Authority 2016 EFSA Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORT
ENDORSED: 21 October 2016

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4611
The 2014 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues

in Food
European Food Safety Authority
Abstract
This report provides a detailed insight into the official control activities performed by EU Member
States, Iceland and Norway. Overall, 97.1% of the 82,649 samples analysed in 2014 were free of
residues or contained residues within the legally permitted levels. Based on the results provided by
the reporting countries, detailed analysis were performed regarding pesticide occurrence on the most
important food products consumed and the dietary risk related to the exposure of European
consumers to pesticide residues. Moreover, the data were analysed with view to identify pesticides
and food products that exceeded the legal limits. It also includes the findings on pesticide residues in
imported foods, organic products, baby foods as well as results in animal products. Based on analysis
of the 2014 pesticide monitoring results, EFSA derived a number of recommendations to further
increase the efficiency of the European control systems to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
European Food Safety Authority, 2016
Keywords: pesticide residues, food control, monitoring, maximum residue levels, consumer risk
assessment, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005
Requestor: EFSA
Question number: EFSA-Q-2013-00654
Correspondence: pesticides.mrl@efsa.europa.eu
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues
Acknowledgements: The Pesticides Unit wishes to thank Herman Fontier (Belgium Federal Public
Service Health, Food Chain Safety and Environment) for his valuable proposals and the independent
scientific review of this report.
Suggested citation: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016. The 2014 European Union
report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611, 139 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4611
ISSN: 1831-4732
European Food Safety Authority, 2016
Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food
Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union.
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Summary
In the recently published EFSA Strategy 2020, the importance of sharing data related to food safety
with the public and with interested parties was acknowledged as one of the key issues enhancing
transparency and trust by fostering a culture of openness and cooperation. Structured, high-quality
data are also the basis for performing high quality risk assessments ensuring a high level of protection
of human health in Europe. This annual report on pesticide residues in food gives a detailed insight
into the official control activities of EU Member States, Iceland and Norway and hence is an important
element in the implementation of the strategic objectives defined in the EFSA strategy.
This report summarises the results of the 2014 EU-coordinated monitoring programme and the results
of the overall control activities (reported as national control programmes).1 While the national control
programmes are mainly risk based, focusing on certain types of products, pesticides or products
originating from countries where in the past an increased number of violations was observed, the EUcoordinated programme is aimed at retrieving a representative snapshot of the residue situation of
food products available to consumers. Since the two control programmes pursue different purposes,
the results are presented separately. In the last part of the report, the results of the dietary risk
assessment based on the results derived in the EU-coordinated control programme are presented: the
risk assessment is aimed at identifying possible issues of concern with regard to consumer safety
related to pesticide residues in food.
Because the results of pesticide residue analysis are available only after most of the products have
been already consumed, this report is not a tool for informing the public on imminent risks related to
food. However, the comprehensive analysis of the results of all reporting countries provides risk
managers with a scientifically sound basis for taking appropriate risk management actions for
designing future monitoring programmes efficiently. In particular, this analysis should be used to
decide which pesticides and food products should be targeted in risk-based national monitoring
programmes or other necessary risk management measures, such as the need to review or modify
existing legal limits, to guarantee a high level of consumer protection.
In 2014, the reporting countries analysed in total 82,649 samples for a total of 778 different
pesticides. On average, samples were analysed for 212 pesticides. The majority of samples (57,399
samples, 69.4%) originated from EU and EEA countries; 21,219 samples (25.7%) concerned products
imported from third countries. For 4,031 samples (4.9%), the origin of the products was not reported.
Overall, 97.1% of the samples analysed under the national control programmes fell within the legal
limits; 53.6% of the samples tested were free of quantifiable residues (residues below or at the limit
of quantification, LOQ) while 43.4% of the samples analysed contained measurable residues not
exceeding the permitted residue concentrations. A total of 2.9% of the samples exceeded the
maximum residue levels (MRLs) permitted in the EU legislation (2,421 samples)2; taking into account
the measurement uncertainty, 1.6% of the samples (1,341 samples) clearly exceeded the legal limits
(non-compliance) triggering legal or administrative actions by competent authorities. The results of
2014 are comparable with the previous year (2013: 97.4% of samples within legal limits; 54.6% free
of quantifiable residues).
In the framework of the 2014 EU-coordinated programme under Regulation (EC) No 788/2012 and
Regulation (EU) No 480/2013, reporting countries were requested to analyse 12 different food
products (beans with pods, carrots, cucumbers, mandarins or oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice,
wheat flour, liver of ruminants, swine or poultry, poultry muscle/fat). The programme covered a total
of 213 pesticides; 191 in foods of plant origin and 58 in foods of animal origin. Overall, 1.5% of the
samples exceeded the MRL (192 samples) with 0.8% of the samples being not compliant with the
legal limit (104 samples), taking into account the measurement uncertainty. The number of samples
1
2
3
2
The EU coordinated programme is a subset of samples reported under the national programmes.
Throughout the report, results describing percentage of samples above the legal limit, within the legal limit and samples free
of quantifiable residues are provided to one decimal place. Due to the rounding to one decimal place, the added results for
these three categories may not total 100% exactly.
A so-called the
Throughout
unitreport,
variability
results
factor
describing
of 5 orpercentage
7 is usedofinsamples
the current
aboverisk
the assessment
legal limit, within
methodology
the legal for
limitshort-term
and samples
dietary
free
of quantifiable residues are provided to one decimal place. Due to the rounding to one decimal place, the added results for
these three categories may not total 100% exactly.
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
with measurable residues but within the legally permitted level was 4,935 (38.4%). In 60.1% of the
samples (7,723 samples), no quantifiable residues were found (residues below the LOQ).
The higher MRL exceedance rate of the targeted national control programme (2.9%) compared with
the EU-coordinated monitoring programme (1.5%) gives an indication that the targeted sampling
strategy implemented by the reporting countries is efficiently identifying products violating EU
provisions for pesticide residues in food.
Detailed results of EU coordinated monitoring programme
Among the products covered by the EU-coordinated programme, the highest MRL exceedance rate
was found for spinach (3.4% of the samples), followed by beans (with pods) (3.1%), mandarins
(2.6%), carrots and rice (both 2.1%), pears (1.6%), oranges and cucumbers (both 1.5%). For
processed wheat (wheat flour), the measured residue concentrations were reported to exceed the
legal limit in 0.4% of the samples analysed while for liver and poultry muscle/fat no MRL exceedances
were identified.
Samples containing more than one pesticide in individual samples (multiple residues) were found in all
food products analysed in the framework of the EU-coordinated programme. The products with the
highest percentage of samples with multiple residues were mandarins (64.7%), oranges (60.5%),
pears (57.6%) and cucumbers (26.6%). Lower occurrence levels were recorded for beans (with pods)
(19.2%), spinach (18.4%), carrots (16.2%), wheat flour (11.8%), rice (9.2%) and potatoes (7.5%).
The presence of multiple pesticide residues was low in animal products (0.9% for poultry muscle/fat
and 0.1% for liver (different species)).
All food products of the 2014 EU-coordinated programme were also analysed in 2011. Overall, the
MRL exceedance rate in 2014 was in the same range as in 2011 (1.6% in 2011, 1.5% in 2014)
although in 2014 the number of pesticides to be analysed has been substantially extended (40
additional pesticides had to be analysed in the samples). Considering the individual food products
separately, a slight decline of the MRL exceedance rate was noted for spinach, beans with pods,
cucumbers and oranges, while for mandarins, carrots, pears and potatoes a slight increase of the
percentage of samples with residue above the legal limit was noted.
Detailed results of national control programmes
A detailed analysis of the national control programmes revealed the different scopes of the national
MRL enforcement strategies, in particular as regards the types and origin of products to be tested, the
pesticides analysed and the number of samples taken. Overall, they provide an impressive amount of
information on the pesticide residues in food placed on the European market. The exceptional efforts
of Member States to improve the quality and the amount of data on pesticide residues in food are
acknowledged.
Among the samples from third countries, the legal limit was exceeded in 6.5% of the samples; for
3.9% of the samples, administrative or legal sanctions were imposed as they clearly exceeded the
legal limit taking into account the measurement uncertainty. It is noted that a substantial amount of
the imported products were taken in the framework of enhanced import controls under Regulation
(EC) No 669/2009 (i.e. 6,513 samples of the 25,250 samples originating from third countries).
Products from the EU and EEA countries were found to have a lower exceedance and non-compliance
rate (1.6% of the samples contained residues that exceeded the permitted concentrations; 0.8% of
the samples clearly exceeded the legal limit triggering enforcement actions). Compared with 2013, the
MRL exceedance rate for imported food products slightly increased (2013: 5.7%); for EU/EEA
products the situation was found to be stable (2013: 1.5%). While 56.6% of the EU/EEA samples
analysed in 2014 were free of quantifiable residues, the result was lower for samples from third
countries (45.5%).
In unprocessed products, MRL exceedances were detected in 3.1% of the samples; 45.7% of the
samples contained residues but within the legal limits and 51.2% of the unprocessed products were
free of quantifiable residues. Processed products in general had a lower prevalence of pesticide
residues and MRL exceedances (31.7% of all processed products contained quantifiable residues
within the legal limit, 1.1% MRL exceedance rate).
Residues of more than one pesticide (multiple residues) were found in 28.3% of the samples (23,420
samples), a slight increase compared to 2013 (27.3%).
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Among the 3,265 individual determinations that exceeded the legal limit, 1,253 determinations were
reported for pesticides that are currently not approved in the EU. In most cases, these MRL
exceedances for non-approved pesticides were related to imported products (957 cases) while, for
products produced in EU and EEA countries, MRL exceedances with non-approved pesticides occurred
less frequently (245 results).
In total, 6,513 samples of products covered by Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (increased level of
official controls on imported food and feed of non-animal origin) were analysed. In this subset of
samples that is targeted at products with a previously observed high non-compliance rate, 406
samples (6.2%) exceeded the legal limit for one or several pesticides; 237 samples (3.6%) were
considered non-compliant taking into account the measurement uncertainty.
A total of 1,812 samples of baby foods were analysed. In 91.8% of the samples, no quantifiable
residues were found (residues below the LOQ), whereas 148 samples (8.2%) contained quantifiable
residues at or above the LOQ. For 135 samples (7.5% of the analysed baby food samples), the
residue concentration exceeded the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg applicable for baby foods. The
majority of these samples was related to residues of copper compounds, fosetyl-Al,
didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) and benzalkonium chloride (BAC). According to the
evaluation of reporting countries, only 36 samples (2.0%) were considered as exceeding the legal
limit; 34 samples were non-compliant, taking into account the measurement uncertainty.
In 12.4% of samples of organic products (595 of the 4,792 samples analysed), pesticide residues
were detected, but within the legal limits; however, 220 of these samples contained residues of
substances that are not necessarily resulting from the use of pesticides (e.g. naturally occurring
substances, persistent environmental pollutants) and substances that are explicitly allowed in organic
farming. In 1.2% of the samples (57 samples), the MRL was exceeded.
The majority of samples of animal products (9,152 samples) was free of measurable residues (84.7%,
7,751 samples). The most frequently detected pesticides were persistent environmental pollutants, or
compounds resulting from sources other than pesticide use.
Results of dietary risk assessment
Considering the frequency of pesticide residues detected in food commonly consumed, a wide range
of European consumers is expected to be exposed to these substances via food. EFSA performed a
short-term and long-term dietary risk assessment for the pesticides covered by the EU-coordinated
programme (EUCP) in order to get an estimate of the expected exposure and to identify possible
related risk. The methodology used is a screening method which is likely to overestimate the real
exposure as it is based on conservative model assumptions.
The short-term (acute) exposure was calculated for the 12 food products covered by the 2014 EUCP
(i.e. beans with pods, carrots, cucumbers, mandarins or oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice,
wheat flour, liver of ruminants, swine or poultry, poultry meat). For the majority of the samples
analysed in 2014, the short-term exposure was found to be negligible or within a range that is unlikely
to pose a consumer health concern. For 346 samples of the total of 18,332 samples taken into
account for the short-term dietary exposure assessment, the estimated exposure exceeded the
toxicological reference value (ARfD), giving an indication of possible negative health effects. These
results refer to 27 different pesticides. The calculations were based on conservative assumptions (i.e.
consumption of these food products in high amounts without washing or any processing that would
reduce the residues (e.g. cooking); in addition, it was assumed that the residue concentration in the
consumed products was five to seven times higher than the residues measured in the samples
analysed3). Given this conservatism of the risk assessment methodology, real exposure was expected
to be significantly lower. Based on these results, EFSA concluded that the probability of European
citizens being exposed to pesticide residues exceeding concentrations that may lead to negative
health outcomes was low but for a limited number of samples a possible short-term consumer health
risk could not be completely ruled out.
A so-called unit variability factor of 5 or 7 is used in the current risk assessment methodology for short-term dietary
exposure, assuming a non-homogeneous distribution among the individual units. The variability factors are applied for midsized products like carrots, cucumbers, mandarins, oranges, pears, potatoes; for products that are normally mixed or bulked
before consumption, no variability factor is applied for the acute risk assessment.
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
EFSA also calculated the chronic or long-term exposure, predicting lifetime exposure of the pertinent
pesticide. For all pesticides of the EU-coordinated monitoring programme, the long-term exposure was
negligible or within the toxicologically acceptable levels (i.e. below the ADI). Thus, residues of these
pesticides, according to current scientific knowledge, are not likely to pose a long-term consumer
health risk.
EFSA derived a number of recommendations aiming to further increase the efficiency of the EUcoordinated and national programmes.
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table of contents
Abstract .........................................................................................................................................1
Summary .......................................................................................................................................3
1.
Background ........................................................................................................................8
1.1.
Legal Basis .........................................................................................................................8
1.2.
Terms of Reference .............................................................................................................9
2.
Introduction...................................................................................................................... 10
3.
EU-coordinated control programme .................................................................................... 11
3.1.
Design of the EU-coordinated control programme ............................................................... 11
3.2.
Results by pesticide ........................................................................................................... 13
3.3.
Results by food products ................................................................................................... 15
3.3.1. Beans with pods ............................................................................................................... 16
3.3.2. Carrots ............................................................................................................................. 19
3.3.3. Cucumbers ....................................................................................................................... 22
3.3.4. Mandarins ........................................................................................................................ 25
3.3.5. Oranges ........................................................................................................................... 29
3.3.6. Pears................................................................................................................................ 32
3.3.7. Potatoes ........................................................................................................................... 35
3.3.8. Spinach ............................................................................................................................ 37
3.3.9. Rice ................................................................................................................................. 41
3.3.10. Wheat flour ...................................................................................................................... 43
3.3.11. Liver (bovine, poultry, sheep, swine) .................................................................................. 45
3.3.12. Poultry (muscle and fat) .................................................................................................... 47
3.4.
Overall results of EU-coordinated monitoring programme .................................................... 49
4.
National control programmes ............................................................................................. 50
4.1.
Description of the national control programmes .................................................................. 51
4.2.
Results of the national control programmes ........................................................................ 56
4.2.1. Results by country of food origin ........................................................................................ 57
4.2.2. Results by food products ................................................................................................... 61
4.2.3. Results by pesticides ......................................................................................................... 63
4.2.4. Results for import controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 ........................................... 65
4.2.5. Results for baby foods ....................................................................................................... 68
4.2.6. Results for organic food ..................................................................................................... 70
4.2.7. Results for animal products ............................................................................................... 73
4.2.8. Results for glyphosate residues in food ............................................................................... 74
4.2.9. Multiple residues in the same sample ................................................................................. 75
4.3.
Reasons for MRL exceedances ........................................................................................... 77
5.
Dietary exposure and dietary risk assessment ..................................................................... 80
5.1.
Short-term (acute) exposure assessment individual pesticides .......................................... 80
5.1.1. Results of the short-term (acute) risk assessment individual pesticides .............................. 82
5.2.
Long-term (chronic) risk assessment individual pesticides ................................................. 89
5.2.1. Results of the long-term (chronic) risk assessment individual pesticides ............................ 91
6.
Conclusions and recommendations ..................................................................................... 95
References ................................................................................................................................... 99
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................. 102
Appendix A
Authorities responsible in the reporting countries for pesticide residue monitoring 103
Appendix B
Background information and detailed results of the EU-coordinated programme ... 105
Appendix C
Background information and detailed results for national control programmes ...... 112
Appendix D
Background information and detailed results for dietary risk assessment .............. 127
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
1.
Background
1.1.
Legal Basis
Pesticide residues resulting from the use of plant protection products on crops or food products that
are used for food or feed production may pose a risk factor for public health. For this reason, a
comprehensive legislative framework has been established in the European Union (EU), which defines
rules for the approval of active substances used in plant protection products, the use of plant
protection products and for pesticide residues in food. In order to ensure a high level of consumer
protection, legal limits, so called maximum residue levels or briefly MRLs, are established in
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EU-harmonised MRLs are set for more than 500 pesticides in over 370
food products/food groups. A default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg, a level equal to the limit of quantification
(LOQ) achievable with analytical methods used for MRL enforcement, is applicable for pesticides not
explicitly mentioned in the MRL legislation. Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 imposes on Member States
the obligation to carry out controls to ensure that food placed on the market is compliant with the
legal limits. This Regulation establishes both EU and national control programmes:
EU-coordinated control programme: this programme defines the food products and pesticides that
should be monitored by all Member States. The EU-coordinated programme (EUCP) relevant for
the calendar year 2014 was set up in Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012,4
amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/20135,and Commission Regulation
(EU) No 481/20136 hereafter referred to as 2014 monitoring regulation.
National control programmes: Member States usually define the scope of national control
programmes focussing on certain products, which are expected to contain residues in
concentrations exceeding the legal limits, or on products that are more likely to pose risks for
consumer safety (Article 30 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005).
According to Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Member States are requested to share the
results of the official controls and other relevant information with the European Commission, EFSA and
other Member States. EFSA is in charge of preparing an Annual Report on pesticide residues,
analysing the data in view of the MRL compliance of food available in the EU and the exposure of
European consumers to pesticide residues. In addition, based on the findings, EFSA should derive
recommendations for future monitoring programmes.
Specific MRLs are set in Directives 2006/125/EC 7 and 2006/141/EC8 for food intended for infants and
young children. In general, a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg is applicable for such food unless lower legal
limits for the residue levels are defined in the Directives. Regulation (EC) No 609/20139 repeals the
aforementioned Directives; however, the pesticide MRLs of Directive 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC
were still applicable in 2014. In the framework of the 2014 EUCP, Member States had to take at least
10 samples of infant formulae and follow-on formulae.
It is noted that some of the active substances for which legal limits are set under Regulation (EC) No
396/2005 are also covered by Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on pharmacologically active
substances10. For these so-called dual use substances, Member States have the obligation to perform
4
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012 of 31 August 2012 concerning a coordinated multiannual control
programme of the Union for 2013, 2014 and 2015 to ensure compliance with maximum residue levels of pesticides and to
assess the consumer exposure to pesticide residues in and on food of plant and animal origin. OJ L 235, 1.9.2012, p. 827.
5 Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2013 of 24 May 2013 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) No
788/2012 as regards the period of analysis of certain pesticides performed on a voluntary basis. OJ L 139, 25.5.2013, p. 4.
6 Commission Regulation (EU) No 481/2013 of 24 May 2013 adapting Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012 as regards
the number of samples to be taken and analysed by Croatia for the pesticide/product combinations
7 Commission Directive 2006/125/EC of 5 December 2006 on processed cereal-based foods and baby foods for infants and
young children. OJ L 339, 6.12.2006, p. 1635.
8 Commission Directive 2006/141/EC of 22 December 2006 on infant formulae and follow-on formulae and amending Directive
1999/21/EC. OJ L 401, 30.12.2006, p. 133.
9 Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on food intended for infants
and young children, food for special medical purposes, and total diet replacement for weight control and repealing Council
Directive 92/52/EEC, Commission Directives 96/8/EC, 1999/21/EC, 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, Directive 2009/39/EC of
the European Parliament and of the Council and Commission Regulations (EC) No 41/2009 and (EC) No 953/2009. OJ L181,
29.6.2013, p. 3556.
10
Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification
regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. OJ L 015 20.1.2010, p. 1
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
controls in accordance with Council Directive 96/23/EC11 for veterinary medicinal products; the results
of the controls for dual use substances12 are also reported in the framework of this report.
It should be highlighted that for organic products no specific MRLs are established. Thus, the MRLs
set in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 apply equally to organic food and to conventional food. Regulation
(EC) No 889/200813 on organic production of agricultural products defines specific labelling provisions
and production methods, which entail significant restrictions on the use of pesticides.
Regulation (EC) No 669/200914 lays down rules concerning the increased level of official controls to be
carried out on a list of food and feed of non-animal origin which, based on known or emerging risks,
requires an increased level of controls prior to their introduction into the EU. The food products, the
country of origin of the products, the frequency of checks to be performed at the point of entry into
the EU territories and the hazards (e.g. certain pesticides, not approved food additives, mycotoxins)
are specified in Annex I to this Regulation which is regularly updated; for the calendar year 2014, four
updated versions were relevant.15,16,17,18
Other horizontal legislation relevant for food control and pesticides, which have some relevance for
the current report, are outlined in the 2011 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food
(EFSA, 2014b).
1.2.
Terms of Reference
In accordance with Article 32 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA shall prepare an Annual Report
on pesticide residues concerning the official control activities for food and feed carried out in 2014.
The Annual Report shall include at least the following information:
an analysis of the results of the controls on pesticide residues provided by EU Member States;
a statement of the possible reasons why the MRLs were exceeded, together with any appropriate
observations regarding risk management options;
an analysis of chronic and acute risks to the health of consumers from pesticide residues;
an assessment of consumer exposure to pesticide residues based on the information provided by

