Independent report

PRiF: annual report for 2024

Updated 18 September 2025

Chair’s foreword

The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF) is a Defra scientific advisory committee made up entirely of independent members committed to public service. Members have a wide range of expertise on issues relating to use of pesticides in agriculture and horticulture, pesticide residues, consumers and the food supply chain.

This is the thirteenth annual report from the PRiF. The main role of PRiF is to advise on the UK national surveillance programme for pesticide residues in food which is managed by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE), the statutory Competent Authority. In 2024, the HSE reported on 3,482 samples of food and drink in UK, that were tested for up to 419 different pesticide residues in any individual sample. Of the samples tested:

• 46.67 % of the samples contained residues at or below the Maximum Residue Level (MRL)
• 51.26 % of the samples contained none of the residues sought
• 2.07 % of the samples contained a residue over the MRL

Type of sample	Percentage of samples
Samples with residues at or below the Maximum Residue Level (MRL)	46.67%
Samples with residues above the MRL	2.07%
Samples with no residues	51.26%

The monitoring programme is not intended to be a fully random sample, as parts of the programme target foods and drinks where residues are expected to be found. Further, the methods and technology used for analysis are always evolving, meaning we can see reductions in the level at which the laboratories can detect residues.

2.07% of the samples contained a residue above the MRL set by law. In these cases, PRiF have sight of any official HSE investigation or correspondence with brand owners. We often discuss whether there are more widespread lessons that can be learned regarding best-practice management of residue risks. We provide expert agronomic and food supply chain knowledge to advise on why a residue finding may have occurred and provide advice on possible actions that could be taken by HSE to help prevent recurrence.

We want to be assured that residues are safe or that any risks are communicated to the public in a measured and understandable way. HSE conducts a screening risk assessment of all the residues found in the pesticide residues in food monitoring programme. If screening identifies any dietary intakes exceeding the relevant health-based reference values, then HSE presents more detailed risk assessments, to consider whether there are any implications for health. HSE will consider whether the residue may be of concern to a particular group of vulnerable consumers such as babies, toddlers and the elderly.

Detailed risk assessments, where needed, are presented in the quarterly reports. In 2024, even when a food contained a residue above the MRL, HSE in nearly all cases (except 3) concluded that a short-term effect on health would either be not expected or unlikely. This reflects a similar pattern to previous years.

Find all results of the pesticide monitoring programme. Results for beans (in pods), grapes and potatoes are published more frequently as part of a rolling programme. In addition, detailed results and sample details for the rolling and quarterly reports are published in an accessible, useable database on data.gov.uk.

Great Britain (GB) and Northern Ireland (NI) have separate legal requirements for testing of official samples and for compliance assessment of residues. The 2 programmes are therefore managed and reported separately within each quarterly report, using different laboratories to carry out the analytical testing.

The findings of the monitoring programme indicate that pesticide residues in the UK food supply are generally well controlled. We are reassured that HSE have assessed the consumer risks and presented detailed assessments where they are required. The findings have been discussed with the committee and published in HSE’s Quarterly Reports.

Find more information about the pesticide residues in food monitoring programme. Please contact us if you have any comments: prif@hse.gov.uk

Ann Davison – PRiF Chair

The bigger picture

People are concerned about health, the environment and how food is produced. Pesticides used in an incorrect way or in the wrong amounts can harm people, wildlife and the environment, so they must be handled with care. Pesticides can only be used in UK agriculture if they are used in line with the laws and guidance controlling their use.

Regulating pesticides is a complicated area and there are a number of different organisations involved. On behalf of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the devolved governments, HSE authorises and controls pesticides for use in the UK, as well as monitoring pesticide residues in the UK food supply no matter where the food was produced. The FSA has overall responsibility for food safety.

When residues occur in food they usually come from pesticides being used on crops. To work effectively, pesticides must be used in the correct amounts and at the right time. The amount of residue in a food is dependent on:

• how much pesticide was used
• when it was applied in relation to harvest date
• how it is metabolised by plants and animals
• how it breaks down in the environment

In addition to this, residues can sometimes be due to contamination (small amounts of pesticide that remain in the environment after legitimate use). Due to significant technical improvements in laboratory analysis, HSE have the capability to detect increasingly low levels of residues. So, it is possible that, as methods become more sensitive, more residues may be found.

Role of the committee

PRiF members are appointed by Defra to advise Defra, the NI Executive, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government, HSE and the FSA on a monitoring programme that checks food and drink in the UK for traces of pesticide residues.

The PRiF, as an independent body of experts, advises the government on the monitoring programme. One of the purposes of the programme is to check whether residues found in food and drink are above the MRLs set by law.

Our full Terms of Reference are in Annex 1, but much of our work falls into the following broad remits:

• advice to HSE on the strategy and scope of the UK annual pesticide residues monitoring scheme
• detailed insight and advice on specific issues related to sampling plans or test results
• clear communication of the results

The PRiF does not:

• advise whether pesticides should be approved for use or withdrawn from the market
• set government policy on pesticides
• take account of or assess the impact of pesticides on the environment
• promote or limit the use of pesticides

We support the programme by advising on sample collection and analytical work, considering the overall findings and, where relevant, considering individual results.

Our engagement helps to provide wider assurance on the robustness and utility of the sampling programme, investigation, consideration and communication of the findings. We continue to support all changes that help improve the accessibility and ease of access to the results, while considering how this can be managed to meet the needs of all stakeholders.

We support the government’s aim of being transparent about their work and publishing the results, including brand names, where samples were obtained and, where possible, who produced them. Like many organisations, we now rely more on using online tools to carry out our meetings and to communicate. The committee continues to review the stakeholder landscape to assist full reach. We have provided contacts with sector-specific associations or user groups so that HSE can present best-practice and learnings from investigating non-compliant samples.

