Quarter 1 2024 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme

Question 1

1.  Introduction, results summary and actions taken by HSE

Accepted Answer

Chair’s comments

During this year’s surveillance programme, we are measuring up to 417 different pesticides in each of the foods we survey. The Quarter 1 programme for Great Britain surveyed 494 samples of 18 different foods (see Table 1a for Great Britain for a full list). The samples were collected between the beginning of January and the end of March 2024. The Quarter 1 programme for Northern Ireland surveyed 159 samples of 16 different foods (see Table 1b Northern Ireland for a full list). The samples were collected between the beginning of January and the end of March 2024.

Of the 494 Q1 Great Britain samples, we found residues in 240 of them and of these, 8 samples contained residues over the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). Of the 159 Q1 Northern Ireland samples, we found residues in 87 of them and of these, no samples contained residues over the MRL.

HSE undertakes screening and detailed risk assessments, as required, for the pesticide residues found. This is to determine whether the residues present could lead to someone eating an amount above a level that is considered safe. HSE also produces detailed risk assessments for every case where the actual residue level found could lead to an intake above the safety levels.

Following screening assessment, we needed to consider the potential short-term health effects of only a small minority of the residues found in more detail. In all of these cases, we concluded that effects on health were either unlikely or not expected. Full details are presented in detailed risk assessments. All other residues found did not cause any concern for health.

These detailed considerations on the risk assessments as well as links to underlying information are covered in our reports for grapefruit, melons, and speciality root vegetables. We are pleased to note that none of the samples contained residues which we understand might be genotoxic. Additionally, none of the individual commodity long-term exposure screening assessments performed in this quarter (for each of the pesticides found in this report) indicated any potential for adverse long-term health effects. This was based on the assessment of dietary intakes as below the ADI or other established long-term health based reference values.

Full details of suppliers and retailers of the food sampled, and full analytical results, are available on data.gov.uk as ODS (Open Document Spreadsheet) files. We hope this data format is useful for people wanting to look at the individual results in more detail.

Since the UK left the EU, we report the results for samples collected in Great Britain (GB) separately from those collected in Northern Ireland (NI). Surveys have been titled throughout the report as either GB or NI to make clear where the samples were collected. Samples collected in GB are subject to GB MRLs. GB MRLs are set by inclusion in a new GB MRL statutory Register, implemented and updated by means of a database. For samples collected in Northern Ireland, certain aspects of EU food law, including compliance with EU set MRLs, continue to apply under the terms of the Windsor Framework. In the detailed data files HSE is, for 2024 results, still separating out EU from non-EU origin foods in the results.

HSE asked suppliers and the authorities of the exporting countries for an explanation of our findings. Any responses they have received specifically for publication are available under Sample details in the Methodology, background and references document.

If you have any feedback or comments on the monitoring programme or the reports produced, please send them to HSE at PesticideResiduesTeam@hse.gov.uk.

Ann Davison
Chair of the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food

Consumer risk summary

HSE screens each residue detected for any consumer health issues to identify which need to be considered in more detail. We comment on any risks HSE considered in detail in our full report, and HSE’s risk assessments are also published.

HSE liaises with the Food Standards Agency (FSA) on consumer risk assessment and the FSA also takes part in our meetings.

Table 1a: Overview of the survey results for Q1 Great Britain with links to detailed information

Surveys that have an asterisk (*) are a requirement of the Multi-annual Great Britain control plan for pesticide residues.

Survey title (where samples collected)	Number of pesticides sought	Samples tested	Detailed risk assessment presented?	MRL exceedances (samples)
Aubergine (GB)*	387	18	No	0
Banana (GB)*	411	17	No	0
Beans with pods (GB)	408	23	No	3
Beef (GB)*	116	30	No	0
Beetroot (GB)	382	24	No	0
Broccoli (GB)*	385	31	No	0
Chilli peppers (GB)	382	24	No	2
Eggs (GB)*	116	24	No	0
Grapefruit (GB)*	386	36	Yes	0
Grapes (GB)	417	37	No	1
Limes (GB)	407	12	No	0
Melon (GB)*	387	25	Yes	0
Milk (GB)	112	72	No	0
Mushrooms (GB)*	414	30	No	0
Peppers (sweet) (GB)*	413	23	No	0
Potatoes (GB)	410	31	No	0
Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)	407	19	Yes	2
Wheat flour (GB)*	417	18	No	0

Table 1b: Overview of the survey results for Q1 Northern Ireland with links to detailed information

Surveys that have an asterisk (*) are a requirement of the EU Coordinated Programme – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/731.

Survey title (where samples collected)	Number of pesticides sought	Samples tested	Detailed risk assessment presented?
Aubergine (NI)*	387	9	No
Banana (NI)*	417	9	No
Beans with pods (NI)	414	9	No
Beetroot (NI)	382	9	No
Broccoli (NI)*	385	9	No
Chilli peppers (NI)	382	6	No
Fish (white) (NI)	39	12	No
Grapefruit (NI)*	386	9	Yes
Grapes (NI)	423	9	No
Limes (NI)	413	9	No
Melon (NI)*	387	9	No
Milk (NI)	39	19	No
Mushrooms (NI)*	420	12	No
Peppers (sweet) (NI)*	419	8	No
Potatoes (NI)	416	12	No
Sweet potatoes (NI)	413	9	No

Samples collected in GB must comply with GB set MRLs unless the goods are qualifying Northern Ireland goods and are subject to unfettered access under the terms of the UK Internal Market Act 2020. For samples collected in Northern Ireland, under the Windsor Framework, certain aspects of EU food law, including compliance with EU MRLs apply.

Other issues

Suspected unauthorised uses

HSE undertook additional activity for samples grown in GB or NI that contained a residue which does not have a plant protection product (PPP) with that active authorised for use on that crop, in GB and NI.

Details of possible unauthorised uses from previous surveys are provided in issues arising from this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 2 report.

Organic samples with residues

Defra’s Organic Farming branch and the organic certification organisations are responsible for follow up activity related to the presence of pesticide residues in organic samples.

HSE writes to the suppliers of samples of organic produce if they contain a pesticide residue which is not permitted under retained organic regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 and copies these bodies in.

two Spanish samples of organic broccoli containing chlorate

Further information

You can find further information on the individual sample details in an accessible format by looking at the Pesticide Residues in Food Quarterly Data.

This includes:

brand name, sampling point and origin information
pesticides sought and residues found
HSE detailed risk assessments

Introduction to the work of the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF)

The UK Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (the PRiF) is established to provide independent scientific advice to:

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra)
Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (accountable to the Department of Work and Pensions)
Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland (DAERA)
Food Standards Agency (FSA)
Scottish Government
Welsh Government

Their full terms of reference are available at PRiF Terms of Reference and Code of Practice.

In relation to the published reports this includes advice on:

The government’s presentation of findings resulting from monitoring programmes of pesticide residues in food in Great Britain (GB) and Northern Ireland (NI). In particular to ensure that results can be readily and appropriately understood by the public.
Planned and ad-hoc government programmes to monitor pesticide residues in foodstuffs. In particular on foods to be surveyed (taking account of changing diets), availability of produce, location and frequency of sampling and pesticides to be sought.
The determination of likely causes of adverse findings detected in government (and where relevant other national and international) monitoring programmes for pesticide residues in food.

The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food was established in 2011. Members have a broad range of expertise relating to the food supply industry. Previously this work was carried out by the Pesticide Residues Committee.

The chair, Ann Davison, has worked in consumer affairs for most of her career, running consumer organisations and networks. The committee also includes members with expertise in food science, public interest and food production and supply.

Information on the membership of the committee can be found at Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF).

UK National Monitoring Programmes

The Health and Safety Executive (HSE), working under Defra, and the Scottish and Welsh Governments authority has official responsibility to organise a monitoring programme of GB food for pesticide residues. Similarly, HSE working under the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural affairs authority has official responsibility to organise a monitoring programme of NI food for pesticide residues, including participating in the EU multi-annual control programme.

