Research and analysis

Quarter 4 2024 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme

Updated 29 August 2025

1. Introduction, results summary and actions taken by HSE

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 4 programme for Great Britain (GB) surveyed 543 samples of 23 different foods (Table 1a GB in this report contains a full list). The samples were collected between the beginning of October and the end of December 2024. The Quarter 4 programme for Northern Ireland (NI) surveyed 228 samples of 23 different foods (Table 1b NI in this report contains a full list). The samples were collected between the beginning of October and the end of December 2024.

Of the 543 Q4 GB samples, we found residues in 250 of them and of these, 8 samples contained residues over the Maximum Residue Level (MRL). Of the 228 Q4 NI samples, we found residues in 109 of them and of these, 10 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 but 2 of these cases, we concluded that effects on health were either unlikely or not expected. In 2 sample combinations of acetamiprid in grapes and chlorpyrifos and potatoes we concluded that the consumer exposure levels observed here are undesirable but it is not possible to conclude if they may cause any adverse health effects. 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 beans with pods, grapefruit, grapes, limes and potatoes. We also needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos found in 3 samples (beans, lime, and potato). Chlorpyrifos is not authorised in the UK but can on occasions be found in some imported food. We concluded that at the levels present, a risk of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity would be low. 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 acceptable daily intake (ADI) or other established long-term health-based reference values.

Read the Pesticide Residues in Food reports for full analytical results, details of suppliers and retailers of the foods sampled, these are in 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 GB separately from those collected in 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 GB MRL statutory Register, implemented and updated by means of a database. For samples collected in NI, 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 in in the Sample details section sample details and supplier responses.

If you have any feedback or comments on the monitoring programme or the reports produced, please send them to HSE at prif@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 detailed 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 Q4 GB with links to detailed information

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

NI surveys that have an asterisk are a requirement of the EU Coordinated Programme required by Commission Implementing Regulations 2023/731.

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	20	No	0
Beans with pods (GB)	408	15	Yes	0
Beef (GB)*	116	18	No	0
Beetroot (GB)	382	18	No	0
Bread (GB)	411	59	No	0
Broccoli (GB)*	385	25	No	0
Chilli peppers (GB)	382	12	No	1
Eggs (GB)*	116	13	No	0
Fish (white) (GB)	112	24	No	0
Garlic (GB)	404	19	No	0
Ginger (GB)	405	13	No	0
Grapefruit (GB)*	386	19	Yes	0
Grapes (GB)*	417	19	Yes	2
Honey	406	48	No	0
Limes	407	12	Yes	2
Melon (GB)*	387	24	No	1
Milk (GB)	112	54	No	0
Mushrooms (GB)*	414	12	No	0
Peppers (sweet) (GB)*	413	25	No	1
Potatoes (GB)	410	30	No	0
Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)	407	33	No	1
Wheat flour (GB)*	417	13	No	0

Table 1b: Overview of the survey results for Q4 NI with links to detailed information

Survey title (where samples collected)	Number of pesticides sought	Samples tested	Detailed risk assessment presented?	MRL exceedances (samples)
Aubergine (NI)*	403	9	No	2
Banana (NI)*	403	9	No	0
Beans with pods (NI)	392	9	No	0
Beef (NI)*	43	6	No	0
Beetroot (NI)	392	9	No	0
Bread (NI)	402	12	No	0
Broccoli (NI)*	398	8	No	0
Chilli peppers (NI)	391	6	No	0
Eggs (NI)*	43	9	No	3
Fish (white) (NI)	38	9	No	0
Garlic (NI)	398	11	No	0
Grapefruit (NI)*	400	9	Yes	0
Grapes (NI)*	403	9	No	1
Infant food (cereal) (NI)*	403	12	No	0
Limes (NI)	391	7	No	0
Melon (NI)*	403	9	No	1
Milk (NI)	38	13	No	0
Mushrooms (NI)*	403	12	No	1
Olive oil (NI)*	398	12	No	0
Peppers (sweet) (NI)*	403	10	No	1
Potatoes (NI)	399	17	Yes	1
Sweet potatoes (NI)	392	9	No	0
Wheat flour (NI)*	405	12	No	0

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

Other issues

Suspected unauthorised uses

Details of possible unauthorised uses from previous surveys are provided in section 5 of this report.

Organic samples with residues

The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) 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:

• one Spanish sample of organic broccoli (GB) containing tri-allate
• one UK sample of organic wheat flour (GB) containing fosetyl-al (sum)
• one UK sample of organic eggs (NI) containing copper
• one Spanish sample of organic olive oil (NI) containing trifloxystrobin
• one UK sample of wheat flour (NI) containing chlormequat

HSE writes to Defra organics if samples of organic produce contain a pesticide residue which is permitted under retained organic regulation Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008:

• one UK sample of organic broccoli (GB) containing spinosad (sum)
• one Spanish sample of organic peppers (sweet) (GB) containing pyrethrins
• one Spanish sample of organic broccoli (NI) containing spinosad (sum)

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 GB and 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 on GOV.UK at Expert Committee on Pesticide Residues in Food (PRiF).

UK National Monitoring Programmes

The 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 Defra’s 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 NI 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 NI.

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 FSA 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 MRL.

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

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

NI surveys that have an asterisk are a requirement of the EU Coordinated Programme required by Commission Implementing Regulations 2023/731.

Table 2a: Fruit and vegetables

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

Table 2b: 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

Table 2c: 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

Table 2d: 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 in the  Pesticide Residues in Food reports.

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 is in the following categories:

• 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 NI are running behind the planned reporting schedule. The results will be published as soon as they are available.

Table 3a: Summary of results for Q4 GB

Food	Analysed	With residues at or below the MRL	With residues above the MRL	With residues of non-approved pesticides (UK only)	With multiple residues	Organic samples tested	Organic samples with residues
Aubergine (GB)	18	14	0	1	5	0	0
Banana (GB)	20	12	0	0	11	8	0
Beans with pods (GB)	15	10	0	0	6	0	0
Beef (GB)	18	0	0	0	0	1	0
Beetroot (GB)	18	1	0	0	0	3	0
Bread (GB)	59	59	0	0	25	0	0
Broccoli (GB)	25	16	0	0	9	6	2
Chilli peppers (GB)	12	10	1	0	6	0	0
Eggs (GB)	13	0	0	0	0	5	0
Fish (white) (GB)	24	3	0	0	0	0	0
Garlic (GB)	19	1	0	0	1	8	0
Ginger (GB)	13	1	0	0	0	1	0
Grapefruit (GB)	19	19	0	0	19	0	0
Grapes (GB)	19	15	2	0	17	2	0
Honey (GB)	48	1	0	0	0	18	0
Limes (GB)	12	8	2	0	10	0	0
Melon (GB)	24	17	1	0	14	0	0
Milk (GB)	54	0	0	0	0	19	0
Mushrooms (GB)	12	8	0	0	4	2	0
Peppers (sweet) (GB)	25	19	1	0	16	4	1
Potatoes (GB)	30	16	0	0	4	0	0
Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)	33	12	1	0	5	0	0
Wheat flour (GB)	13	8	0	0	3	6	1