The PRiF is part of a wider network of independent scientific advisory committees (SACs), both within Defra and across government. As part of our work we ensure we remain aware of and actively involved in wider issues facing the regulatory and food system. Our chair, Ann Davison, attends and contributes to the annual meeting of Defra’s advisory committees. This meeting is chaired by Defra’s Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) and provides a useful forum for chairs to discuss cross-cutting issues and areas for collaboration.

The committee is particularly interested in identifying areas for collaboration and cross-committee working. We will continue to work closely with the CSA’s office and the network of Defra SACs to ensure we are able to support and advise government as required.

The work of the PRiF: supporting the monitoring of pesticide residues in food

The purpose of monitoring

Pesticides can only be used in the UK if they are authorised. This authorisation will include conditions on how the product is used such as restrictions on the crops it may be used on, rates and timing, and farming practices. Authorisation is only granted if there is a clear need (a specific pest or disease pressure). The same approach is used in most countries in the world. Certain pesticides may only be authorised in individual countries as the crop, the weed, pest or disease only occurs in that country.

The factors that make up the conditions of use such as the prescribed dilutions, application rates and harvest intervals are known as good agricultural practice (GAP). MRLs are a legal limit set at the highest level we would expect to see if a product is used in line with GAP. 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.

Residues at the MRL must not cause concern for consumer health but the primary purpose of MRLs is to confirm compliance with GAP. For that reason, even if HSE finds residues above the MRL, this does not necessarily mean that there will be the possibility of adverse health effects. It is more often an indication that the agricultural practice needs to be investigated and improved. PRiF can advise government on this.

Post-authorisation surveillance is important, to ensure that conditions of pesticide use are followed and there are no unexpected adverse consequences of use. Surveillance includes multiple aspects and, alongside wildlife and environmental incident reporting, one of the most important aspects is the UK annual pesticide residues monitoring scheme.

Planning the scheme

Our monitoring sub-group meets each year to advise HSE on planning the subsequent year’s programme. We provide HSE with our expert advice on the food chain and highlight emerging trends that we feel may be relevant when selecting which food commodities are selected for monitoring. The sub-group can also advise that HSE consider possible changes and improvements to the operation of the monitoring programme.

Food commodities are selected for inclusion in the scheme on the basis of a risk score developed with PRiF support. It includes factors such as historic non-compliance rates, alerts from other jurisdictions and sampling schemes, dietary significance and confidence in other, recent, monitoring data. Much of our advice in this area is focused on typical agronomic practices in the UK and changes to the food supply chain that may impact the relevant priorities of each commodity.

Once food commodities are selected for inclusion, the planned samples are distributed by sampling point (for example, retail or wholesale), product type (for example, fresh, frozen) season, and geographic region. The intent is to reflect general buying patterns, and to be cost effective by focusing on specific areas where non-compliance might be more likely.

Members continued to provide HSE with detailed advice on identifying the type of products unlikely to have been grown and frozen in the UK. For example, sometimes surplus British fruit is directed into the frozen food chain. However, many frozen foods which are labelled as ‘UK’ are in practice packaged or processed here but actually grown outside the UK. This is important in understanding why certain residues have been found and identifying whether there has been unauthorised use of pesticides within the UK. We discussed HSE guidance to highlight which frozen samples are likely to have actually been grown in the UK.

The UK monitoring scheme also includes residues from pesticides, such as DDT , which have been withdrawn from use, sometimes many years ago. Residues continue to be detected which are far more likely due to environmental persistence than from the recent use of pesticides. We take care to check that this is so when DDT residues are found. The levels found in 2024, were all in the form of the DDE metabolite, which indicates historical use. HSE’s assessment of these residues indicate that the levels detected would not be expected to have an effect on health, and overall are consistent with the continued decline of this pesticide in the environment.

The UK monitoring also includes residues of chemicals which, although regulated as pesticides, often due to historic use, have far more common uses for other purposes. An example is biocides (for example, surface disinfectants) which may be essential to the safe production of food. This was discussed in more depth in our 2022 annual report (page 8). We take care to highlight in the quarterly reports when we think the source of a residue is not related to the use of a pesticide.

Assessing results

The PRiF provides advice to HSE on their quarterly reports prior to publication. We do this with respect to both individual results and the overall clarity of communication. We are reassured by HSE’s thorough and robust risk assessments of all the results. In each case of a breach of health-based guidance values they published detailed rationale to support their conclusions. We also advise on how the conclusions and rationale could be phrased in plain English. We advise on seasonality and how crops and pesticide use will have been affected by weather patterns, length of the growing season, irrigation and harvest times, which can help to explain why residues might have occurred.

In the event of non-compliant residues, HSE will notify the brand-owner and ask them to provide an explanation. It is important to remember that these investigations are retrospective. The aim of surveillance programmes is to find general learnings and improvements to residue management systems, not to control the sale of specific food batches. HSE provides an overview of any responses received together with their summary of the follow up action taken. PRiF advice can be sought as required. This examination of the suppliers responses and corrective actions is important to ensure that best practice is shared within the industry.

Test methods

One of PRiF’s remits is, when appropriate, to advise on testing methods. Testing is a specialist field, and members commented that they would like a more detailed annual update on any changes in analytical methods. HSE will be providing updates on new analytes added to the suite for 2025.

2 GB based official laboratories undertake pesticide residue testing on behalf of HSE for samples collected in GB, Fera Science Ltd and Science and Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA). NI samples for the first part of 2024 were tested by these 2 GB laboratories and the official laboratories for NI, Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI). In the final part of the year, the Department for Agriculture Food and the Marine laboratory (DAFM) in the Republic of Ireland. Technical advice is provided at our meetings by Fera (as National Reference laboratory) and by the official government representatives present who undertake work at SASA and AFBI.