The programmes are made up of a risk-based rolling programme of surveys and statutory programmes required by GB or EU law. It is a surveillance programme, which is designed based upon evidence gathered in the previous years, including previous results, PRiF advice and border control information. For efficiency reasons, the Northern Ireland programme may differ in that some lower priority (primarily imported) foods or processed foods are not included. If the GB survey identifies issues in these foods, then they would be included in future testing in Northern Ireland.

These surveys are not an enforcement programme, and the survey design is generally not adjusted during the year. HSE are responsible for considering the safety of people who eat the food (in co-operation with the Food Standards Agency if necessary) and for following up adverse or unexpected results. HSE are also responsible for determining whether food is compliant with the law, specifically, whether any pesticide residue found is within the Maximum Residue Level.

Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs) reflect levels of pesticides that could occur in food which has been treated in accordance with good agricultural practice. Where pesticides do not give rise to readily detectable residues, or are not authorised for use on particular commodities, MRLs are set at the lowest level which can be identified in routine laboratory analysis. This provides a mechanism for statutory controls on pesticides in food which is put into circulation and for monitoring the correct use of these chemicals.

Table 2: 2024 Survey design

Fruit and vegetables

GB surveys that have an asterisk (*) are a requirement of the Multi-annual Great Britain control plan for pesticide residues.

NI surveys that have an asterisk (*) are a requirement of the EU Coordinated Programme – Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/731.

Food	Sampling points	Sampled during	Reporting
Aubergine (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Aubergine (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Banana (GB) *	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Banana (NI) *	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Beans with pods (GB)	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Beans with pods (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Beetroot (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Beetroot (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Broccoli (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Broccoli (NI) *	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Chilli peppers (GB)	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Chilli peppers (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Garlic (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Garlic (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarters 2, 3 and 4	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Ginger (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 3 and 4	Quarters 3 and 4
Grapefruit (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Grapefruit (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Grapes (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Grapes (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Limes (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 1 and 4	Quarters 1 and 4
Limes (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Melon (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Melon (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Mushrooms (GB)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Mushrooms (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Peppers (sweet) (GB)*	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Peppers (sweet) (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Potatoes (GB)	Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Potatoes (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)	Retail outlets and Supply chain	Quarterly	Quarterly
Sweet potatoes (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly

Animal products

Food	Sampling points	Sampled during	Reporting
Beef (GB)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Beef (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Eggs (GB*)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Eggs (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Fish (white) (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 2, 3 and 4	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Fish (white) (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Honey (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 3 and 4	Quarter 4
Milk (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Milk (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly

Cereal products

Food	Sampling points	Sampled during	Reporting
Bread (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 2, 3 and 4	Quarters 3 and 4
Bread (NI)	Retail outlets	Quarters 2, 3 and 4	Quarters 2, 3 and 4
Wheat flour (GB)*	Retail outlets	Quarterly	Quarterly
Wheat flour (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarters 2, 3 and 4	Quarters 2, 3 and 4

Miscellaneous products

Food	Sampling points	Sampled during	Reporting
Beans (dried) (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarter 2	Quarter 2
Infant food (cereal based) (GB)*	Retail outlets	Quarter 3	Quarter 3
Infant food (cereal based) (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarter 4	Quarter 4
Olive oil (GB)*	Retail outlets	Quarters 2 and 3	Quarters 2 and 3
Olive oil (NI)*	Retail outlets	Quarters 3 and 4	Quarters 3 and 4
Potatoes (processed) (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 2 and 3	Quarter 3
Tomatoes (processed) (GB)	Retail outlets	Quarters 1 and 2	Quarter 2

Sampling points

retail outlets: samples bought by market research contractor shoppers
supply chain: samples taken by inspectors from the Animal and Plant Health Agency (APHA) from a range of points in the supply chain (wholesalers, retail depots, ports and import points)

Reporting

Results for certain higher-priority foods are produced, followed up and published more frequently at Pesticide Residues in Food Quarterly Data.

All results are published in the quarterly report - some surveys are included in every quarter, some are every other quarter and some in just one quarter.

The place of origin listed for the samples tested in this report are as follows:

were imported from outside the EU - in this report, this means outside of the EU and outside of the UK
came from the UK
came from the EU

Some of the results for samples collected in Northern Ireland are running behind the planned reporting schedule. The results will be published as soon as they are available.

Table 3a: Summary of results for Q1 Great Britain

Food	Analysed	With residues at or below the MRL	With residues above the MRL	With multiple residues	Organic samples tested
Aubergine (GB)	18	13	0	7	0
Banana (GB)	17	12	0	10	4
Beans with pods (GB)	23	12	3	8	0
Beef (GB)	30	0	0	0	7
Beetroot (GB)	24	1	0	0	6
Broccoli (GB)	31	15	0	8	8
Chilli peppers (GB)	24	16	2	15	0
Eggs (GB)	24	0	0	0	7
Grapefruit (GB)	36	36	0	35	0
Grapes (GB)	37	33	1	29	3
Limes (GB)	12	11	0	9	0
Melon (GB)	25	20	0	16	0
Milk (GB)	72	0	0	0	28
Mushrooms (GB)	30	15	0	6	10
Peppers (sweet) (GB)	23	17	0	12	4
Potatoes (GB)	31	17	0	9	0
Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)	19	3	2	4	0
Wheat flour (GB)	18	11	0	2	7

Table 3b: Summary of results for Q1 Northern Ireland

Food	Analysed	With residues at or below the MRL	With multiple residues	Organic samples tested	Organic samples with residues
Aubergine (NI)	9	8	2	0	0
Banana (NI)	9	6	6	3	0
Beans with pods (NI)	9	1	1	1	0
Beetroot (NI)	9	0	0	5	0
Broccoli (NI)	9	5	2	3	2
Chilli peppers (NI)	6	4	2	0	0
Fish (white) (NI)	12	2	0	0	0
Grapefruit (NI)	9	9	7	0	0
Grapes (NI)	9	9	8	0	0
Limes (NI)	9	8	7	0	0
Melon (NI)	9	9	6	0	0
Milk (NI)	19	0	0	1	0
Mushrooms (NI)	12	9	2	0	0
Peppers (sweet) (NI)	8	6	5	1	0
Potatoes (NI)	12	4	1	2	0
Sweet potatoes (NI)	9	7	0	1	0

Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain

Some shorthand has been used in this table. The symbol * means maximum residue levels set at the limit of determination (LOD MRL). These MRLs are set at a default level, for example, at the limit of determination (LOD) where analytical methods can reasonably detect the presence of the pesticide. Either insufficient trials data are available on which to set a maximum residue level, or there may be no use of the pesticide on that crop permitted. However, they may be permitted elsewhere.

Where processed goods have been tested, the MRL may be adjusted to take account of processing. See the Issues arising in this report section.