Member States and any other relevant information available, including reports submitted under
Directive 96/23/EC.19
In addition, the report may include an opinion on the pesticides that should be included in future
programmes.
11
Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals
and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. OJ L
125, 23.5.1996, p. 10.
12
The comprehensive results from the monitoring of veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances in live animals
and animal products are published in a separate report (EFSA, 2016e)
13
Commission Regulation (EC) No 889/2008 of 5 September 2008 laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council
Regulation (EC) No 834/2007 on organic production and labelling of organic products with regard to organic production,
labelling and control. OJ L 250, 18.9.2008, p. 184.
14
Commission Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 of 24 July 2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European
Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of nonanimal origin and amending Decision 2006/504/EC. OJ L 194, 25.7.2009, p. 1121.
15
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1355/2013 of 17 December 2013 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No
669/2009 implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased
level of official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin. OJ L 341, 18.12.2013, p. 3542.
16
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 323/2014 of 28 March 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No
17
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 718/2014 of 27 June 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009
implementing Regulation (EC) No 882/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the increased level of
official controls on imports of certain feed and food of non-animal origin. OJ L 190, 28.6.2014, p. 5562.
18
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1121/2014 of 26 September 2014 amending Annex I to Regulation (EC) No
19
Council Directive 96/23/EC of 29 April 1996 on measures to monitor certain substances and residues thereof in live animals
and animal products and repealing Directives 85/358/EEC and 86/469/EEC and Decisions 89/187/EEC and 91/664/EEC. OJ L
125, 23.5.1996, p. 1032.
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
2.
Introduction
This report provides an overview of the official control activities performed by EU Member States and
European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries in order to ensure compliance of food with the
legal limits. It should be noted that for the first time Croatia provided data in the framework of the EU
monitoring programme for the reference period 2014.
The results for pesticide residues in food provided by the reporting countries were analysed to identify
key characteristics for different pesticides, food products or product groups. In addition, the data were
analysed to identify trends compared with the results of previous monitoring programmes. The types
of data analyses presented in the 2014 report are similar to the analyses of previous years to allow
comparison of different years. However, taking into account questions and suggestions from
stakeholders, EFSA included additional analyses to address these issues (e.g. more details on organic
products or on baby food,20 results for glyphosate, more comparisons with results of the previous
years). Although cumulative risk assessment was one point that was repeatedly requested to be taken
on board in the EFSA annual reports on pesticide residues, this issue could not be considered in this
report because the grouping of pesticides in cumulative assessment groups and the methodology to
estimate the cumulative exposure is not yet finalised (EFSA, 2016a). Information on the progress in
the project that is of high priority for EFSA and invitation to provide input or comments at different
steps of the implementation of cumulative exposure assessment can be found on the EFSA website.
Following frequently asked questions on the interpretation of the results presented in the previous
report, EFSA would like to clarify that the results provided by Member States are presented in the
following categories:
Samples without measurable or quantifiable residues: the terms are used as synonyms to
describe results where the analytes were not present in concentrations exceeding the limit of
quantification (LOQ). The LOQ is the smallest concentration of an analyte that can be
quantified. It is commonly defined as the minimum concentration of the analyte in the test
sample that can be determined with acceptable precision and accuracy.
Samples with measurable/quantifiable residues but within the legal limits (below or at the
MRL): these samples contained residues of one or several pesticides in concentrations that
are legally permitted.
Samples with residues exceeding the legal limit (residues above the MRL): In general, this
term is used to describe samples where one or several pesticides were found in
concentrations that numerically exceed the legal limit.
Non-compliant samples: samples containing residue concentrations clearly exceeding the legal
limits, taking into account the measurement uncertainty. The concept of measurement
uncertainties and the impact on the decision of non-compliance is described in Figure 1 of the
guidance document on reporting data on pesticide residues (EFSA, 2015e). It is current
practice that the uncertainty of the analytical measurement is taken into account before legal
or administrative sanctions are imposed on food business operators for infringement of the
MRL legislation.
It is noted that a separate analysis of samples with residues below the limit of detection (LOD),21 thus,
samples free of any detectable residues, could not be performed, since this information is not
reported consistently by the reporting countries, although in a previous report (EFSA, 2014d), it was
recommended to provide this piece of information. Further discussions with reporting countries on the
feasibility to implement this recommendation are ongoing.
In accordance with the principle of engaging stakeholders in the process of scientific assessment
defined in the EFSA strategy 2020, interested readers are encouraged to submit further suggestions
on the type of data that should be presented in more detail in future reports
(pesticides.mrl@efsa.europa.eu).
20
In the framework of this report, the term baby food refers to the products covered by the provisions of Directive
2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC, i.e. infant formulae, follow-on formulae, processed cereal-based foods for infants and young
children and baby foods other than processed cereal-based foods.
21
The LOD is the lowest concentration of a pesticide residue that can be identified in a sample with an acceptable degree of
certainty. However, the amount of the analyte can not be quantified reliably.
10
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
The results of the national monitoring programmes had to be reported using the Standard Sample
Description, a data-reporting format developed by EFSA.22 For the 2014 data collection, EFSA put a
major emphasis on improving the quality of the data: for this purpose a completely revised guidance
document on the coding of samples was elaborated to ensure that the data provided from different
data providers are coded consistently (EFSA, 2015e). In addition, the data validation was further
elaborated. These steps were considered necessary with view to the future presentation of the results
in the data warehouse in line with the Open Data approach defined in the EFSA strategy 2020. Wellstructured data are also indispensable for performing high quality risk assessments.
In each EU Member State and EFTA country, two control programmes are in place: an EU-coordinated
control programme (EUCP) and a national control programme (NP). The results of the 2014 EUcoordinated programme, as defined in Commission Implementing Regulation (EC) No 788/2012 and
Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2013 are summarised in Section 3 of this report.
The purpose of this programme is to generate indicator data that are statistically representative of the
MRL exceedance rate for food of plant and animal origin placed on the European common market,
and which can be used to estimate the actual long-term consumer exposure of the European
population.
In contrast to the EUCP, the national control programmes are mainly risk based and are
complementary to the random, non-targeted controls performed in the context of the EU-coordinated
programme; the design and results of the national control programmes are reported in Section 4. The
results of samples taken in the framework of import control required under Regulation (EC) No
669/2009, as well as results for baby foods and for organic products, are also reported in this Section
4.
The results of the dietary exposure assessments for individual pesticides are described in Section 5.
This section is intended to identify risks for consumers related to pesticide residues in food.
Additional information and more detailed results related to the 2014 monitoring activities can be found
on the EFSA website and on the websites of the national competent authorities (Appendix A). In
addition, EFSA compiled a technical report (EFSA, 2016f) containing the national summary reports
submitted by the reporting countries, where further details on the pesticide monitoring activities at
national level are provided.
Together with this report, EFSA has published an Excel file supplement where detailed results for the
determinations/samples exceeding the legal limit can be found.
3.
EU-coordinated control programme
3.1.
Design of the EU-coordinated control programme
According to the 2014 monitoring regulation (Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 788/2012
and Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 480/2013), reporting countries were requested to
analyse in total 12 different food products (beans with pods, carrots, cucumbers, mandarins or
oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice, wheat flour, liver of ruminants, swine or poultry, poultry
meat23). The number of samples per food product to be analysed by each reporting country varied
from 15 to 93, depending on the population of the reporting country.
This regulation defined a total of 213 pesticides to be analysed; 191 thereof in food of plant origin and
58 in food of animal origin. The list of pesticides covered by the 2014 EUCP, including further details
on the pesticides that had to be analysed on food of plant or animal origin, is presented in Appendix
B, Table 17.
22
23
The description of the data model and explanations on the coding to be used for the different parameters can be found in a
guidance document prepared by EFSA (EFSA, 2015e).
On 1 April 2013, with entry into force of Commission Regulation (EU) No 212/2013 of 11 March 2013 replacing Annex I to
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards additions and modifications with
respect to the products covered by that Annex, OJ L 68, 12.3.2013, the description of the product to which the MRL applies
has changed. At the time when the monitoring regulation relevant for the calendar year 2014 was adopted, the product
description was poultry meat (whole product or the fat fraction only) whereas in 2014 the product was defined as muscle
(meat after removal of trimmable fat).
11
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
In 2011, basically the same food products were analysed as in 2014.24 The pesticide list of the 2014
EUCP was overlapping with the 2011 programme largely; only quintozene, tecnazene (relevant in
2011 for animal products) and dinocap (relevant for plant products) were no longer requested to be
analysed in 2014. Compared with 2011, 40 new pesticides were part of the 2014 programme, i.e. 2phenylphenol, biphenyl, chlorantraniliprole, cymoxanil, cyromazine, dichlorprop (RD), diethofencarb,
diflubenzuron, diniconazole-M, dithianon, dodine, ethoprophos, famoxadone, fenamidone, fenpropidin
(RD), fenpyroximate, flonicamid, flubendiamide, fluopyram, formothion, glufosinate (RD), ioxynil (RD),
isocarbophos, isofenphos-methyl, isoprocarb, maleic hydrazide (RD), mandipropamid, meptyldinocap
(RD), metaflumizone, metconazole, metobromuron, propoxur, pymetrozine, pyraclostrobin, rotenone,
spirodiclofen, spiromesifen, terbuthylazine, tetramethrin and topramezone. For the overlapping
pesticides and food products, EFSA performed a comparative assessment of results reported in 2014
and 2011.
Member States had to take at least one sample from organic production for each of the 12 food
products in focus. For the 733 organic samples reported under the 2014 EUCP, EFSA did not perform
a separate analysis of the results in this section of the report, but pooled the results with the results
of organic samples reported in the framework of national control plans. Readers interested in
comparative results for conventional and organic products are referred to Section 4.2.6.
In addition to the food products mentioned above, each reporting country had to take at least 10
samples of infant formulae and follow-on formulae. A comprehensive analysis of the results of the 218
infant formulae and follow-on formulae reported under the EUCP are reported in Section 4.2.5
alongside the results for other baby food products.
In total, 12,850 samples were analysed in the framework of the 2014 EUCP by the 30 reporting
countries. The breakdown of the number of samples taken by each country is reported in Figure 1.
24
In 2014, poultry meat was no longer included in the food classification relevant for pesticide MRLs; it was replaced by poultry
muscle.
12
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Austria; 159
Estonia; 163
Slovakia; 163
Norway; 165
Sweden; 179
Luxembourg; 179
Portugal; 213
Czech Republic; 228
Cyprus; 232
Croatia; 240
Finland; 245
Greece; 266
Malta; 155 Belgium; 151

Lithuania; 135
Iceland; 73
Germany; 1878
Italy; 1032
Latvia; 274
United Kingdom;
952
Slovenia; 276
Ireland; 287
Bulgaria; 287
Spain; 925
Netherlands; 486
Denmark; 502
Poland; 557
Romania; 871
Hungary; 871
France; 706
Figure 1: Number of samples taken by reporting country under the EUCP (excluding samples of
infant formulae and follow-on formulae)
3.2.
Results by pesticide
Among the 191 pesticides to be analysed in plant products, the following 37 have not been detected
in any of the samples analysed (the number in brackets refer to the total number of samples analysed
for the pertinent pesticide): bromopropylate (9518), phosalone (9426), ethion (9245), fenitrothion
(9082), tetradifon (9010), mepanipyrim (RD) (8917), dichlorvos (8773), bitertanol (8722), parathion
(8454), fenbuconazole (8440), dichlofluanid (8437), EPN (8277), isofenphos-methyl (8212),
carbofuran (RD) (8019), diniconazole (7910), aldicarb (RD) (7750), propoxur (7722), dicrotophos
(7376), fenamiphos (RD) (7335), methoxychlor (7319), tolylfluanid (RD) (7249), metconazole (7208),
trichlorfon (7184), parathion-methyl (RD) (7145), nitenpyram (6827), famoxadone (6742),
oxydemeton-methyl (RD) (6559), metobromuron (6503), isocarbophos (6423), isoprocarb (6022),
formothion (5711), rotenone (5651), carbosulfan (5580), vinclozolin (RD) (4746), benfuracarb (4492),
meptyldinocap (RD) (1036) and amitrole (392).
In plant products, 154 different substances were found in measurable concentrations. Residues
exceeding the legal limits were related to 69 different pesticides. Pesticides which were detected in at
least 1% of the samples of plant products, or for which an exceedance was identified in at least
0.02% of the samples analysed, are presented in Figure 2. The pesticides are ordered alphabetically;
the figures in brackets next to the name of the pesticide refer to the number of samples without
detectable residues (residues below the LOQ), the number of samples with residues within the legally
permitted concentrations and the number of samples exceeding the MRLs, respectively. Among the
pesticides that had to be analysed in all plant products, the most frequently detected pesticides
present in more than 4% of the samples analysed were imazalil, boscalid, dithiocarbamates,
chlorpyrifos, chlormequat, propamocarb, bromide ion, thiabendazole, pyrimethanil and cyprodinil.
Further details on the pesticides analysed under the EU-coordinated monitoring programme are
reported in Appendix B (Table 17) and Section 3.3.
13
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

All plant products
% of the samples analysed with detectable residues below or at the MRL
0
1.5
1.0
10
15
2,4-D (RD) (3272/104/0)

2-phenylphenol (6253/192/11)
Acephate (8738/1/4)
Acetamiprid (RD) (8482/120/0)
Amitraz (RD) (3939/0/1)
Azoxystrobin (8965/335/0)
Biphenyl (6167/0/2)
Boscalid (RD) (8149/803/0)
Bromide ion (351/28/1)
Captan (RD) (5436/217/1)
Carbendazim (RD) (7998/135/14)
Chlorantraniliprole (5847/145/0)
Chlorfenapyr (8024/3/2)
Chlormequat (2551/230/5)
Chlorpropham (RD) (9097/266/4)
Chlorpyrifos (8806/799/28)
Chlorpyrifos-methyl (9531/102/0)
Cypermethrin (8498/129/2)
Cyprodinil (RD) (8611/377/0)
Cyromazine (4343/26/1)
Deltamethrin (9413/154/1)
Dicofol (7205/1/2)
Difenoconazole (8942/165/0)
Dimethoate (RD) (8118/15/19)
Dithiocarbamates (RD) (4976/454/14)
Ethephon (1187/1/1)
Fenazaquin (8310/16/2)
Fenvalerate (RD) (4867/0/3)
Flonicamid (RD) (4734/24/3)
Fludioxonil (8764/316/0)
Fluopyram (RD) (4883/56/0)
Formetanate (4475/0/1)
Fosthiazate (6974/2/2)
Glyphosate (619/16/0)
Hexaconazole (9093/3/2)
Imazalil (8077/1252/7)
Imidacloprid (8508/248/3)
Iprodione (RD) (9077/220/6)
Lambda-cyhalothrin (6733/117/1)
Linuron (8332/92/0)
Lufenuron (7244/5/2)
Malathion (RD) (8563/7/5)
Mepiquat (2670/8/1)
Metalaxyl (7380/85/1)
Methamidophos (8925/2/4)
Methidathion (9078/6/2)
Methiocarb (RD) (8533/4/2)
Methomyl (RD) (7974/3/3)
Monocrotophos (8819/0/3)
Oxamyl (8640/1/2)
Pencycuron (8404/34/2)
Pirimiphos-methyl (9371/180/0)
Procymidone (RD) (9383/2/2)
Profenofos (9087/2/4)
Propamocarb (5930/493/0)
Propiconazole (9087/133/0)
Propyzamide (RD) (9134/2/3)
Pyraclostrobin (8194/292/1)
Pyrimethanil (9050/412/0)
Pyriproxyfen (8634/156/0)
Spinosad (7357/81/0)
Tebuconazole (RD) (9126/189/1)
Thiabendazole (RD) (8074/485/2)
Thiacloprid (8423/158/1)
Triazophos (9394/5/7)
Trifluralin (8731/1/2)
The numbers in brackets after the name of the pesticide

refer to the number of samples below the LOQ, the number
of samples above the LOQ and below or equal to the MRL
and above the MRL.
0.5
0.0
% of the samples analysed with residues above the MRL
Detectable residues MRL
Residues > MRL
Figure 2: Pesticides detected in plant products (detection rate > 1% and/or MRL exceedance
rate > 0.02%), sorted alphabetically
14
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Regarding animal products, the following 46 of the 58 pesticides covered by the EUCP were not
detected in any of the samples analysed (ordered by the total number of samples analysed):
deltamethrin (2242), endrin (2189), permethrin (2159), bifenthrin (2146), methoxychlor (2105),
diazinon (2098), chlorpyrifos (2091), chlorpyrifos-methyl (2083), parathion (2073), cypermethrin
(2060), dieldrin (RD) (1992), methidathion (1989), pyrazophos (1968), triazophos (1955), azinphosethyl (1900), profenofos (1884), parathion-methyl (RD) (1728), heptachlor (RD) (1671), fenthion (RD)
(1603), cyfluthrin (1596), fenvalerate (RD) (1567), tetraconazole (1347), fluquinconazole (1129),
prochloraz (RD) (712), tebuconazole (RD) (691), cyproconazole (641), epoxiconazole (629),
famoxadone (589), thiacloprid (536), metazachlor (487), spinosad (398), carbendazim (RD) (384),
metaflumizone (350), flusilazole (RD) (344), ioxynil (RD) (284), dichlorprop (RD) (265), spiroxamine
(RD) (189), fenpropimorph (RD) (145), haloxyfop-R (RD) (131), fluopyram (RD) (119), fenpropidin
(RD) (100), prothioconazole (RD) (97), chlormequat (57), topramezone (46), maleic hydrazide (RD)
(46) and mepiquat (31).
The remaining pesticides were detected sporadically, DDT being the most frequently detected
compound (1.3% of the samples of animal origin analysed in the framework of the EUCP); the other
pesticides (mainly non-approved pesticides present in the food chain due to their persistence, such as
hexachlorobenzene, chlordane, lindane, alpha- and beta-HCH and endosulfan) were detected in less
than 0.75% of the samples, respectively.
3.3.
Results by food products
In this section, detailed results concerning the 12 food products covered by the 2014 EUCP are
reported. For each food product, the following analyses are presented:
Key figures to describe the results for the matrices analysed, such as the number of samples
analysed, the percentage of samples free of quantifiable residues (samples with residues below
the LOQ), percentage of samples with multiple residues, the number of samples exceeding the
legal limit and number of samples found to be non-compliant; the percentages of samples free of
detectable residues (residues below or at the LOQ) and of samples with single and multiple
residues (residues > LOQ)25 are presented in a pie chart;
Key characteristics regarding the pesticides detected (e.g. number of pesticides detected, the
most frequently found pesticides and the number of pesticides in exceedance of a MRL);
In a bar chart presenting the pesticides found are presented, sorted according to the frequency of
detection in 2014. The percentages of samples with residues above the LOQ but below or equal to
the MRL are included on the left part of the chart (blue bars; upper x-axis scale). In the same
chart, the percentages of samples with residues exceeding the MRLs are included on the right part
of the chart (orange bars; lower x-axis scale). The figures in brackets next to the name of the
pesticide refer to the number of samples without quantifiable residues (samples with residues
below the LOQ), the number of samples with residues within the legally permitted concentrations
and the number of samples exceeding the MRLs, respectively. For the preparation of the bar
charts, the result evaluations of the reporting countries were used. Thus, it reflects the
conclusions of reporting countries whether the result was found to be within the legal limit or
exceeded the legal limit.26 The light bars refer to the results of 2011, while the bars in the darker
shade refer to the results of 2014. A maximum of 45 pesticides are plotted for each food product.
The pesticides with no detections in 2014 but where MRL exceedances were observed in 2011,
are plotted at the bottom of the bar chart. Pesticides in the scope of the 2014 monitoring
programme and not in the 2011 programme are marked with an asterisk.
A figure presenting the distribution of the measured residue levels, expressed as a percentage of
the MRL applicable for the specific pesticide/crop combination. The figures in brackets next to the
name of the pesticide refer to the number of samples without measurable residues, the number of
samples with residues within the legally permitted concentrations and the number of samples
exceeding the MRLs, respectively. Each result above the LOQ is depicted as a dot in the respective
25
Due to the rounding of the results, the total percentage may slightly differ from 100%.
For deciding whether a residue exceeded the legal limit, the measurement uncertainty was not taken into account. Thus, in
this presentation samples exceeding the legal limit numerically, but which would not trigger any legal or administrative followup actions are presented in the category residues above the MRL.
26
15
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
figure. Results above 300% of the MRL are mentioned on the right side of the chart. Pesticides
that were not analysed in the specific crop or where no detectable results were found are not
reflected in this presentation. For pesticides/commodity combinations where the legal limit
changed during 2014, the MRL in place at the beginning of the calendar year was used as
reference value.
Further information on the pesticides most frequently found in the concerned food products
(pesticides found in at least 5% of the samples, unless stated differently).
In a separate Excel file published as a supplement to this report, the full list of samples exceeding the
MRLs can be found, including information on the measured residue concentrations and the origin of
the samples.
3.3.1.
Beans with pods
In 2014, 999 samples of beans with pods were analysed; in 569 samples (57%), no pesticide residues
were detected, while 430 samples (43%) contained one or several pesticides in measurable
concentrations. Multiple residues were reported in 192 samples (19.2%); up to seven different
pesticides were detected in an individual beans with pod sample (Figure 3). Compared to 2011, the
overall detection rate decreased slightly (2011: 46% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
238 samples, 23.8%
3 residues,
4.7%
no measurable
residues,
569 samples,
57.0%
multiple residues,
192 samples,
19.2%
4 residues, 2.2%
2 residues,
11.6%
5 residues, 4, 0.4%
6 residues, 0.2%
more than 6 residues,
0.1%
Figure 3: Number of detectable residues in individual beans with pod samples

In 3.1% of the samples (31 samples), the residue concentrations exceeded the MRLs; 2.1% of the
samples (21 samples) were reported as non-compliant, taking into account the measurement
uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly related to imported products (23 samples).
In total, 77 different pesticides were found in concentrations greater than the LOQ. The most
frequently found pesticides were iprodione (RD) (detected in 10.1% of the tested samples), boscalid
(RD) (9.7%) and azoxystrobin (9.0%). The MRL was exceeded for 20 different pesticides, most
frequently for dimethoate (RD) (3 samples from India, 2 samples from Kenya and 1 sample from
Morocco and Egypt) and methomyl (RD) (2 samples from Kenya and 1 sample from the Dominican
Republic).
Figure 4 depicts the results for all pesticides with MRL exceedances and the most frequently detected
pesticides. Compared to 2011, the detection rate was in the same range for most pesticides; for
azoxystrobin, carbendazim, lambda-cyhalothrin and a number of other pesticides an increased
detection rate was observed. An increased number of MRL exceedances was noted for some
pesticides, mainly insecticides/acaricides (e.g. dimethoate (RD), lambda-cyhalothrin, acephate,
monocrotophos, profenofos, triazophos). It should be also highlighted that no MRL exceedances were
reported in 2014 for pesticides that were found to exceed the legal limit in 2011 (e.g. cypermethrin,
spinosad, thiophanate-methyl, propamocarb, acetamiprid (RD), pyraclostrobin, tau-fluvalinate,
oxamyl, fipronil (RD) and propargite). The individual residue concentrations, expressed as a
percentage of the respective MRL are plotted in Figure 5. Further information on the most frequently
detected pesticides found in beans with pods in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in
Table 1.
16
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Beans with pods