The analytical profile of residues, including metabolites as well as the applied active substance, can sometimes affect the diagnosis of the likely pesticide product used and also the residues’ risk assessment. This, in turn, is driven by the test method used. An example is carbendazim, benomyl and thiophanate methyl. These are chemically-related pesticides and benomyl and thiophanate-methyl are metabolised in crops to carbendazim and depending on the analytical method used can convert to carbendazim during the analytical test procedure. Members checked how particular risk assessments take into account the possible conversion of residues during cooking.

The official laboratory representative noted their testing methodology was designed to minimise interconversion. It was further noted that the risk assessment takes into account the specific level of residues of related components and the health-based guidance values which in this case differ for the individual components. Even though a finding of carbendazim with thiophanate methyl in the same sample is not likely to arise from more than one pesticide application (since carbendazim is the metabolite of thiophanate methyl) HSE have assessed the potential for health impacts based on the co-occurrence of these components together. For a yam sample containing 0.2 mg per kg carbendazim and 0.3 mg per kg thiophanate methyl, no adverse health impacts were anticipated.

Spotlight: examples of specific issues

Combined residues

There are different reasons why a sample may contain more than one residue. It may be because the batch of food has been aggregated from multiple small producers (as is common with dried fruit or rice), each of whom used a different pesticide treatment. It may be the consequence of agricultural practice to achieve effective control of different disease or pest pressures, rotating pesticides used on a single crop over a season to avoid the risk of resistance. Some products used to treat crops contain more than one active substance. Or it may be an indicator of poor practice and the over-use of pesticides.

There has always been a public concern that multiple residues combine to cause a risk which is more than when the focus is on individual pesticides. In generic terms there is little evidence to support that multiple residues pose risk of exceedance of safety thresholds which are designed to address cumulative risks. Read about how HSE carry out their different risk assessments, including where there are multiple residues. There are specific cases, though, where combined effects are possible and the combined risk of residues needs to be assessed. These risk assessments can be technically complex. PRiF advises on the communication of the conclusions of combined risk assessments, so that they are understandable by the lay reader but also have enough supporting technical detail to allow critical review by interested specialists.

HSE considers combined residues with similar effects to see if they, together, may exceed safety levels. A screening assessment is carried out to assess the risks posed by the co-occurrence of these residues in the same sample . If they do pose possible risks, then this triggers a more formal structured risk assessment. If they do not, HSE take no further action. Most cases in 2024 warranted no further action. For example, 2 types of triazole residues were found in olive oil and in grapes. These were types of triazoles that would not pose a short-term (acute) risk in combination in a sample, but their co-occurrence could theoretically pose a chronic risk, over the longer term. Due to the low frequency of detections, and the relatively low levels of detection, HSE found chronic combined exposure not to be a concern. So there wasn’t a need to present a detailed written risk assessment. The sum of the total intakes of the related pesticides would be expected to be within acceptable daily intakes if eaten over a consumer’s entire lifespan.

The quarterly reports provide detail on the cases where HSE has needed to examine combinations of residues in detail, with the technical rationale published as an Annex. These checks ruled out the need for a full combined assessment in most cases in 2024.

Residues which, whilst legal, require detailed risk assessment

The concept of a legal residue still warranting a risk assessment can be difficult to communicate, and this communication is another area where PRiF advises. 

The purpose of MRLs is to enforce GAP so MRLs are not, in themselves, safety limits but they are checked before being set to ensure they are acceptable from a consumer risk perspective. MRLs are set periodically, and it could be that the risk assessment done at the time the MRL was set differs from the risk assessment done by HSE for the PRiF report. For example, where subsequent scientific evidence revises the consensus safety level (the toxicological reference value) downwards, then residues below the MRL may need to be considered in more detail. Where needed, HSE might already be in the process of conducting a review of the MRLs to account for the new scientific data or information that has been made available.

The risk assessment conclusion for a specific residue will depend on the toxicological reference value underpinning the assessment as well as a complexity of other factors (such as assumptions whether the peel of a fruit normally considered ‘inedible’ is eaten).

PRiF advises HSE on clarity and transparency in communicating their rationale for conducting the risk assessment, the toxicological reference values and dietary assumptions used, and the conclusions.

Mushrooms

Residues of growth regulators used in cereals crops are sometimes found in mushrooms, as mushroom compost is partly made up from cereal straw. Such residues are considered carefully, and sometimes there may be residues of cereal growth regulators found together (which are similar compounds). Due to the nature of the growth regulator and the low levels found, they are rarely considered to be a risk.

PRiF often comments in the reporting about how and why these cereal growth regulators are found and explains about the risk assessment process.

Work of the PRiF in 2024

Changing regulatory landscapes

PRiF was constituted from the roots of a previous committee, the Working Party on Pesticide Residues (WPPR). The 1999 WPPR report noted that they reported to the ‘Advisory Committee on Pesticides (ACP), Inter Departmental Secretariat (IDS), the Food Advisory Committee (FAC) and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF).’

Virtually all the bodies noted in that 1999 report have been superseded, the PRiF now carries out the work once undertaken by the WPPR, the Expert Committee on Pesticides (ECP) has replaced the ACP and the MAFF was replaced by Defra and the Food Standards Agency. Food safety in Scotland and NI is now a devolved responsibility. GB residues surveillance no longer falls within a statutory European Union framework. Furthermore, HSE’s Chemical Regulation Division has taken on the work of regulating plant protection products from MAFF’s Pesticide Safety Directorate.

Despite the range of administrative changes in the past 2 decades the basic principle of our work to support and advise the government on the monitoring of pesticide residues remains the same. Further, like the WPPR, to effectively carry out this work we need to co-operate with a range of other committees and ensure strong working relationships with our sponsoring departments.

