kg, their intake could be 195 % of the Acute Reference Dose. This intake is 104 times lower than a dose which caused minor adverse effects in a developmental neurotoxicity study in rats. 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. The factor used for alpha-cypermethrin was two fold greater (200) to account for the absence of a dose level in the study where no adverse effects were seen. Based on this assessment, we consider the reduced factor of 104 (from 200) still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely. More detail on the factors applied can be found in implications for health.
Based on this assessment, we conclude that a short term effect on health is unlikely.
Grapes GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapes | ethephon | 0.9 | 0.018 | 0.055 (toddlers) | 0.05 | EU, 2008 |
Comment on risk assessment
The intakes for toddlers exceeded the ARfD.
If toddlers ate large portions of grapes containing ethephon at 0.9 mg per kg, their intake of ethephon could be 110 % of the Acute Reference Dose. This intake is 109 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a 28 day oral dog study. 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. However, in this case the factor was larger (120) to ensure consistency with the findings of human volunteer studies. We consider the reduced factor of 109 (from 120) still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely. More detail on the factors applied can be found in implications for health.
Based on this assessment, we conclude that a short term effect on health is unlikely.
Grapes GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grapes | lambda-cyhalothrin or gamma-cyhalothrin | 0.05 | 0.00099 | 0.0031 (toddlers) | 0.0025 | EU, 2014 |
Comment on risk assessment
Residues of lambda-cyhalothrin are indistinguishable analytically from gamma-cyhalothrin, and the residue could have arisen from application of either gamma-cyhalothrin or lambda-cyhalothrin. As a worst case, it is assumed that the residues in the sample are possibly derived from application of gamma-cyhalothrin to the crop, and therefore this assessment has used the specific acute reference dose (ARfD) for gamma-cyhalothrin (which is two-fold lower than that for lambda-cyhalothrin). However, it is recognised that the residue could have arisen from the different isomeric form (lambda-cyhalothrin) which is less toxic than gamma-cyhalothrin. If the residue arises from lambda-cyhalothrin there are no exceedances of the ARfD, and an effect on health would not be expected.
Gamma-cyhalothrin
The intakes for toddlers exceeded the ARfD.
If toddlers ate or drank large portions of grapes containing gamma-cyhalothrin at 0.05 mg per kg, their intake could be 122 % of the Acute Reference Dose. This intake is 161 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a one year oral toxicity study in dogs with lambda-cyhalothrin. 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. The factor used for gamma-cyhalothrin was two fold greater (200) to reflect the greater toxicity of gamma-cyhalothrin compared to lambda-cyhalothrin. We consider the reduced factor of 161 still enough to make an effect on health unlikely.
Oranges GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | imazalil | 2.1 | 0.048 | 0.28 (infants) 0.21 (toddlers) 0.15 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.11 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.076 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.064 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.054 (vegetarians) |
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, 2018) 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 and vegetarians exceeded the ARfD (for pregnant and nursing females). The highest intake was for 11 to 14 year old children.
If 11 to 14 year old children ate or drank large portions of oranges containing imazalil at 2.1 mg per kg, their intake of imazalil could be 153 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.05 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 66 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 foetal toxicity (increased resorptions; a marker of early foetal deaths)). 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 63 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.
General population
The intakes for infants, toddlers, 4 to 6 year old children and 7 to 10 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.
If infants ate or drank large portions of orange containing imazalil at 2.1 mg per kg their intake of imazalil could be 279 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 36 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 36 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
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oranges | thiabendazole | 1.3 | 0.029 | 0.17 (infants) 0.13 (toddlers) |
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 and toddlers exceeded the ARfD. The highest intake was for infants.
If infants ate or drank large portions of oranges containing thiabendazole at 1.3 mg per kg, their intake of thiabendazole could be 172 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 58 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 58 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.
Potatoes GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD.
A variability factor of 10 was used in the intake calculation as fosthiazate is a granular pesticide and it is appropriate to apply a higher default variability factor of 10 (compared to a value of 7 for spray applications to potatoes) in this circumstance.
| Crop | Pesticide | Highest residue (mg per kg) | Adult intake (mg per kg bw per day) | Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Potatoes | fosthiazate | 0.06 | 0.0020 | 0.013 (infants) 0.0091 (toddlers) 0.0067 (4 to 6 year olds) |
0.005 | EU, 2003 |
Comment on risk assessment
The intakes for infants, toddlers and 4 to 6 year old children exceeded the ARfD. The highest intake was for infants.
If infants ate large portions of potatoes containing fosthiazate at 0.06 mg per kg, their intake of fosthiazate could be 264 % of the Acute Reference Dose. This intake is 38 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a 90 day and 1-year oral dog studies. These studies were used 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 likelihood of an effect on health to be low, given the remaining factor of 38.
This is because an adverse effect on health would rely on:
-
a susceptible individual eating a large quantity of the product which in turn had the highest levels of residue (that is, 10 times the maximum value found in monitoring)
-
the actual difference in susceptibility between that individual and dogs, being higher than the factor we are left with in this situation
-
the critical NOAEL being close to the actual doses needed to produce an adverse effect in the animals studied
In conclusion we consider that some people might experience headache, reduced pupil response, and gastrointestinal disturbance (salivation, stomach upset) after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of potatoes containing the highest levels found in this report. However, we consider the likelihood of an effect on health to be low. Such effects would be expected to be minor, short-lived and reversible.
Soft citrus GB
In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 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 (mg per kg bw per day) | ARfD (mg per kg bw) | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soft citrus | imazalil | 4.4 | 0.049 | 0.24 (toddlers) 0.17 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.13 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.079 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.063 (15 to 18 year olds) 0.059 (vegetarian) |
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 and vegetarians exceeded the ARfD (for pregnant and nursing females). The highest intake was for 11 to 14 year old children.
If 11 to 14 year old children ate or drank large portions of soft citrus containing imazalil at 4.4 mg per kg, their intake of imazalil could be 158 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.05 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 63 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 foetal toxicity (increased resorptions; a marker of early foetal deaths)). 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 63 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.
General population
The intakes for toddlers, 4 to 6 year old children and 7 to 10 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 toddlers.
If toddlers ate or drank large portions of soft citrus containing imazalil at 4.4 mg per kg their intake of imazalil could be 245 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 42 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 42 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.
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 carbamates
- captan and folpet
- DDAC and BAC
- chlormequat and mepiquat
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 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 PRiF reports. As such it is difficult to conclude specifically, and to extrapolate the findings in the laboratory to the context of findings in the quarterly monitoring 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 (Q4 2023) and conclusions
Residues found in this report where toxicological data are suggestive of genotoxicity but not certain: carbofuran.
It is unclear whether this pesticide can damage genetic material (is genotoxic).
There is some evidence from studies performed in vitro and, or in vivo[footnote 1] that carbofuran may be genotoxic. The currently recommended in vivo follow up studies, that may clarify the genotoxic potential of this pesticide, have not been performed. There is some reassurance that risks of developing ill health effects following single or repeat exposures are likely to be low, since carbofuran did not cause cancer in long-term studies with repeat daily doses in animals over their life-span (these studies investigate the potential of a substance to cause cancer). The doses used in these studies were orders of magnitude higher than the exposures estimated in this assessment.
Conclusions: Overall, HSE conclude that on a precautionary basis any residue finding of carbofuran is undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity; however, we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low at the level of exposure after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of beans with pods containing carbofuran at 0.008 mg/kg, the level of residue in this report. This finding is below the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg.
This document is part 2 of 4 of the Quarter 4 2023 report.
-
in vivo and or in vitro: see Pesticide residues in food: glossary ↩