0
1.5
1.0
10
15
0.5
0.0

Boscalid (RD) (800/86/0)
Chlorantraniliprole* (610/15/0)
Spinosad (738/15/0)
Fluopyram (RD)* (526/7/0)
Chlorothalonil (RD) (783/10/0)
Thiophanate-methyl (838/9/0)
Cyromazine* (461/4/0)
Pirimicarb (RD) (854/5/0)
Tebufenpyrad (879/5/0)
Fluazifop-P-butyl (RD) (417/2/0)
Flubendiamide* (429/2/0)
Paclobutrazol (837/3/0)
Acephate (867/1/2)
Monocrotophos (869/0/3)
Indoxacarb (869/2/0)
Endosulfan (RD) (908/1/1)
Flonicamid (RD)* (555/0/1)
Tetramethrin* (617/0/1)
Biphenyl* (659/0/1)
Phoxim (733/0/1)
tau-Fluvalinate (810/1/0)
Tetraconazole (886/0/1)
Oxamyl (887/0/0)
Fipronil (RD) (729/0/0)
Propargite (914/0/0)
* Pesticide not analysed in 2011

and above the MRL.
2011 detectable residues MRL
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 4: Percentage of beans with pod samples with detectable residues below or equal to the
MRL and with residues above the MRL
17
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 5: Residue concentrations measured in beans with pod, expressed as a percentage of the
MRL (only samples with residues > LOQ)
18
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 1:
Pesticides most frequently detected in beans with pods in 2014

Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Iprodione (RD)
Boscalid (RD)
Azoxystrobin
Cyprodinil (RD)
Carbendazim (RD)
3.3.2.
10.1
9.7
9.0
9.0
6.5
Further information on the

pesticides found
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Fungicide, approved until 30/11/2014
Carrots
In 2014, 1,256 samples of carrots were analysed; in 719 samples (57.2%), no pesticide residues were
detected, while 537 samples (42.8%) contained one or several pesticides in measurable
concentrations. Multiple residues were reported in 204 samples (16.2%); up to 7 different pesticides
were detected in an individual carrot sample (Figure 6). Compared to 2011, the overall detection rate
remained in the same range (2011: 42.7% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
333 samples, 26.5%
no measurable
residues,
719 samples, 57.2%
3 residues,
2.9%
multiple
residues,
204 samples,
16.2%
2 residues,
10.5%
4 residues, 1.8%
5 residues, 0.6%
6 residues, 0.2%
more than 6
residues, 0.2%
Figure 6: Number of detectable residues in individual carrot samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly related to EU products (23 samples).
In total, 54 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides were boscalid
(RD) (detected in 23.1% of the tested samples), linuron (7.7%) and azoxystrobin (7.6%). The MRL
was exceeded for 12 different pesticides, most frequently for chlorpyrifos (12 samples, 5 from Greece,
2 from Spain and 1 each from Turkey, Malta, Portugal, Romania and Poland) and dieldrin (RD) (2
samples from Albania and France).
pesticides. Compared to 2011, the detection rate was slightly lower or in the same range for most
pesticides, except for boscalid where an increased detection rate was observed. An increased MRL
exceedance rate was noted for chlorpyrifos, but also a number of pesticides was found exceeding the
MRL where no such event was noted in 2011 (e.g. dieldrin (RD), trifluralin, propyzamide (RD), etc.).
The detection rate for linuron has decreased in 2014 compared to 2011.
The individual residue concentrations, expressed as a percentage of the respective MRL for the
pesticide are plotted in Figure 8. Further information on the most frequently detected pesticides found
in carrots in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 2.
19
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Carrots
0
10
15
20
25
30

Linuron (991/83/0)
Pendimethalin (1096/30/0)
Tefluthrin (903/9/0)
Metalaxyl (948/8/1)
Tolclofos-methyl (1140/9/0)
DDT (RD) (949/4/0)
Fenpropimorph (RD) (981/4/0)
Thiametoxam (RD) (1044/4/0)
Dieldrin (RD) (868/1/2)
Prothioconazole (RD) (684/2/0)
Trifluralin (1067/1/2)
Fenbutatin oxide (383/1/0)
Clothianidin (407/1/0)
Dimethomorph (1075/2/0)
Cyproconazole (1114/2/0)
Imazalil (1140/2/0)
Myclobutanil (RD) (1158/2/0)
Mandipropamid* (901/0/1)
Chlorfenvinphos (1129/0/1)
1.2
0.8

and above the MRL.
0.4
0.0
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 7: Percentage of carrots samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and
with residues above the MRL
20
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 8: Residue concentrations measured in carrots, expressed as a percentage of the MRL (only
samples with residues > LOQ)
21
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 2:
Pesticides most frequently detected in carrots in 2014

Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Boscalid (RD)
Linuron
Azoxystrobin
Difenoconazole
3.3.3.
23.1
7.7
7.6
6.9

pesticides found
Approved fungicide
Approved herbicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Cucumbers
In 2014, 1,263 samples of cucumbers were analysed; in 644 samples (51%), no pesticide residues
were detected, while 619 samples (49%) contained one or several pesticides in measurable
were detected in an individual cucumber sample (Figure 9). Compared to 2011, the overall detection
rate slightly went up (2011: 47.0% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
283 samples, 22.4%
3 residues, 6.7%
no measurable
residues,
644 samples,
51.0%
4 residues,
3.9%
multiple residues,
336 samples,
26.6%
2 residues,
13.7%
5 residues, 1.3%
6 residues, 0.4%

0.6%
Figure 9: Number of detectable residues in individual cucumber samples

uncertainty.
In total, 68 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides were
propamocarb (detected in 37% of the tested samples), cyprodinil (RD) (11.1%) and dithiocarbamates
(RD) (6.7%). The MRL was exceeded for 12 different pesticides, most frequently for chlorpyrifos (RD)
(2 samples from Italy and Romania each, 1 sample from Malta and the Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia) and dimethoate (RD) (1 sample from Slovenia and Romania).
pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the overall detection rates and MRL
exceedance rates were in the same range.
pesticide are plotted in Figure 11. Further information on the most frequently detected pesticides
found in cucumbers in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 3.
22
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Cucumbers
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Pymetrozine* (916/46/0)
Spinosad (903/19/0)
Triadimenol (RD) (1111/16/0)
Cymoxanil* (863/7/0)
Imazalil (1170/9/0)
Bupirimate (1181/8/0)
Teflubenzuron (950/6/0)
Penconazole (1165/7/0)
Flutriafol (1070/6/0)
Fenhexamid (1147/6/0)
Oxamyl (1090/1/2)
Pyridaben (1140/2/1)
Formetanate (548/0/1)
Captan (RD) (716/0/1)
Ethirimol (774/2/0)
Oxadixyl (1136/0/0)
Dichlorvos (1086/0/0)
1.6
1.2
0.8

and above the MRL.
0.4
0.0

2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 10: Percentage of cucumbers samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL
and with residues above the MRL
23
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 11: Residue concentrations measured in cucumbers, expressed as a percentage of the MRL
(only samples with residues > LOQ)
24
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 3:
Pesticides most frequently detected in cucumbers in 2014

Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Propamocarb
Cyprodinil (RD)
Dithiocarbamates (RD)
Metalaxyl
Azoxystrobin
Fluopyram (RD)
3.3.4.
37.3
11.1
6.7
6.6
5.6
5.6

pesticides found
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Mandarins
According to the 2014 monitoring regulation, Member States had the choice to analyse mandarins or
oranges. Since the legal limits are not necessarily the same for these two food products, EFSA
performed a separate analysis for mandarins and oranges, respectively.
In 2014, 493 samples of mandarins were analysed; in 103 samples (20.9%), no pesticide residues
were detected, while 390 samples (79.1%) contained one or several pesticides in measurable
were detected in an individual mandarins sample (Figure 12). Compared to 2011, the overall detection
rate decreased slightly (2011 samples: 85.7% contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
71 samples,
14.4%
no measurable residues,
103 samples,
20.9%
3 residues,
18.7%
2 residues,
22.3%
multiple residues,
319 samples,
64.7%
4 residues, 10.3%
5 residues, 7.5%
2.4%
6 residues, 3.4%
Figure 12: Number of detectable residues in individual mandarin samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly related to products grown in the EU compared to
those imported (4 samples from Spain, 2 samples from Morocco, Israel and France, respectively, and
1 each from Greece, Portugal and Turkey).
In total, 52 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides were imazalil
(detected in 69.8% of the tested samples), chlorpyrifos (37.4%) and thiabendazole (RD) (31.7%).
The MRL was exceeded for 9 different pesticides, most frequently for dimethoate (RD) (3 samples)
and imazalil (3 samples).
pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the 2014 detection rate was slightly
lower for most pesticides, except for imazalil, thiabendazole, pyrimethanil and propiconazole where an
increase was observed. Compared to 2011, an increased number of MRL exceedance was noted for
some pesticides, mainly insecticides/acaricides (e.g. dimethoate (RD), dicofol, fenthion and
fenvalerate (RD) and imazalil). It should be also highlighted that some of the MRL exceedances
identified in 2014 refer to non-approved pesticides (dicofol, diazinon and fenthion).
25
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
found in mandarins in 2014 in at least 10% of the samples is compiled in Table 4.
26
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

Mandarins
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Imazalil (142/325/3)
2,4-D (RD) (172/34/0)
2-phenylphenol* (322/63/0)
Etofenprox (336/17/0)
Prochloraz (RD) (328/16/0)
Hexythiazox (358/14/0)
Phosmet (RD) (320/7/0)
Fenpropathrin (454/6/0)
Dichlorprop (RD)* (168/2/0)
Pyridaben (456/4/0)
Fenpyroximate* (348/3/0)
Dicofol (314/0/2)
Methoxyfenozide (389/2/0)
Triflumuron (412/2/0)
Fenthion (RD) (337/0/1)
Diazinon (478/0/1)
2.5
2.0
1.5

and above the MRL.
1.0
0.5
0.0

2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 13: Percentage of mandarin samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and
27
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 14: Residue concentrations measured in mandarins, expressed as a percentage of the MRL
28
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 4:
Pesticides most frequently detected in mandarins in 2014
Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Imazalil
Chlorpyrifos
Thiabendazole (RD)
Pyrimethanil
2,4-D (RD)
2-phenylphenol
3.3.5.
69.8
37.4
31.7
20.6
16.5
16.4
Further information on the pesticides

found
Approved fungicide
Approved insecticide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved herbicide and plant growth regulator
Approved fungicide, used also for post-harvest
treatment
Oranges
In 2014, 1,100 samples of oranges were analysed; in 225 samples (20.5%), no pesticide residues
were detected in an individual oranges sample (Figure 15). Compared to 2011, the overall detection
rate remained stable (2011 samples: 80.3% contained pesticide residues).
1 residue
measured,
210 samples,
19.1%
3 residues,
15.5%
multiple residues,
665 samples, 60.5%
2 residues,
21.1%
225 samples,
20.5%
4 residues, 11.5%
5 residues, 6.1%
2.7%
6 residues,
3.5%
Figure 15: Number of detectable residues in individual orange samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly related to products imported from third countries (13
samples).
In total, 65 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides were imazalil
(detected in 76.2% of the tested samples), chlorpyrifos (33.5%) and thiabendazole (RD) (31.2%).
The MRL was exceeded for 11 different pesticides, most frequently for malathion (RD) (3 sample from
which 1 from Zimbabwe, 1 from Egypt and 1 from South Africa) and imazalil (3 samples from which 2
were from South Africa and 1 from Italy).
pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the detection rate was slightly
higher for imazalil, pyrimethanil, dithiocarbamates (RD), 2,4-D (RD) and thiabendazole (RD) whereas
chlorpyrifos was found less frequently. An MRL exceedance was noted for fenvalerate (RD) and
ethephon, while no such events occurred in 2011.
found in oranges in 2014 in at least 10% of the samples is compiled in Table 5.
29
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Oranges
0
10
20
30
40
4.0
3.6
3.2
2.8
2.4
50
60
70
80
90
100
2.0
1.6
1.2
0.8
0.4
0.0
2,4-D (RD) (284/70/0)
Trifloxystrobin (RD) (948/26/0)
Hexythiazox (831/15/0)
Glyphosate (62/1/0)
Fenpropathrin (953/12/0)
Buprofezin (985/9/0)
Dichlorprop (RD)* (398/3/0)
Phosmet (RD) (741/5/0)
Methidathion (939/4/2)
Ethephon (221/0/1)
Prothiofos (841/0/1)
Penconazole (1006/1/0)
Carbaryl (1005/0/0)
Ethion (993/0/0)
Fenamiphos (RD) (711/0/0)
Fenitrothion (915/0/0)

and above the MRL.
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 16: Percentage of orange samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and
30
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 17: Residue concentrations measured in oranges, expressed as a percentage of the MRL
31
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 5:
Pesticides most frequently detected in oranges in 2014
Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Imazalil
Chlorpyrifos
Thiabendazole (RD)
Pyrimethanil
2,4-D (RD)
2-phenylphenol
76.2
33.5
31.2
19.8
19.8
17.6
Pyriproxyfen
15.9
11.9
3.3.6.
Further information on the pesticides found

Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide, used also for post-harvest
treatment
Group of fungicides
Pears
In 2014, 1,245 samples of pears were analysed; in 312 samples (25.1%), no pesticide residues were
were detected in an individual pear sample (Figure 18). Compared to 2011, the overall detection rate
increased (2011: 70.8% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
216 samples,
17.3%
312 samples,
25.1%
3 residues,
13.9%
multiple residues,
717 samples,
57.6%
4 residues, 10.9%
2 residues,
16.5%
5 residues, 7.1%

5.2%
6 residues, 3.9%
Figure 18: Number of detectable residues in individual pear samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were all related to products grown in the EU.
dithiocarbamates (RD) (detected in 34.3% of the tested samples), captan (RD) (31.8%) and boscalid
(RD) (31.2%). The MRL was exceeded for 11 pesticides, most frequently for 2-phenylphenol (10
samples all from Spain) and chlormequat (5 samples from which 3 were from Spain, 1 from the
Netherlands and 1 from Poland).
pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the detection rate was in the same
range for most pesticides, except for captan (RD), boscalid (RD) and fludioxonil where an increased
detection rate was observed. The detection rate for dithiocarbamates (RD) and diphenylamine has
decreased compared to 2011. For 2-phenylphenol, a pesticide that was not yet analysed in 2011, a
number of MRL exceedances was identified.
found in pears in 2014 in at least 10% of the samples is compiled in Table 6.
32
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

Pears
0
10
20
1.5
1.2
0.9
30
40
50
0.6
0.3
0.0

Captan (RD) (463/216/0)
Imazalil (1017/127/1)
Dithianon* (334/20/0)
Methoxyfenozide (943/47/0)
Diflubenzuron (RD)* (843/40/0)
Diphenylamine (1071/42/1)
Fenoxycarb (1108/25/0)
Dodine* (582/12/0)
Spinosad (885/17/0)
Phosmet (RD) (910/14/1)
Spirodiclofen* (882/14/0)
Paclobutrazol (997/13/0)
Triflumuron (960/12/0)
Thiophanate-methyl (984/8/1)
Amitraz (RD) (654/0/1)
Mepiquat (687/0/1)
Flusilazole (RD) (1043/0/1)

and above the MRL.
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 19: Percentage of pear samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and with
residues above the MRL
33
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 20: Residue concentrations measured in pears, expressed as a percentage of the MRL (only
34
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Table 6:
Pesticides most frequently detected in pears in 2014
Pesticide
% samples above LOQ

34.3
31.8
31.2
21.5
18.4
16.2
15.6
13.4
11.8
11.2
Captan (RD)
Boscalid (RD)
Pyraclostrobin
Fludioxonil
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorantraniliprole
Cyprodinil (RD)
Thiacloprid
Imazalil
3.3.7.

Group of different fungicides
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide and plant growth regulator
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
Potatoes
In 2014, 1,456 samples of potatoes were analysed; in 1,033 samples (70.9%), no pesticide residues
were detected in an individual potato sample (Figure 21). Compared to 2011, the overall detection
rate increased (2011: 23.8% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
314 samples, 21.6%
no measurable
residues,
1033 samples, 70.9%
3 residues,
1.0%
multiple residues,
109 samples, 7.5%
2 residues,
6.1%
4 residues, 0.3%
5 residues, 0.1%
6 residues, 0.1%
Figure 21: Number of detectable residues in individual potato samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were all related to products grown in the EU.
chlorpropham (RD) (detected in 24.3% of the tested samples), propamocarb (11.3%) and maleic
hydrazide (RD) (8.7%). The MRL was exceeded for 10 different pesticides, most frequently for
chlorpyrifos (6 samples from which 2 were from Malta, 1 from Spain, 1 from Slovenia, 1 from Italy
and 1 from Greece), fosthiazate (2 samples from France) and lufenuron (2 samples from Malta).
Figure 22 depicts the results for all pesticides with MRL exceedances and all detected pesticides with
residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the detection rate was in the same range for most
pesticides, except for propamocarb where an increased detection rate was observed. MRL
exceedances increased or were noted for the first time for imidacloprid, cyromazine, dithiocarbamates
(RD), chlorpyrifos, lufenuron, fenazaquin and iprodione).
found in potatoes in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 7.
35
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Potatoes
0
10
1.2
0.8
20
30

Maleic hydrazide (RD)* (189/18/0)
DDT (RD) (1091/5/0)
Fosthiazate (978/2/2)
Lufenuron (999/1/2)
Linuron (1182/1/0)
Permethrin (1246/1/0)
Kresoxim-methyl (RD) (1325/0/0)
Spinosad (998/0/0)

and above the MRL.
0.4
0.0
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 22: Percentage of potato samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and
36
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 23: Residue concentrations measured in potatoes, expressed as a percentage of the MRL
Table 7:
Pesticides most frequently detected in potatoes in 2014

Pesticide
Chlorpropham (RD)
Propamocarb
Maleic hydrazide (RD)
3.3.8.
% samples above LOQ

24.3
11.3
8.7

found
(sprout suppressor)
Approved fungicide
Approved plant growth regulator
Spinach
In 2014, 952 samples of spinach were analysed; in 588 samples (61.8%), no pesticide residues were
were detected in an individual spinach sample (Figure 24). Compared to 2011, the overall detection
rate decreased (2011: 46.7% of the samples contained pesticide residues).
37
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
1 residue measured,
189 samples,
19.9%
3 residues,
5.5%
multiple residues,
175 samples,
18.4%
588 samples,
61.8%
2 residues,
9.2%
4 residues, 2.4%
5 residues, 1.1%
6 residues, 0.1%
0.1%
Figure 24: Number of detectable residues in individual spinach samples

uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly related to products grown in the EU (31 samples).
In total, 65 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides 27 were
propamocarb (detected in 12.9% of the tested samples) and boscalid (RD) (10.4%). The MRL was
exceeded for 16 different pesticides, most frequently for dithiocarbamates (RD) (11 samples; 3 from
Italy, 2 from Spain, 1 from Austria, 1 from Cyprus, 1 from Germany, 1 from Greece, 1 from Lithuania
and 1 from Portugal) and iprodione (RD) (5 samples; 3 from Italy, 1 from France and 1 from Poland).
pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the detection rate increased for
several pesticides, such as propamocarb, boscalid (RD), deltamethrin, cypermethrin and spinosad
while a decline was noted for dithiocarbamates (RD). In general, a decreased rate on the number of
MRL exceedances was noted in 2014 compared to 2011.
found in spinach in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 8.
27
One result was reported for bromide ion with a residue concentration above the LOQ. As only one sample was analysed for
this substance, the detection rate of bromide ion (100%) is not presented in Figure 25.
38
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Spinach
0
10
7.5
6.0
4.5
15
20
25
3.0
1.5
0.0
Spinosad (682/30/0)
Mandipropamid* (672/23/0)
Terbuthylazine* (763/10/0)
Linuron (828/8/0)
Pyrethrins (449/2/0)
Fenpropimorph (RD) (748/3/0)
Methiocarb (RD) (800/1/2)
Metalaxyl (728/2/0)
Acrinathrin (817/2/0)
Biphenyl* (618/0/1)
Fenamidone* (785/0/1)

and above the MRL.
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 25: Percentage of spinach samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and
39
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 26: Residue concentrations measured in spinach, expressed as a percentage of the MRL (only
Table 8:
Pesticides most frequently detected in spinach in 2014

Pesticide
Propamocarb
Boscalid (RD)
Deltamethrin
Cypermethrin
Lambda-cyhalothrin
% samples above LOQ

12.9
10.4
8.3
7.0
7.0
40

pesticides found
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
3.3.9.
Rice
According to the 2014 EU monitoring regulation, samples of unprocessed rice grain (brown rice)
should be analysed for pesticide residues. However, since some of the reporting countries could not
take the required number of unprocessed rice, samples of polished rice were analysed instead.
In total, 763 samples of rice (85 samples of polished rice and 678 samples of unprocessed rice) were
analysed in 2014; in 554 samples (72.6%) no pesticide residues were detected, while 209 samples
(27.4%) contained one or several pesticides in measurable concentrations. Multiple residues were
reported in 70 samples (9.2%); up to 8 different pesticides were detected in an individual rice sample
(Figure 27). Compared to 2011, the overall detection rate decreased slightly (2011: 29.4% of the
samples contained pesticide residues).
4 residues, 0.9%
1 residue measured,
139 samples,
18.2%
554 samples,
72.6%
3 residues,
2.1%
5 residues, 0.3%
6 residues, 0.5%
multiple residues,
70 samples,
9.2%
2 residues,
5.0%