In support of this we were pleased to welcome the ECP chair, Mr J Clarke, to our May meeting and for our chair to attend the ECP’s July meeting. We discussed the monitoring of non-traditional plant protection products. Our committees provide independent, impartial advice to the government on different stages of the regulatory system, with the ECP’s work primarily focused on the pre-approval stage and ours on post-approval monitoring. By combining the experience and expertise present on each committee we hope to help develop the role and impact of independent experts in the regulatory system and promote a more holistic approach to how we consider and advise the government.

Reflecting and looking forward

In February 2024, HSE held a workshop with Defra, the devolved government, FSA and ourselves to review the Committee’s ways of working and ensure that the advice we give meets the government’s needs. As a committee we work to the Code of Practice for SACs and Councils which is issued by the Government Office for Science. One recent development was the encouragement for committees to create a way of working document. This provided us a useful chance to not only codify the procedures of the committee but also to review and rationalise. It is important we undertake periodic review like this so that to ensure we a working in a manner that is objective, accountable and open in-line with the Nolan Principles. We highlighted independence, the role of public interest members, working together and the support given to public and stakeholder understanding.

We further wanted to take a more proactive approach to how we engage with a wider range of less central issues that sometimes get squeezed from the agenda. In 2024 we began to set apart a small amount of time in each meeting for a more open and impromptu discussion on horizon scanning. This allows for members to informally raise issues and discuss whether it is something that could be relevant to the committee and government officials. For example, we discussed the latest research into gut flora.

These changes help ensure the PRiF is accountable and effective in delivering our mandate to support the residue monitoring programme. We will continue to innovate and challenge ourselves to identify areas for improvement going forward.

Horizon scanning examples

The committee discussed how the prevalence of pests could change with the climate. We noted Defra’s ‘UK Food Security Report’ which monitors relevant trends and information relating to food security, including climate change and pesticide issues.

Members discussed out of date and no longer approved pesticides being held by growers and the mechanisms for safe disposal. We noted the industry led schemes in place to support farmers and other growers, including through the water companies. Members advised that they would support greater use of amnesty schemes.

Members discussed what support is given in the follow up to any adverse findings in imported food from developing countries. When results are flagged the relevant product and country of origin will be noted by FSA as part of their considerations for regulatory action. Defra reported to the Committee on the government’s work on integrated pest management and phyto-sanitary capacity building in developing countries and how that relates to the work of the committee and HSE.

Annex 1

Terms of Reference

Purpose of the committee

1. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (the committee) is established to provide independent scientific advice on the planning and operational delivery of surveillance programmes for pesticide residues in the UK food supply in both Great Britain (GB) and Northern Ireland (NI).

2. The committee shall provide advice and views to the ministers listed below on any matter within its remit, either in response to a request or at the committee’s initiative. The committee will normally provide its advice to the assessors (provided for in paragraph 13 below) but may provide advice directly to all or any of the following ministers (referred to collectively in this document as ‘the ministers’): the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers and the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland.

Role of the committee

3. The lead Defra minister will set the Terms of Reference for the committee with the consent of the ministers. Any proposal to vary these terms of reference or abolish the committee would also be subject to agreement by all the ministers. In all these cases the committee itself will be consulted: the ministers will ultimately set the terms of reference of the committee, while the committee will determine its ways of working, adhering to the requirements in these terms of reference and code of practice.

4. The ministers may receive: strategic work plans for particular areas of on-going work, reports and advice and periodic reviews of the committee’s functions, public benefits and value for money.

5. The committee will, as appropriate and within its remit:

• provide 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 – a sub-group may be established to assist with development of this work
• provide advice on 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
• provide advice on 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
• provide advice to government on any industry, academic or other developments relevant to effective operation of government monitoring programmes for pesticide residues in food
• provide advice on any guidance relevant to effective operation of government monitoring programmes for pesticides residues in food
• provide advice on any work to develop the evidence base relevant to effective operation of government monitoring programmes for pesticide residues in food
• produce an annual report in accordance with guidance in the code of practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.
• provide advice on any other issue as requested by government relating to pesticide residues in food
• help the response to emergency situations by providing expert advice and opinion

6. The committee will provide independent advice and operate in line with the Principles of Scientific Advice to government and the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees.

7. The committee will make its scientific advice and views available to the public and other interested parties in a way which aims to be comprehensive, clear and timely.

8. Defra’s Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) will maintain an oversight of the work of the committee and will meet regularly with its chair.

Appointments and conduct of Members

9. The chair and the members of the committee are independent appointments made through open competition, in line with the Governance Code on public appointments. Appointments are made by the Senior Responsible Owner within Defra in agreement with: Department for Work and Pensions; Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland; The Food Standards Agency, Scottish Government; and the Welsh Government. These bodies will also agree the plans for each recruitment exercise.

10. Members are expected to act in accordance with the Seven ‘Nolan’ Principles of Public Life.

Working groups and additional expertise

11. Subject to the availability of funds, the committee may establish groups to support aspects of its work and bring in additional expertise (from the UK or abroad) to advise on specific issues.

Advisers

12. Advisers are officials, from any of the UK governments, with specialist expertise who can advise the committee. At the time of preparation of these Terms of Reference, advisers are drawn from Defra, the Food Standards Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and the National Reference Laboratory. Any future additions to this list will be arranged by agreement between the Committee and the relevant department or body. Advisers shall receive the meeting documents at the same time as committee members and have the right to attend committee meetings. They will contribute to discussions when invited to do so.

Assessors

13. Each of the following appoints one of their officials as an assessor: Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Food Standards Agency; Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for Northern Ireland; Scottish Government; and the Welsh Government. Assessors receive and respond to the advice and views supplied by the committee to their ministers. Where appropriate they are responsible for seeking the views of their minister on the advice from the committee. Assessors shall receive the meeting documents at the same time as committee members and have the right to attend committee meetings. They will contribute to discussions when invited to do so.