Table 3b: Summary of results for Q4 NI

Food	Analysed	With residues at or below the MRL	With residues above the MRL	With residues of non- approved pesticides (UK only)	With multiple residues	Organic samples tested	Organic samples with residues
Aubergine (NI)	9	4	2	0	1	0	0
Banana (NI)	9	6	0	0	6	2	0
Beans with pods (NI)	9	5	0	0	4	0	0
Beef (NI)	6	0	0	0	0	0	0
Beetroot (NI)	9	0	0	0	0	5	0
Bread (NI)	12	8	0	0	3	0	0
Broccoli (NI)	8	4	0	0	0	3	1
Chilli peppers (NI)	6	4	0	0	1	0	0
Eggs (NI)	9	0	3	0	0	3	1
Fish (white) (NI)	9	3	0	0	0	0	0
Garlic (NI)	11	5	0	0	5	0	0
Grapefruit (NI)	9	9	0	0	9	0	0
Grapes (NI)	9	8	1	0	9	0	0
Infant food (cereal) (NI)	12	0	0	0	0	4	0
Limes (NI)	7	7	0	0	6	0	0
Melon (NI)	9	6	1	0	3	0	0
Milk (NI)	13	0	0	0	0	5	0
Mushrooms (NI)	12	10	1	0	6	0	0
Olive oil (NI)	12	4	0	0	0	1	1
Peppers (sweet) (NI)	10	8	1	0	3	1	0
Potatoes (NI)	17	8	1	0	3	4	0
Sweet potatoes (NI)	9	5	0	0	0	0	0
Wheat flour (NI)	12	5	0	0	1	3	1

Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB 

Some shorthand has been used in this table. The asterisk symbol ‘*’ means MRLs set at the limit of determination (LOD MRL). These MRLs are set at a default level, for example, at the LOD where analytical methods can reasonably detect the presence of the pesticide. Either insufficient trials data are available on which to set a MRL, 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 section 5 in this report.

Measurement uncertainty is explained in Quarterly reports on the pesticide residues monitoring programme: methodology, background and references.

Chilli peppers (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
5287/2024	Habanero Chillies	Rwanda	Profenofos	0.2	0.01*	Yes	No

Grapes (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
5398/2024	Sultana Grapes	Turkey	Acetamiprid	1.9	0.5	Yes	Yes
5673/2024	Green Sweet Globe Grapes	Greece	Nicotine	0.02	0.01*	No	Yes

Limes (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
3823/2024	Tahiti Limes	Brazil	Sulfoxaflor	0.02	0.01*	No	No
4012/2024	Tahiti Limes	Brazil	Chlorpyrifos	0.02	0.01*	No	Yes

Melon (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
2442/2024	Honeydew Melon	Brazil	Acephate	0.1	0.01*	Yes	No
2442/2024	Honeydew Melon	Brazil	methamidophos	0.02	0.01*	No	No

Peppers (sweet) (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
2266/2024	Wonderfully Wonky Peppers	UK	flonicamid (sum)	0.5	0.3	No	No

Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
5632/2024	Eddoes	Costa Rica	Fludioxonil	6.1	0.01*	Yes	No

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

Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI

Where processed goods have been tested, the MRL may be adjusted to take account of processing – see section 5 in this report.

Measurement uncertainty is explained in the quarterly reports on the pesticide residues monitoring programme.

Aubergine (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
3943/2024	Aubergine	the Netherlands	Chlorate	0.57	0.4	No	No
4271/2024	Aubergine	the Netherlands	Nicotine	0.018	0.01*	No	No

Eggs (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for   measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
3931/2024	Free Range chicken eggs	UK	Copper	3.1	2	No	No
3941/2024	Chicken eggs	UK	Copper	2.9	2	No	No
4276/2024	Large chicken eggs	UK	Copper	2.2	2	No	No

Grapes (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
2476/2024	Seedless Black Grapes	Brazil	Propargite	0.025	0.01*	Yes	No

Melon (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
2477/2024	Galia Melon	Brazil	Thiabendazole	0.03	0.01	Yes	No

Mushrooms (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
3955/2024	Baby Button Chestnut Mushrooms	Ireland	Metrafenone	0.81	0.5	No	No

Peppers (sweet) (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
2458/2024	Sweet Pointed Peppers	Spain	MCPA (sum)	0.077	0.05*	No	No

Potatoes (NI)

Sample ID	Food type	Country of origin	Pesticide detected	Residue detected (mg per kg)	MRL (mg per kg)	MRL exceedance after allowing for measurement uncertainty	Sent to FSA for consideration
4265/2024	Potatoes	Ireland	Chlorpyrifos	0.038	0.01*	Yes	Yes

Samples collected in GB must comply with GB set MRLs unless the goods are qualifying NI goods and are subject to unfettered access under the terms of the UK Internal Market Act for 2020. For samples collected in NI, 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.

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

Summary

For more information on the results, read the:

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

Aubergine (GB)

Samples tested

18 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues

Aubergines

• 2 samples came from the UK
• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 14 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 14 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Banana (GB)

Samples tested

20 samples were tested for up to 411 pesticide residues

Banana

• 20 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 8 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 12 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 of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Beans with pods (GB)

Samples tested

15 samples were tested for up to 408 pesticide residues

Fine beans

• 7 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

Speciality beans

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 5 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 10 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 sample of Fine beans that contained a residue of chlorpyrifos at a level of 0.009 mg per kg (below the level of the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg) where we wanted to assess whether there would be an effect on health.

Based on the HSE assessment of short-term risk for chlorpyrifos (see dietary intake assessments in this report), we conclude an effect on health is not expected.

As outlined in HSE’s full risk assessment (see dietary intake assessments in this report) in 2019 European Food Safety Authority issued a statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos which included a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). We conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. However, due to the low level of chlorpyrifos (only 0.009 mg per kg) in the Fine bean sample we consider risks of adverse health effects are low.

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

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 is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos in one fine bean sample at 0.009 mg per kg. This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity, but at the levels present, risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

Beef (GB)

Samples tested

18 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.

18 samples came from the UK.

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 of those sought

• 18 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• one sample was labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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

18 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Cooked

• 8 samples came from the UK
• 3 samples came from the EU

Fresh

• 5 samples came from the UK
• 2 samples came from the EU

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the 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 of those sought

• 17 samples contained no residues of those sought
• one sample contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 3 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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 considered it did not need to make any additional comments.

Bread (GB)

Samples tested

59 samples were tested for up to 411 pesticide residues.