0.4%
Figure 27: Number of detectable residues in individual rice samples (results for unprocessed rice
grain and polished rice were pooled)
In 2.1% of the samples (16 samples), the residue concentrations exceeded the MRLs; all the MRL
exceedances are related to unpolished rice. 1.2% of the samples (9 samples) were reported as noncompliant, taking into account the measurement uncertainty. The MRL exceedances were mainly
related to imported products (14 samples).
In total, 39 different pesticides were detected. The most frequently found pesticides were pirimiphosmethyl (detected in 7.8% of the tested samples), bromide ion (7.5%) and deltamethrin (6.9%). The
MRL was exceeded for 9 different pesticides, most frequently for carbendazim (RD) (8 samples, 4
from India, 1 from Vietnam, 1 from Pakistan, 1 from Italy and 1 unknown origin), triazophos (5
samples from which 4 were from India and 1 from Italy) and methamidophos (4 samples; 3 from
India and 1 from South Korea).
Figure 28 depicts the results for all pesticides with MRL exceedances and all detected pesticides with
residues below or at the MRL. Compared to 2011, the pesticide spectrum was comparable, with a
reduced detection and MRL exceedance rate for bromide ion. MRL exceedances were noted for nonapproved pesticides (i.e. triazophos, methamidophos, acephate, profenofos, hexaconazole and
phenthoate).
found in rice in 2014 in at least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 9.
41
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

Rice
0
10
15
20
14.0
Bromide ion (344/27/1)
2.4
Buprofezin (650/31/0)
Methamidophos (653/2/4)
Tebufenozide (607/4/0)
Epoxiconazole (655/3/0)
Acephate (631/0/2)
Bromuconazole (588/1/0)
Tefluthrin (597/1/0)
Phenthoate (625/0/1)
Diphenylamine (660/1/0)
Carbaryl (668/1/0)
Quinoxyfen (669/0/1)
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

and above the MRL.
2011 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 28: Percentage of rice samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL and with
residues above the MRL
42
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 29: Residue concentrations measured in rice, expressed as a percentage of the MRL (only
Table 9:
Pesticides most frequently detected in rice in 2014
Pesticide
% samples above LOQ
Pirimiphos-methyl
7.8
Bromide ion
7.5
Deltamethrin
Propiconazole
Tebuconazole (RD)
6.9
6.1
5.1

Approved insecticide, used also for post-harvest
treatment
Methyl bromide is used as a fumigant, leading to
residues of bromide ion. Bromide ion is also
naturally occurring in low concentrations in
untreated products.
Approved fungicide
Approved fungicide
3.3.10. Wheat flour

According to the 2014 EU monitoring regulation, Member States had to take samples of wheat flour.
This regulation did not specify the type of flour (wholemeal flour or refined white flour). In 2014, 702
samples of wheat flour were analysed; 639 of these samples were refined white flour whereas 63
samples of wholemeal flour were analysed. In 413 samples (58.8%), no pesticide residues were
43
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
were detected in an individual wheat flour sample (Figure 30). Compared to 2011, the overall
detection rate decreased (2011 samples: 52.1% contained pesticide residues).
1 residue measured,
206 samples,
29.3%
413 samples,
58.8%
multiple residues,
83 samples,
11.8%
2 residues,
9.1%
3 residues,
2.4%
4 residues, 0.3%
Figure 30: Number of detectable residues in individual wheat flour samples (results for white flour
and wholemeal flour were pooled)
For 0.4% of the samples (3 samples) reporting countries considered the residue concentrations
measured as exceeding the legal limits.
In total, 19 different pesticides were detected. Figure 31 depicts the results for all pesticides with MRL
exceedances and all detected pesticides with residues below or at the MRL. The most frequently found
pesticides were chlormequat (detected in 47.7% of the tested samples) and pirimiphos-methyl
(17.7%). MRL exceedances were found for 2 different pesticides,28 i.e. for permethrin (2 samples from
Poland) and cyfluthrin (1 sample from Portugal) while no such events were identified in 2011. All the
MRL exceedances were related to refined white flour. The detection rate for pirimiphos-methyl,
chlorpyrifos-methyl, deltamethrin and chlorpropham (RD) has decreased in 2014 compared to 2011.
For processed commodities, a direct comparison of the measured residue and the legal limit set for
the unprocessed products is not appropriate. In order to decide whether a processed product is
compliant with the legal provision, a processing factor should be taken into account, which quantifies
the transfer of pesticide residues from unprocessed to processed products. In accordance with the
legal provisions in the past, data to derive processing factors had to be provided by applicants
requesting the approval of active substances only in cases where a significant consumer exposure was
expected. Thus, a complete list of processing factors is currently not available. For this reason, EFSA
did not prepare the dot-plot presenting the measured residue concentration as percentage of the legal
limit. Further information on the most frequently detected pesticides found in wheat flour in 2014 in at
least 5% of the samples is compiled in Table 10.
28
The measured residues were 0.041 mg/kg of cyfluthrin (RD) and 0.266 mg/kg and 0.0196 mg/kg of permethrin. The MRL for
unprocessed wheat is set at the LOQ for both pesticides (0.02 mg/kg for cyfluthrin (RD) and 0.05 mg/kg for permethrin).
Considering that the legal limtis were at the LOQ, the presence of residues above the LOQ was considered as sufficient
evidence for MRL exceedance.
44
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Wheat flour
10
20
30
40
50
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Glyphosate (298/15/0)
Mepiquat (375/8/0)
Pyrethrins (295/3/0)
Cyfluthrin (469/0/1)
Fenoxycarb (597/1/0)
Epoxiconazole (605/1/0)
Imazalil (643/1/0)


2011 residues > MRL

2014 residues > MRL
Figure 31: Percentage of wheat flour samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL
and with residues above the MRL
Table 10:
Pesticides most frequently detected in wheat flour in 2014
Pesticide
Chlormequat
Pirimiphos-methyl
% samples above LOQ

47.7
17.7

Approved plant growth regulator
Approved insecticide, used also for post-harvest
treatment
3.3.11. Liver (bovine, poultry, sheep, swine)

In 2014, 1,141 liver samples of different species were analysed (307 samples of bovine liver, 386
samples of poultry liver, 84 samples of sheep liver and 364 samples of swine liver). For the data
analysis, the results of all liver samples were pooled. In 1,120 samples (98.2%), no pesticide residues
concentrations. Only 1 sample (0.1%) contained multiple residues (2 different pesticides) (Figure 32).
Compared to 2011, the overall detection rate decreased (2011: 3.6% of the samples contained
pesticide residues).
45
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
1 residue measured,
20 samples, 1.8%
2 residues,
0.1%
1120 samples,
98.2%
Figure 32: Number of detectable residues in individual liver samples (results for different animal
species were pooled)
No MRL exceedance was reported for any liver sample analysed. In total, 5 different pesticides were
detected. The most frequently found pesticide was hexachlorobenzene, an active substance that is no
longer used as a pesticide but is still present in the environment due to its environmental persistence
(detected in 1.3% of the tested samples); in a low percentage of samples, other persistent organic
pollutants such as DDT and chlorobenzilate were detected. Pendimethalin is the only approved
pesticide detected in liver.
Figure 33 depicts the results for all the detected pesticides with residues below or at the MRL.
Compared to 2011, the pesticide profile did not change significantly.
pesticide are plotted in Figure 34. Further information on the detected pesticides found in liver in 2014
is compiled in Table 11.
Liver
0
Hexachlorobenzene (1021/13/0)
DDT (RD) (960/6/0)
Chlorobenzilate (743/1/0)
Hexachlorocyclohexane (beta)
(1003/1/0)

and above the MRL.
Figure 33: Percentage of liver samples with detectable residues below or equal to the MRL (no
samples with residues above the MRL)
46
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 34: Residue concentrations measured in liver, expressed as a percentage of the MRL (only
Table 11:
Pesticides most frequently detected in liver in 2014
Pesticide
Hexachlorobenzene
DDT (RD)
Pendimethalin
Chlorobenzilate
% samples above
LOQ
1.3
0.6
0.2
0.1
0.1

Banned pesticide, detected in bovine liver
Banned pesticide, detected in bovine and sheep liver
Approved herbicide, detected in bovine liver
Not approved acaricide, detected in swine liver
Not approved insecticide, detected in bovine liver
3.3.12. Poultry (muscle and fat)

According to the 2014 EU monitoring regulation, Member States had to take samples of poultry meat.
However, with the entry into force of the new food classification (Regulation (EU) No 212/2013),
poultry meat was replaced by poultry muscle. Thus, in 2014 the MRLs set in the EU MRL legislation
referred to poultry muscle (free of trimmable fat) and to poultry fat separately. Hence, results for
poultry muscle and poultry fat were provided in accordance with the legal provisions in place in 2014.
For this reason a direct comparison of the 2014 results with the results of 2011, where poultry meat
was analysed, is not possible.
In 2014, 1,046 samples of poultry muscle were analysed; in addition, results for 434 samples of
poultry fat were submitted by reporting countries. In Figure 35 the results for the pooled 1,480
samples of poultry muscle and fat are presented without distinction of the different matrices analysed.
In 1,443 samples (97.5%), no pesticide residue was detected, while 37 samples contained one or
several pesticides in measurable concentrations. Multiple residues were reported in 12 samples of
poultry muscle and in 2 samples of poultry fat (0.9% of samples of poultry fat and muscle); up to 4
different pesticides were detected in an individual poultry muscle sample. In none of the samples, the
MRL set for muscle or fat was exceeded.
47
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
1 residue measured,
23 samples, 1.6%
3 residues,
0.2%
4 residues,
0.1%
1443 samples,
97.5%
2 residues,
0.6%
multiple residues,
14 samples, 0.9%
Figure 35: Number of detectable residues in individual poultry muscle and poultry fat (results for the
two matrices were pooled)
In total, 8 different pesticides were detected with DDT being the most frequent (detected in 1.9% of
the tested samples) followed by chlordane (RD) (1.1%).
Figure 36 depicts the results for all pesticides detected with residues below or at the MRL. The
individual residue concentrations, expressed as a percentage of the respective MRL in poultry muscle
and poultry fat are plotted in Figure 37. Further information on the most frequently detected
pesticides found in poultry meat in 2014 in at least 1% of the samples is compiled in Table 12.
Poultry muscle/fat
0
1
2
3
DDT (RD) (1158/22/0)

Chlordane (RD) (637/7/0)
Lindane (1195/9/0)
HCH (alpha) (1172/7/0)
HCH (beta) (1188/6/0)
Resmethrin (682/2/0)
Hexachlorobenzene (1210/3/0)
and above the MRL.
Figure 36: Percentage of poultry samples (muscle or fat) with detectable residues below or equal to
the MRL and with residues above the MRL
48
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 37: Residue concentrations measured in poultry samples, expressed as a percentage of the
MRL (only samples with residues > LOQ)
Table 12:
Pesticides most frequently detected in poultry muscle/fat in 2014
Pesticide
DDT (RD)
Chlordane (RD)
3.4.
% samples above LOQ

1.9
1.1

found
Banned pesticide
Banned pesticide
Overall results of EU-coordinated monitoring programme
Overall, 1.5% of the 12,850 samples analysed in 2014 in the framework of the EU-coordinated
monitoring programme exceeded the MRL (192 samples). Taking into account the measurement
uncertainty, 0.8% of the samples (104 samples) were considered to be not compliant while the
remaining samples exceeded the MRL numerically but did not lead to legal or administrative follow-up
actions. The number of samples with measurable residues above the reporting limit, but within the
legally permitted level (above the LOQ but below the MRL) was 4,935 (38.4%) (see Figure 38). The
number of samples with no quantifiable residues (residues below the limit of quantification) was 7,723
(60.1%).
Compared with 2011, the reference period where the same commodities as in 2014 were analysed,
the MRL exceedance rate has slightly declined in 2014 (1.5% in 2014; 1.9% of the samples analysed
in 2011 in the framework of the EUCP exceeded the legal limit in place). The percentage of samples
with quantifiable residues within the legal limits was lower in 2014 (43.3% in 2011 versus 38.4% in
2014).
49
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Comparison 2014 and 2011

0
10
20
30
40
Beans (with pods)
50
60
70
80
39.9
Carrots
90
100
3.1
40.7
Cucumbers
2.1
47.5
1.5
Mandarins
76.5
Oranges
2.6
78.1
Pears
1.5
73.3
Potatoes
1.6
28.0
Rice
1.1
25.3
Spinaches
2.1
34.9
Wheat flour
3.4
0.4
40.7
Liver
1.8
Poultry (muscle/fat)*
2.5
All products
20.0
38.4
18.0
16.0
14.0
1.5
12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

* Limited comparability of results due to
changed commodity type to be assessed
(poultry muscle and fat in 2014 vs. poultry
meat in 2011)

2011 residues > MRL

2014 residues > MRL
Figure 38: Overall proportion of EUCP samples with residues exceeding the MRL and samples with
quantifiable residues below the MRL
Among the unprocessed plant products analysed in the 2014 EU-coordinated control programme, the
lowest MRL exceedance rate was identified in potatoes, followed by oranges and cucumbers. The
ascending ranking of plant products exceeding the MRL is continued with pears, carrots, rice,
mandarins, beans (with pods) and spinaches. A low MRL exceedance rate was also found for wheat
flour. No MRL exceedance was identified in animal products (liver, poultry muscle/fat).
4.
National control programmes
Compared with the EU-coordinated monitoring programme, the national control programmes are
rather risk based, focussing on products which are likely to contain pesticide residues or for which
MRL infringements were identified in previous monitoring programmes. These programmes are not
designed to provide statistically representative results for residues expected in food placed on the
European market. The reporting countries define the priorities for their national control programmes
taking into account the importance of food products in trade or in the national diets, the products with
high residue prevalence or non-compliance rates in previous years, the use pattern of pesticides and
the laboratory capacities. The number of samples and/or the number of pesticides analysed by the
participating countries is determined by the capacities of national control laboratories and the
available budget resources. Considering the specific needs in the reporting countries and the
particularities of national control programmes, the results of national control programmes are not
directly comparable.
In the framework of the national control programmes, reporting countries also provided the results of
import controls as required by Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. These specific import controls are
defined based on previously observed high incidences of non-compliant products imported from
certain countries and/or notifications under the Rapid Alert System of the European Commission.
The first part of this chapter (Section 4.1) describes the design of the national programmes
highlighting the differences in the approaches chosen by reporting countries. In the second part of the
chapter (Section 4.2), the results of the national control activities are analysed in detail with regard to
50
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
the main parameters describing the national programmes (food products/pesticides/countries of

origin). In these analyses, EFSA put specific emphasis on MRL exceedances as these findings may give
indications of agricultural practices not in line with the legal provisions or potential consumer risk.
However, it should be stressed again that since the national control programmes are targeted
sampling strategies, the identified cases of MRL exceedances should not be considered as being
statistically representative of the food available to European consumers. The findings, in particular the
MRL exceedances, should be used by risk managers to take decisions how to design the risk based
national monitoring programmes, e.g. which pesticides should be covered by the analytical methods
used to analyse food products, or which types of products should be included in the national control
programmes in order to make the programmes more efficient.
4.1.
Description of the national control programmes
In 2014, in total 82,649 samples29 of food products covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were
analysed for pesticide residues in the reporting countries. Thus, the total number of samples analysed
under the national control programmes increased slightly compared with the previous reporting year
(+ 2.1%), where results for 80,967 samples were reported. The increased number of samples is
partially attributed to the results submitted by Croatia, contributing to the report for the first time (376
samples) and to an increased number of samples analysed by some of the reporting countries
compared with 2013 (+39.4% samples analysed in Luxemburg, +35.95% in the Czech Republic,
+21.7% in Latvia, +21.3% in Portugal, +20.9% in Hungary, +17.6% in Cyprus and +10.8% in
Germany).
The majority of samples (74,890 samples, 90.6%) were classified as surveillance samples, meaning
that the samples were taken without targeting specific growers/producers/importers or consignments
likely to be non-compliant. Samples that were targeted towards products or countries where higher
MRL non-compliance rates were identified in the past but without specific suspect also fall in the
category of surveillance samples. In 9.4% of the cases, a suspect sampling strategy was applied,
enforcing provisions of EU legislation on increased level of official controls on imported food
(Regulation (EC) No 669/2009). This means that samples were taking after concrete indications that
certain food may be of higher risk as regards non-compliance or consumer safety (e.g. Rapid Alert
notifications or follow-up enforcement samples following MRL violations identified in a first analysis of
the product in focus).
The number of samples per reporting country and the sampling frequency per 100,000 inhabitants of
the reporting country are illustrated in Figure 39 and Figure 40.
No major changes were noticed in the national control programmes of 2013 and 2014 as regards the
ratio of samples from domestic production, other EU/EEA countries and third countries (EFSA, 2015c);
the information on the sample origin for the 2014 programme is presented in Figure 41. The countries
with the highest rates of samples of imported products are Bulgaria (87.7%), the Netherlands
(65.9%) and Lithuania (49.7%); Greece, Italy, Spain, Portugal and Hungary focussed their national
control programmes mainly on domestic products (more than 70% of the samples analysed).
29
In addition to these 82,649 samples, the results for 586 samples of feed and fish were reported to EFSA. However, since for
these two food groups currently no legal limits are set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, these samples are not further
taken into account for the detailed analysis.
51
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Portugal; 432
Slovakia; 569
Slovenia; 772
Cyprus; 800
Croatia; 376
Luxembourg; 354
Latvia; 303
Estonia; 280
Iceland; 241
Lithuania; 835
Czech Republic; 1408
Malta; 173
Ireland; 1461
Germany; 19359
Norway; 1465
Sweden; 1791
Poland; 2171
Finland; 2201
Austria; 2222
Spain; 2372
Greece; 2376
Italy; 8844
Denmark; 2444
United Kingdom;
3403
Bulgaria; 3428
France; 5593
Belgium; 3644
Hungary; 4047
Netherlands; 5131
Romania; 4154
Figure 39: Number of samples analysed by each reporting country
52
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Number of samples per 100,000 inhabitants

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Cyprus
100
74.0
Luxembourg
64.4
Bulgaria
47.3
Denmark
43.4
Hungary
41.0
Malta
40.7
Finland
40.4
Slovenia
37.5
Belgium
32.5
Ireland
31.7
Netherlands
Reporting countries
90
93.2
Iceland
30.5
Norway
28.7
Lithuania
28.4
Austria
26.1
Germany
24.0
Greece
21.7
Estonia
21.3
Romania
20.8
Sweden
18.6
Mean*
16.1
Latvia
15.1
Italy
14.6
Czech Republic
13.4
Slovakia
10.5
Croatia
8.9
France
8.5
Poland
80
5.7
United Kingdom
5.3
Spain
5.1
Portugal
4.1
2013: samples/100,000 inhabitants
2014: samples/100,000 inhabitants
* Overall mean of all reporting countries
Figure 40: Number of samples normalised by number of inhabitants
53
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Origin of the samples analysed by reporting countries
% of the samples analysed

0
10
20
30
Austria
9.4
20.6
53.8
30.9
13.1
36.9
32.1
59.3
13.6
30.0
40.4
France
10.7
44.3
49.8
Germany
12.0
43.2
33.2
26.9
Greece
Reporting countries
14.1
15.4
28.7
17.4
90.3
Hungary
1.8 7.7
74.7
16.6
19.1
50.6
Ireland
6.2
32.0
44.8
23.9
Italy
26.9
89.2
Latvia
2.92.4
34.3
Lithuania
39.3
29.1
Luxembourg
26.1
20.2
49.7
41.0
Malta
28.2
22.3
52.0
19.0
39.3
12.1
Norway
8.7
65.9
35.1
32.5
Poland
32.4
66.0
Portugal
23.0
10.2
80.3
Romania
15.5
62.3
10.2
18.5
Sweden
Mean*
* Mean of all reporting countries
19.5
43.1
39.9
Spain
16.8
81.0
26.9
1.4
30.3
24.9
22.6
19.6
Domestic samples
14.5
42.8
52.5
49.8
4.2
27.3
61.3
Slovenia
United Kingdom
100
19.1
32.4
63.5
Estonia
Slovakia
90
87.7
53.2
Denmark
80
36.0
2.9
Czech Republic
Netherlands
70
18.5
Cyprus
Iceland
60
22.7
37.6
Croatia
Finland
50
54.5
Belgium
Bulgaria
40
EEA countries
25.7
Third countries
Unknown origin
Figure 41: Origin of samples by reporting country

A more detailed analysis of the origin of the samples is presented in Figure 42. Overall, 57,399
samples analysed originated from EU and EEA countries (69.4%). 21,219 samples (25.7%) concerned
products imported from third countries; for 4,031 samples (4.9%) the origin of the products was not
reported. Approximately one quarter of the samples from third countries, (6,497 samples) were taken
for products subject to an increased level of official controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2010 (see
Section 4.2.4).
54
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Ireland:724
Denmark:823
Austria:1360
United Kingdom:1922
Cyprus:571
Sweden:557
Portugal:541
Norway:514
Czech Republic:513
BG: 364; SI: 321; FI: 314;

LT: 279; HR: 239; EE: 186;
Not specified: 177; SK: 166;
LU: 145; LV: 115; MT: 94;
IS: 40:
Total: 2440
Belgium:2023
Poland:2295
Romania:2624
South Africa:1325 Egypt:1287
Greece:2744
China:1210
Kenya:1799
Netherlands:2853
Morocco:967
Hungary:3222
India:784
Turkey:4614
Peru:719
France:3806
Thailand:717
Dominican
Republic; 632
Brazil:617
Chile:571
Israel:543
Costa Rica:537
Argentina:445
United States:365
Ecuador:354
New Zealand:281
Third countries; 25250
Spain:7811
Unknown origin:4031
Germany:9113
* 94 countries with less than 200 samples
Other third countries*:2969

Vietnam:240
Italy:10943
Colombia:243
Figure 42: Origin of samples (reporting countries and third countries)