Code of Practice

Introduction

1. The committee is bound by the Government Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees (CoPSAC), which is itself underpinned by the Principles of Scientific Advice to Government and the Universal Ethical Code – Rigour, Respect and Responsibility which is a statement of the values and responsibilities of scientists. However, against this general background – it is good practice to set out specific elements of a bespoke code of practice for the committee. This code of practice therefore sets out the standards that members are expected to adhere to, the governance of committee business, and various other administrative and practical arrangements. It is important to note that the PRiF CoP supplements and highlights the key requirements of CoPSAC as relevant to the PRiF – however it is not exhaustively reproduced, even though it applies in full.

Role and purpose

2. The UK Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food is an expert scientific committee for Defra and the devolved governments. Its terms of reference are set out in Annex 1.

3. The committee is comprised of: a chair and members. Departmental assessors, advisors and a secretariat attend the meetings. It may be assisted in its activities by expert panels and/or short-life working groups working to clearly-defined terms of reference and procedures, with membership drawn from the committee. Relevant advisers may be co-opted on a specified short-term basis to the committee expert panel or short-life working group.

Standards for members

4. Members will at all times:

• observe the highest standards of impartiality, integrity and objectivity in relation to the advice they provide and the management of this body
• be accountable to the sponsoring departments listed in the terms of reference, for its activities and for the standard of advice it provides
• follow the Seven Principles of Public Life
• comply with this code and ensure they understand their duties, rights and responsibilities and that they are familiar with the function and role of this body and any relevant statements of government policy
• not misuse information gained in the course of their public service for personal gain or political purpose, nor seek to use the opportunity of public service to promote their private interests or those of connected persons, firms, businesses or other organisations, and
• not hold any paid or high-profile unpaid posts in a political party, and not engage in specific political activities on matters directly affecting the work of this body. When engaging in other political activities, members should be conscious of their public role and exercise proper discretion

Governance of committee business

Expertise of members

5. Members are appointed for their personal, scientific expertise, or experience they can bring as a lay member and for the relevance of that expertise to the committee’s remit and work programme. The expertise which members bring to bear on committee business will be recorded in the committee’s annual reports.

6. Whilst on the committee, members must ensure they remain up to date in their area of expertise to ensure the committee is made aware of all relevant information to form their advice to ministers/governments.

7. If the chair of the committee, expert panel or short-life working group decides they do not have access to appropriate expertise to consider a specific issue, relevant advisers may be co-opted on a specified short-term basis to the committee, panel or group. These advisers must be invited in writing and their role specified. They shall be subject to this code including compliance with conflicts of interest requirements, expectations and standards of members, any non-disclosure agreements and all administrative processes.

8. Co-opting expert advice from existing committees that provide advice to other government departments and agencies such as the Food Standards Agency, UK Health Security Agency or their devolved equivalents, and others), the Defra and devolved governments network of evidence experts, or approved registers, is encouraged in the first instance. However, this should not prevent the committee considering all options, including but not limited to industry and research, academia, consultant experts.

Handling conflicts of interests

9. Members must not be influenced, nor appear to be influenced, by their private interests in the exercise of their public duties. All members should therefore declare any personal or business interest which may, or may be perceived (by a reasonable member of the public) to, influence their judgement. This should include, but not be confined to, personal direct and indirect pecuniary interests (further guidance is contained in Annex 2). It should normally also include, such interests of close family members (a Member’s partner or immediate family member who is a dependent of the Member (or of whom the Member is a dependent)), friends and/or acquaintances and of people living in the same household. Details on types of interests are contained in Annex 2. In case of doubt, a conflict of interest should be declared.

10. On appointment members of the committee should inform the secretariat in writing of their current interests. Members should inform the secretariat of any change in their interests. They will be asked to declare relevant interests on an annual basis.

11. A declaration of any interest should also be made at any committee meeting if it relates specifically to a particular issue under consideration, for recording in the minutes of the meeting. Members should not participate in the discussion or determination of matters in which they have an interest, and should normally withdraw from the meeting (even if held in public) if their interest is direct and pecuniary, or their interest is covered in specific guidance issued by this body or the sponsor departments which required them to withdraw from the discussion or meeting.

12. Whenever an individual’s circumstances change in a way which affects their interests, a further declaration should be made before the member’s next involvement with committee work to reflect the change in circumstances (this could involve a conflict ceasing to exist or a new one materialising). The secretariat will maintain and publish details of interests declared in committee annual reports, ensure potential conflicts of interest are identified to members and the chair during the course of the committee’s work, and record relevant details in notes of meetings (which will be published on the committee’s website).

What is expected of the Chair

13. The chair has particular responsibility for providing effective leadership. In addition, the chair is responsible for:

• ensuring that the committee meets at appropriate intervals, and that the records of meetings and any advice to ministers (normally via government assessors) accurately details the decisions taken and, where appropriate, the views of individual members
• ensuring that a full range of scientific opinion, including unorthodox and contrary scientific views are appropriately taken into account
• ensuring that any scientific diversity of opinion among members of the committee is fully explored and discussed and if it cannot be reconciled is accurately reflected in the minutes of the meeting
• ensuring that every member of the committee has the opportunity to be heard and that no view is ignored or overlooked, using, where appropriate, a structured process which ensures that all views are captured and explored
• ensuring that the committee works in accordance with its terms of reference
• adjudicating whether members (including co-opted members) have a conflict of interest and where this arises what the member’s role should be in the committee’s deliberations
• participating in the process for the recruitment of committee members
• engaging with the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser and scientific advisors in the DAs if appropriate, and Defra Science Advisory Council
• representing the views of the committee to the general public, and
• ensuring the new members are briefed on appointment and providing an assessment of their performance, on request, when members are considered for reappointment to the committee or for appointment to some other public body

What is expected of Members

14. Members have collective responsibility for the operation of the committee. They should:

• engage fully in collective consideration of the issues, taking account of the full range of relevant factors, including guidance issued by the sponsor departments^{[footnote 1]} or the responsible ministers
• ensure the sponsor departments and their ministers receive the highest quality, timely advice
• consider whether the questions on which the committee offers advice are those which are of interest to (and understandable by) the public and other interested parties
• examine and challenge if necessary the assumptions on which scientific advice is formulated and ask for explanations of any scientific terms and concepts which are not clear
• ensure that the committee has the opportunity to consider contrary scientific views and where appropriate the concerns and values of stakeholders before advice is provided
• respond appropriately to complaints, if necessary with reference to the sponsor departments, and
• ensure that the committee works in accordance with its terms of reference

15. Members should not be circumscribed by the expertise or perspective they were asked to bring to the committee. Members should regard themselves as free to question or comment on the information provided or the views expressed by other members. If members believe the committee’s method of working is not rigorous or thorough enough they should raise this with the chair, deputy chair or secretariat. They have the right to ask that any remaining concerns be put on record.