Ordinary bread: other

• 2 samples came from the UK

Ordinary bread: white

• 29 samples came from the UK

Ordinary bread: wholemeal

• 11 samples came from the UK

Speciality bread: ciabatta

• one sample came from the UK

Speciality bread: garlic bread

• one sample came from the UK

Speciality bread: naan

• 3 samples came from the UK

Speciality bread: pitta (other)

• 3 samples came from the UK

Speciality bread: wraps (other)

• 8 samples came from the UK

Speciality bread: wraps (wholemeal)

• one sample came from the UK

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

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

HSE carried out a combined risk assessment of the relevant sample. We would not expect any of these combinations of pesticides in this sample to have an effect on health.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Broccoli (GB)

Samples tested

25 samples were tested for up to 385 pesticide residues.

Fresh

• 19 samples came from the UK
• 4 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 of those sought

• 9 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 16 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 6 samples were labelled as organic – 2 contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

Tri-allate was found in several samples. In 2021 HSE indicated that these residues are not occurring as a result of unauthorised use. Suppliers have been updated of the findings, but the residues are being considered as wider regulatory matter. It is thought possible that residues arise in some non-target crops grown in the vicinity of crops treated with tri-allate due to volatile transfer of residues. When findings were reported in the PRiF monitoring in 2021, HSE noted that there was some uncertainty in the data relating to possible genotoxicity of tri-allate residues. However, recently as part of ongoing MRL assessment work, HSE has considered new data on genotoxicity and concluded that tri-allate is not genotoxic. Therefore, for all the residue findings in this broccoli survey, HSE concludes that an effect on health is not expected.

Chilli peppers (GB)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 382 pesticide residues.

Chilli Peppers

• one sample came from the UK
• 5 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 6 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• one sample contained no residues of those sought
• 11 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in chilli peppers. Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Eggs (GB)

Samples tested

13 samples were tested for up to 116 pesticide residues.

Chicken

• 13 samples came from the UK

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 13 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 5 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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.

Fish (white) (GB)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.

Basa

• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU

Cod

• 3 samples came from the UK
• 11 samples were imported from outside the EU

Haddock

• one sample came from the UK

Hake

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Sea bass

• 4 samples were 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 (white) was caught or farmed. It could be where it was landed or processed or where it was packed for retail sale.

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 21 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

3 samples contained residues of DDT in the form of DDE which indicates presence in the environment from historical use. See issues arising in this report. See section 5 issues arising in this report.

Garlic (GB)

Samples tested

19 samples were tested for up to 404 pesticide residues

• 6 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 13 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 18 samples contained no residues of those sought
• one sample contained residues above the reporting limit

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL

• 8 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Ginger (GB)

Samples tested

13 samples were tested for up to 405 pesticide residues.

13 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 12 samples contained no residues of those sought
• one sample contained residues above the reporting limit

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL

• one sample was labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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 considered it did not need to make any additional comments.

Grapefruit (GB)

Samples tested

19 samples were tested for up to 386 pesticide residues.

Grapefruit

• 18 samples were imported from outside the EU
• one sample came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of 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.

The highest level of imazalil and thiabendazole, both at 2.2 mg per kg is lower than the level of imazalil (2.8 mg per kg) and thiabendazole (2.5 mg per kg) reported on the food page for Grapefruit NI. Therefore, refer to Grapefruit NI assessment. 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 in this report for full details of HSE’s assessment.

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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us for some samples of grapefruit containing residues of imazalil and thiabendazole. We are satisfied that HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst case form of assessment underpinning the conclusion presented.

Glufosinate ammonium is currently sought as part of this programme of work: Multi-annual GB control plan for pesticide residues.

Grapes (GB)

Samples tested

19 samples were tested for up to 417 pesticide residues.

• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 15 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 2 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 17 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• 2 samples contained residues above the MRL
• 2 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment there were 3 pesticides, nicotine, ethephon and acetamiprid where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail.

Refer to HSE full assessment of short-term risk for these pesticides. A summary is given below.

Nicotine – there was one sample of grapes which contained a residue of nicotine at a level of 0.02 mg per kg, above the level of the MRL at 0.01* mg per kg. The Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) in this case was derived based on a human clinical study. Based on the HSE assessment of short-term risk for nicotine, we conclude an effect on health is unlikely.

Ethephon – there were several samples of grapes containing ethephon. For all samples containing ethephon except the one with the highest residue in, an effect on health would not be expected. For the sample containing the highest residue at 0.9 mg per kg below the MRL of 1 mg per kg, HSE concluded that an effect on health is unlikely.

Acetamiprid – there were several samples of grapes containing acetamiprid. For most of these samples an effect on health would not be expected. 2 samples containing acetamiprid needed further consideration. For one sample containing a residue of 0.5 mg per kg (at the level of the MRL), an effect on health would be unlikely. In the second case, the highest residue of 1.9 mg per kg represented a high residue exceedance of the MRL of 0.5 mg per kg. HSE has presented a written risk assessment for this sample. There is a high exceedance of the ARfD (with the highest intake representing 464 percent of the ARfD (EU, 2018)), and the usual safety factor is significantly eroded (100 to a level of 21) which is undesirable. HSE considers that it is not possible to conclude, based on current knowledge, if the exposure level observed here may cause any adverse health effects after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of grapes containing the level found in this report.

Detailed risk assessments see Table 7c Grapes GB in this report.

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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment and conclusions with us for some samples of grape containing residues of nicotine and ethephon. PRiF noted that the risk assessment for nicotine had used human clinical trials rather than using data from animal studies. Taking this approach, we are content that HSE have undertaken a suitable assessment underpinning the conclusion presented.

We needed to consider one sample of grapes, from Turkey, which contained a high residue exceedance of acetamiprid, which is of concern. Steps were taken to withdraw any available stock from the market.

Detailed risk assessments see Table 7c Grapes GB in this report.

Also refer to the Grapes NI in this report.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 samples with residues above the MRL in Grapes. Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

HSE have passed details of the sample containing nicotine and the sample containing acetamiprid to FSA for further consideration. FSA raised an International Food Safety Authority network (INFOSAN) for the sample containing the residue acetamiprid requiring that where stock remains, it should be withdrawn from the market. No further risk management was required for the sample containing nicotine, Further details are in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Honey (GB)

Samples tested

48 samples were tested for up to 406 pesticide residues.

• 41 samples came from the UK
• 5 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 2 samples came from the EU

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

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 47 samples contained no residues of those sought
• one sample contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 18 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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 considered it did not need to make additional comments.

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 of those sought

• 2 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 10 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• 2 samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment there was one pesticide, chlorpyrifos where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail. The level detected was 0.02 mg per kg above the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg.

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 assessments in this report and should be consulted for the full assessment of risk.

As outlined in HSE’s full risk assessment (see dietary intake assessments in this report) in 2019 EFSA issued a statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos which included a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). We conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. Due to the low level of chlorpyrifos (only 0.02 mg per kg) in the lime sample we consider risks of adverse health effects are low.