Typically, national control programmes show a wide diversity regarding the number of pesticides
analysed (analytical scope; see also Appendix C, Table 18) and the number of different food products
analysed. Overall, the reporting countries analysed samples taken in the framework of the national
control programmes for 778 different pesticides. The broadest analytical scopes were noted for the
German control laboratories which covered 683 pesticides, followed by Belgium (548 pesticides), the
Netherlands (534 pesticides), Spain (507 pesticides), Austria, Luxembourg and the United Kingdom
(all analysed for more than 400 distinct pesticides). On average, in the framework of the national
control programmes, samples were analysed for 212 different pesticides, which is an increase by 6%
compared to the previous year; Ireland, Luxembourg, Sweden, Belgium, Germany, France, Norway
and the Netherlands analysed on average for more than 250 pesticides per sample. The complete
picture regarding the number of pesticides analysed under the national control programmes can be
found in Figure 43.
All reporting countries together covered in total 226 unprocessed agricultural food products and a
wide variety of different processed products derived from 139 agricultural products (e.g. cereal
products such as flour, or polished rice, wine, vegetable oils, fruit and vegetable juices, canned fruits
and vegetables, milk products, dried fruits such as raisins, dried herbs, etc.).
A detailed analysis of the national control programmes reveals the different scopes of the national
MRL enforcement strategies. Additional elements, such as the proportion of organic and conventional
product samples as well as the types of food products sampled (e.g. products which are more likely to
exceed the legal limits, such as certain fruits and vegetables, or the proportion of products with a
lower probability of MRL exceedance, such as animal products and cereals), contribute to the overall
variability of the national control programmes. The heterogeneity of national control programmes
needs to be borne in mind for the analysis of the results. More information on the national control
programmes can be found in a technical report (EFSA, 2016f).
55
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Scope of the national control programmes
Number of pesticides sought
100
200
300
Germany
Belgium
700
800
900
683
548
534
257
507
114
Austria
480
249
Luxembourg
460
305
Denmark
425
232
United Kingdom
411
231
397
29
Sweden
395
299
Hungary
387
170
Ireland
Reporting countries
600
280
Spain
378
321
France
356
271
Italy
353
109
Estonia
330
243
Greece
330
142
Finland
304
239
Slovenia
295
249
Norway
292
257
Czech Republic
291
223
Cyprus
Iceland
500
276
Netherlands
Bulgaria
400
280
150
267
62
Slovakia
Croatia
229
161
227
115
Portugal
All reporting countries
247
216
Malta
Latvia
253
156
Lithuania
Romania
266
202
Poland
213
151
208
92
204
173
778
212
Total number of pesticides sought
* Only pesticides falling under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were

considered for this analysis.
Average number of pesticides analysed per sample
Figure 43: Analytical scope (number of pesticides analysed) by reporting countries
4.2.
Results of the national control programmes
Overall, 97.1% of the 82,649 samples analysed in 2014 fell within the legal limits (80,228 samples);
44,333 of these samples (53.6% of the total number of samples tested) did not contain quantifiable
residues (results for all pesticides analysed were below the LOQ) while 43.4% of the samples analysed
contained measurable residues not exceeding the legal limits (35,895 samples). MRLs were exceeded
in 2.9% of the samples analysed in 2014 (2,421 samples; Figure 44). For a subset of these samples
exceeding the MRL values numerically (1,341 samples, 1.6% of all samples analysed in 2014), a
breach of the legal limit was identified, taking into account the measurement uncertainty, triggering
legal sanctions or administrative actions; these samples are considered as non-compliant with the
legal limits.
Considering only surveillance samples (samples taken without targeting towards samples which are
expected to be non-compliant), 2.4% of the samples analysed in 2014 contained residues exceeding
the limits set in the MRL legislation; for enforcement samples the MRL exceedance rate was 7.9%.
56
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
The overall MRL exceedance and non-compliance rates in 2014 were slightly higher compared with
2013, where 2.6% of the samples exceeded the legal limits numerically and 1.5% of the samples
were non-compliant. In Figure 44, the overall results for 2014 together with a separate presentation
of the results for enforcement and surveillance samples are presented. In addition, a comparison with
the results of 2013 was included.
Overall results: MRL exceedance and non-compliance rates
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
Overall result
(surveillance and enforcement) (82649)
5.0
4.6
5.1
Enforcement samples (7759)
Surveillance samples (74890)
4.0
1.3
6.0
7.0
8.0
9.0
7.4
7.9
1.1
2.0
2.4
1.6
1.5
2.6
2.9
The numbers in brackets refer to the

number of samples analysed in 2014
* Samples where enforcement action was
taken (clear exceedance of the MRL,
taking into account measurement
uncertainty)
2013 non-compliance rate *
2013 MRL exceedance rate
Figure 44: Percentage of samples compliant with the legal limit/exceeding the legal limit (MRL)
The results presented in the following sections refer to the complete data set, comprising results of
surveillance and enforcement samples as well as unprocessed and processed food products, unless
specifically indicated that the analysis was restricted to a subset of the results.
4.2.1.
Results by country of food origin
Overall, 56.6% of the samples originating from EU/EEA countries were free of quantifiable residues;
41.8% of the samples contained residues above the LOQ but below the MRL, while 1.6% of the
samples exceeded the legal limit. 0.8% of the samples were considered non-compliant with the legal
limits, triggering legal or administrative sanctions for the responsible food business operators.
Samples from third countries were found to have a higher MRL exceedance rate and non-compliance
rate compared to food produced in the EU and EEA countries (MRL exceedance rate for food produced
in third countries: 6.5%; non-compliance rate: 3.9%) (Figure 45). The percentage of samples from
third countries that were free of quantifiable residues (residues below the LOQ) amounted to 45.5%
while 48.1% of the samples contained residues within the permitted limits.
57
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
MRL exceedance and non-compliance rates by sample origin

0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
0.7
Samples EU and EEA origin (57399)
0.8
1.4
1.6
3.4
3.9
Samples third country origin (21219)

0.7
Samples unknown origin (4031)
1.8
1.8
* Samples where enforcement action was

taken (clear exceedance of the MRL,
taking into account measurement
uncertainty)
The numbers in brackets refer to the
number of samples analysed in 2014
5.7
6.5
3.0
Figure 45: Percentage of samples compliant with the legal limit/exceeding the legal limit (MRL) by
origin
The detailed MRL exceedance rates and the percentage of samples containing measurable residues
within the legal limits originating from reporting countries and from third countries are presented in
Figure 46 and Figure 47; to allow a comparison with the previous reporting year these two charts
contain also the results for 2013.
The highest MRL exceedance rates among the samples originating from the reporting countries were
reported for products from Malta, Cyprus, Portugal, Poland, Greece and France (>2.5% of samples
exceeding the legal limit) while samples from Iceland, Ireland, Latvia, Denmark, Estonia, Croatia,
Sweden, Luxembourg, Romania, Hungary and Slovenia were most frequently free of detectable
residues (more than 75% of the samples).
Among the third countries with at least 60 samples analysed, the highest MRL exceedance rate was
found for Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, Pakistan, China, the Dominican Republic, Sri Lanka, Jordan
and India (all above 10%). Other third countries with a substantial number of samples (more than 60
samples) and MRL exceedances above the average were Suriname, Thailand, Kenya, Mexico and
Egypt.
58
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
EU and EEA countries

% of the samples analysed with measurable residues below or at the MRL
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Austria (991/353/16)
1.2
2.2
25.3
Croatia (188/51/0)
21.3
Cyprus (369/183/19)
3.3
32.0
Czech Republic (293/213/7)
1.4
41.5
Denmark (665/156/2)
19.0
Estonia (150/36/0)
19.4
Finland (232/81/1)
0.2
0.3
25.8
France (2059/1648/99)
2.6
43.3
Germany (3973/4968/172)
2.7
37.0
Hungary (2453/746/23)
Origin of sample *
1.9
54.5
Greece (1654/1016/74)
0.7
23.2
2.5
0.4
18.0
Italy (6389/4406/148)
1.4
40.3
Latvia (93/22/0)
19.1
Lithuania (203/69/7)
2.5
24.7
Luxembourg (112/31/2)
1.4
21.4
Malta (61/24/9)
25.5
9.6
Netherlands (1404/1412/37)
1.3
49.5
Norway (320/193/1)
0.2
37.5
Poland (1318/911/66)
2.9
39.7
Portugal (243/282/16)
3.0
52.1
Romania (2008/584/32)
1.2
22.3
Slovakia (123/40/3)
1.8
24.1
Slovenia (244/74/3)
0.9
23.1
Spain (3300/4408/103)
56.4
Sweden (432/124/1)
1.3
0.2
22.3
32.6
United Kingdom (1263/626/33)

EEA (not specified) (135/41/1)
1.7
0.6
23.2
All EU/EEA (32465/24002/932)

15.0
100
2.3
53.4
Bulgaria (264/92/8)
Ireland (591/130/3)
90
26.0
Belgium (896/1081/46)
Iceland (39/1/0)
80
1.6
41.8
13.5
* The numbers in brackets after the name of the

country of origin refer to the number of samples
below the LOQ, number of samples with measurable
residues below or at the MRL and number of
samples exceeding the MRL taken in 2014.
12.0
10.5
9.0
7.5
6.0
4.5
3.0
1.5
0.0

2013 measurable residues MRL
2013 residues > MRL

2014 residues > MRL
Figure 46: EU and EEA countries: MRL exceedance rate and residue detection rate by country of
origin, sorted alphabetically
59
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Third countries
0
10
20
30
Vietnam (60/82/98)
40
50
60
23.9
22.9
China (449/539/222)
18.3
44.5
Dominican Republic (227/297/108)
17.1
47.0
16.4
15.8
Jordan (29/40/13)
15.9
48.8
India (270/430/84)
10.7
54.8
Suriname (33/51/7)
7.7
56.0
Thailand (467/196/54)
7.5
27.3
Kenya (589/1087/123)
6.8
60.4
Mexico (74/95/12)
6.6
52.5
Egypt (404/799/84)
6.5
62.1
Colombia (67/162/14)
5.6
59.2
Ethiopia (39/60/5)
4.8
57.7
Morocco (320/605/42)
4.3
62.6
Israel (244/277/22)
4.1
51.0
Ghana (44/28/3)
4.0
37.3
Russia (69/31/4)
3.8
29.8
United States (178/173/14)
3.8
47.4
Peru (224/470/25)
3.5
65.4
Unknown (2223/1688/120)
3.0
41.9
South Africa (215/1075/35)
2.6
81.1
Senegal (29/50/2)
61.7
Argentina (193/242/10)
2.2
54.4
Costa Rica (154/371/12)
2.2
69.1
Macedonia, The Former Yugoslav
31.3
Turkey (3513/1006/95)
2.1
2.1
21.8
Ecuador (96/252/6)
1.7
71.2
Chile (145/417/9)
1.6
73.0
1.2
11.9
New Zealand (166/112/3)
1.1
39.9
Canada (83/44/1)
0.8
34.4
Moldova (62/11/0)
0.0
15.1
All TC (11868/11893/1489)
100.0
5.7
71.2
Serbia (25/42/4)
Origin of sample *, **
5.8
66.7
Brazil (143/439/35)
Ukraine (73/10/1)
100
26.1
42.6
Sri Lanka (99/23/24)
90
35.4
16.9
Uganda (36/49/30)
Pakistan (58/25/26)
80
40.8
34.2
Cambodia (90/32/67)
70
5.9
47.1
90.0
* The numbers in brackets after the name of the

country of origin refer to the 2014 number of
samples below the LOQ, number of samples with
measurable residues below or at the MRL and
number of samples exceeding the MRL.
** Only countries with at least 60 samples were
included
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

2013 residues > MRL
2014 residues > MRL
Figure 47: Third countries: MRL exceedance rate and residue detection rate by country of origin,
sorted by MRL exceedance rate
60
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
4.2.2.
Results by food products
The MRL exceedance rate for unprocessed products30 amounted to 3.1% of the samples analysed;
45.7% of the samples contained measurable residues that were within the legal limits, and 51.2% of
the unprocessed products were free of quantifiable residues (below the LOQ). Among the
unprocessed products with at least 60 samples analysed, MRL exceedances were most frequently
identified for guava, passionfruit, tea leaves, lychee, celery leaves, turnips, pomegranates, parsley,
okra, blackberries, limes, basil, certain herbal infusions, bovine liver, papayas, peas (with pods),
spring onions (MRL exceedance rate greater than 7%). More detailed information on the MRL
exceedance rates and pesticide detection rates for unprocessed food products is presented in Figure
48. Some of the food products with MRL exceedance rates above the average are products, which
were subject to increased import control under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (e.g. tea leaves, okra,
basil, parsley, peas with pods, celery leaves). Thus, the results for these products are biased due to
the targeted sampling in the framework of border inspections. More details on results for this specific
sampling programme can be found in Section 4.2.4.
No MRL exceedance (products with at least 60 samples analysed) was reported for unprocessed
hazelnuts, sweet corn, rhubarb, buckwheat and a number of products of animal origin such as poultry,
sheep and swine liver, goat milk or poultry, swine and bovine fat.
The results for processed products are presented in Figure 49. It is noted that the overall MRL
exceedance rate for processed products was lower (1.1%) compared with unprocessed products
(3.1%). Processed wild fungi, tomatoes, dry beans, sweet peppers, apricots, peanuts, cattle milk, rice
and table grapes were found most frequently exceeding the MRLs.
30
Food products compliant with the description of in Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are considered as unprocessed
products. It should be noted that this food classification comprises mainly unprocessed raw agricultural products, but also
some processed products such as fermented tea, dried spices, dried herbal infusions etc.
61
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Unprocessed food products

0
10
20
Guavas (23/24/44)
30
40
50
25.3
60
70
39.3
Tea (419/451/259)
37.1
22.9
20.9
Celery leaves (73/75/36)
39.7
19.6
18.1
18.1
Pomegranates (88/52/27)
52.7
Parsley (102/57/24)
16.2
55.7
Okra (103/156/28)
13.1
35.9
9.8
Blackberries (162/58/23)
66.7
Limes (149/32/18)
Basil (232/124/35)
9.0
36.7
8.6
23.6
8.6
Papayas (101/64/14)
56.4
Peas (with pods) (500/218/59)
7.8
64.4
Spring onions (49/81/10)
7.1
64.2
Celeriacs (181/69/18)
Food product*
7.6
35.0
Celeries (201/90/22)
7.0
67.5
6.7
12.2
6.7
Mangoes (228/153/27)
55.9
Kales (98/56/10)
6.6
59.8
Aubergines (244/439/40)
6.1
33.7
5.5
Beans (with pods) (1293/1227/146)
48.5
5.5
Lentils (dry) (230/142/21)
58.5
5.3
Currants (318/52/18)
82.0
Radishes (133/185/15)
4.5
16.3
4.3
Spinaches (493/742/53)
38.3
Chinese cabbages (70/120/8)
4.1
35.4
4.0
8.4
4.0
Wild fungi (34/66/4)
32.7
3.8
Gooseberries (71/5/3)
89.9
Rucola (151/54/8)
70.9
Broccoli (112/256/14)
3.7
36.4
Fennels (80/110/7)
3.6
40.6
3.6
Raspberries (278/137/15)
64.7
Rice (575/769/44)
3.5
41.4
Peas (dry) (31/63/3)
3.2
32.0
3.1
Cherries (572/187/24)
73.1
Total unprocessed (33237/37278/2293)
3.1
45.7
90.0
80.0
3.8
3.8
29.3
Chards (40/66/4)
100.0
4.6
39.9
Pumpkins (53/258/14)
Beans (dry) (21/219/10)
9.0
59.3
Herbal infusions, not specified (51/76/12)
Figs (11/73/6)
9.5
74.9
Liver (bovine) (104/299/38)
100
27.0
22.4
Turnips (17/60/17)
90
48.4
Passionfruits (48/41/33)
Lychees (15/38/14)
80
70.0
60.0
3.1
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
* The numbers in brackets after the name of the food product

refer to the number of samples below the LOQ, number of
samples with measurable residues below or at the MRL and
number of samples exceeding the MRL.
Only products with at least 60 samples and MRL excceedance
rates above the mean for unprocessed products.
Measurable residues below or at the MRL

Residues above the MRL
Figure 48: MRL exceedance rate and residue detection rate for unprocessed food products, sorted by
MRL exceedance rate
62
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Processed food products

0
10
20
30
40
50
90
20.0
11.1
54.3
5.4
55.6
Peanuts (30/8/1)
4.4
20.5
Milk (cattle) (361/121/10)
2.6
24.6
Rice (382/110/9)
2.0
22.0
1.8
Table grapes (90/323/5)
77.3
Total processed (5391/2546/92)
1.2
31.7
90.0
100
20.5
24.6
Apricots (18/25/2)
100.0
80
18.5
Sweet peppers (37/50/5)
Food product*
70
52.3
Tomatoes (36/16/13)
Beans (dry) (57/15/9)
60
80.0
70.0
* The numbers in brackets after the name of the food

product refer to the number of samples below the LOQ,
number of samples with measurable residues below or at
the MRL and number of samples exceeding the MRL.
Only products with at least 20 samples and MRL
exceedance rates above the mean for processed products.
1.1
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0

Measurable residues below the MRL (>LOQ)
Residues above the MRL
Figure 49: MRL exceedance rate and residue detection rate for processed food products (excluding
baby food), sorted by MRL exceedance rate
4.2.3.
Results by pesticides
Overall, 17.488,958 analytical determinations (individual results) submitted to EFSA were identified as
valid results31 and were used as the basis of the data analysis presented in this report. 101,511 of
these determinations (0.58% of the valid determinations) related to 38,316 samples and 363 different
pesticides were reported above the LOQ; the most frequently detected pesticides were boscalid (6,823
determinations), chlorpyrifos (4,726 determinations), imazalil (4,621 determinations), cyprodinil
(3,705 determinations), azoxystrobin (3,649 determinations) and fludioxonil (3,554 determinations).
The most frequently detected pesticides in terms of detection rate (i.e. detections expressed as
percentage of samples analysed for the pertinent pesticide) were copper (detected in 77% of the
samples analysed for copper), fenpyrazamine (64.3%32), fosetyl-Al (33.2%), bromide ion (21.3%),
mercury (14.1%), hydrogen phosphide (13.2%), boscalid (RD) (10.6%) and dithiocarbamates
(10.5%). However, it needs to be highlighted that some of these pesticides with high detection rate
were analysed only in a limited number of samples (less than 150 samples) or were analysed only by
a limited number of reporting countries. A comprehensive list of the number of
analysis/determinations, the number of detections per pesticide, detection rate and the number of
food products analysed for the pesticide can be found in Appendix C, Table 18.
In 3,265 cases, the measured residue concentrations exceeded the legal limit (in total 2,421
samples33). The pesticides found most frequently violating EU MRLs are presented in Figure 50. In
products produced in one of the reporting countries, at least 20 MRL violations were identified for the
following pesticides: chlorpyrifos, dimethoate (RD), copper, iprodione (RD), fosetyl-Al (RD),
carbendazim (RD), dithiocarbamates (RD), BAC (RD), mercury and cypermethrin.
The top ranked pesticides on products from third countries (with at least 20 MRL exceedances) are
carbendazim (RD), acetamiprid (RD), chlorpyrifos, dimethoate (RD), imidacloprid, anthraquinone,
hexaconazole, profenofos, cypermethrin, fipronil (RD), acephate, chlorfenapyr, triazophos, iprodione
31
During the data cleaning step EFSA identified the subset of records that described samples covered by the EU MRL legislation
(i.e. food products covered by Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and residues covered by Annex II or III of the
mentioned regulation) as valid results.
32
Only a low number of samples was analysed for this pesticide (14 samples).
33
The number of samples exceeding the legal limit is lower than the total number of determinations exceeding the legal limit,
since multiple MRL exceedances were found in a number of samples (463 samples).
63
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
(RD), methamidophos, methomyl (RD), buprofezin, permethrin, malathion (RD), endosulfan (RD),
lufenuron, carbofuran (RD) and imazalil.
In total, 1,253 MRL exceedances were reported for pesticides currently not approved in the EU
(including active substances that were previously approved in the EU). In most cases these MRL
exceedances for non-approved pesticides were related to imported products (957 cases) while for
products produced in the EU and EFTA countries, a minority of MRL exceedances was resulting from
non-approved pesticides (245 results) and products with unknown origin (51 results); 2,012 cases of
MRL exceedances were related to approved pesticides (1,095 MRL exceedances on third country
products, 807 cases on EU products and 110 cases in products with unknown origin).
64
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Pesticides exceeding MRLs

Number of detections exceeding the MRL
0
50
100
200
105
6
30
86
250
11
6
10 20
Pesticide1),2)
Chlorpyrifos* (0.309)
111
Carbendazim (RD) (0.339)
173
Dimethoate (RD)* (0.317)
111
Acetamiprid (RD)* (0.244)
117
Imidacloprid* (0.177)
90
7 11
Anthraquinone (0.47)
70
9 5
Iprodione (RD)* (0.115)
34
38
1
Fosetyl-Al (RD)* (2.268) 13
35
24
Hexaconazole (0.109)
65
2 2
Cypermethrin* (0.104)
46
21
2
Profenofos (0.086)
56
1 1
Dithiocarbamates (RD)* (0.355) 12
29
9
BAC (RD) (0.57)
16
29
3
Acephate (0.077)
43
13
Chlorfenapyr (0.082)
42
4
Fipronil (RD)* (0.087)
44
Copper* (1.819)
42
2
Triazophos (0.054)
36
1
Malathion (RD)* (0.055)
26
10
Methamidophos (0.055)
31
1 2
Permethrin (0.051)
29
5
Methomyl (RD)* (0.055)
30
3
Buprofezin* (0.05)
30
1 1
Imazalil* (0.051)
20 12
Tebuconazole (RD)* (0.046)
16 11 3
Endosulfan (RD) (0.042)
22 7
Mercury (1.746) 6 23
Thiophanate-methyl* (0.049) 11 15 3
Metalaxyl* (0.049)
18 8 2
Lambda-cyhalothrin* (0.058)
19 8 1
Lufenuron* (0.047)
21 4
Chlorothalonil (RD)* (0.042) 13 10
Procymidone (RD) (0.035) 12 9 2
Chlorpropham (RD)* (0.034) 3 19
Carbofuran (RD) (0.037)
21
1
2-phenylphenol* (0.05) 6 13 1
Spinosad* (0.037) 6 14
Ethephon* (0.368)
16 3 1
150
1) Pesticides approved in the EU are labelled with *