16. Members are expected to consider the papers prepared before each meeting and formulate a view on items scheduled for discussion, as required. When there are very large or technically complex documents to review and summarise, the chair may appoint one or more rapporteurs, drawn from the members, for this purpose. Occasionally, sub-groups of members may be established to discuss specific issues and report back.

Other administrative and practical arrangements

Personal liability of members

17. Legal proceedings by a third party against individual committee members of advisory bodies are very exceptional. A member may be personally liable if they make a fraudulent or negligent statement which results in a loss to a third party, or may commit a breach of confidence under common law or criminal offence under insider dealing legislation, if they misuse information gained through their position.

18. However, the government has indicated that individual members who have acted honestly, reasonably, in good faith and without negligence will not have to meet out of their own personal resources, any personal civil liability which is incurred in execution or purported execution of their functions. Members who need further advice should consult the secretariat.

Engagement with Ministers

19. The committee’s purpose is to provide government with access to independent, impartial and expert advice, on request or otherwise. By adhering to the Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees, the committee will remain independent of ministers. Whilst most of the committee’s engagement will be with officials, it has the right, where appropriate, to submit advice directly to ministers.

20. Communication between the committee and ministers will generally be through the chair except where the members have agreed that an individual member should act on their behalf. Nevertheless, any member has the right of access to ministers on any matter that they believe raises important issues relating to their duties as a member. In such cases the agreement of the rest of the committee should normally be sought.

Engagement with Defra Chief Scientific Adviser and Defra Science Advisory Council

21. The committee comes under the purview of the Defra Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA), and through them, the Defra Science Advisory Council which supports the CSA in oversight of all Defra scientific committees, and in providing advice and challenge on the science underpinning Defra policies. This scrutiny and co-ordination of the Defra bodies providing science advice to the department ensures that Defra’s evidence programme meets the needs of the department.

Terms of appointment

22. Members are appointed in accordance with the Governance Code on Public Appointments. Terms of office will usually be for periods of 3 years and members may be reappointed for up to a further 2 terms. In accordance with the Code the total length of service on the committee should not exceed ten years.

23. Appointments may be terminated at a member’s request, or by the Senior Responsible Owner within Defra if members fail to perform as expected of them, with notice periods of not less than 3 months.

Financial arrangements

24. The chair and other members of the committee do not receive salaries. However, members are entitled to claim daily fees for the time they spend on committee business. This covers attendance at meetings, as well as time spent on other committee-related activities. All fees paid are taxable. members are expected to claim for a full daily rate for each meeting day.

25. Members are entitled to claim reimbursement for costs incurred in travelling (normally standard class) to and from meetings, including any necessary overnight stays, and for any necessary meals and refreshments covering the period of travel. All claims require supporting receipts, (for example for hotels, meals, rail tickets, taxis, car parking) which are verified by the secretariat. Financial information on the committee will be included in annual reports.

Meetings and formal provision of advice

26. The committee normally holds 4 meetings a year usually in closed session. In addition to committee members and the secretariat, attendance will usually include other officials from Defra, other government departments, devolved governments and national reference laboratory. Invited experts and speakers may also attend meetings.

27. The committee should promote virtual or hybrid meetings wherever possible, taking into account the importance of the meeting and the quality of discussion. It should also be noted that hybrid meetings can enable greater diversity of meetings, permitting access for individuals who may otherwise be unable to attend. Where virtual or hybrid meetings are not possible or are likely to have a considerable negative impact on the quality of discussion and/or output, the committee should seek to minimise the environmental impact of in-person meetings.

28. When the committee decides that it is appropriate to issue advice to ministers/government the secretariat shall prepare a draft for the chair. The chair will agree the final advice, consulting members where appropriate. The secretariat will distribute advice to departments and feedback responses to the committee.

29. When a difference of opinion arises between the advice provided by the committee and the minister/government, if required, the chair should seek to discuss the decision with the Senior Responsible Owner within Defra to ensure that the chair understands and accepts the basis upon which the final decision was taken. If after discussion, the chair still has reservations about the decision, resolution should be sought through engagement with the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA).

30. The committee should not seek unanimity at the risk of failing to recognise different views on a subject. These might be recorded as a range of views, possibly published as an addendum to the full minutes. However, any significant diversity of opinion among Members of the committee should be accurately reflected in the body of the full minutes.

31. Whilst achieving consensus should be an objective, where this is not possible the record should include the majority and the minority positions, explaining the differences and reasons for them. It is not necessary to name those holding majority or minority positions, unless the individuals holding those positions so request.

32. Once a position is established by the committee and conveyed to the secretariat and departments, members should support that decision and recognise their responsibility not to undermine the authority of the committee.

33. Although it is important that decisions are based on all the available evidence, sometimes advice has to be provided when there are serious gaps in the knowledge base and considerable uncertainty exists. Where this is the case the committee should use its judgement to decide what the best advice is, based on expert judgement and experience of advising on similar issues in the past and ensure that gaps in data and knowledge are carefully recorded.