Regarding short-term toxicity of chlorpyrifos, if the limes are consumed without the peel an effect on health is not expected. This is because it has been reported that only 2% of the residue of chlorpyrifos remains (EFSA, 2017) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled. 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 lime 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. One sample contained residues that are from pesticides which belong to a similar chemical group 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 which contained. chlorpyrifos at 0.02 mg per kg and malathion at 0.06 mg per kg. CRD’s combined risk assessment for this sample indicated that the presence of malathion does not significantly contribute to the overall combined intake when compared to the presence of chlorpyrifos alone. Additionally, at these residue intake levels, these pesticides together will not be expected to inhibit acetyl cholinesterase, the known common effect from exposure to these residues. Therefore, HSE concludes for this sample, as per the single substance assessment for chlorpyrifos in this sample explained above for the worst case form of the assessment (all the peel is consumed), that a short-term effect on health is unlikely. If the peel is removed before eating, a short-term effect on health is not expected.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us. We are satisfied that HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst case form of assessment underpinning the conclusion presented.

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos in one sample of lime at 0.02 mg per kg This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity, but at the levels present, risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low. The same sample also contained malathion. For this sample, HSE considers that the presence of malathion will have a minimal impact on the overall risk assessment. Even if all of the peel is consumed with the fruit, HSE concludes that a short-term effect on health would be unlikely.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 samples with residues above the MRL in limes. Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Melon (GB)

Samples tested

24 samples were tested for up to 387 pesticide residues.

Galia

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Honeydew

• 12 samples were imported from outside the EU

Piel de sapo

• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 2 samples came from the EU

Snowball

• one sample came from the EU

Watermelon

• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 6 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 18 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in melons. Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Milk (GB)

Samples tested

54 samples were tested for up to 112 pesticide residues.

Cows milk

• 49 samples came from the UK

Goats milk

• 5 samples came from the UK

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 54 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 19 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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

12 samples were tested for up to 414 pesticide residues.

Button

• 2 samples came from the UK

Chestnut

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

White

• 3 samples came from the UK
• 3 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 8 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 2 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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. Some of these residues are from pesticides which belong to similar chemical groups and may have similar toxicological effects. So, the risk assessors needed to consider their possible impacts on human health, both on their own and in combination.

HSE carried out 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 is in HSE risk assessment methodology.

Additional comments by the PRiF

Mepiquat and chlormequat residues below the MRL were found in several samples. The current MRL’s were established to take into account mepiquat and chlormequat residues from growing mediums containing straw from treated cereal crops. HSE are aware from discussion of previous surveys that manure from poultry farms containing straw could also be a source of mepiquat and chlormequat.

Peppers (sweet) (GB)

Samples tested

25 samples were tested for up to 413 pesticide residues.

Fresh

• 6 samples came from the UK
• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 17 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 5 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 20 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• 4 samples were labelled as organic – one contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in peppers (sweet). Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Potatoes (GB)

Samples tested

30 samples were tested for up to 410 pesticide residues.

30 samples came from the UK.

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 14 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 16 samples contained residues above the reporting limit

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL

• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Speciality vegetables (root) (GB)

Samples tested

33 samples were tested for up to 407 pesticide residues.

Cassava

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Celeriac

• 3 samples came from the UK

Daikon

• one sample was imported from outside the EU
• 5 samples came from the EU

Eddoes

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Fennel

• 3 samples came from the UK

Jerusalem artichoke

• one sample came from the UK

Kohlrabi

• one sample came from the UK
• 2 samples came from the EU

Radish

• 5 samples came from the UK
• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 3 samples came from the EU

Taro / Tarot

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Yam

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 20 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 13 samples contained residues above the reporting limit

• one sample contained residues above the MRL

• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected one residue above the MRL in speciality vegetables (root). Details are available in Table 4a: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 GB in this report.

Wheat flour (GB)

Samples tested

13 samples were tested for up to 417 pesticide residues.

Other wheat flour

• 13 samples came from the UK

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

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 5 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 8 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 6 samples were labelled as organic – one contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results and felt it did not need to make any additional comments

3. Findings by food in NI and risk assessments

Summary

For more information on the results, read the:

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

Aubergine (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 400 pesticide residues.

Aubergines

• 9 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 3 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 6 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

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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

Further information on chlorate residues can be found in section 5 of this report: Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 1 2025 report.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 2 residues above the MRL in aubergine. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report.

Banana (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 400 pesticide residues.

Bananas

• 9 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 3 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 6 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 2 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Beans with pods (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 389 pesticide residues.

Dwarf Beans

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Fine Beans

• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU

Green Beans

• 3 samples were imported from outside the EU

Runner Beans

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL

• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Beef (NI)

Samples tested

6 samples were tested for up to 43 pesticide residues.

Beef

• 6 samples came from the UK

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 of those sought

• 6 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

None.

Beetroot (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 389 pesticide residues.

Cooked

• one sample came from the UK

Fresh

• 3 samples came from the UK
• 5 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 of those sought

• 9 samples contained no residues of those sought

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL

• 5 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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.

Bread (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 397 pesticide residues.

Ordinary Bread: Other

• 2 samples came from the UK
• one sample came from the EU

Ordinary Bread: White

• 5 samples came from the UK

Ordinary Bread: Wholemeal

• 2 samples came from the UK

Speciality Bread: Other

• one sample came from the EU

Speciality Bread: Sourdough

• one sample came from the UK

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

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 8 samples contained residues above the reporting limit

• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL – the MRL has been adjusted to take into account the effect of processing. further information can be found in section 5 of this report: Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 1 2025 report

• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

PRiF considered these results in detail and felt it did not need to make any additional comments.

Broccoli (NI)

Samples tested

8 samples were tested for up to 395 pesticide residues.

Fresh

• 5 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 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 of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 4 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 3 samples were labelled as organic – one contained residues of 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 felt it did not need to make any additional comments.

Chilli peppers (NI)

Samples tested

6 samples were tested for up to 388 pesticide residues.

Chilli Peppers

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 4 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 2 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 4 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

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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Eggs (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 43 pesticide residues.

Hens

• 9 samples came from the UK

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 6 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• 3 samples contained residues above the MRL
• 3 samples were labelled as organic – one contained residues of 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

3 samples of eggs from different retailers contained residues of copper above the MRL. These residues are not expected to have an effect on health. HSE have been informed that the NI Department for Agriculture Environment and Rural Affairs DAERA are increasing poultry feed surveillance against the declared permitted copper content in the period 2025 to 2026.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 3 samples with residues of copper above the MRL in eggs. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI of this report.

Fish (white) (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 38 pesticide residues.

Basa

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Cod

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Hake

• one sample was imported from outside the EU
• one sample came from the EU

Pollock

• 3 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 or processed or where it was packed for retail sale.

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 6 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 3 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Garlic (NI)

Samples tested

11 samples were tested for up to 395 pesticide residues.

• one sample came from the UK
• 4 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 6 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 6 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Grapefruit (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 397 pesticide residues.

Grapefruit

• 7 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 2 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of 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.

The highest level of imazalil detected was 2.8 mg per kg below the MRL of 4 mg per kg and the highest level of imazalil detected was 2.5 mg per kg below the MRL of 7 mg per kg.