2) The numbers in brackets after the name of the pesticide
refer to the percentage of
detections exceeding the MRL
Detected in samples originating from third countries

Detected in samples originating from EU/EEA countries
Unknown sample origin
Figure 50:
4.2.4.
Number of detections per pesticide exceeding the MRL (by sample origin)
Results for import controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009
According to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, certain food products from Cambodia,
China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Kenya, Morocco, Nigeria, Peru, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam
were subject to an increased level of official controls for certain pesticides at the point of entrance
into the EU territory. A description of the required controls (type of products, countries of origin, the
65
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
type of hazard and the frequencies of controls) relevant for the calendar year 2014 can be found in
Appendix C, Table 19.
In total, results for 6,513 samples taken in the framework of import controls in were reported to
EFSA. The major amount of import control samples were analysed by four countries, i.e. Bulgaria
(2,949 samples), the Netherlands (1,621 samples), France (789) and Belgium (604 samples).
Overall, 406 samples (6.2%) of import control samples exceeded the legal limit for one or several
pesticides; 237 samples (3.6%) were considered as non-compliant, taking into account the
measurement uncertainty. In 96 of the samples, multiple MRL exceedances were measured (289
individual residue determinations were above the legal limit). It should be highlighted that noncompliant products identified in the framework of import controls are rejected at the border and are
not placed on the EU market. For 243 samples, follow-up actions were reported, comprising mainly
administrative sanctions, issuing of warnings or notification in the framework of the Rapid Alert
System.34
In Figure 51, the results for import controls are summarised; the dark orange bars reflect the MRL
exceedance rate of samples taken at border inspections while the dark blue bars present the
percentage of samples that contained residues above the LOQ but within the legally permitted
concentration.
In addition to the samples that were checked at the border, 1,416 samples of products covered by the
provisions of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 were taken under national control programmes at different
stages of the food chain. For the samples that entered the EU common market without being checked
at the border, the MRL exceedance rates and the detection rates are included in the Figure 51 as light
orange and light blue bars. For most of the products the MRL exceedance rate at border inspections
were in the same range as for samples taken in the framework of national controls. However, higher
MRL exceedance rates were noted in national programmes for certain products (e.g. peppers from
Vietnam and Egypt, aubergine from Cambodia, peppers from the Dominican Republic, coriander
leaves from Thailand, dragon fruit from Vietnam, mint from Morocco, strawberries from Egypt and
table grapes from Peru). The difference may result from the fact that in the national control
programmes Member States target efficiently towards non-compliant producers or importers, based
on previous results while for the border controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 the lots are
selected randomly.
Comparing the results for import controls submitted to EFSA with the results summarised in the report
published by the European Commission on increased checks on import of food of non-animal origin,35
EFSA noted discrepancies regarding the number of samples analysed and the number of MRL
exceedances.36 A closer collaboration between EFSA and the European Commission service
responsible for the import controls should be established to exchange information and identify the
need for corrective measures to avoid discrepancies, e.g. improvement of the coding of samples.
More details on the pesticides found in concentrations exceeding the legal limit are summarised in the
Excel file published as supplement to this report.
34
35
36
Information on the RASFF notifications can be found under the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/rasff/index_en.htm
Published online: http://ec.europa.eu/food/safety/docs/oc_leg_imports_dpe_ms_border-checks-results_2014.pdf
Among the complete dataset submitted to EFSA, the import control samples are identified by a combination of data elements
(i.e. code for food product, origin of the sample, product treatment, type of sampling programme and the sampling strategy).
If the coding rules were not respected, samples are not correctly identified as import control samples. Detailed analysis
should be performed to identify the reasons for the mismatch of number of samples and to remind Member States to follow
the conventions for coding.
66
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Import control
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cambodia/Chinese celery (Celery leaves) (1/1)
100.0
Nigeria/Dried beans (Beans (dry)) (2/2)
100.0
Vietnam/Parsley (4/4)
100.0
Cambodia/Yardlong beans (Beans (with pods)) (7/4)
28.6
57.1
Turkey/Vine leaves (Grape leaves and similar species) (7/4)
57.1
China/Chinese broccoli (Broccoli) (16/9)
43.8
Vietnam/Basil (holy, sweet) and Mint (Basil and edible

flowers) (13/7)
56.3
30.8
Vietnam/Dragon fruit (Guavas) (34/14)
53.8
23.5
41.2
China/Tea, whether or not flavoured (Teas) (282/99)
43.3
Cambodia/Aubergines (12/4)
35.1
25.0
33.3
Vietnam/Peppers (Sweet peppers) (20/6)
65.0
Dominican Republic/Yardlong beans (Beans (with pods))

(109/24)
50.5
Dominican Republic/Peppers (Sweet peppers) (95/14)
Origin of sample/food product *, **
30.0
22.0
62.1
Thailand/Peppers (Sweet peppers) (34/4)
14.7
64.7
Kenya/Peas with pods (unshelled) (Peas (with pods))

(538/44)
11.8
68.4
Dominican Republic/Aubergines (98/8)
8.2
58.2
8.2
Egypt/Oranges (fresh) (Oranges) (380/30)
86.8
7.9
China/Pomelos (Grapefruits) (78/6)
87.2
7.7
Thailand/Yardlong beans (Beans (with pods)) (81/6)
38.3
Egypt/Strawberries (153/11)
7.4
49.7
7.2
Dominican Republic/Bitter melon (Courgettes) (44/3)
72.7
6.8
Morocco/Mint (Basil and edible flowers) (221/14)
58.4
6.3
Kenya/Beans with pods (unshelled) (Beans (with pods))

(958/45)
59.1
4.7
Thailand/Aubergines (25/1)
24.0
4.0
Thailand/Basil (holy, sweet) (Basil and edible flowers) (27/1)
85.2
Peru/Table grapes (182/3)

Turkey/Peppers (Sweet peppers) (3015/36)
96.2
2.0
1.6
1.2
Egypt/Peppers (Sweet peppers) (22/0)
95.5
Thailand/Coriander leaves (Celery leaves) (41/0)
100.0
3.7
34.1
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0

* The food product covered by specific import controls
is reported in the label; the corresponding food name
according to the EU food classification is added in
brackets.
** The numbers in brackets after the name of the
country of orign/food product refer to the number of
samples taken under Reg. 669/2009/number of
samples exceeding the legal limit
Measurable residues below or at the MRL (National control programmes)

Measurable residues below or at the MRL (Import controls)
Residues above the MRL (National control programmes)
Residues above the MRL (Import controls)
Figure 51: MRL exceedance and detection rate for samples analysed in the framework of import
controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009, sorted according to the MRL exceedance
rate
67
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
4.2.5.
Results for baby foods
Reporting countries analysed 1,812 samples of baby foods (i.e. food covered by Directive
2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC), such as infant formulae, follow-on formulae, processed cereal-based
foods for infants and young children and baby foods other than processed cereal-based foods. The
218 infant formulae and follow-on formulae taken in the framework of the EUCP are comprised in this
figure.
In 148 samples (8.2%), pesticide residues at or above the LOQ were found while the majority of
samples were free of quantifiable residues (91.8%). In 9 samples more than one pesticide was
detected (Figure 52). For 2% of the samples (37 samples) reporting countries considered the residue
concentrations exceeded the legal limit (details see below); 1.8% of the samples (33 samples) were
considered non-compliant, taking into account the measurement uncertainty. Compared with the
overall results for other products, the detection rate (residues between the LOQ and the MRL) was
significantly lower in baby food samples (43.4% detection rate for all food groups). In 2013, the
detection rate was in a comparable range (2013: 7.3% samples with residues at or above the LOQ).
1 residue measured,
139 samples, 7.7%
3 residues,
2 samples
4
residues,
1 sample
no measurable
residues,
1664 samples, 91.8%
2 residues,
6 samples
multiple residues,
9 samples, 0.5%
Figure 52: Number of detectable residues in individual baby food samples

In 2014 in total, 27 different pesticides were detected in concentrations above the LOQ. Similar to the
previous reporting year, the most frequent compound detected in baby foods was copper (85
detections, mainly in follow-on formulae and infant formulae). Copper is a nutrient that has to be
added to infant formula and follow-on formula and can be added to processed cereal-based food and
baby food.37 Copper compounds in baby foods may result from different sources (natural occurrence
of copper in plant or animal products, use of plant protection products, feed additives or copper added
to baby foods in accordance with the requirements of Directive 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC). In
addition, fosetyl-Al (RD) and the biocidal products DDAC and BAC (RD) were among the most
frequently detected compounds in baby foods (29, 9 and 8 determinations, respectively). These three
compounds were predominantly found in baby foods other than cereal-based foods covered by
Directive 2006/125/EC.
According to the evaluation of reporting countries, only 36 samples (2.0% of the analysed baby food
samples) exceeded the legal limit (24 samples containing fosetyl-Al (RD), 4 samples containing BAC
(RD), 3 samples containing DDAC, 2 samples with ethoxyquin and etofenprox residues, respectively, 1
sample with copper residues and 1 sample with chlorpropham residues); in 1 sample multiple MRL
exceedances were identified. Thus, for the majority of samples with residues of copper or fosetyl-Al
(RD) exceeding the default MRL Member States did not take enforcement actions.
In Figure 53 the results for baby foods are summarised, presenting the residue concentration
measured for the 27 pesticides detected in concentrations above the LOQ as percentage of the MRL
set for baby food.38 The orange dots refer to samples taken in the framework of the national control
37
38
Specidif chemical forms are authorised in the EU legislation (e.g. cupric carbonate, cupric citrate etc.).
In general, a default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg is applicable for food covered by Directive 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC unless
lower legal limits for the residue levels are defined in the Directives. Thus, the provisions are more restrictive than for other
food falling under the provisions of Regulation 396/2005.
68
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
programmes, while the blue dots label the samples taken in the framework of the EU-coordinated
monitoring programme. Overall, EFSA noted 161 determinations in 135 samples (7.5% of the baby
food samples) where the measured residue concentration exceeded the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg;
most of these results are related to copper (85 determinations, 79 in infant and follow-on formulae)
and fosetyl-Al (29 determinations).
With the exception of copper, fosetyl-Al, BAC (RD), DDAC and ethoxyquin, the other detected
pesticides occurred in low concentrations, mostly below the legal limit, which gives an indication of
contaminations or the mixing of treated and untreated food products.
Although the overall MRL exceedance rate seems to be higher in baby foods than for other food
product groups, in particular in organic baby foods (see also Section 4.2.6), this phenomenon is
mainly related to the results for fosetyl-Al and copper. It would be appropriate to investigate further
the source of fosetyl-Al residues. In addition, the appropriateness of the current default MRL should
be re-considered, taking into account other possible sources of these residues, such as feed additives.
It should be also highlighted that the pesticides detected in baby foods were analysed only by a
limited number of reporting countries (copper and fosetyl-Al (RD) were analysed only in Germany;
DDAC and BAC (RD) were analysed only in Germany, Belgium, Malta, Norway and the United
Kingdom). Hence, the results for these pesticides are biased and cannot be extrapolated to all
samples for infants and young children.
69
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 53: Residue concentrations measured in baby food, as percentage of the legal limit (only
samples with residues >LOQ)
4.2.6.
Results for organic food
In total 4,792 samples of organic food were taken (5.8% of the total number of samples); the 733
samples of organic products taken in the framework of the EUCP are also included in this number of
samples. 4,140 samples did not contain quantifiable residues (86.4%); 595 samples of organic
products contained residues within the legally permitted concentrations (12.4%); among these
samples, 220 samples contained residues that are most likely not resulting from the use of pesticides
(e.g. samples containing naturally occurring substances like bromide ion or copper,39 samples with
39
Copper compounds are permitted to be used in organic farming.
70
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
residues of CS2 resulting from naturally occurring substances mimicking the presence of
dithiocarbamates) or substances that are persistent contaminants present in the environment (e.g.
DDT, dieldrin, hexachlorobenzene, heptachlor, hexachlorocyclohexane or lindane). After excluding the
samples containing one of the substances mentioned, the corrected pesticide detection rate for
organic samples accounts for approximately 9.3%. The MRL exceedance rate however, is not affected
by this refined analysis. MRL exceedances were identified in 57 samples (1.2% of the organic samples
analysed); multiple MRL exceedances were found in eight samples.
Compared with the overall results for other products, the MRL exceedance rate and the detection rate
(residues between the LOQ and the MRL) were significantly lower in organic food samples (MRL
exceedance rate: 1.2% in organic food versus 3.0% for conventional food; detection rate: 12.4%40 in
organic food versus 45.3% in conventional food). In Figure 54 the individual food groups are analysed
separately, showing the major difference mainly for fruits and nuts, vegetables and cereals. For baby
food, the MRL exceedance rate was higher for organic products compared to conventionally produced
food. The relatively higher MRL exceedance rate for baby foods is mainly due to MRL exceedances for
fosetyl-Al reported by Germany. The detailed analysis of baby food results, in particular which
pesticides were detected and which were found in concentrations exceeding the legal limit, are
reported in Section 4.2.5.
Comparison of organic and conventional products
% of the samples analysed with detectable residues below the MRL
0
Food product groups*
Fruits and nuts (25867/1302)
10
30
40
50
60
14.4
Other plant products (3829/502)
0.7
3.5
0.5
1.4
32.0
9.5
3.0
1.1
4.2
45.3
12.4
13.5
12.0
0.4
0.8
0.5
6.5
5.2
15.0
100
2.8
22.0
22.3
Total (77857/4792)
90
34.3
12.5
Animal products (8966/186)
80
39.8
12.7
Cereals (5654/778)
70
69.4
9.6
Vegetables (32226/1527)
Baby food (1315/497)
20
10.5
9.0
3.0
7.5
6.0
4.5
3.0
1.2
1.5
0.0
% of samples analysed with detectable residues above the MRL

Conventional products (residues MRL)
* The numbers after the name of the product

group refers to the number of samples from
conventional and from organic production
Organic products (residues MRL)

Conventional products (residues > MRL)
Organic products (residues > MRL)
Figure 54: Comparison of organic and conventional foods: detection and MRL exceedance rates for
main food product groups (including all pesticides)
In products produced organically, 136 different pesticides were found in quantifiable concentrations
(above the LOQ); 21 thereof were found only in trace amounts (less than or equal 0.01 mg/kg). The
pesticides detected most frequently (found in at least five samples) are presented in Figure 55. In this
figure the number of detections in trace concentrations (less than 0.01 mg/kg) was presented
separately (light blue bars); the pesticides permitted in organic farming, compounds occurring
naturally or substances resulting from environmental contamination (persistent pesticides no longer
used in the EU) are specifically labelled. The most frequently quantified pesticide residues were
copper, fosetyl-Al, spinosad, bromide ion and chlorpyrifos. Copper, spinosad, azadirachtin as well as
pyrethrins (RD) are allowed in organic farming; thus, the presence of residues of these compounds is
linked to agricultural practices permitted in organic farming. Residues of hexachlorobenzene, DDT,
lindane and dieldrin are resulting from environmental contaminations in soil, due to the use of these
40
For this comparison all pesticides were included; the naturally occurring substances covered by the MRL legislation were not
excluded as they are also present in conventional foods and are therefore also covered in the calculation of the detection rate
for conventional food.
71
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
persistent compounds in the past. Detections of copper, bromide ion and dithiocarbamates in certain
commodities may result from naturally occurring plant products and are not necessarily related to the
use of pesticides. BAC (RD) belongs to the group of quaternary ammonium compounds that nowadays
are widely used as disinfectants, but since they have been used as pesticides in the past they fall
under the remit of the pesticide MRL regulation.
The detection of the remaining pesticides reported in Figure 55 gives an indication that pesticides not
permitted for use in organic farming were used; the presence of the pesticide residues in organic food
may be also resulting from contaminations occurred during handling, packaging or processing of
organic products, or is linked to wrong labelling of conventionally produced food as organic food.
MRL exceedances in organic products were reported for fosetyl-Al (RD) (20 cases), malathion (4
cases) and cypermethrin (4 cases) and additional 49 determinations for 30 different pesticides. The
details on samples of organic products exceeding a legal limit can be retrieved from the Excel file
published as supplement to this report.
Pesticides detected in organic samples
Number of detections
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Copper*,**
77
Spinosad*
35
Bromide ion**
Chlorpyrifos
23
8
18
11
Cypermethrin
16 3
Chlorpropham (RD)
10
Carbendazim (RD)
3
11
12 1
Imazalil
Imidacloprid
Dodine
Chlormequat
8 3
Dithiocarbamates (RD)**
Pesticide
12 2
Thiacloprid
11
Pyrethrins*
10
BAC (RD)
7 2
Lindane** 1
Pyrimethanil
6 2
Thiabendazole (RD)
6 2
Tebuconazole (RD)
6 1
Fludioxonil 1
Mercury
14
25
Boscalid (RD)
Deltamethrin
19
40
Hexachlorobenzene**
Azadirachtin**
100
172
Fosetyl-Al (RD)
DDT (RD)**
90
6
4
Malathion (RD)
2-phenylphenol
Terbuthylazine 1
Bifenthrin
4 2
Pirimiphos-methyl
3 3
Propamocarb
Penconazole
Acetamiprid (RD)
Difenoconazole 2 3
Dieldrin (RD)** 1
Fenhexamid
4
4 1
* Pesticides that are allowed to be used in organic farming.

** Naturally occurring substances/contaminants present in the environment
Number of detections > 0.01 mg/kg

Number of detections 0.01 mg/kg
Figure 55: Pesticides most frequently detected in organic samples (at least five detections)
72
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
4.2.7.
Results for animal products
In total, 9,152 samples of animal products covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were analysed. In
Figure 56 the number of samples is detailed by food product/product group. The majority of these
samples (84.7%, 7,751 samples) was free of measurable residues; in 418 samples more than one
pesticide was detected (Figure 57). Compared with the overall results for other products the detection
rate (residues between the LOQ and the MRL) was significantly lower in samples of animal products
(43.4% detection rate for all food groups versus 15.3% in food of animal origin). In 70 samples
(0.8%), an MRL exceedance was identified.
Wild terrestrial
vertebrate animals;
55
Animal products
(not specified); 210
Eggs
(different species);
406
Edible offal
(different species); 13
Kidney
(different species); 9
Muscle
2601
Honey; 881
Liver
1413
Milk
2011
Fat
1553
Figure 56: Number of samples of animal products
1 residue measured,
983 samples, 11%
3 residues, 95,
samples
4 residues, 37 samples
7751 samples, 85%
2 residues, 276
samples
2 samples
more than 1 residue,

418 samples , 4%
Figure 57: Number of samples of animal products

Among the 629 pesticides that were analysed in food of animal origin, 40 different pesticides were
found in concentrations above the LOQ; the most frequently detected pesticide residues (detected in
at least 15 samples) were copper, DDT (RD), hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane (beta),
lindane, mercury (RD) thiacloprid, hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha), BAC (RD), chlordane (RD), dieldrin,
73
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
DDAC, amitraz (RD), endosulfan (RD) and heptachlor (RD) (Figure 58). Most of these compounds are
no longer used as pesticides in Europe, but they are still found in the food chain due to their
persistence in the environment. It is noted that copper residues in animal products are not necessarily
linked to the use of copper as pesticide but may result from the use of feed supplements, which
contain copper compounds. Certain pesticides were repeatedly detected in honey, e.g. thiacloprid,
dimoxystrobin, azoxystrobin, boscalid, lambda-cyhalothrin; they are due to the use of the pesticides in
crops that are foraged by bees. Coumaphos and amitraz residues were also detected in honey, but
these compounds more likely originate from treatments of beehives with products authorised under
the legislation for veterinary medicinal products rather than from the use of pesticides since both
substances are no longer authorised as pesticides in the EU.
In the Excel file published as supplement to this report, further details on the pesticide/commodity
combinations are reported which were found to exceed the legal limits.
Residues in animal products
Number of detections
0
50
100
Hexachlorobenzene
88
Thiacloprid
Pesticide
12 13 6
34
Pirimiphos-methyl
29
DDAC
46
14
27
6 4 13 5
25
24
17 3
18
Azoxystrobin
17
Lindane
5 34
BAC (RD)
14
Coumaphos
17
2 18
12 9 34
Dimoxystrobin
Heptachlor (RD)
55
36
300
105
14 43 16
Amitraz (RD)
Mercury (RD)
250
33
154
Copper
Endosulfan (RD)
200
238
DDT (RD)
HCH (beta)
150
9 6
14
HCH (alpha)
Boscalid (RD)
Diazinon
Methoxychlor 23 2
Milk
Meat
Eggs
Honey
Liver
Animal fat
Other products (not specified)
Figure 58: Pesticides detected most frequently in animal products
4.2.8.
Results for glyphosate residues in food
Glyphosate, an herbicide that attracted a high level of public interest, was analysed by 22 reporting
countries. Overall, 4,721 samples of different products (including processed products) were analysed
for glyphosate residues, mainly fruits and nuts (1,662 samples), vegetables (1,359 samples) and
cereals (1,348 samples). It is noted that Member States took a limited number of oilseeds and
soybeans samples although these crops are likely to be treated with glyphosate and therefore residues
may be expected. No information on glyphosate residues in animal products is available. It should be
highlighted that 68.2% of the results are related to samples analysed in Germany.
4.2% of the samples analysed for glyphosate contained measurable residues of this active substance,
but within the legal limits. Considering the different food products analysed, the highest detection rate
was observed in sunflower seeds (50% detection rate with 3 out of 6 samples containing residues of
glyphosate, but within the legal limit), followed by dry lentils (38.3% detection rate), mustard seeds
74
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
(33.3% detection rate), peas dry (30.8% detection rate), linseeds (26.5%) and soybeans (25%).
However, since only a limited number of samples of these products was analysed for glyphosate (less
than 100 samples) the results are statistically not very robust.
In cereals glyphosate was mainly found in barley (23.4% of the samples analysed for glyphosate)
followed by wheat (8.3% detection rate), oats (7.7%) and rye (6.3%). Only one sample exceeded the
legal limit (beans (dry), containing 2.3 mg/kg; the MRL is set at the level of 2 mg/kg).
4.2.9.
Multiple residues in the same sample
Multiple residues in one single sample may result from the application of different types of pesticides
(e.g. application of herbicides, fungicides or insecticides against different pests or diseases or use of
different active substances avoiding the development of resistant pests or diseases). Besides these
agricultural practices, multiple residues may also be due to mixing or blending of lots with different
treatment histories, contaminations during food processing, uptake of persistent residues via soil, or
spray drift on the field. According to current EU legislation, the presence of multiple residues in a
sample is not considered as an infringement of the MRL legislation as long as the individual residues
do not exceed the individual MRLs.
Residues of more than one pesticide (multiple residues) were found in 28.3% of the samples analysed
(23,420 samples) (Figure 59); in unprocessed products the frequency of multiple residues was higher
(30.7%) compared with processed products where 10.8% of the samples analysed contained more
than 1 pesticide in concentrations greater than the LOQ. Notably, 604 samples contained 10 or more
pesticides (118 samples of processed and 112 samples of unprocessed table grapes, 67 samples of
tea, 51 samples of strawberries, 28 samples of apples, 24 samples of pears, 22 samples of sweet
peppers.
1 quantifiable
residue, 18.0%
4 residues, 4.4%
3 residues, 6.6%
No quantifiable
residues, 53.6%
5 residues, 2.6%
6 residues, 1.6%
Multiple residues,
28.3%
2 residues,
10.4%
7 residues, 0.9%
8 residues, 0.6%
9 residues, 0.4%
10 residues, 0.2%
0.5%
Figure 59: Multiple residues detected in surveillance samples (processed and unprocessed products)
Focussing on unprocessed food products with a substantial number of results (more than 20 samples
analysed), the highest frequency of multiple residues was found in gooseberries (91.1% of the
samples analysed contained multiple pesticide residues), followed by bay leaves (86.5%), grapefruit
(78.5%), currants (78.1%), table grapes (75.1%), limes (67.8%), oranges (66.9%), strawberries
(65.4%) and lambs lettuce (62.5%). In addition, mandarins, blackberries, guavas, pears, bananas,
rucola, lemons, cherries, peaches, Brussels sprouts, celeriac, raspberries and apples were found to
contain multiple residues in more than 50% of the samples analysed. In Figure 60 the results for the
top ranked food products with multiple residues are presented, broken down by the number of
detected residues; products which were analysed only seldom (less than 20 samples) were not
included in the analysis. A similar analysis was performed for processed food products (Figure 61).
Among these products, the highest frequency of multiple residues was found for processed grapes
(e.g. raisins), processed apricots, wild and cultivated fungi (e.g. dried fungi), peppers (e.g. paprika
powder).
75
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Multiple residues in unprocessed food products