34. In the event that urgent advice is required, it will fall to the chair to provide this initially.

National Emergency

35. In the event of the committee being required to provide advice to the government in a national emergency, the chair will be contacted in the first instance to identify the relevant Members required to provide the advice. A virtual meeting would be held with those members, the chair, secretariat and Defra within 48 hours. The discussion and advice will be detailed in a formal advice note which will be published on the committee’s website.

Information about the Committee and its work

36. Information about the committee and its work is published on the committee’s website. Agendas will normally be published prior to each meeting. Full minutes of each meeting will normally be published alongside the National Pesticide Residues in Food Monitoring report which was discussed in the meeting.

37. There may be limited circumstances where information is not made available such as draft documents which are still in the process of development, or which contain commercially sensitive information. Any decision to withhold such information is taken in line with the requirements of the relevant access to information legislation, including data protection rules.

Press Enquiries

38. Any member receiving a request from the press or other enquirers to comment on matters which fall within the committee’s remit should in the first instance contact the chair and secretariat. The chair and secretariat will determine whether a response is necessary and if so, whether it should be handled, in the first instance, by government/devolved government officials. If the response requires handling by the committee the chair and secretariat will identify the most suitable member to deal with the response. The secretariat will provide briefing, if required.

Secretariat

39. The secretariat is provided by the Health and Safety Executive and can be contacted by emailing prif@hse.gov.uk. The primary purpose of the secretariat is to support the work of the committee, with robust management and close planning of the committee’s timetable of work and working closely with HSE to provide information to the members in a timely manner. It is responsible for ensuring compliance with relevant codes and standards, for the good governance of committee business and for ensuring that the committee does not exceed its remit. The secretariat is also the normal channel for communication between the committee, departments and governments, and between the committee and other internal and external interests. It is responsible for delivering standard secretariat services, including – arranging and recording meetings, circulating papers, maintaining the committee website and register of members interests, publishing committee advice and annual reports, handling claims for fees and travel and subsistence from members, dealing with Freedom of Information requests pertaining to the committee, liaising with external interests who wish to attend meetings.

Annex 2

Members (as of 31 December 2024) and declarations of interest.

Chair

Ann Davison

Began her career at ‘Which?’ and has worked in consumer affairs and public service roles for most of her career, running consumer organisations and networks such as Foodaware: the Consumers’ Food Group. She won the UK Woman of Europe 2000 Award for outstanding voluntary service.

Ann has served as a consumer representative on a number of government committees including Defra Expert Panel on Air Quality Standards, the Adult Learning Committee of the Learning and Skills Council and the Food Standards Agency’s Advisory Committee on Animal Feeding Stuffs.

For nearly 6 years, she was Defra’s consumer adviser and ran its consumer representatives’ group. Ann co-founded the Fairtrade Foundation and chaired its Certification Committee for 11 years. 

Ann also chaired the World Development Movement, established the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue and chaired its Trade committee. She served 2 terms as President of External Relations on the EU Economic and Social Committee. 

Ann is Vice President and a trustee of the National Council of Women, and a member of the European Committee of the International Council of Women. She is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts. Ann volunteers in the world development charity sector, providing consumer insight and supporting research.

No interests declared.

Members

Dr Jonathan Blackman

Dr Jonathan Blackman is a graduate of Wye College, University of London and studied for a DPhil at the University of Sussex.

Jonathan has worked as an agronomist and technical manager in the horticultural industry for nearly 30 years, and before that worked as a Soil Scientist and Research Scientist for ADAS. He holds the BASIS (British Agrochemical Supply Industry Scheme) Diploma in Agronomy and his work involves advising growers of fruit, hops and ornamental crops and providing technical support to fellow horticultural agronomists working for H L Hutchinson Ltd.

In addition to growers, he has provided consultancy services to packers and industry bodies such as the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and the British Hop Association. He also sits on the board of several industry committees and represents his employer on the Agricultural Industry Confederation’s commercial horticulture group.

Personal interest

• Marks & Spencer shareholding

Current non-personal interests

• H L Hutchinson Ltd Technical Manager providing agronomic consultancy to growers and horticultural industry: consultancy includes sales of crop protection products, fertilisers and other inputs – aspects of role require regular contact with manufacturers and industry experts
• Marden Fruit Show Society – Trustee and Member of General Committee
• Hereford Hop Discussion Group - Secretary & Treasurer
• British Independent Fruit Growers Association - Associate Member
• British Hop Association - consultancy on crop protection issues
• Wye Fruit Limited - consultancy on crop protection issues

Ian Finlayson

Ian Finlayson has a BSc Hons in Horticulture from Bath University. He was involved in the creation of GAP standards for the Red Tractor Scheme in the UK and the international Global GAP standard during his 16 years as technical manager at Sainsbury’s Supermarkets.

Ian was chair of the Fairtrade Standards Committee, where he worked to promote social justice and relieve global poverty. He has also served as a director of Footprints4Food which provided cost-efficient carbon foot printing of agricultural products with the aim of reducing their impact on the environment.

He is currently managing director of Practical Solutions International which specialises in helping growers and suppliers work effectively with retailers in Europe. This has allowed him to gain extensive experience in Africa working with both small farmers and large export companies. 

Ian brings his experience from his time as technical director for World Flowers, Wealmoor, Produce World and One Living. He is an expert in a range of foods and cut flower supply chains. He has most recently been involved in a project funded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, supporting growers to switch from air to sea freight for Kenyan produce.

Personal interests

• Practical Solutions International Limited (PSI) – Director - consultancy in food safety Sustainability and ethical production, contracts include: running training courses for the food Industry on crop protection, technical consultancy and a short term project with an agrochemical company collating industry based prohibited lists

Dr Gill Hart

Dr Gill Hart is a PhD Biochemist with over 30 years’ experience in the development, validation and evaluation of diagnostic tests and testing services.