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 section 4 of this report: Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments 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 the 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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

HSE discussed their detailed risk assessment with us for some samples of grapefruit containing residues of imazalil and thiabendazole. We are satisfied that HSE have undertaken what we consider to be a worst case form of assessment underpinning the conclusion presented.

Grapes (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 400 pesticide residues.

Table grapes

• 7 samples were imported from outside the EU
• 2 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• all samples contained residues

• one sample contained residues above the MRL

• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

Following screening assessment there was one pesticide, acetamiprid where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail when applying the ARfD set by the EU in 2024, which is applicable to NI.

The highest level detected at 0.1 mg per kg (below the MRL of 0.5 mg per kg), is far lower than the highest level of acetamiprid (1.9 mg per kg) reported on the food page for Grapes GB. Therefore, refer to Grapes GB assessment and the associated HSE detailed risk assessment.

In Q3, 2024 (Quarter 3 2024 report on the pesticide residues monitoring programme), HSE considered the risk assessment for grapes sampled from NI containing 0.2 mg per kg. HSE concluded that an effect on health is not expected. Therefore, for the current NI survey samples of grapes containing acetamiprid, below the level of the MRL, we conclude an effect on health is not expected.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to the 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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

HSE comments

The EU MRL for acetamiprid of 0.5 mg per kg in grapes is due to be lowered to 0.08 mg/kg on 19th August 2025 (Regulation (EU) 2025/158). The EU has proposed the lowering of MRLs since in the EU toxicological reference values for acetamiprid were lowered in 2024 (ARfD of 0.005 mg per kg bw, EU, 2024).

The highest intakes for the residue of acetamiprid of 0.1 mg per kg represents a relatively small exceedance of the reduced EU ARfD, but not an exceedance of the ARfD value of 0.025 mg per kg bw (EU, 2018). HSE considers the ARfD value of 0.025 mg per kg bw (EU, 2018) is a robust value to use in the current risk assessments (this was explained in the risk assessment presented for grapes in acetamiprid at a level of 0.2 mg per kg in Q3 2024). Overall, HSE consider an effect on health is not expected.

Based on the applicability of the GB toxicological reference value of the ARfD of 0.025 mg per kg bw (source EU, 2018), HSE concludes that the MRL for acetamiprid does not need to be changed in GB at this time. As a consequence of this divergence, HSE are amending authorisations for NI pesticide uses of acetamiprid on various crops to account for the lowering of EU MRLs that are applicable only in NI.

Additional comments by the PRiF

We note the explanation by HSE above on the regulatory position and that HSE have concluded on the risk assessment for the highest residue for this NI survey (a finding in grapes of 0.1 mg per kg acetamiprid) that an effect on health is not expected. The highest residue in this NI survey is far below the highest level of 1.9 mg per kg (see GB Grapes) for which a detailed written risk assessment in section 4 of this report has been provided.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in grapes. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report.

Infant food (cereal based) (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 397 pesticide residues.

• 8 samples came from the UK
• one sample was imported from outside the EU
• 3 samples came from the EU

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

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 12 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 4 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of 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.

Limes (NI)

Samples tested

7 samples were tested for up to 388 pesticide residues.

Limes

• 6 samples were imported from outside the EU
• one sample came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• all samples contained residues
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Melon (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 400 pesticide residues.

Cantaloupe

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Galia

• one sample was imported from outside the EU

Honeydew

• 3 samples were imported from outside the EU

Piel De Sapo

• one sample came from the EU

Watermelon

• 2 samples were imported from outside the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 2 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 7 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in melon. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report.  

Milk (NI)

Samples tested

13 samples were tested for up to 38 pesticide residues.

Cows milk

• 9 samples came from the UK
• one sample came from the EU

Goats milk

• 3 samples came from the UK

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 13 samples contained no residues of those sought
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• 5 samples were labelled as organic – one contained residues of 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 400 pesticide residues.

Button

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

Chestnut

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

Flat

• 2 samples came from the UK

Fresh

• one sample came from the EU

White

• one sample came from the UK

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• one sample contained no residues of those sought
• 11 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

Some samples contained residues of more than one pesticide. 2 of these samples contained residues that are from pesticides which belong to the same chemical group 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 this combination of pesticides in these samples to have an effect on health.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

Mepiquat and chlormequat residues below the MRL were found in several samples. The current MRL’s were established to take into account mepiquat and chlormequat residues from growing mediums containing straw from treated cereal crops. HSE are aware from discussion of previous surveys that growing mediums that may contain manure from poultry farms containing straw could also be a source of mepiquat and chlormequat.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in mushrooms. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report.  

Olive oil (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 393 pesticide residues.

Extra Virgin

• 2 samples came from the UK
• 7 samples came from the EU

Olive Oil

• 3 samples came from the EU

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

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 10 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 2 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL – the MRL has been adjusted to take into account the effect of processing,further information can be found in section 5 of this report ‘Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 1 2025 report’.
• one sample was labelled as organic. None contained residues of 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 felt it did not need to make any additional comments.

Peppers (sweet) (NI)

Samples tested

10 samples were tested for up to 400 pesticide residues.

Peppers

• one sample was imported from outside the EU
• 9 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• one sample contained no residues of those sought
• 9 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• one sample was labelled as organic – none contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in peppers (sweet). Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI of this report. 

Potatoes (NI)

Samples tested

17 samples were tested for up to 396 pesticide residues.

• 13 samples came from the UK
• 4 samples came from the EU

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 8 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 9 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• one sample contained residues above the MRL
• 4 samples were labelled as organic – none contained residues of those sought

Risk assessments

One sample of potatoes contained a residue of chlorpyrifos at 0.038 mg per kg (above the MRL of 0.01* mg per kg) where the effect on health needed to be considered in more detail. See section 4 of this report ‘Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments’ for the full details of the HSE assessment of the risks. EFSA’s 2019 statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos indicated that no toxicological reference values could be determined for chlorpyrifos.

Regarding the short-term exposure assessment, the exceedance of the HSE proposed indicative short-term reference value is undesirable. Although we cannot conclude with certainty whether or not presence of food residues of chlorpyrifos at this level would have any effect on health after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of potatoes, HSE has stated a number of reasons why the detailed assessment they have performed is especially precautionary. Refer to the full assessment of risk section 4 of this report ‘Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments’ for further details.

The EFSA 2019 statement on the human health assessment of chlorpyrifos also includes a consideration of the potential for genotoxicity (whether damage to genetic material can occur). Regarding genotoxicity, we conclude that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity. Due to the low level of chlorpyrifos (0.038 mg per kg) in the potato sample we consider any risks of adverse health effects are low.

Other risk assessment screening work undertaken did not indicate any other expectation of effects on health. Refer to the 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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

We needed to consider the potential genotoxic health effects of chlorpyrifos in one potato sample at 0.038 mg per kg. This pesticide is not authorised in the UK but can on occasion be found in some imported food. We concluded that on a precautionary basis any findings of chlorpyrifos are undesirable due to the uncertainty regarding genotoxicity, but at the levels present, risks of an adverse effect on health due to genotoxicity are low.