% of samples with multiple residues
20
Gooseberries (5/2/72)
19.0
Bay leave (4/1/32)
13.5
10.3
24.1
11.6
Lamb's lettuces (51/63/190)
13.6
13.3
26.3
Mandarins (246/208/740)
Guavas (24/13/54)
22.0
10.7
3.0
6.8
6.2
12.3
13.2
14.8
Bananas (295/149/605)
10.5
5.3
15.4
17.9
10.1
30.9
4.4 4.4
6.0
14.8
9.4
8.3
3.1
Rucola (54/38/121)
16.4
13.1
14.1
6.6
6.6
Lemons (274/144/536)
15.6
15.3
12.5
6.9
5.9
Cherries (187/161/435)
16.2
14.8
Peaches (281/270/646)
19.5
Brussels sprouts (38/34/77)
Chives (12/2/13)
11.1
10.9
Apricots (126/122/224)
11.1
9.7
6.4
6.1
Basil (124/102/165)
17.4
Pomegranates (52/48/67)
* The numbers in brackets after the product name

refer to number of samples without detectable
residues/samples with 1 residue/ samples with multiple
residues.
Only unprocessed products with at least 20 samples.
Data labelled only if 3%.
19.0
7.0
12.0
7.4
5.9
7.6
8.4
8.1
2 residues
4.7
4.1
4.3 3.8 4.6
12.7
10.8
22.8
11.5
11.1
6.7 3.4 3.4
9.0
19.9
4.4 4.9
11.1
6.6
14.9
7.4
12.0
6.8
18.6
16.4
6.4
7.9
7.4
10.6
14.0
Passionfruits (41/28/53)
Escaroles (143/75/151)
5.5
5.8
21.2
4.2 6.2
5.4
5.5
12.5
13.9
Peas (with pods) (218/235/324)
5.5
7.7
18.9
4.0
5.6 4.5
8.0
14.8
11.5
7.5
13.3
9.3
11.6
7.4
Papayas (64/34/81)
Lettuces (750/266/676)
14.2
17.7
5.8
7.2
12.8
7.9
6.7
8.6
9.8
17.7
Parsley (57/39/87)
Peppercorn (18/6/19)
7.7
15.3
Kales (56/29/79)
Teas (451/146/532)
8.5
14.6
12.6
Celeries (90/69/154)
6.4
17.4
17.9
Apples (956/595/1574)
Grape leaves (12/7/17)
12.6
22.1
Celeriacs (69/62/137)
Raspberries (137/76/217)
10.2
7.7
15.4
11.3
16.5
11.1
9.4
8.6
17.3
16.9
Pears (518/371/1240)
7.5
20.1
20.4
Blackberries (58/35/150)
24.1
14.7
13.2
9.4
24.0
9.8
17.3
14.9
8.6
13.9
13.7
17.8
Strawberries (508/320/1564)
29.1
16.3
16.5
14.7
100
48.6
19.9
12.8
80
16.5
10.8
13.4
Limes (32/32/135)
60
13.9
24.4
Oranges (452/357/1638)
Food product *
12.7
10.8
Grapefruits (83/70/560)
Currants (52/33/303)
40
3.3 4.3
3.6
6.8 3.5
3.6
10.0
3 residues
4 residues
5 residues
more than 5 residues
Figure 60: Food products most frequently containing multiple residues (unprocessed products)
76
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Multiple residues in processed food products

% of samples with multiple residues
0
10
6.2
Table/wine grapes, not specified (17/4/22)
5.0
11.6
Apricots (18/6/21)
Cultivated fungi (10/11/11)
Vegetables, not specified (23/3/11)
Food product *
2.2
12.5
3.1
8.1
9.7
11.4
4.5
Pumpkin seeds (11/34/8)
11.3
3.8
Pears (16/6/2)
Rice (382/79/40)
7.4
4.8
7.6
4.9
9.4
2.7 2.7
2.5
4.8
7.2
4.2 4.2
3.6
Oranges (135/29/13)
5.6
Cereals, not specified (78/24/7)
5.5
Rye (71/23/6)
5.4
4.6
Barley (33/4/7)
Wheat (965/512/146)
3.1
4.4
21.7
Wine grapes (809/271/235)
Plums (13/6/2)
80
20.0
16.2
Grapefruits (13/5/5)
70
15.9
17.1
9.4
6.2
6.7
9.1
4.5
14.6
60
27.9
20.0
6.8
50
48.6
23.9
Milk (goat) (12/14/15)
40
2.3
15.6
9.1
Sweet peppers (37/18/37)
Beans (dry) (57/14/10)
30
5.5
5.3
9.3
Tomatoes (36/8/21)
20
4.0
* The numbers in brackets after the product name

refer to number of samples without detectable
residues/samples with 1 residue/ samples with multiple
residues.
Only processed products with at least 20 samples.
Data labelled only if value >2%
2 residues
3 residues
4 residues
5 residues
more than 5 residues
Figure 61: Food products most frequently containing multiple residues (processed products)
The presence of multiple residues is not considered as a non-compliance with MRL legislation as long
the individual pesticide does not exceed the respective legal limits. However, food products with
multiple residues should be assessed carefully by the competent authorities in view of possible
violations of provisions of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The concerned products may be a result of
practices that are not in line with Article 19 of the aforementioned regulation (e.g. mixing of lots with
the purpose of diluting the residues). Equally, the presence of multiple residues may give an indication
that the principles of good plant protection practice were not respected (application of several
pesticides with a similar mode of action with the purpose to avoid using single pesticides at dose rates
that would lead to exceedances of the MRL).
4.3.
Reasons for MRL exceedances
It needs to be borne in mind that MRLs are established based on supervised residue trials that should
reflect the residue behaviour under conditions expected to occur in practice. The level of the MRL is
calculated using statistical methodologies. The MRL usually is established to cover at least the upper
confidence interval of the 95th percentile of the expected residue distribution. Thus, a low percentage
of approximately 1% MRL exceedances is expected to occur even if the approved Good Agricultural
Practices are fully respected.
In total, 2,421 samples exceeded the legal limit (2.9% of samples analysed); for 463 samples multiple
MRL exceedances were reported (92 EU/EEA origin, 347 samples from third countries, 24 samples
with unknown origin). Overall, 3,265 individual determinations were reported to violate the EU legal
limits.
To identify possible reasons for MRL exceedances that go beyond the expected exceedance rate, EFSA
analysed separately the results referring to samples originating from the EU/EEA countries and from
third countries.
77
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Among the samples breaching MRLs, 1,369 samples originated from third countries. In these
products, a total of 2,052 individual determinations exceeded the legal limits; 965 determinations
were resulting from targeted sampling (enforcement samples). 582 of these MRL exceedances in
products from third countries were related to products that were in focus of import controls under
Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 (see Section 4.2.4). Exceedances of the MRL were most frequently
detected (more than 100 samples) in tea, peppers (sweet or chilli peppers), beans with pods
(including yardlong beans) and celery leaves (including coriander leaves or other products that
according to the food classification for pesticide residues fall in the same category). A total of 45%41
of the MRL exceedances noted in imported products were related to residues that are no longer
approved in the EU or that were never.
The possible reasons for MRL exceedances in products imported from third countries are summarised
as follows:
Use of pesticides that are not or no longer approved in the EU on crops for which no import
tolerances have been requested by the importers, as foreseen in Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No
396/2005;
Use of pesticides that are approved in the EU, but on crops for which no import tolerances have
been requested by the importers;
Contaminants with unclear origin in concentrations exceeding the legal limit (e.g. anthraquinone
in tea and other crops);
MRL exceedance due to natural background levels (e.g. dithiocarbamates in passion fruit);
Presence of biocides that also fall under the pesticide legislation (e.g. BAC or DDAC).
Among the samples originating from the EU or EEA, overall 932 samples exceeded one or several
legal limits, with 92 samples with multiple MRL exceedances, resulting in 1,052 individual MRL
breaches. Among these cases, 185 of the 1,052 MRL exceedances were caused by non-approved
substances (17.6%), most frequently carbendazim42 (30 determinations) followed by procymidone,
dieldrin and anthraquinone43 (9 determinations, respectively). Among the approved pesticides,
chlorpyrifos was the substance found most frequently in concentrations exceeding the legal limits (105
cases, mainly in carrots, potatoes, apples, parsley and cucumbers), followed by dimethoate (86 cases,
mainly in cherries, apples, radishes and cucumbers).
The product groups with EU/EEA origin most frequently exceeding the legal limits were spinach,
apples, carrots, grape leaves, lettuce, table grapes, cucumbers, strawberries, and pears. Notably, in
liver a number of MRL exceedances were identified, related to copper compounds.
Possible reasons for MRL exceedances in products produced in the EU and EEA countries are
summarised as follows:
41
42
43
Use of approved pesticides but not in accordance with the Good Agricultural Practices; in
particular the use of plant protection products on crops for which no authorisation was granted or
not respecting the application rate, the pre-harvest interval, the number of applications, or the
method of application, e.g.
chlorpyrifos in carrots, potatoes and other crops;
dimethoate in cherries, radishes, apples and other crops;
iprodione in celeriac, lettuce, spinach, apples, and other crops;
use of folpet on table grapes while the authorisation is limited to wine grapes;
carbendazim residues in different crops;
dithiocarbamates in spinach and other crops.
The approavel for carbendazim expired in November 2014. Carbendazim is also a metabolite of the approved active
substance thiophanate methyl. For this analysis carbendazim is considered as a non-approved active substance; MRL
exceedances for carbendazim are unlikely to occur if thiophanate-methyl is used in accordance with the authorised GAP.
See previous footnote.
Antrhrquinone was mainly found in tea; it was reported as sample originating from one of the EU Member States, sicne it was
processed in the EU.
78
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Residues of fosetyl-Al, possibly resulting from the use of foliar phosphorous fertilizers, which could
mimic the treatment with fosetyl-Al.
Certain substances that fall under the pesticide legislation are also used for other purposes (e.g.
as biocides/disinfectants, feed additives) and the MRLs set under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 do
not reflect the other sources of residues:
BAC and DDAC in leafy vegetables, milk, and other crops or animal products;
copper residues in bovine liver.
Environmental contaminants exceeding the MRLs:
mercury in dry lentils or wild fungi;
dieldrin in pumpkins, carrots or cucumbers;
chlormequat/pears.
The origin of the product was not reported for 161 cases (120 samples with 24 samples with multiple
MRL exceedances) where residues were found in concentrations that exceeded the legal limit.
More details on pesticide/crop combinations exceeding the legal limits are compiled in an Excel file
published as supplement to this report.
79
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
5.
Dietary exposure and dietary risk assessment
In the acute or short-term exposure assessment, the uptake of pesticide residues via food consumed
within a short period, usually within one meal or one day, is estimated. The chronic or long-term
exposure assessment aims to quantify the pesticide intake by consumers over a long period,
predicting the lifetime exposure. A comparison of the estimated chronic and acute dietary exposure
with the relevant toxicological reference values for long-term and short-term exposure (i.e. the
acceptable daily intake (ADI) and the Acute Reference Dose (ARfD)), gives an indication of whether
consumers are exposed to pesticide residues that may pose a health risk. As long as the dietary
exposure is lower than or equal to the toxicological reference values, based on current scientific
knowledge, a consumer health risk can be excluded with a high probability. However, possible
negative health outcomes cannot be fully excluded if the exposure exceeds the toxicological reference
values.
EFSA calculated the short-term and long-term dietary exposure estimating the consumer health risks
resulting from pesticide residues in and on food using a similar approach as in previous years (EFSA,
2013a, 2014d). For estimating the actual acute and chronic exposure to pesticide residues present in
food that was analysed in monitoring programmes, EFSA used the deterministic risk assessment
methodology. This method was originally developed for the risk assessment in the context of pesticide
authorisations (EFSA PRIMo) (EFSA, 2007). The model implements the principles of the WHO
methodologies for short-term and long-term risk assessment (FAO, 2009), taking into account the
food consumption of the European population. The calculations should be understood as a
conservative risk assessment screening, meaning that the results are likely to overestimate the actual
exposure. In most cases where an exceedance of the ADI/ARfD was noted with the screening
method, more refined calculations could be performed, using additional information (e.g. information
on the expected residues in edible part of the crop or in processed food or information on the amount
of food consumed unprocessed/processed). However, due to the high number of pesticides and
samples assessed, refined exposure calculations could not be performed systematically in the
framework of this report.
The calculation tool (adapted version of EFSA PRIMo revision 2) used for the risk assessment
screening is made available as a supplement to this report.
Results of cumulative risk assessments cannot yet be presented in the current report, as the scientific
preparatory work is not yet completed (e.g. grouping of pesticides sharing a common target organ to
derive cumulative assessment groups). The project on cumulative risk assessment is of high priority
for EFSA. Information on the project is provided on the EFSA website.
5.1.
Short-term (acute) exposure assessment individual pesticides
The methodology used to calculate the short-term exposure is described in detail in the 2010
European Union report on pesticide residues (EFSA, 2013a).
For all food products of the 2014 EUCP, the exposure calculations were based on the consumption
data for children since this subgroup of the population is more exposed to pesticide residues 44 for all
the food products in focus. As mentioned before, the calculations were performed with assumptions
which are likely to overestimate the actual exposure of European consumers (i.e. consumption of the
concerned food products in high amounts without washing or any processing that would reduce the
residues (e.g. cooking); in addition, it was assumed that the residue concentration in the consumed
products was five to seven times higher than the residues measured in the samples analysed 45).
The short-term exposure assessments were performed for the pesticides covered by the 2014 EUcoordinated programme46, considering the 12 food products (i.e. beans with pods, carrots, cucumbers,
44
For the food products covered by the 2014 EUCP, the food consumption of children, expressed on kg body weight, was
higher compared to the normalised food consumption for adults.
The approach using the so-called unit variability factor of 5 or 7 is used in the currently used risk assessment methodology
for short-term dietary exposure, postulating an inhomogeneous distribution among the individual units. The variability factors
are applied for mid-sized products like carrots, cucumbers, mandarins, oranges, pears, potatoes; for products that are
normally mixed or bulked before consumption and for products with a small unit weight, no variability factor is applied (e.g.
for rice flour, spinach, beans with pods).
46
For 37 substances included in the EU-coordinated monitoring programme the setting of an ARfD was not necessary because
of the low acute toxicity of the substances. These pesticides are therefore not relevant for acute exposure assessment.
45
80
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
mandarins, oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice, wheat flour, liver, poultry muscle and poultry fat).
The exposure was calculated for the 12,850 samples taken in the framework of the EUCP and
additional 5,482 samples of the 12 food products for which the results were reported under the
national control programmes. The calculations were carried out separately for each pesticide/crop
combination as it is considered unlikely that a consumer would eat two or more different food
products in large portions within a short period of time and that all of these food products would
contain residues of the same pesticide at the highest level observed during the reporting year.
The short-term (acute) consumer exposure was performed using the following approach:
EFSA calculated the short-term exposure for all pesticide/crop combinations covered by the 2014
EU-coordinated programme;
For pesticide/crop combinations, where all reported results were below the LOQ, no acute
exposure assessment was performed, assuming a no residue/no exposure situation;
The exposure calculation for the unprocessed plant products (beans with pods, carrots,
cucumbers, mandarins, oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice) was based on the large portion
food consumption implemented in the EFSA PRIMo (EFSA, 2007);
For oranges and mandarins peeling factors were taken into account as far as available and where
a refined calculation was considered necessary (e.g. if the unrefined calculations exceeded the
toxicological reference value); for potatoes appropriate processing factors were considered, where
available (see Table 13);
The calculation of the exposure for wheat flour is based on the food consumption figure (large
portion) of total wheat (including all wheat products);
The calculation of the exposure for liver is based on the large portion of bovine liver;
To estimate the exposure for poultry meat, the following approach was used:
For fat-soluble pesticides, the exposure was calculated assuming the poultry meat
contained 10% of the residue measured in poultry fat, postulating a fat content of
10% for poultry meat.
For non-fat soluble pesticides, the exposure was calculated with residue concentration
measured in muscle.
The residue values reported according to the residue definition for enforcement (in accordance
with the EU MRL legislation) were not recalculated to the residue definition for risk assessment,
lacking a comprehensive list of conversion factors.
Overall, 38 pesticides were not relevant for the acute risk assessment (pesticides where due to the
toxicological properties of the active substance the setting of an ARfD was considered not necessary).
Table 13: Processing factors used for refined exposure calculations
Food
product/pesticide
Processing
factors(a)
Oranges/mandarins
Acetamiprid (RD)
Buprofezin
Carbendazim (RD)
Chlorpyrifos
Dicofol
Dimethoate (RD)
Dimethomorph
Imazalil
Lambdacyhalothrin
Methidathion
Phosmet
Reference
0.03
0.18
0.46
0.03
0.03
0.14
0.13
0.07
<0.25
EFSA, 2011a
EFSA, 2010b
EFSA, 2014c
EFSA, 2012a
BVL, 2002
BVL, 2002
EFSA, 2011c
EFSA, 2010a
EFSA, 2015g
0.03
0.33
BVL 2002
EFSA, 2013c
Comment
The processing factors available for oranges were

extrapolated to mandarins.
81
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Food
product/pesticide
Processing
factors(a)
Propiconazole
Pyraclostrobin
Tebuconazole
(RD)
Thiabendazole
(RD)
Potatoes
Chlorpropham
Thiabendazole
Imazalil
Reference
0.01
0.14
0.14
EFSA, 2015a
EFSA, 2011d
EFSA, 2011b
0.02
EFSA, 2016c
0.57
0.09
0.14
EFSA, 2012b
EFSA, 2016c
EFSA, 2010a
Comment
Processing factors for unpeeled, boiled potatoes