Gill started her career as senior biochemist at the Hammersmith Hospital, London and subsequently worked for research and development (R&D) companies responsible for the development and validation of unique diagnostic tests for both hospital and consumer use.

In 1999, Gill set up her own consultancy to service the needs of the clinical diagnostics industry and her work included the design and development of fertility tests for consumer (home) use. Gill joined leading consumer health and wellness company YorkTest Laboratories in 2005 and, as Scientific Director, has applied her scientific and regulatory knowledge to all YorkTest services. Gill has been instrumental in developing effective consumer led communications within this industry through a variety of different media, focussing on the transcription of scientific information to make it more accessible and comprehensible to the general public.

No interests declared.

John Points

John Points is an independent consultant, advising food retailers and producers on chemical and authenticity risk management, analytical testing, and interpretation of results. He also works on capacity-building projects for low- and middle-income countries who need to regulate and test food safety.

His previous career has been with Sainsbury’s, and at LGC one of the UK’s national reference laboratories, where he led the teams responsible for food, residues, consumer safety and workplace drugs testing. At Sainsbury’s, his role included management of residue monitoring programmes and follow up of results within the own-brand supply chain. 

He is an active member of the Institutive of Food Science and Technology’s Scientific Committee, the Society of Chemical Industry’s Food Interest Group, and the Royal Society of Chemistry’s Food Group.

Personal interests

• John Points Consulting Limited - Sole shareholder. Provides advice to UK food industry companies on testing and interpretation of results (including for pesticide residues), laboratories (including those involved in pesticide residues testing) on quality management systems, governments on laboratory testing and procurement.

• Food Authenticity Network – Secretary – Peripheral interest in pesticide residues in food, for example, if exposing fraud in Organic labelling claims or in counterfeit pesticide formulations
• Institute of Food Science & Technology – Trustee
• LGC Limited – Pension

Debbie Winstanley

Debbie Winstanley holds a BSc Hons in Agriculture from the University of Wales and is an Fellow of the Royal Agricultural Society and a Governor of Harper Adams Agricultural University.

Debbie sits on the steering group of the Allerton project, a charity which champions biodiversity and good farming practice in commercial agriculture. Debbie is a member of the steering group of Cambridge University Potato Growers Association, a charity that supports and guides the development and implementation of potato research.

Debbie’s extensive professional experience includes being a commercial farm agronomist for 20 years before working on potato agronomy at Cambridge University Farm. Debbie has also worked for Co-op Retail, where she worked with fresh produce suppliers and later Sainsbury’s. Here she was first the Product Technologist for potatoes and vegetables, and then the Company Agronomist, notably working on pesticide residue reduction. Most recently Debbie’s worked as UK Agronomist for PepsiCo where she continues to work part-time on research and development. Debbie provides agronomic support for a large farming business and technical support work for a small fertiliser supply business.

Personal interests

• PepsiCo – Consultancy – Focus on agronomic R&D and support for other projects
• industry training – Supporting training courses to develop knowledge of pesticide residues and how to manage them
• Sulphate Solutions LLP - Partner - providing technical support
• Strawsons Limited - structural agronomy support
• JSH Retirement Benefits Scheme – administered by professional pension trustees
• Rathbones Discretionary Managed Fund

Current non-personal interests

• Harper Adams Agricultural University – Governor
• Cambridge University Potato Growers Association (CUPGA) – Steering committee member – CUPGA is a charity that supports and guides the work of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany
• Allerton Trust – volunteer
• Fellow of the Royal Agricultural Society

The committee regularly reviews membership to ensure it has the right balance of expertise to meet the challenges it faces.

Annex 3

Fees and reimbursement

Members of the PRiF are not salaried staff but do receive a fee for attendance at meetings. They are not paid if they do not attend meetings.

Chair’s fees

Attendance fee £182.

Members’ fees

Attendance fee £146.

The chair and members also receive reimbursement of reasonable actual travel and subsistence when attending meetings. In 2024, the cost of member’s fees related to committee work and the cost of recruitment was around £6,000.

The PRiF is assisted in the committee by the following officials:

• Helen Ainsworth– Defra
• Dr Sadat Nawaz – National Reference Laboratory
• Katie Viezens – Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA) representing Scottish Government
• Dr Dermot Faulkner – Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI) representing Northern Irish Government
• Dr Rebecca Scrivens – HSE
• Helen Kyle – HSE
• Helena Cooke – HSE

PRiF Secretariat

Secretary – Rachel Merrick

Secretariat member – Ethan Clabby

Secretariat member – Lesley Debenham

PRiF Secretariat
Ground Floor
Mallard House
Kings Pool
York YO1 7PX
Email: prif@hse.gov.uk

Annex 4

Analytical Sub-group

The Analytical Sub-Group (ASG) reviews the results of analysis by the laboratories before they are sent to HSE, to ensure their reliability. The group provide regular updates on issues of interest to the PRiF at each of their meetings.

Most of the members of the group are from laboratories. The group members during 2024 were:

• Helen Kyle – HSE (Chair)
• Dr Sadat Nawaz – National Reference Laboratory (NRL) Representative
• Helen Barker – Fera Science Ltd
• Mark Kearney – Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBI)
• Laura Melton –SASA
• Emma Ingram – HSE
• Katrina Carter - HSE
• Helena Cooke - HSE

Communications Sub-group

The Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food’s Communications Sub-Group reviews all communications that the PRiF produces.

Most of the members are from the committee itself, the group members during 2024 were:

• John Points – PRiF Member (Chair)
• Ann Davison – PRiF Chair
• Dr Gill Hart – PRiF Member
• Debbie Winstanley – PRiF Member
• Helen Kyle – HSE
• Dr Rebecca Scrivens – HSE

1. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, The Scottish Government, The Welsh Government, The Food Standards Agency, The Department for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Northern Ireland, and The Department of Work and Pensions ↩