One sample of potato contained chlorpropham at 0.049 mg per kg, below the MRL of 0.35 mg per kg. This temporary MRL was set to take into account that chlorpropham residues can persist for some time in storage areas and crates. Members thought it was appropriate in general to remind the trade of the cleaning guidelines for reducing chlorpropham residues. Read the guidance for cleaning potato stores.

Residues measured above the MRL

The laboratory detected 1 residue above the MRL in potatoes. Details are available in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report. 

HSE have passed details of the sample to FSA NI for further consideration. FSA NI raised a Rapid Alert for Food and Feed (RASFF) for the sample containing the residue chlorpyrifos. They issued risk management advice requiring that where stock remains, it should be withdrawn from the market. The supplier in question was contacted by them regarding this. They referred the sample to FSA Ireland due to the country of origin of the sample being Ireland who confirmed that there was no further stock on the market. Further details are in Table 4b: Summary of MRL Exceedances for Q4 NI in this report. 

Sweet potatoes (NI)

Samples tested

9 samples were tested for up to 389 pesticide residues.

9 samples were imported from outside the EU.

Pesticide residues detected of those sought

• 4 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL
• none of the samples were labelled as organic

Risk assessments

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

Combined risk assessments

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 felt it did not need to make any additional comments.

Wheat flour (NI)

Samples tested

12 samples were tested for up to 401 pesticide residues.

Wheat

• 9 samples came from the UK
• 2 samples came from the EU

Wholemeal wheat flour

• one sample came from the UK

The country of origin of samples may not be the same as the country where the 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 of those sought

• 7 samples contained no residues of those sought
• 5 samples contained residues above the reporting limit
• none of the samples contained residues above the MRL – the MRL has been adjusted to take into account the effect of processing,further information can be found in section 5 of this report ‘Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 1 2025 report’
• 3 samples were labelled as organic. One contained residues of 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 HSE considers for combined risk assessment.

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

Additional comments by the PRiF

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

4. Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments

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

Toxicological reference values set by the JMPR (The Joint Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (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.

For the Q4 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 with pods

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

Bread

Data on bread were used for all types of bread, including speciality types.

Chilli peppers

Specific consumption data on chilli peppers were used.

Fish

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

Garlic

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

Ginger

Data on ginger and garlic were considered for the screening assessment for ginger as there are low numbers of consumers in some groups. Data on ginger alone were used for most consumer groups, where the numbers are sufficient, with data from garlic used for infants and elderly living in a residential setting.

Grapefruit

Consumption values were provided by the FSA for grapefruit to identify the various contributions of grapefruit in the diet. The consumption values used here (and 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 adults, 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 3 persons for infants (3 out of 2863 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.

Honey

Specific consumption data on honey were used.

Limes

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. Detailed risk assessment used data on limes, as the data were more critical for almost all the consumer groups. The UK toddler consumption values for limes also represent the critical consumption data for limes in the EFSA risk assessment model which combines data from different EU countries.

Olive oil

Consumption data for oil was used for all forms of olive oil.

Speciality vegetables – Celeriac

Data on swede together with a unit weight of 550g and a variability factor of 5 were used.

Speciality vegetables – Eddoes

Data on potato were used for eddoes which is a root vegetable similar to sweet potato.

Speciality vegetables – Fennel

Data on leeks together with a unit weight of 234g and a variability factor of 7 were used for fennel.

Speciality vegetables – Kohlrabi

Data on carrot together with a unit weight of 227g were used for kohlrabi which is a brassica vegetable with a round, swollen stem that may be eaten cooked or raw.

Speciality vegetables – Mooli

Data on swede were used for daikon (mooli), which is a long, white vegetable of the radish family.

Speciality vegetables – Radish

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.

Speciality vegetables – Yam

Consumption data for potato have been used for yams.

Sweet potatoes

Consumption data for potato have been used.

Flour

Data on flour were used for all forms of wheat flour. These consumption values were provided by the FSA; 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

Table 5 Beans with pods 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.

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Chlorpyrifos	0.009	0.000021	0.000045 (infants) 0.000045 (toddlers) 0.000034 (4 to 6 year old children) 0.000025 (vegetarian) 0.000025 (15 to 18 year old children) 0.000021 (adults) 0.000020 (elderly own home) 0.000018 (7 to 10 year old children) 0.000018 (11 to 14 year old children) 0.0000098 (elderly residential)	No toxicological reference values established	EU, 2019

Comment on risk assessment

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

HSE considers that for short-term risk assessment, an indicative toxicological reference value of 0.0003 mg per kg bw can be used based on the lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) set by EFSA for a developmental neurotoxicity study and applying a safety factor of 1000 to account for the severe nature of the findings (effects on brain measurements in a developmental neurotoxicity study). Toxicologists usually use safety factors of between 100 and a 1000 when a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) cannot be determined within a study. HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value is conservative as it uses the highest uncertainty factor applied by toxicologists and is based on a LOAEL from a study with repeated dosing. Overall, HSEs approach is considered precautionary in protecting the nervous system in the developing foetus and child.

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

Refer to the section below on ‘Substances that might be genotoxic’ for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

Table 6a Grapefruit NI

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

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Imazalil	2.8	0.041	0.15 (infants)	0.1 (General population) 0.05 (Pregnant and nursing females)	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. HSE considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

Pregnant and nursing females

The intakes for adults, 11 to 14 year old children, and 15 to 18 year old children 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 ARfD of 0.1 mg per kg bw for the general population excluding pregnant and nursing females.

If infants ate or drank large portions of grapefruit containing imazalil at 2.8 mg per kg their intake of imazalil could be 153 percent of the ARfD of 0.1 mg per kg bw. This intake is 67 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 67 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.

Table 6b Grapefruit NI

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

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Thiabendazole	2.5	0.036	0.14 (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, HSE 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 2.5 mg per kg, their intake of thiabendazole could be 136 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 71 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 71 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.

Table 7a Grapes GB

In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Acetamiprid	1.9	0.037	0.12 (toddlers) 0.096 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.088 (7 to 10 year olds) 0.069 (11 to 14 year olds) 0.058 (vegetarians) 0.055 (infants) 0.037 (adults) 0.034 (15 to 18 year olds)	0.025	EU, 2018

Comment on risk assessment

The intakes for toddlers, 4 to 6 year olds, 7 to 10 year olds, 11 to 14 year olds, vegetarians, infants, adults and 15 to 18 year olds exceeded the ARfD. The highest intake was for toddlers.