Beans with pods (GB)

Sample ID	Food	Country of Origin	Pesticide Detected	Residue Detected (mg/kg)	MRL (mg/kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
0650/2024	Dwarf Green Beans	Morocco	captan (sum)	0.04	0.03*	No	No
4902/2024	Fine Beans	Kenya	acephate	0.4	0.01*	Yes	No
4902/2024	Fine Beans	Kenya	methamidophos	0.1	0.01*	Yes	No
4961/2024	Bobi Green Beans	Egypt	kresoxim-methyl	0.04	0.01*	Yes	No

Chilli peppers (GB)

Sample ID	Food	Country of Origin	Pesticide Detected	Residue Detected (mg/kg)	MRL (mg/kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
4899/2024	Birds Eye Chillies	Oman	tolfenpyrad	0.04	0.01*	Yes	No
4972/2024	Scotch Bonnet Chillies	Rwanda	acephate	0.03	0.01*	Yes	No
4972/2024	Scotch Bonnet Chillies	Rwanda	methamidophos	0.02	0.01*	No	No
4972/2024	Scotch Bonnet Chillies	Rwanda	pirimiphos-methyl	0.02	0.01*	Yes	No
4972/2024	Scotch Bonnet Chillies	Rwanda	profenofos	0.2	0.01*	Yes	No

Grapes (GB)

Sample ID	Food	Country of Origin	Pesticide Detected	Residue Detected (mg/kg)	MRL (mg/kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
4814/2024	Moldova Grapes	Moldova	fluazinam	0.5	0.01*	Yes	No

Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)

Sample ID	Food	Country of Origin	Pesticide Detected	Residue Detected (mg/kg)	MRL (mg/kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
4963/2024	Eddoes	Ecuador	thiabendazole	0.2	0.01*	Yes	No
4962/2024	Yams	Ghana	carbendazim (sum)	0.2	0.1*	No	Yes
4962/2024	Yams	Ghana	thiophanate-methyl	0.3	0.1*	Yes	Yes

Samples collected in GB must comply with GB set MRLs unless the goods are qualifying Northern Ireland goods and are subject to unfettered access under the terms of the UK Internal Market Act for 2020. For samples collected in Northern Ireland, under the Windsor Framework, certain aspects of EU food law, including compliance with EU set MRLs, continue to apply.

Action taken by HSE

HSE wrote to:

the suppliers of all samples containing residues above the MRL
the authorities of the exporting countries of all samples containing residues above the MRL
the suppliers of GB and NI samples that contained residues of actives which do not have a plant protection product authorised for the crop they were detected in
the Organics branch of Defra about samples that were labelled as organic and contained any residues of pesticides which is not permitted under retained organic regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008

Recipients of the letters are given 4 weeks to provide a statement for inclusion in the report. The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food reviews any replies received.

Supplier responses

None.

Question 2

2.  Findings by food in GB and UK detailed risk assessments

Accepted Answer

Summary

For more information on the results, read the:

Aubergine (GB)

Samples tested

18 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues.

18 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

5 samples contained no residues from those sought
13 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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Banana (GB)

Samples tested

17 samples were tested for up to 411 pesticide residues.

Banana (eating)

17 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

5 samples contained no residues from those sought
12 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
4 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) considers for combined risk assessment separately.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Beans with pods (GB)

Samples tested

23 samples were tested for up to 408 pesticide residues.

Dwarf beans

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Fine beans

one sample came from the UK
7 samples were imported from outside the EU

Green beans

4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Runner beans

4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Speciality beans

5 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

8 samples contained no residues from those sought
15 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
3 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 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 this combination of pesticides in this sample to have an effect on health.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at 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 4 residues above the MRL in beans with pods. Details are available in Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain.

Beef (GB)

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.

27 samples came from the UK.

3 samples came from the EU.

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

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

30 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
7 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.

Beetroot (GB)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Cooked

19 samples came from the UK
one sample came from the EU

Fresh

4 samples came from the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the beetroot was produced. It may be where the beetroot 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 residues above the reporting limit
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
6 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

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Broccoli (GB)

Samples tested

31 samples were tested for up to 385 pesticide residues.

Fresh

2 samples were imported from outside the EU
27 samples came from the EU

Frozen

2 samples came from the UK.

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

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

16 samples contained no residues from those sought
15 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

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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Chilli peppers (GB)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Chilli Peppers

20 samples were imported from outside the EU
4 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

6 samples contained no residues from those sought
18 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. Two 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 samples. We would not expect any of these combinations of pesticides in these samples to have an effect on health.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at 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 5 residues above the MRL in chilli peppers. Details are available in Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain.

Eggs (GB)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.

Chicken

22 samples came from the UK.

Quail

2 samples came from the UK.

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
7 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.

Grapefruit (GB)

Samples tested

36 samples were tested for up to 386 pesticide residues.

Grapefruit

23 samples were imported from outside the EU
13 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 there were 2 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 in dietary intake assessment and should be consulted for the full assessment of risk.

For these pesticides, if the grapefruit 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 grapefruit 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 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessments with us for some samples of grapefruit 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.

Grapes (GB)

Samples tested

37 samples were tested for up to 417 pesticide residues.

36 samples were imported from outside the EU.

One sample came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

3 samples contained no residues from those sought
34 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
one sample 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combine risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at 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 one residue above the MRL in grapes. Details are available in Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain.

Limes (GB)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 407 pesticide residues.

12 samples were imported from outside 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
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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Melon (GB)

Samples tested

25 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues.

Cantaloupe

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Galia

6 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Honeydew

6 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Watermelon

11 samples were imported from outside the EU.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the melon was produced. It may be where the melon was processed, where it was 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
20 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

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.

If the melon is 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 melon 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

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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessments with us for some samples of melon containing residues of imazalil. 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.

Milk (GB)

Samples tested

72 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.

Cows milk

70 samples came from the UK.

Goats milk

2 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
28 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.

Mushrooms (GB)

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.

Button

One sample came from the UK.

Chestnut

11 samples came from the UK
4 samples came from the EU

Flat

One sample came from the EU.

White

7 samples came from the UK
6 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

15 samples contained no residues from those sought
15 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
10 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. Two 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 samples. We would not expect any of these combinations of pesticides in these samples to have an effect on health.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Peppers (sweet) (GB)

Samples tested

23 samples were tested for up to 413 pesticide residues.

Fresh

3 samples were imported from outside the EU
20 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

6 samples contained no residues from those sought
17 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
4 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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Potatoes (GB)

Samples tested

31 samples were tested for up to 410 pesticide residues.

28 samples came from the UK.

3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

14 samples contained no residues from those sought
17 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) considers for combine risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)

Samples tested

19 samples were tested for up to 407 pesticide residues.

Cassava

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Celeriac

One sample came from the UK.

Daikon

one sample was imported from outside the EU
2 samples came from the EU

Eddoes

4 samples were imported from outside the EU

Jerusalem artichoke

One sample came from the UK.

Radish

3 samples were imported from outside the EU
one sample came from the EU

Taro / Tarot

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Yam

4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

14 samples contained no residues from those sought
5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
2 samples contained residues above the MRL
none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

One sample of yams from Ghana contained a residue of thiophanate methyl and carbendazim at levels where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail. Carbendazim is a metabolite of thiophanate methyl and its presence in the sample is expected to be due to application of thiophanate-methyl as a post-harvest dip. The residue levels detected were 0.2 mg/kg carbendazim and 0.3 mg/kg thiophanate-methyl, above the level of the MRLs at 0.1* mg/kg. The risk assessment undertaken by HSE needed to address their presence in the same sample together as, although they may arise from one pesticide application, thiophanate methyl and carbendazim are understood to exhibit a similar type of toxicity and they have different ARfDs. The HSE risk assessment concluded (dietary intake assessments), that taking account of the highest dietary intakes for the combined residues of carbendazim and thiophanate methyl for the critical consumers of either the general population (those excluding pregnant and nursing females) and for pregnant and nursing females groups, an effect on health is not expected. It is understood that thiophanate-methyl may degrade to carbendazim under conditions simulating baking and boiling. If it was assumed that all of the thiophanate-methyl detected in this sample was degraded to carbendazim, the conclusion on the risk assessment would remain the same.

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) considers for combined risk assessment. HSE has considered the combination of thiophanate methyl and it’s metabolite carbendazim in the same sample of yams above under ‘risk assessments’ (for single substance pesticides).

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us for a yam sample containing a residue of thiophanate methyl and it’s metabolite carbendazim. We are satisfied that HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst case form of assessment underpinning the conclusion presented above.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 3 residues above the MRL in speciality root vegetables. Details are available in Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain.

HSE have passed details of one sample to FSA for further consideration. Further details are in Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain.

Wheat flour (GB)

Samples tested

18 samples were tested for up to 417 pesticide residues.

Other wheat flour

17 samples came from the UK.

Wholemeal wheat flour

One sample came from the UK.

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where wheat flour was produced. It may be where the wheat flour 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
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

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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combine risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Question 3

3.  Findings by food in NI and risk assessments

Accepted Answer

Summary

For more information on the results, read the:

Aubergine (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues.