If toddlers ate or drank large portions of grapes containing acetamiprid at 1.9 mg per kg their intake could be 464 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 21 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effects in rat developmental neurotoxicity study and 83 times lower than the dose at which a minor effect was reported (reaction to noise). In this study dams were dosed every day from day 6 of gestation and throughout the 21 days lactation (up to weaning). Pup development was evaluated up to 60 days after birth. The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to the dose where no effects were seen to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. Based on the interpretation of this study, regulatory assessors considered the ARfD to be conservative and set in a way intended to protect the nervous system in the developing foetus and child. We consider this significant reduction in the factor of 100 to a level of 21 undesirable, but it is not possible to conclude, based on current knowledge, if the exposure level observed here may cause any adverse health effects after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of grapes containing the level found in this report.

Table 7b Grapes GB

In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Ethephon	0.9	0.018	0.055 (toddlers)	0.05	EU, 2008

Comment on risk assessment

The intakes for toddlers exceeded the ARfD.

If toddlers ate or drank large portions of grapes containing ethephon at 0.9 mg per kg, their intake of ethephon could be 110 % of the ARfD. This intake is 109 times lower than a dose which caused no observed adverse effect in a 28 day oral dog study. The European Food Safety Authority used this study as the basis of the ARfD.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of 100 to this dose to take into account uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. However, in this case the factor was larger (120) to ensure consistency with the findings of human volunteer studies. We consider the reduced factor of 109 (from 120) still sufficient to make an effect on health unlikely. More detail on the factors applied can be found in implications for health.

Based on this assessment, we conclude that a short-term effect on health is unlikely.

Table 7c Grapes GB

In this table, ‘critical group intake’ means the highest intake of all 10 consumer groups, or intakes for all consumer groups that exceed the ARfD

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Nicotine	0.02	0.00039	0.0012 (toddler) 0.0010 (4 to 6 year olds) 0.00093 (7 to 10 year olds)	0.0008	EFSA, 2009

Comment on risk assessment

The intakes for toddlers, 4 to 6 year old children and 7 to 10 year old children exceeded the ARfD. The highest intake was for toddlers.

If toddlers ate or drank large portions of grapes containing nicotine at 0.02 mg per kg, their intake of nicotine could be 153 percent of the ARfD. This intake is 3 times lower than the LOAEL in a controlled clinical study in which nicotine was applied intravenously throughout the study. The European Food Safety Authority used this valid human study as the basis of the ARfD; an uncertainty factor of 10 was applied to cover human variability and extrapolation from the LOAEL to the NOAEL for pharmacological effects. An additional correction factor of 0.44 was applied for oral bioavailability of nicotine (extrapolation from the intravenous route to the oral route).

Based on the residue intake being 3 times lower than the LOAEL tested in the clinical trial, HSE concludes that an effect on health is unlikely.

Table 8 Limes 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

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Adult intake (mg per kg bw)	Critical group intake (mg per kg bw per day)	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
Chlorpyrifos	0.02	0.00013	0.00040 (toddlers) 0.00017 (4 to 6 year old children) 0.00016 (7 to 10 year old children) 0.00015 (11 to 14 year old children) 0.00014 (elderly residential) 0.00014 (15 to 18 year old children) 0.00013 (adults) 0.000086 (elderly own home) 0.000039 (vegetarian) (no infants were reported as consuming limes)	No toxicological reference values established	EU, 2019

Comment on risk assessment

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

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

Limes, flesh after peeling 

The dietary intakes calculated for when the peel is removed prior to consumption, indicate that there are no exceedances of indicative toxicological reference value and, in this case, a short-term effect on health is not expected.

The below risk assessment only applies if all of the peel is consumed. This is because it has been reported that only 2% of the residue of chlorpyrifos remains (EFSA, 2017) in the flesh when the fruit is peeled.

Whole limes, 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 item, 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, HSE considers this to be a ‘worst case’ form of assessment for the reasons explained above.

The intakes for toddlers exceeded the HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short-term exposure.

If toddlers ate or drank large portions of limes containing chlorpyrifos at 0.02 mg per kg, their intake of chlorpyrifos could be 134 percent of the above mentioned HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short-term exposure. This intake is approximately 750 times lower than the lowest intake in repeat-dose animal studies which was reported to cause effects in a developmental neurotoxicity study where pregnant rats were dosed from day 6 of pregnancy through until the pups were 11 days old. The proposed (short-term) indicative toxicological reference value from HSE is precautionary. These exposures are undesirable but are unlikely to cause any adverse short-term effect.

This estimate assumes that peel of limes is consumed. However, if the peel is not consumed then intakes in all groups are within the indicative toxicological reference value and a short-term effect on health is not expected.

Refer to the section ‘Substances that might be genotoxic’ in this report for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity

Table 9 Potatoes NI

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

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
Chlorpyrifos	0.038	0.00091	0.0058 (infants) 0.0040 (toddlers)  0.0030 (4 to 6 year olds)  0.0021 (7 to 10 year olds)  0.0015 (11 to 14 year olds)  0.0011 (vegetarian)  0.0011 (15 to 18 year olds)  0.00099 (elderly residential)  0.00091 (adult)  0.00090 (elderly own home)	No toxicological reference values established	EU, 2019

Comment on risk assessment

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

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

The intakes for all of the consumer groups exceeded this HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value. The highest intake was for infants.

If infants ate large portions of potatoes containing chlorpyrifos at 0.038 mg per kg their intake could be around 1,900 percent of the above mentioned HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short-term exposure. This intake is 52 times lower than the lowest intake in repeat-dose animal studies at which effects were observed in a developmental neurotoxicity study where pregnant rats were dosed from day 6 of pregnancy through until the pups were 11 days old.

Toxicologists usually apply a factor of between 100 and 1000 to this dose to take into account the uncertainties caused by using animal data and possible differences in susceptibility between people. However, given the nature of the findings, HSE took a precautionary approach and applied a factor of 1000. We consider this significant reduction in the uncertainty factor from 1000 to 52 undesirable. The developmental neurotoxicity study in which the effects on the brain measurements were observed reported no behavioural or developmental deficits, and there is an indication that the changes in brain measurement might be reversible. The interpretation of this study by regulatory assessors is uncertain, and, despite the precautionary nature of HSE’s assessment, it is not possible to conclude on whether there might be any adverse short-term health effects after eating large portions (97.5th percentile consumption) of potatoes containing the level found in this report.

Refer to the section below on ‘Substances that might be genotoxic’ in this report for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

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

Limes GB – values represent the critical consumer group (toddlers) for a sample containing this combination of active ingredients.

Pesticide	Highest residue (mg per kg)	Intake (mg per kg bw per day)	Intake Percentage ARfD	ARfD (mg per kg bw)	Source
chlorpyrifos	0.02	0.00040	Not applicable	Not established	EU, 2019
malathion	0.06	0.0012	0.4	0.3	EU, 2018

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

Comment on risk assessment

The presence of malathion in the sample does not significantly contribute to the overall combined intake when compared to the presence of chlorpyrifos alone. The estimated highest intake of chlorpyrifos, assuming all of the peel is consumed with the fruit, represents around 134 percent of the above mentioned HSE proposed indicative toxicological reference value for short-term exposure of 0.0003 mg per kg bw (see explanation above of this indicative value in the single substance assessment for limes - chlorpyrifos).