Aubergines

9 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

1 sample contained no residues from those sought
8 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Banana (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 417 pesticide residues.

Bananas (eating)

9 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

3 samples contained no residues from those sought
6 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Beans with pods (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.

Dwarf Beans

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Fine Beans

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Green Beans

5 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Runner Beans

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

8 samples contained no residues from those sought
one sample contained residues above the reporting level
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

One sample 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 the sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Beetroot (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Cooked

3 samples came from the UK
2 samples came from the EU

Fresh

4 samples came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

9 samples contained no residues from those sought
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
5 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.

Broccoli (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 385 pesticide residues.

Fresh

one sample was imported from outside the EU
8 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

4 samples contained no residues from those sought
5 samples contained residues above the reporting level
none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
3 samples were labelled as organic - 2 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at 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.

Chilli peppers (NI)

Samples tested

6 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Chilli Peppers

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

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought
4 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Fish (white) (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 39 pesticide residues.

Basa

One sample was imported from outside the EU.

Cod

5 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Haddock

3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Hake

2 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Sea bass

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

10 samples contained no residues from those sought
2 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Grapefruit (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 386 pesticide residues.

Grapefruit

4 samples were imported from outside the EU
5 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 there was one pesticide, imazalil, where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail.

The highest level of imazalil at (1.9 mg/kg) is lower than the level of imazalil (3.0 mg/kg) reported in a sample for Grapefruit-GB. Therefore, the risk assessment carried out for imazalil and the conclusions (see Grapefruit-GB) also apply to Grapefruit-NI. As such, we conclude that an effect on health based on short-term toxicity would not be expected if the peel is removed prior to consuming, and unlikely even if the grapefruit was consumed with all of its peel. See dietary intake assessments.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Please 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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessments with us for some samples of grapefruit containing residues of imazalil. 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.

Grapes (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 423 pesticide residues.

9 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

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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Limes (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 413 pesticide residues.

9 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

one sample contained no residues from those sought
8 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Melon (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues.

Cantaloupe

4 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Honeydew

3 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Watermelon

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

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) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Milk (NI)

Samples tested

19 samples were tested for up to 39 pesticide residues.

Cows milk

15 samples came from the UK.

Goats milk

4 samples came from the UK.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

19 samples contained no residues from those sought
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.

Mushrooms (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 420 pesticide residues.

Button

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

Chestnut

4 samples came from the UK
3 samples came from the EU

Flat

One sample came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

3 samples contained no residues from those sought
9 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

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 Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Peppers (sweet) (NI)

Samples tested

8 samples were tested for up to 419 pesticide residues.

Fresh

2 samples were imported from outside the EU
6 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought
6 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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 the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Potatoes (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 416 pesticide residues.

11 samples came from the UK.

One sample came from the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

8 samples contained no residues from those sought
4 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

One sample 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 this sample do not include more than one of the pesticides from the groups that the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) considers for combined risk assessment.

Further information of how HSE consider combined risk assessments can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional Comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Sweet potatoes (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 413 pesticide residues.

9 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

2 samples contained no residues from those sought
7 samples contained residues above the reporting level
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

PRiF considered these results and concluded it did not need to make additional comments.

Question 4

4.  Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments

Accepted Answer

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. 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 can be found at HSE risk assessment methodology.

For the Q1 2024 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.

Aubergine

Data on aubergine were used, although there are a low number of consumers in several of the sub-groups for aubergine. However, use of these consumption data was considered reasonable after comparison with alternative data.

Beans

Data on beans with pods were used for all forms of green beans, including speciality beans.

Chilli peppers

Specific consumption data on chilli peppers were used.

Fish

Data on fish were used for all forms of white fish.

Grapefruit

Consumption values were provided by the Food Standards Agency for grapefruit to identify the various contributions of grapefruit in the diet. The consumption values used here (and as used in 2021, 2018 and 2016) cover consumption for fresh grapefruit excluding juice, canned grapefruit and grapefruit consumed in other recipe forms.

For the current assessments, the consumer groups covered represent infants (4 to 18 months old), toddlers (1.5 to 3 years), 4 to 6 year olds, 7 to 10 year olds, 11 to 14 year olds, 15 to 18 year olds, and elderly. These are slightly different to the groups used previously. Vegetarians, elderly residential and elderly in their own home are not reported separately. For some of the consumer groups, the number of grapefruit consumers in the surveys (from years 2008 to 2012) are very low (for example, infants) which is not unexpected. The highest number of young consumers out of all the young consumer groups was three persons for infants (3 out of 2,863 infant consumers). These data are used as they represent the best available data. Adults and elderly consume fresh grapefruit at a higher frequency (a higher number of consumers) than the other consumer groups, and of these adults is the most critical consumer group.

Lemon and lime

Data on both lemon and lime were used for screening assessment for limes. There are relatively low numbers of consumers in several groups for lime, although the number for toddlers is reasonable. Data for lemons were generally more robust with higher numbers of consumers.

Mushrooms

For large speciality mushrooms (jumbo mushrooms), data on mushrooms with a variability factor of 7 and a unit weight of 85g were used. As per ordinary mushrooms, no variability factor was used for the smaller button mushrooms.

Potato

Consumption data for potato have been used as an alternative to yam due to a low number of consumers for yams in several sub-groups.Data on potato were used for sweet potatoes and eddoes (which are root vegetables similar to sweet potato).

Swede

Data on swede were used for daikon (mooli), which is a long, white vegetable of the radish family. Data on swede together with a unit weight of 550g and a variability factor of 5 were used for celeriac.

Radishes

Specific consumption data on radishes were used. Although there are low numbers of consumers in some groups, use of these data was considered reasonable after comparison with alternative data.

Wheat flour

Data on flour were used for all forms of wheat flour. These consumption values were provided by the Food Standards Agency; the consumer groups covered represent infants (6 to 12 months), toddlers (1.5 to 3 years), 4 to 6 year olds, 7 to 10 year olds, 11 to 14 year olds, 15 to 18 year olds, adults, vegetarians and elderly (elderly residential and elderly in their own home are not reported separately).

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

Yams 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
Yams	Carbendazim	0.2	0.0048	0.031 infants 0.021 toddlers	0.02	EU, 2006

Comment on risk assessment

It is possible that the presence of carbendazim in this sample is due to the formation of carbendazim as a metabolite of thiophanate-methyl. Therefore, although this is not assessed as a true multiple residue for different pesticides, a specific assessment has been conducted, alongside the single substance assessment, to account for the occurrence of carbendazim and thiophanate methyl together in the same sample. Although carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl have different acute reference doses (ARfD) they share a similar form of toxicity. Individually, thiophanate-methyl intakes do not exceed the ARfD for thiophanate-methyl.

The intakes of carbendazim for infants and toddlers exceeded the ARfD for carbendazim. The highest intake was for infants.

If infants ate large portions of yams containing carbendazim at 0.2 mg per kg, their intake of carbendazim could be 154 % of the ARfD. This intake is 325 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in developmental studies in rats and rabbits. The European Food Safety Authority used these studies 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 ARfD incorporates a larger than normal safety factor of 500 due to the steep dose response relationship for adverse reproductive and developmental toxicity effects with carbendazim. These reproductive effects are only relevant for pregnant and nursing females. The intakes for consumer groups which might include pregnant and nursing females do not exceed the ARfD.

Thiophanate-methyl and carbendazim are believed to be used as a post-harvest dip treatment, therefore the majority of the residue would be expected to be on the surface of the yam. Yams are generally peeled before cooking, however a specific peeling factor is not available, so it is not possible to apply a specific refinement in this case.

In regard to cooking, there are some data available (EFSA, 2018) which indicate that thiophanate-methyl can degrade to carbendazim under conditions simulating baking and boiling, however a specific processing factor is not available. If, as a ‘worst case’, it was assumed that all of the thiophanate-methyl could degrade to carbendazim upon cooking, the intakes for consumer groups which might include pregnant and nursing females still do not exceed the ARfD.

Given the above reasoning, we consider the reduced factor of 325 (from 500) is still sufficient to conclude that an effect on health is not expected.

When considering the combined presence of thiophanate-methyl with carbendazim in the yam sample for the critical consumer (infants) for the general population:

Pesticide	Residue (mg per kg)	Critical Intake for general population - infants (mg per kg bw)	Critical Intake for infants (percentage ARfD)	ARfD	Source
Carbendazim	0.2	0.031	154 %	0.02	EU, 2006
Thiophanate-methyl	0.3	0.046	23 %	0.2	EU, 2005

The total sum of the dietary intakes of thiophanate-methyl and carbendazim together in the sample (when expressed as a percentage of its own reference value) is 177 %. If summed (without molecular weight adjustment), the combined intake for the critical consumer infants of 0.077 mg per kg bw.

For the general population (excluding pregnant and nursing females) when considering the relevant carbendazim studies for these consumers, toxicologists usually apply a lower factor of 100 to take into account the uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. Applying this factor of 100 would give an ARfD of 0.1 mg per kg bw for these groups. Considering the combined level of intake (for the critical consumer infant, without molecular weight adjustment, 0.077 mg per kg bw), this hypothetical ARfD would not be exceeded by any consumer groups. Therefore, an effect on health is not expected.

When considering the combined presence of thiophanate-methyl with carbendazim in the yam sample for the critical consumer (11 to 14 year olds) for pregnant and nursing females:

Pesticide	Residue (mg per kg)	Critical Intake for pregnant and nursing females – 11 to 14 year olds (mg per kg bw)	Critical Intake for 11 to 14 year olds (Percentage ARfD)	ARfD	Source
Carbendazim	0.2	0.0078	39 %	0.02	EU, 2006
Thiophanate-methyl	0.3	0.012	6 %	0.2	EU, 2005

The total sum of the dietary intakes of thiophanate-methyl and carbendazim together in the sample (when expressed as a percentage of its own reference value) is 45 %. If summed (without molecular weight adjustment), the combined intake for the critical consumer 11 to 14 year olds of 0.02 mg per kg bw is at the level of the ARfD for carbendazim. Considering the combined level of intake, the ARfD would not be exceeded by any consumer groups that are pregnant and nursing females. Therefore, an effect on health is not expected.

These are not refined calculations as the pesticide intake levels have been summed without molecular weight adjustment. Thiophanate-methyl has a higher molecular weight than carbendazim and if the summed intakes were calculated expressed as carbendazim then the intakes would be lower, 0.057 mg per kg bw instead of 0.077 mg per kg bw for infants and 0.015 mg per kg bw instead of 0.02 mg per kg bw for 11 to 14 year olds.

Overall, an effect on health is not expected.

Grapefruit 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
Grapefruit	Imazalil	3	0.043	0.16 (infants)	0.1 (General population) 0.05 (Pregnant and nursing female)	EFSA, 2007

Comment on risk assessment

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

General population

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

If infants ate or drank large portions of grapefruit containing imazalil at 3 mg per kg their intake of imazalil could be 164 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.1 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 61 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 61 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

This risk assessment assumes that peel of grapefruit 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.

Grapefruit 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
Grapefruit	Thiabendazole	2.4	0.035	0.13 (infants)	0.1	EU, 2017

Comment on risk assessment

Grapefruit 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 5 percent of the residue of thiabendazole remains (EFSA, 2021) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole grapefruit, 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.

If infants ate or drank large portions of grapefruit containing thiabendazole at 2.4 mg per kg, their intake of thiabendazole could be 131 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 76 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 grapefruit 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.

Melon 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
Melon	Imazalil	1.1	0.041	0.053 (11 to 14 year olds)	0.1 (General population) 0.05 (Pregnant and nursing female)	EFSA, 2007

Comment on risk assessment

Melon 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 12 percent of the residue of imazalil remains (EFSA, 2018) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole melon, 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 exceeded the ARfD of 0.05 mg per kg bw for pregnant and nursing females.

If 11 to 14 year old children ate large portions of melon containing imazalil at 1.1 mg per kg, their intake of imazalil could be 107 percent of the Acute Reference Dose of 0.05 mg per kg bw per day. This intake is 94 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 94 still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely.

General population

The intakes for all consumer groups are below the ARfD of 0.1 mg per kg bw for the general population.

This risk assessment assumes that peel of melon 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

None.

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 (Q1 2024) and conclusions:

None of the samples contained residues which we understand might have genotoxic potential.

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.

In HSE’s long-term exposure screening assessment for this report NI and GB samples were combined.

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.

Question 5

5.  Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 2 2024 report

Accepted Answer

Issues arising in this report

Chlorate

We have been testing a limited number of foods for chlorate since 2016. The pesticide sodium chlorate is a residual broad action weed killer that is not authorised for use in the EU or UK. However, we are confident that the residues we are detecting come from use of chlorine-based disinfectants used to maintain microbiological safety (control microorganisms that cause food poisoning). Because these residues are unavoidable, and important for the maintaining of microbiological control vital for food safety, we are not treating these results as breaches of the MRL. We are not advising that food companies change their existing practices as a result of our findings, but they should be aware about the ongoing discussion in this area.

We are only part of the work going on across government and beyond to consider what to do about chlorate residues in food and water.

How chlorate MRLs take account of use of biocides

The footnote included in the chlorate MRLs takes into account chlorate residues incurred during the processing of food (from treated water or processing aids, such as biocides). The footnote exceptionally specifies that for considering compliance with chlorate MRLs, simple types of processing, such as packing, washing, chopping and freezing can be taken into account. Chlorate in irrigation water is taken into account in the MRLs as set and no further adjustment can be considered.

The responsibility for providing evidence showing that residues from processing can be taken into account, lies with the food business operator, and so we will be interested to see such evidence where appropriate. HSE will decide whether the footnote can be applied and if so this will be reflected in our reports.

Read more information on the Chilled Food Association’s website, produced by the Food and Biocides Industry Group.

Infant food

Infant food MRLs are set under separate legislation managed by UK health departments. The footnote that applies to other foods cannot be used for infant foods, although residues occur for the same reasons. UK health departments are working with HSE and FSA to resolve this.

Sanitisers

The presence of low-level residues of chlorate in food results from measures taken by the food and water industries to protect food safety by reducing microbiological contamination of food and drink (including drinking water, which is a significant source of chlorate in food). Chlorate itself is not used as a disinfectant, but chlorine-based sanitisers contain small amounts of chlorate. The Food Standards Agency has worked with industry who promote best practice and guidance for use of sanitisers.

Drinking water

In national legislation throughout the UK, it is already a requirement to keep disinfection by-products as low as possible. This is usually achieved through management of disinfectant dosing and storage.

Microbiological safety of food

The HSE is working with the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food to understand how changes to pesticide MRLs affect biocide use, microbiological food safety, and any change to the overall risk to consumers taking into account both chemical and microbiological safety.

Dietary intakes

Since 2018 the Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) has been considering chlorate as part of its on-going work looking at the chemicals in the diet of infants and young children (up to 5 years). The European Food Safety Authority’s 2015 opinion on chlorate establishes appropriate health-based guidance values for chlorate exposure to protect against acute and chronic risks to health.

Fosetyl-Al (sum)

The full residue definition is “fosetyl-Al (sum of fosetyl, phosphonic acid and their salts, expressed as fosetyl)”. Throughout this report that definition is reflected as fosetyl (sum) All the residues reported as fosetyl (sum) in this report were detected as phosphonic acid.

Fosetyl-Al breaks down to phosphonic acid, but phosphoric acid can also be a residue left by use of pesticides containing disodium phosphonate or potassium phosphonates. Additionally, products sold as fertilizers also can contain or break down to phosphonic acid. And finally, phosphonic acid also occurs naturally in the environment. The presence of phosphonic acid does not necessarily mean that a pesticide was used. Those producing food need to be aware that the use of products that contain phosphonic acid or break down to phosphonic acid may lead to produce which breaches the MRL.