The overall risk assessment for this sample is covered by the single substance risk assessment for limes - chlorpyrifos where a worst case form of assessment has been performed, assuming all of the peel is consumed and applying the suggested precautionary approach to the toxicological assessment (see the above details for HSE’s single substance assessment for limes - chlorpyrifos for this residue finding of 0.02 mg per kg).

At these intake levels, these pesticides together will not be expected to inhibit acetyl cholinesterase, the known common effect from exposure to these residues.

It is noted that if the peel is removed, an effect on health is not expected as the contribution of chlorpyrifos is less than the indicative toxicological reference value and malathion intake is very low.

Refer to the section ‘Substances that might be genotoxic’ in this report for HSE’s conclusions regarding potential genotoxicity.

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

As noted in section 4 of this report ‘Risk Assessment - dietary intake assessments’ 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 Good agricultural practice in the use of pesticides (GAP) compliant trials, intended to address highest likely residues that might arise following pesticide use according to label recommendations. 

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

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.

Substances that might be genotoxic

See an explanation of genotoxicity in the the ‘HSE risk assessment methodology’.

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

Assessment of genotoxicity (Q4 2024) and conclusions

Substances that might be genotoxic

Residues found in this report where toxicological data are suggestive of genotoxicity but not certain: chlorpyrifos.

Chlorpyrifos: It is unclear from studies performed in vitro and in vivo or both (see ‘in vitro and in vivo’ in this report), whether chlorpyrifos can damage genetic material (are genotoxic) EFSA, 2019. Whilst there are negative results in the available in vivo studies, the currently recommended in vivo follow up studies, that may clarify the genotoxic potential have not been performed. There is some reassurance that risks of developing ill health effects following single or repeat exposures are likely to be low, since they did not cause cancer in cancer or other long-term studies with repeat daily doses in animals over their lifespan. The doses used in these studies were orders of magnitude higher than the exposures estimated in this assessment. It is not known if lower doses which are not toxic also have this effect.

Conclusions

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

Update on previous position on tri-allate regarding genotoxicity

A concern over the potential of tri-allate to damage genetic material (its genotoxicity) has previously been flagged by EFSA (EFSA, 2020). This was based on evidence from some studies performed in vitro indicating that tri-allate may be genotoxic. Whilst there were negative results in the available in vivo studies, the currently recommended in vivo follow up studies, required to clarify the genotoxic potential of a chemical, had not been performed. Therefore, these findings could not be dismissed. The necessary in vivo follow up studies have now been performed and evaluated by HSE as part of an ongoing MRL assessment. HSE concluded, based on the results of these new studies, that tri-allate is not genotoxic.

5. Issues arising in this report, follow-up from previous reports and plans for the quarter 4 2024 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.

The Food and Biocides Industry Group have produced more detailed information and guidance on this topic which is available on the Chilled Food Association’s website.

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 FSA 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.

This pesticide can only be detected using a single residue method technique.

DDT

The use of DDT is banned or 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 FSA 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, olive oil and wheat flour were taken from a published compilation of factors. Unless indicated otherwise.

HSE use the general principle that if no specific processing factor is available, a default factor of 1 may be applied. Further information can be found at the links below.

In this report, we have applied processing factors mostly from the European database of processing factors for pesticide residues in food European database of processing factors for pesticide residues in food version 4 June 2024.

Table 11a: Processing factors and MRLs used for Bread (GB) and NI

Food type	Pesticide	Processing factor	MRL for unprocessed grain (mg per kg)	Bread MRL (mg per kg)
Bread (ordinary bread: wholemeal)	chlormequat	1.3	7	9.1
Bread (ordinary bread: other)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (ordinary bread: white)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: ciabatta)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: garlic bread)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: naan)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: pitta (other))	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: wraps (other))	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Bread (speciality bread: wraps (wholemeal))	chlormequat	1.3	7	9.1
Bread (ordinary bread: white)	glyphosate	0.12	10	1.2
Bread (ordinary bread: wholemeal)	glyphosate	1.2	10	12
Bread (speciality bread: wraps (wholemeal))	glyphosate	1.2	10	12
Bread (speciality bread: wraps wholemeal))	mepiquat	0.94	3	2.82

Table 11b: Processing factors and MRLs used for Olive oil (NI)

Food type	Pesticide	Processing factor	MRL for unprocessed olives (mg per kg)	Olive oil MRL (mg per kg)
Olive oil (extra virgin)	Difenoconazole	1.5	2	3
Olive oil (extra virgin)	Trifloxystrobin	2.8	0.3	0.84

Table 11c: Processing factors and MRLs used for Wheat flour (GB) and (NI)

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 (white wheat flour)	chlormequat	0.71	7	4.97
Wheat flour (other wheat flour)	glyphosate	0.12	10	1.2
Wheat flour (other wheat flour)	mepiquat	0.16	3	0.48

Follow-up from previous reports

None.

In our Quarter 1 2025 report

Samples collected in GB

In quarter 1 of 2025 we will look at results from samples collected in GB for:

• apple juice
• apples
• asparagus
• barley products
• beans with pods
• bread (gluten free)
• bread (ordinary)
• cabbage (head)
• figs
• fish (tinned)
• grapes
• infant food (animal)
• lettuce
• mango
• mango juice
• milk
• oat products
• peaches and nectarines
• plant based protein
• plums
• pork
• potatoes
• rice
• salad / baby leaf bags
• spices (cumin and turmeric)
• spinach
• strawberries
• tomatoes
• tomatoes (processed)
• wine

Samples collected in NI

In quarter 1 of 2025 we will look at results from samples collected in NI for:

• apples
• asparagus
• barley products
• beans with pods
• bread (gluten free)
• bread (ordinary)
• cabbage (head)
• heese (hard)
• figs
• fish (tinned)
• grapes
• infant food (fruit & vegetable)
• lettuce
• mango
• milk
• oat products
• peaches and nectarines
• plums
• pork
• potatoes
• salad/baby leaf bags
• spinach
• strawberries
• tomatoes
• wine

Glossary

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’ in this report.

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’ in this report.

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’ in this report.

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 MRL (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 2 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 3 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 this report.

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’ in this report. 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 or exporter or both in liaison with the LA.

NI continues to be part of the EU Rapid Alert for Food and Feed (RASFF) (see RASFF in this report) 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.

Limit of determination (LOD) 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 (MRL) 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’ in this report.

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) in this report.

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 NI under Regulation 396/2005.

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

Maximum residue levels (MRLs) set at the LOD (LOD MRL)

See ‘LOD MRL’ in this report. 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  in this report 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 3 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. See ‘variability factor’ in this report. 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 or damage the nervous tissue or both.

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) in this report.

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 threat 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, 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 application of pesticides. 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, 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. For example, a sample of apples must be made up of at least 10 apples and weigh at least 1 kg in total. And a sample of grapes must be made up of at least 5 bunches and weighing at least 2kgi in total.

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.