DDT

The use of DDT is banned of heavily restricted in many countries. It is not allowed for use on food crops anymore, but it is still used in some countries outside the EU as a public health insecticide. Residues of DDT take a long time to break down in the environment and can accumulate in fatty tissue which is a major reason that it has been banned in the EU and many other countries.

Due to the bans and restrictions on use the levels in food have decreased substantially since the 1960s and 1970s. Even so, because it takes a long time to break down we do expect, and do see, occasional DDT residues in our monitoring results. Overall, the incidence and the size of residues have fallen steadily over time, which is what we would expect. In recent years none of our findings were unusual, unexpected or of concern. We can tell from the chemical form that we detect whether the residues we have found are from historic use (which is what we usually find). Historic use is indicated by the detection of DDE which is a break down product of DDT. We explain this every time we publish DDT results to try to make it as clear as we can that the results show food producers are not using DDT today. However, there are occasional media stories about DDT and various links and associations, which do not make this distinction.

The residues we find nowadays are at levels that would not be expected to have any effect on health, either in the short term or in the long term, when checked against today’s understanding of the effect of DDT on health. As a committee, we take care to ensure we look thoroughly at this, and the Food Standards Agency is also actively involved in our considerations.

Processing factors

As the surveillance programme monitors residues in all types of food, from raw commodities (for example, potatoes) to processed (for example, wine), dried (for example, dried fruit) and composite foods (for example, fruit bread), consumer risk assessments are specifically tailored to address processed and mixed food products. MRLs are generally set for raw commodities, although when MRLs are established the assessment of dietary intakes takes into account the potential for residues to remain in processed foods produced from the raw agricultural commodities. MRLs have been set for processed infant foods, and in future may be extended to other processed food products.

MRLs apply to all traded foods, including foods used as ingredients. The law specifies the level to apply to foods as they are traded. For almost all foods that means their raw, unprocessed form. But MRLs also apply to prepared and processed foods in which case the effect of processing needs to be taken into account.

In nearly all cases the MRL is set for the food in its raw, unprocessed form (the form of each food to which MRLs apply is listed in Annex I of Regulation 396/2005). These MRLs can be applied to processed foods using appropriate processing factors. Processing factors take account of the effect of processing on the food as traded. Different forms of processing may remove, concentrate, or dilute residues, and the effect may vary depending on the food and the pesticide concerned. Multiplying the processing factor by the original MRL gives a calculated MRL that can indicate the food was made with an ingredient or ingredients which had residues over the original MRL.

Calculating the MRLs for processed goods is dependent on the information available. HSE will contact the supplier if residues exceed the calculated MRL to give them an opportunity to provide relevant information to support the calculation.

Processing factors for bread were taken from a published compilation of factors.

HSE use the general principle that if no specific processing factor is available, a default factor of 1 may be applied. In this report, we have mostly applied processing factors from the European database of processing factors for pesticide residues in food version 2.

Processing factors and MRLs used for Wheat flour (GB)

Food type	Pesticide	Processing factor	MRL for unprocessed grain (mg per kg)	Flour MRL (mg per kg)
Wheat flour (other wheat flour)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Wheat flour (wholemeal wheat flour)	Pirimiphos-methyl	0.76	5	3.8

Follow-up from previous reports

None.

In our Quarter 2 2024 report

Samples collected in Great Britain

In quarter 2 of 2024 we will look at results from samples collected in Great Britain for:

Aubergine
Banana
Beans (dried)
Beans with pods
Beef
Beetroot
Broccoli
Chilli peppers
Eggs
Fish (white)
Garlic
Grapefruit
Grapes
Melon
Milk
Mushrooms
Olive oil
Peppers (sweet)
Potatoes
Speciality vegetables (root)
Tomatoes (processed)
Wheat flour

Samples collected in Northern Ireland

In quarter 2 of 2024 we will look at results from samples collected in Northern Ireland for:

Aubergine
Banana
Beans with pods
Beef
Beetroot
Bread
Broccoli
Chilli peppers
Eggs
Fish (white)
Garlic
Grapefruit
Grapes
Limes
Melon
Milk
Mushrooms
Peppers (sweet)
Potatoes
Sweet potatoes
Wheat flour

Question 6

6.  Glossary

Accepted Answer

This is a ‘standard’ glossary which defines the key terms used in the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) reports. Not all the terms listed here are used in every report.

97.5th percentile consumer

See High level consumer.

Acceptable daily intake (ADI)

This is the amount of a chemical which can be consumed every day for a lifetime in the practical certainty, on the basis of all known facts, that no harm will result. It is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of body weight of the consumer. The starting point for the derivation of the ADI is usually the ‘no observed adverse effect level’ (NOAEL) that has been observed in animal studies for toxicity. This is then divided by an uncertainty factor (most often 100) to allow for the possibility that animals may be less sensitive than humans and also to account for possible variation in sensitivity between individuals. The studies from which NOAELs and hence ADIs are derived take into account any impurities in the pesticide active substance as manufactured, and also any toxic breakdown products of the pesticide.

Acetylcholine

Acetylcholine is a neurotransmitter, a chemical that carries signals through the nervous system. See cholinergic.

Acetylcholinesterase

This is an enzyme which degrades acetylcholine and is involved in the regulation of nerve impulses. Inhibition of this enzyme can interfere with this nerve transmission function. This is a short-term effect of concern with organophosphate and carbamate pesticides at levels above the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD).

Acute reference dose (ARfD)

The definition of the ARfD is similar to that of the ADI, but it relates to the amount of a chemical that can be taken in at one meal or on one day without appreciable health risk to the consumer. It is normally derived by applying an appropriate uncertainty factor to the lowest NOAEL in studies that assess acute toxicity or developmental toxicity.

As a matter of policy, the EU does not use NOAELs from tests that involve deliberate administration of pesticides to humans to determine ADIs and ARfDs. However, where such data have been ethically and scientifically derived some authorities, for example, the World Health Organization, do consider such data. Where human data are used there is usually less uncertainty in the resulting reference value compared to extrapolating from animal tests to humans, and a lower uncertainty factor (most often 10) is used to account for the variation in sensitivity between individuals.

The initial risk assessments in PRiF reports use the agreed EU reference values. However, where intakes are above the EU value and a reference value based on acceptable human data is available a refined assessment, which is a more appropriate indicator of the risk, is also reported.

Analyte

This is the name for the substance that the PRiF surveys look for and measure if present; it could be a pesticide itself or a product from a pesticide when it is degraded, or metabolised.

Cocktail effect

See multiple residues.

Codex

The Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) is responsible for establishing Codex maximum residue levels (MRLs) for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food. These Codex maximum residue levels (CXLs) are internationally agreed food standards.

COLEACP (Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Liaison Committee)

It aims to promote the competitive export of fresh fruit, vegetables, flowers and ornamental plants from the ACP. Its specialised information and advisory services are open to all ACP companies in the horticultural export sector and are financed by the European Commission. It has two overriding objectives to enable ACP companies to comply with European food safety and traceability requirements and to consolidate the position of small-scale producers in the ACP horticultural export sector.

Cholinergic

In relation to the animal nervous system, processes and structures are cholinergic if they release or use acetylcholine.

Cryogenic milling

Processing of commodities at very low temperatures can be achieved by milling or grinding pre-frozen samples in the presence of dry ice, a procedure known as ‘cryogenic milling’.

Extensions of authorisations for minor use (EAMUs)

Users and authorisation holders of agricultural Plant Protection Products (PPP) may apply to have the authorisation of specific PPP’s extended to cover uses additional to those authorised and shown on the manufacturer’s product label. For many reasons, label recommendations of authorised pesticides do not cover the control of every problem which may arise. This is particularly true for crops that are grown on a comparatively small scale in the UK as well as for pests and diseases that occur less often or which are new to the UK. As part of the process evidence on residues that would arise from the use is required, and consumer safety is evaluated and if necessary a specific MRL set. EAMU is pronounced “emu” these types of authorisations are also informally called “off labels”.

EFSA Pesticides Peer review Co-Ordination (EPCO)

EU meetings involving EFSA and member state experts.

Genotoxicity

Genotoxicity is the effect of substances (called genotoxins) which can alter or damage the genetic material (DNA, RNA, or chromosomes) within a cell. Cells have the capacity to protect themselves from genotoxic effects by many repair processes and therefore many genotoxic events do not become evident as mutations. Where mutations occur, this can lead to cancer or effects that can be passed to unborn children (for example, birth defects, inherited diseases).

Good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides (GAP)

The nationally authorised safe uses of pesticides under conditions necessary for effective and reliable pest control (the way products should be used according to the statutory conditions of authorisation which are stated on the label). GAP encompasses a range of pesticide applications up to the highest authorised rates of use, applied in a manner which leaves a residue which is the smallest practicable. Authorised safe uses are determined at the national level and include nationally registered recommended uses, which take into account public and occupational health and environmental safety considerations. Actual conditions include any stage in the production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.

High-level consumer

A term used in UK risk assessment calculations to describe the amount of food consumed by a person. In line with internationally agreed approaches, the PRiF uses the 97.5th percentile value, which is generally about three times the average amount consumed. This takes account of different eating patterns that may occur throughout the population.

Human data

See Acute Reference Dose.

In vitro

A test performed in vitro “in the glass” means that it is performed outside of a living organism and usually involves isolated tissues, organs or cells.

In vivo

Live animal studies.

Import tolerance

An MRL set for imported products where the use of the active substance in a plant protection product on a commodity is not authorised in the European Community (EC) or an existing EC MRL is not sufficient to meet the needs of international trade. All import tolerances are assessed for consumer safety.

Imported

The tables in the reports record whether the sample was of UK origin, or imported. This can mean different things depending on the commodity. See also Origin. The PRiF report the country from where the produce has been imported only if this is clear from the packaging or labelling.

INFOSAN (International Food Safety Authority network)

Since the end of the EU transition period, in GB, notifications are submitted via FAO/WHO’s International Food Safety Authority network (INFOSAN) of which UK is a member. Non compliances that do not present a food safety risk are not communicated by GB to other countries and there is an expectation that non-compliance notifications will be communicated by the importer/exporter in liaison with the LA.

Northern Ireland continues to be part of the EU Rapid Alert for Food and Feed (see Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)) network under the terms of the Windsor Framework so where appropriate will email notifications via the RASFF network, including for non-compliances under Administrative Assistance and Cooperation Network (AAC) procedures.

JMPR

Joint FAO and WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues, which conducts scientific evaluations of pesticide residues in food.

LOD (Limit of determination) and LOD MRLs

The Limit of Determination (LOD) is the lowest concentration of a pesticide residue or contaminant that can be routinely identified and quantitively measured in a specified food, agricultural commodity or animal feed with an acceptable degree of certainty by the method of analysis. Note, exceptionally we test at levels lower than the LOD MRL to determine incidence of certain pesticides of specific interest.

LOD MRL (maximum residue levels set at the LOD)

These are marked by an asterisk (*). For some pesticides and commodities insufficient trials data are available on which to set a maximum residue level or there may be no use of the pesticide on that crop. In these cases, the MRL may be set at a default level for example, at the LOD where analytical methods can reasonably detect the presence of the pesticide. These MRLs are not based on GAP. Also, see under Reporting limit.

Lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL)

The lowest concentration or amount of a substance, found by experiment or observation, which causes detectable adverse alteration of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development or life span of the target organism under defined conditions of exposure.

Off label

See Extensions of Authorisations for Minor Use (EAMUs).

Maximum residue level (MRL)

A maximum residue level (MRL) is the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue expressed in mg/kg in or on food or feed of plant and animal origin that is legally tolerated when a plant protection product (PPP) is applied correctly (following good agricultural practice).

MRLs apply to most food commodities, although they are not currently applied to fish and produce grown exclusively for animal feed. They are not set specifically for processed commodities. Instead the MRLs for the raw agricultural commodities apply, with processing factors applied to determine the compliance of processed goods.

An import tolerance is an MRL set on imported food or feed to meet the needs of international trade.

MRLs are intended primarily as a check that GAP is being followed and to assist international trade in produce treated with pesticides. MRLs are not in themselves ‘safety limits’, and exposure to residues in excess of an MRL does not automatically imply a hazard to health.

MRLs reflect levels of pesticides that could occur in produce, which has been treated in accordance with good agricultural practice. Where pesticides do not give rise to readily detectable residues, or are not authorised for use on particular commodities, MRLs are set at the lowest level which can be identified in routine laboratory analysis. Thus, they provide a mechanism for statutory controls on pesticides in produce which is put into circulation and for monitoring correct use of these chemicals.

If no use of a pesticide on a crop is identified when MRLs are set the tolerance for that pesticide and crop combination is set at the limit of determination (effectively zero). Limit of determination MRL are marked by a ‘*’.

MRLs are regulated in Northern Ireland under Regulation 396/2005.

MRLs are regulated in Great Britain under Retained Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

Maximum residue levels set at the LOD (LOD MRL)

See LOD MRL. For some pesticides and commodities, insufficient trials data are available on which to set a maximum residue level or there may be no use of the pesticide on that crop. In these cases, the MRL may be set at a default level, for example, at the LOD where analytical methods can reasonably detect the presence of the pesticide. These MRLs are not based on GAP.

MRL exceedances

When a residue is found at a level higher than that set for the MRL.

MRL exceedances and relationship with the acceptable daily intake (ADI)

Before permitting any use of a pesticide, a detailed assessment is made to ensure that residues in foods derived from commodities comply with MRLs and will not give rise to unacceptable risks to consumers. MRLs do take account of consumer safety aspects and, in effect, are set at levels below safety limits. However, MRLs must not be confused with safety limits, which are expressed in terms of the ADI of a particular pesticide residue from all sources. The ADI (expressed as mg per kg bw per day) is the amount of chemical that can be consumed every day of an individual’s entire lifetime in the practical certainty, on the basis of all known facts, that no harm will result. See ADI for further information.

Whenever unexpectedly high or unusual residues occur during monitoring, the risk to consumers, from exposure to residues at the highest levels found, is assessed by comparison of predicted intakes with the ADI or ARfD as appropriate.

No MRL

For certain pesticides an MRL may not have been set.

Metabolite

A degradation or conversion product from a pesticide when it is metabolised.

Multiple residues

In this report this term is used to describe when more than one pesticide is found in an individual food sample. It may have arisen because the crop was treated at different times with pesticides applied singularly, or when pesticides are applied as mixtures (several pesticides mixed in the spray tank at the same time) or the marketed pesticide product contains more than one pesticide or any combination of these three situations. Mixtures may be used in response to specific pest pressures and also as part of strategies to minimise pesticide resistance building up on pest populations. We consider the possible implications to health of more than one pesticide being found in samples (sometimes called the ‘cocktail effect’). Refer to ‘Multiple residues’ under HSE risk assessment methodology for further details.

NEDI

National Estimate of Daily Intake. An estimate of intake of pesticide in the diet over the long-term to compare to the ADI. The NEDI is based on median or mean residue levels and a high level consumption (97.5th percentile value) for the daily amounts of the food item consumed over the long-term. For further details on the calculation of NEDIs, refer to the Consumer Exposure section of the Data Requirements Handbook on the HSE Pesticide website. Here you will find information and further links.

NESTI

National Estimate of Short-Term Intake. An estimate of peak intake of pesticide in the diet to compare to the ARfD. The NESTI is based on the highest residue found multiplied by a variability factor and a high level consumption (97.5th percentile value) for the amount of the food item consumed over a single day. For further details on the calculation of NESTIs, refer to the Consumer Exposure section of the Data Requirements Handbook on the HSE Pesticide website. Here you will find information and further links.

Neurotoxicity

Neurotoxicity is the effect of substances (called neurotoxins) which alter the normal working of an animal’s nervous systems and/or damage the nervous tissue.

No observed adverse effect level (NOAEL)

The greatest concentration or amount of a substance, found by experiment or observation, which causes no detectable adverse alteration of morphology, functional capacity, growth, development or life span of the target organism under defined conditions of exposure.

Off label

See Extensions of Authorisations for Minor Use (EAMUs).

Origin

The brand name annex reports the origins of the samples tested. This can mean different things depending on the commodity. For example, butter is often labelled as ‘UK origin’; however, the majority of it comes in bulk from New Zealand and is split into smaller blocks and packaged in the UK. Lettuce is a fresh produce and ‘UK origin’ usually means that it has been grown and packaged in the UK. Processed commodities such as cereal bars often contain multiple raw ingredients, each of which may come from a different source/origin. Therefore, the origin of the produce usually reflects the place where it was manufactured. The PRiF report the origin as stated on the packaging or labelling of the commodity concerned, unless other more accurate information is available to indicate that the origin is from elsewhere. Some products are listed as ‘unknown origin’ because the labelling does not give this information.

Parent

The chemical form of a pesticide as applied to plants, as opposed to metabolites and breakdown products.

Percentile

A percentile is a value that divides a sample of measurements at a specific point when they are listed in ascending order of magnitude. For example, the 97.5th percentile from a food consumption survey is a value that is equal to or more than 97.5% of the measurements and equal to or less than 2.5% of the measurements. So, in a sample of 40 daily food consumption values, the 97.5th percentile is equal to or more than 39 of the measurements. Such high percentile estimates of food consumption are used in risk assessments as they are more protective than using average consumption levels.

Permitted level (PL)

The permitted levels (expressed as mg per kg), in specific commodities, of some substances which can be classified as pesticides but are controlled under the Miscellaneous Food Additives Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995 No. 3187).

Pesticide

A pesticide is any substance, preparation or organism prepared or used for destroying any pest. The majority of pesticides sought by the PRiF in its monitoring are those used to control pests in agricultural crops, although non-agricultural products may be included where there is a specific reason for doing so, for example, where there are implications in terms of possible intakes of residues.

Probabilistic modelling

The usual estimates of consumer exposure use single high values for both consumption amounts and residue levels. Whilst these are based on realistic UK dietary survey data and residue levels, they tend to overestimate most representative intakes. This is because they do not take into account actual variations in both amounts consumed and residue levels. Probabilistic modelling is a technique that considers all the possible different combinations of consumption and residue levels. This provides information on the probability of particular intakes occurring.

Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)

The European Commission’s Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) allows member authorities (EU and EFTA member States) to quickly exchange information about measures taken when responding to risks detected in food or feed. This exchange of information helps authorities in countries inside the European single market to act more rapidly and in a coordinated way in response to a possible health threats caused by food or feed.

RASFFs notifications about pesticide residues are sent when a residue is over the MRL taking into account measurement uncertainty and a potential consumer risk has been identified. For pesticide residues in food traded in the single market this means when a risk assessment has identified that risk to people eating the food cannot be ruled out.

More information is available on the European Commission website at RASFF - Food and Feed Safety Alerts.

Relationship between GAP and MRLs

The MRL can be defined as the maximum concentration of a pesticide residue (expressed as mg per kg) likely to occur in or on food commodities and animal feeds, after the use of the pesticide according to the GAP.

Reporting limit

The reporting limit is the lowest level at which residues will be reported by a laboratory for a survey, as agreed in advance with the laboratory. It can be equal to or higher than the limit of quantification (sometimes also referred to as the limit of determination). The limit of quantification is the lowest concentration that has been validated to meet strict acceptance criteria and may vary slightly from laboratory to laboratory depending on the equipment available and operating procedures used. The reporting limit should be at or below the MRL. For a small number of pesticides for example, monocrotophos, we are looking for the pesticide below the LOD MRL because we are specifically interested in prevalence in food due to the nature of the pesticide. In such cases, tests are performed in the laboratory to support the lower reporting limits by validating the method at lower limits. ‘None were detected above the set RL’: This term is used in the Brand Name Annex, where no residues were found above their reporting limit.

Residue

Residues may be present in vegetable and animal products following the application(s) of a pesticide(s). They may not only include the pesticide that was applied but other degradation or reaction products and metabolites that may be of toxicological significance. The levels or amounts of residues present are expressed in milligrams of the chemical in a kilogram of crop or food or commodity (mg per kg), or parts per million.

Risk assessment

A risk assessment is carried out when residues are found in foods to determine whether, at the levels found, they present a concern for consumer health or not. Consumer risk assessments are routinely conducted as part of the approval process for pesticides and are based on residue trials. Approval of a pesticide is only recommended when the consumer risk is acceptable.

Safety factor

Values used in extrapolation from experimental studies in animals (usually 100) or humans (usually 10) to the population: for PRiF assessments this represents a value by which the NOAEL is divided to derive an ADI or ARfD. The value depends on the nature of the effect, the dose-response relationship, and the quality of the toxicological information available. The use of such a factor accounts for possible differences in susceptibility between the animal species tested and humans, and for variation between different individuals in the population. The terms ‘uncertainty factor’ and ‘assessment factor’ are also sometimes used for this factor; the PRiF will use ‘safety factor’.

Sample

The nature of all samples is as designated in the EC’s ‘sampling’ Directive 2002/63/EC. Examples are: apple, at least 10 apples weighing at least 1 kg; grapes, at least 5 bunches, weighing at least 2 kg.

Variability factor

A value that describes the variation in residue levels between the highest unit level and the average level in samples made up of many units. Internationally this is agreed to be the 97.5th percentile unit residue level divided by the average of the sum. The variability factor multiplied by the measured residue level from a composite sample (for example, a sample made up by mixing several units before analysis) gives an estimate of the likely higher residue levels that may have occurred in individual units. These estimated higher levels are used in short-term risk assessments involving fruit and vegetables where consumers eat only a portion of a single item, for example, melon, or a small number of units for example, apples and potatoes.

Cookies on GOV.UK

1. Introduction, results summary and actions taken by HSE

Chair’s comments

Consumer risk summary

Table 1a: Overview of the survey results for Q1 Great Britain with links to detailed information

Table 1b: Overview of the survey results for Q1 Northern Ireland with links to detailed information

Other issues

Suspected unauthorised uses

Organic samples with residues

Further information

Introduction to the work of the Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF)

UK National Monitoring Programmes

Table 2: 2024 Survey design

Fruit and vegetables

Animal products

Cereal products

Miscellaneous products

Sampling points

Reporting

Table 3a: Summary of results for Q1 Great Britain

Table 3b: Summary of results for Q1 Northern Ireland

Table 4: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q1 Great Britain

Beans with pods (GB)

Chilli peppers (GB)

Grapes (GB)

Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)

Action taken by HSE

Supplier responses

2. Findings by food in GB and UK detailed risk assessments

Summary

Aubergine (GB)

Samples tested

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Combined risk assessments

Additional comments by the PRiF

Banana (GB)

Samples tested

Banana (eating)

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Combined risk assessments

Additional Comments by the PRiF

Beans with pods (GB)

Samples tested

Dwarf beans

Fine beans

Green beans

Runner beans

Speciality beans

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Combined risk assessments

Additional Comments by the PRiF

Residues measured above the MRL

Beef (GB)

Samples tested

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Additional Comments by the PRiF

Beetroot (GB)

Samples tested

Cooked

Fresh

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Combined risk assessments

Additional Comments by the PRiF

Broccoli (GB)

Samples tested

Fresh

Frozen

Pesticide residues detected from those sought

Risk assessments

Combined risk assessments

Additional Comments by the PRiF

Chilli peppers (GB)

Samples tested

Chilli Peppers

Pesticide residues detected from those sought