Boiled potatoes (washed with peel)
(a): The processing factors were derived from previous EFSA assessments in the framework of MRL applications or
MRL reviews under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.
The estimated short-term exposure for the pesticide/crop combination was compared with the
toxicological reference value, usually the ARfD value. The recently established and modified ARfD/ADI
values or ARfD values for active substances that were not covered by the previous EU-coordinated
programme are reported in Appendix D, Table 20. The toxicological reference values for the remaining
pesticides are unchanged and can be retrieved from Appendix D, Table D1 of the 2013 EU report on
pesticide residues (EFSA, 2015c). For ten pesticides with results above the LOQ, the short-term risk
assessment has been performed with the ADI instead of the ARfD because these have not been
evaluated with regard to the setting of the ARfD and/or the setting of the ARfD was not finalised (i.e.
biphenyl, bromopropylate, chlordane, chlorfenvinphos, chlorobenzilate, heptachlor, hexaconazole,
oxadixyl, phenthoate and phoxim). The use of the ADI instead of the ARfD is an additional
conservative element in the risk assessment. It should be highlighted that some of the ARfD values
were recently set or lowered and were not in place when the monitoring results were generated in
2014 (e.g. 2,4-D, amitrole, chlorpyrifos, famoxadone, glyphosate, pendimethalin and thiabendazole).
As the residue definition for dimethoate contains compounds with significantly different toxicities, it is
not possible to perform an unambiguous risk assessment. 47 Thus, for this compound EFSA calculated
two scenarios: the optimistic dimethoate scenario where it is assumed that the determined residues
are related only to the less toxic compound dimethoate, and the pessimistic omethoate scenario,
where the total residue concentration reported is assumed to refer to the more toxic compound
omethoate.
Similarly, the residue definitions for fenvalerate (RD), methomyl (RD) and triadimenol (RD) contain
compounds with different toxicological profiles. To perform the acute risk assessment, it was assumed
that the residue found consisted solely of the authorised active substance.
Residues resulting from the use of dithiocarbamates are measured as CS2, a common moiety of all the
pesticides belonging to this group of chemicals. In addition, some crops contain naturally occurring
substances that are covered by the analytical method mimicking the presence of dithiocarbamates.
Thus, the analytical methods used do not distinguish which active substances were originally applied
on the crop or whether the residue is resulting from natural sources. Hence, an unambiguous risk
assessment is not possible since pesticides falling in the class of dithiocarbamates have different
toxicological properties. For dithiocarbamates, five scenarios were calculated, assuming that the
measured CS2 concentration refers exclusively to maneb, mancozeb, propineb, thiram or ziram.
5.1.1.
Results of the short-term (acute) risk assessment individual pesticides
In Figure 62, the results of the short-term risk assessment are summarised. Grey cells refer to
pesticide/crop combinations not covered by the 2014 EUCP or to pesticides not relevant for acute risk
assessment (setting of an ARfD was not necessary). Empty, white cells in the grid refer to
pesticide/crop combinations where the exposure was negligible because none of the samples analysed
47
Some reporting countries reported the results for dimethoate and omethoate separately. However, as long as this reporting
practice is restricted to several countries only, EFSA could not perform a comprehensive risk assessment taking into account
the individual concentrations of the two compounds and the different toxicological potencies of dimethoate and omethoate.
82
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
contained measurable residues. The cells containing an asterisk refer to pesticide/crop combinations
with detectable residues for which a risk assessment could not be performed lacking toxicological
reference values. For pesticide where an ARfD/ADI is available and where at least one sample with
detectable residues was reported, the exposure was calculated. The result reported in the graph
refers to the sample containing the highest residue among all the samples analysed. The results are
expressed as percentage of the ARfD/ADI. Pesticide/crop combinations where the calculated dietary
exposure exceeded the ARfD are highlighted in orange (exposure between 100% and 1,000%: light
orange, exposure above 1,000%: dark orange), whereas pesticide/crop combinations where exposure
was calculated to be below the toxicological reference values are indicated in yellow.
Overall, for 37 pesticides (pesticides relevant for acute exposure assessments) not a single result
above the LOQ was reported for any of the food products tested. Thus, for these pesticides the shortterm dietary exposure was considered negligible for all of the food products covered by the EUCP
(aldicarb (RD), amitrole, azinphos-ethyl, benfuracarb, bitertanol, dichlofluanid, dicrotophos, endrin,
EPN, ethion, fenitrothion, fenpropidin (RD), formothion, glufosinate (RD), ioxynil (RD), isocarbophos,
isofenphos-methyl, isoprocarb, mepanipyrim (RD), meptyldinocap (RD), metazachlor, metconazole,
methoxychlor, metobromuron, nitenpyram, oxydemeton-methyl (RD), parathion, parathion-methyl
(RD), phosalone, propoxur, pyrazophos, resmethrin, rotenone, tolylfluanid (RD), topramezone,
trichlorfon and vinclozolin (RD)).
For 102 pesticides, residues were found in the food products analysed in concentrations above the
LOQ, but the exposure was below the toxicological reference values (i.e. 2,4-D (RD), abamectin (RD),
acephate, acetamiprid (RD), acrinathrin, amitraz (RD), azinphos-methyl, bifenthrin, biphenyl,
bromopropylate, bromuconazole, buprofezin, carbaryl, chlordane (RD), chlorfenapyr, chlorobenzilate,
chlorothalonil (RD), chlorpyrifos-methyl, clothianidin, cyfluthrin, cymoxanil, cypermethrin,
cyproconazole, cyromazine, diazinon, dichlorprop (RD), dicloran, dicofol, difenoconazole,
dimethomorph, dithianon, dodine, endosulfan (RD), epoxiconazole, ethephon, ethoprophos,
etofenprox, famoxadone, fenamiphos (RD), fenazaquin, fenbuconazole, fenbutatin oxide, fenoxycarb,
fenpropathrin, fenpropimorph (RD), fenpyroximate, fenthion (RD), fipronil (RD), fluazifop-P-butyl
(RD), flubendiamide, fluopyram (RD), fluquinconazole, flusilazole (RD), flutriafol, folpet (RD),
formetanate, glyphosate, haloxyfop-R (RD), heptachlor (RD), hexaconazole, indoxacarb, lindane,
linuron, malathion (RD), mepiquat, metaflumizone, metalaxyl, methamidophos, methidathion,
methiocarb (RD), methoxyfenozide, monocrotophos, myclobutanil (RD), oxadixyl, paclobutrazol,
penconazole, pendimethalin, permethrin, phoxim, pirimicarb (RD), pirimiphos-methyl, procymidone
(RD), profenofos, propamocarb, propiconazole, prothioconazole (RD), pymetrozine, pyraclostrobin,
pyrethrins, pyridaben, pyriproxyfen, spiromesifen, spiroxamine (RD), tau-fluvalinate, tebufenpyrad,
tefluthrin, terbuthylazine, tetraconazole, thiamethoxam (RD), thiophanate-methyl, triadimenol (RD)
and triticonazole). According to the current scientific knowledge, the presence of these pesticides in
the food products assessed was not likely to pose a short-term health risk to consumers.
For 27 pesticides, the screening for potential short-term consumer risks was positive for at least one
sample for one or several of the food products in focus, meaning that the estimated short-term
exposure exceeded the ARfD (i.e. captan (RD), carbendazim (RD), carbofuran (RD), carbosulfan,
chlorfenvinphos, chlormequat, chlorpropham (RD), chlorpyrifos, deltamethrin, dichlorvos, dieldrin
(RD), fenarimol, fenvalerate (RD), flonicamid (RD), fosthiazate, imazalil, imidacloprid, lambdacyhalothrin, methomyl (RD), oxamyl, phenthoate, phosmet (RD), prochloraz (RD), tebuconazole (RD),
thiabendazole (RD), thiacloprid and triazophos). In addition, the calculated exposure exceeded the
toxicological reference values for one or several commodities in three of the five dithiocarbamates
scenarios as well as for the dimethoate and omethoate-scenario.
83
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25

Food product (a)
Pesticide
Or
2,4-D (RD)
10.8
Ma
Pe
Po
Ca
Cu
Sp
Pesticide
Be
Ri
Wf
Li
5.27
Cyfluthrin
1.82
29.2
2.27
Acephate
Acetamiprid (RD)
1.00
0.53
Acrinathrin
85.1
15.6
36.4
1.27
37.1
1.20
1.26
Cypermethrin
42.5
31.6
5.45
1.51
Cyproconazole
27.5
4.07
3.40
54.6
1.59
Deltamethrin
18.2
Dichlorprop (RD)
Benfuracarb
Biphenyl(c)
Sp
Be
Ri
Wf
Li
Pm
0.70
19.9
0.94
2.09
3.73
0.06
15.8
2.27
2.96
15.8
2.33
0.50
2.21
0.95
4.39
18.7
0.77
1.73
6.97
12.3
0.35
58.4
6.34
2.04
26.5
6.68
118
271
22.7
193
46.2
3.78
0.90
Dichlofluanid(c)
Azoxystrobin(b)
7.05
3.84
0.95
Diazinon
22.1
Cu
DDT (RD)(b)
Azinphos-ethyl
Bifenthrin
Ca
Cyprodinil (RD)(b)
Amitrole
Azinphos-methyl
Po
22.8
Cyromazine
Amitraz (RD)
3.04
3.90
1.47
0.87
0.24
0.45
0.29
0.22
Dichlorvos
241
Dicloran
0.10
Dicofol
Bitertanol
3.64
0.03
0.15
0.05
0.19
Dicrotophos
(b)
Boscalid (RD)
Dieldrin (RD)
Bromide ion(b)
Bromopropylate (c)
0.42
Bromuconazole
2.27
Buprofezin
0.13
Captan (RD)
0.66
0.07
0.36
0.11
137
0.45
Difenoconazole
0.29
1.89
Carbendazim (RD)
89.5
Carbofuran (RD)
Carbosulfan
39.7
505
30.8
34.9
44.2
90.4
482
22.7
8.19
0.51
(c)
9.40
0.61
4.23
56.1
2,790
Chlormequat
598
0.43
7.64
Chlorobenzilate (c)
0.61
24.1
14.8
574
52.6
98.4
120
295
121
74.0
2,869
263
492
602
1,475
Dimethomorph
1.96
0.02
0.32
1.27
1.46
0.10
1.28
0.20
0.10
0.26
*
29.6
215
138
10.4
19.7
41.1
30.9
1.62
Dithiocarbamates (RD) - mancozeb 33.5

scenario6.44
70.3
45.1
3.39
6.42
13.4
10.1
0.53
Dithiocarbamates (RD) - propineb scenario

213
40.9
447
287
21.5
40.8
85.3
64.2
3.35
Dithiocarbamates (RD) - thiram scenario

29.7
5.71
62.3
40.0
3.00
5.69
11.9
8.96
0.47
Dithiocarbamates (RD) - ziram scenario

282
54.3
592
380
28.5
54.1
113
85.1
4.44
Dodine
0.17
30.1
0.20
1.02
2.58
9.65
3.31
2.46
Endosulfan (RD)
Chlorpropham (RD)
1.80
0.28
0.58
2.41
0.14
0.08
0.10
Endrin(c)
Chlorpyrifos
23.9
16.7
1,075 1,599 1,047
316
85.9
65.8
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
29.2
18.4
15.5
25.6
19.7
Chlorothalonil (RD)
245
2.83
Dimethoate (RD) - omethoate
Dithiocarbamates (RD) - maneb scenario

102
0.74
11.0
Dimethoate (RD) - dimethoate
Dithianon
Chlorantraniliprole (b)
28.3
7.57
1.04
Diphenylamine (b)
1,437
Chlorfenvinphos (c)
0.02
0.83
Diniconazole (d)
225
Chlorfenapyr
117
Diflubenzuron (RD)(b)
0.08
Carbaryl
655
Diethofencarb(b)
(b)
Chlordane (RD)
Pe
5.74
13.3
Cymoxanil
Aldicarb (RD)
Bupirimate
Ma
Clothianidin
2-phenylphenol(b)
Abamectin (RD)
Or
Clofentezine (RD)(b)
Pm
161
10.7
EPN
0.76
8.77
Epoxiconazole
84
0.66
17.0
0.36
31.2
2.56
1.87
5.29
2.74
3.02
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25

Pesticide
Or
Ethephon
Ma
37.1
Pe
Po
Ca
Cu
Sp
Be
Ri
Wf
Li
Pm
Pesticide
8.92
Or
Ma
Pe
Po
Ca
Cu
Sp
Haloxyfop-R (RD)
Be
Ri
Wf
Li
Pm
0.09
Ethion(c)
Heptachlor (RD)(c)
Ethirimol
Hexachlorobenzene (d)
1.25
Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha)(d)
0.10
Ethoprophos
Etofenprox
9.15
2.34
1.18
0.08
Famoxadone
7.68
27.2
13.4
1.68
Hexythiazox (b)
Fenamiphos (RD)
33.7
Fenarimol
21.2
3.90
107
Fenazaquin
5.84
2.62
1.37
Fenbuconazole
0.57
Fenbutatin oxide
33.2
3.08
3.10
2.95
31.7
4.55
0.13
698
39.6
5.45
4.21
0.63
17.6
39.5
589
8.45
12.7
12.8
3.03
1.40
21.7
0.50
59.8
76.8
136
Isocarbophos
0.73
84.0
14.5
0.07
Isofenphos-methyl
3.64
Isoprocarb
Kresoxim-methyl (RD)(b)
Fenpropimorph (RD)
0.19
53.0
Fenthion (RD)
8.07
2.11
16.8
0.83
5.85
Lambda-cyhalothrin
0.91
227
Flonicamid (RD)
19.2
8.54
0.73
33.8
Fluazifop-P-butyl (RD)
63.3
Flubendiamide
1.41
32.5
204
22.0
11.8
6.35
Lufenuron(b)
8.32
Malathion (RD)
8.41
4.99
Maleic hydrazide (RD)(b)
35.9
3.07
Mandipropamid(b)
1.13
Mepanipyrim (RD)
2.11
Fludioxonil(b)
Mepiquat
Flufenoxuron(b)
Meptyldinocap (RD)
Fluopyram (RD)
0.04
3.46
Fluquinconazole
18.7
Flusilazole (RD)
20.0
12.7
50.1
104
0.18
0.53
0.21
0.61
5.07
1.31
Formetanate
4.91
0.63
0.07
10.3
9.42
6.84
5.04
Metazachlor
3.03
Metconazole
20.8
3.69
0.30
0.14
Methidathion
Formothion
0.60
3.67
0.58
0.16
1.09
6.76
0.22
7.29
Methiocarb (RD)
163
1.85
6.73
1.26
1.52
2.11
0.07
Methamidophos
15.2
Fosthiazate
35.9
Metaflumizone
Metalaxyl
9.24
Folpet (RD)
1.08
12.7
0.00
Linuron
12.7
73.5
66.3
Lindane
62.9
Fipronil (RD)
Flutriafol
5.83
0.43
Iprodione (RD)(b)
1.40
Fenpropidin (RD)
Fenvalerate (RD)
61.5
84.0
Iprovalicarb(b)
Fenoxycarb
Fenpyroximate
178
Imidacloprid
Ioxynil (RD)
(b)
Fenpropathrin
Imazalil
Indoxacarb
Fenitrothion
1.46
Methomyl (RD)
0.04
0.04
27.2
27.3
3.88
21.6
40.0
9.13
164
39.8
90.8
Methoxychlor(c)
Glufosinate (RD)
Glyphosate
Hexaconazole (c)
4.27
Fenamidone
Fenhexamid
25.2
0.69
0.55
0.61
Methoxyfenozide
85
11.2
0.83
14.1
15.8
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25

Pesticide
Or
Ma
Pe
Po
Ca
Cu
Sp
Be
Ri
Wf
Li
Pesticide
Pm
Monocrotophos
Myclobutanil (RD)
Or
Ma
Pe
Po
51.1
0.86
0.52
0.88
0.61
Oxadixyl
0.77
0.01
Spiromesifen
0.15
Spiroxamine (RD)
0.05
0.03
43.4
0.41
0.53
1.13
12.6
3.74
0.19
13.0
8.24
0.18
Parathion
Tebuconazole (RD)
2.48
42.8
103
1.54
Parathion-methyl (RD)
Tebufenozide (b)
92.8
20.3
4.55
7.69
9.95
13.2
7.29
1.72
0.15
0.47
0.36
0.23
Tebufenpyrad
0.05
Pendimethalin
2.11
Permethrin
0.14
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.04
703
Tefluthrin
0.01
Terbuthylazine
0.26
20.7
83.8
Pm
0.01
0.19
13.4
156
Pirimicarb (RD)
6.37
4.90
7.01
Pirimiphos-methyl
41.6
0.59
11.3
Prochloraz (RD)
1,008
706
6.15
Procymidone (RD)
1.11
Profenofos
0.13
(c)
Phoxim
53.2
6.43
2.56
42.9
0.52
30.4
0.77
52.8
3.41
0.08
Propamocarb
3.66
Propargite (d)
Propiconazole
2.25
0.46
0.79
1.03
2.79
30.5
9.63
0.01
0.15
51.1
0.42
1.39
0.45
0.54
0.70
0.31
Thiabendazole (RD)
92.8
24.5
257
Thiacloprid
0.44
85.0
Thiametoxam (RD)
0.29
1.35
Thiophanate-methyl
3.85
23.2
323
1.47
4.44
2.11
3.80
102
0.20
1.64
0.96
0.59
2.46
0.88
2.27
2.65
0.25
Tolylfluanid (RD)
0.03
Topramezone
0.62
0.28
0.73
Tolclofos-methyl(b)
20.8
0.15
3.03
10.5
Tetradifon(b)
Tetramethrin(d)
41.3
55.8
Tetraconazole
6.30
Phosalone
Triadimenol (RD)
1.46
1.90
9.59
Triazophos
0.50
3.18
79.4
126
Trichlorfon
(c)
Trifloxystrobin (RD)(b)
Propyzamide (RD)(b)
Prothioconazole (RD)
Triflumuron(b)
21.6
Trifluralin(b)
Pymetrozine
11.9
0.92
86.2
6.66
11.8
25.8
0.27
2.16
4.09
90.0
0.76
0.11
0.07
0.93
12.3
Triticonazole
Pyrethrins
2.52
Pyridaben
7.69
13.4
3.82
0.29
0.09
0.07
17.5
Zoxamide(b)
3.98
(a): Be: beans with pods, Ca: carrots, Cu: Cucumber, Ma: mandarins, Or: oranges, Pe:
pears, Po: Potatoes, Sp: spinach, Ri: rice, Wf: wheat flour, Li: liver of ruminants, swine
and poultry, Pm: poultry meat
(b): No ARfD necessary due to low acute toxicity
(c): Acute risk assessment was performed with the ADI, since no ARfD is available for the
active substance.
(d): No ADI/ARfD allocated, but detectable residues in one or several commodities. See
exposure assessment in Table 14
1.47
Pyrimethanil(b)
0.05
1.27
Vinclozolin (RD)
Pyrazophos(c)
Pyriproxyfen
Li
Teflubenzuron(b)
Pencycuron(b)
Pyraclostrobin
Wf
0.01
2.82
tau-Fluvalinate
Paclobutrazol
Prothiofos(d)
Ri
Spirodiclofen(b)
2,924
Oxydemeton-methyl (RD)
Propoxur
Be
Rotenone
0.15
8.88
Oxamyl
Phosmet (RD)
Sp
Spinosad(b)
(c)
Phenthoate (c)
Cu
Resmethrin(c)
1.26
Nitenpyram
Penconazole
Ca
Quinoxyfen(b)
Metobromuron
0.01
Figure 62: Results of short-term (acute) dietary risk assessment (expressed as a percentage of the toxicological reference value)
86
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Overall, 355 determinations (corresponding to 346 samples) were calculated to exceed the ARfD in
the risk assessment screening.48 The detailed results of the short-term dietary exposure assessment
for the pesticide residues detected in the 12 food products covered by the 2014 EU-coordinated
control programme, including the 355 cases with an exceedance of the ARfD, are presented in
Appendix D, Figure 63 to Figure 74. In these charts, the results for the individual samples containing
residues above the LOQ are presented individually, expressing the exposure as percentage of the
ARfD. The blue dots refer to results reported under the EU-coordinated programme, whereas the
orange dots refer to findings in samples that were analysed in the framework of the national control
programmes. The figures in brackets next to the name of the pesticides represent the number of
samples with residues below the LOQ, number of samples with detectable residues below the MRL,
and the number of samples with residues above the MRL. The highest number of exceedance of the
ARfD was identified for pears (234 determinations), followed by potatoes (28 determinations), carrots
(25 determinations), and oranges (23 determinations). For the other commodities, less than 20
determinations exceeded the toxicological threshold (i.e. 100% of the ARfD/ADI).
Among the cases exceeding the ARfD, in 62 cases the toxicological thresholds were only slightly
exceeded (less than 120% of the ARfD).
182 determinations exceeding the ARfD were related to chlorpyrifos residues (139 determinations in
pears, 22 in carrots, 16 in potatoes, 4 in cucumbers and 1 in rice). A substantial number of
exceedances of the ARfD were also identified for imazalil (74 cases in pears and 4 in oranges),
prochloraz (15 determinations in oranges and mandarins, respectively) and thiabendazole (11
determinations in pears and one in potatoes) 49. It should be noted that the ARfD for chlorpyrifos and
thiabendazole have been lowered in 2014. Thus, the retrospective risk assessment was performed
with the most up-to-date toxicological reference values not yet in place in 2014. For the remaining
active substances, less than 10 samples contained residues exceeded the ARfD.
The 12 highest results for the exposure calculation, expressed as percentage of the ARfD, were
calculated for the following samples: a sample of cucumbers from Portugal (containing oxamyl
residues accounting for 2900% of the ARfD), French carrots with chlorfenvinphos residues (2800% of
the ARfD), potatoes from Greece and Malta with chlorpyrifos residues (1600% and 890% of the
ARfD), beans with pods from Cambodia with carbofuran (yard long beans, 1400% of the ARfD),
Spanish pears with chlorpyrifos (1100% of the ARfD), Greek carrots with chlorpyrifos (1050% of the
ARfD), prochloraz in Argentinian oranges (1000% of the ARfD), three samples of Italian pears with
chlorpyrifos (between 840% and 980% of the ARfD) and one sample of Hungarian pears with
chlorpyrifos (800% of the ARfD). For the remaining samples, the calculated exposure was below
800% of the ARfD.
It should be stressed again that the results reflect the outcome of a conservative screening for
potential risks. The calculations were performed without taking into account that the residues
expected in the food consumed after processing or washing might be significantly lower. Given the
conservatism of the calculations and the frequency of exceedances of the ARfD, EFSA concludes that
the probability of being exposed to pesticide residues exceeding concentrations that may lead to
negative health outcomes was low.
For 7 pesticides (diniconazole, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha), hexachlorohexane
(beta), propargite, prothiofos and tetramethrin), measurable residues were detected, but due to the
absence of toxicological reference values no short-term dietary risk assessment could be performed.
None of these pesticides are authorised in the EU. The estimated short-term exposure to these
pesticides, using the food consumption data of EFSA PRIMo rev. 2 is presented in Table 14.
48
49
As regards the two compounds where no unambiguous risk assessment could be calculated (i.e. dimethoate (RD) and
dithiocarbamates (RD)) the dimethoate and the mancozeb scenario were used as the basis for calculating the number of
determinations/samples exceeding the ARfD.
Imazalil and thiabendazole are two pesticides that are frequently used for post-harvest treatment, e.g. in pears or citrus fruit.
For the acute risk assessment the standard variability factors were used. Considering that a lower unit-to-unit variability may
be expecpted, the acute risk assessment is likely to overestimate the real exposure.
87
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Table 14: Results of short-term exposure assessment for active substances without ARfD/ADI values
Pesticide
Diniconazole
Hexachlorobenze
Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha)
Propargite
Prothiofos
Tetramethrin
Food product
Spinach
Liver
Liver
Liver
Poultry meat
Oranges
Mandarins
Pears
Oranges
Oranges
Beans (with pods)
Rice
Wheat (flour)
Short-term exposure
(in g/kg bw)
0.45
0.002
0.001
0.013
0.035
23.9
41.7
1.8
3.8
1.1
0.33
0.11
0.12
For the following pesticide/crop combinations exceedances of the ARfD were noted although the
samples did not exceed the MRL in place in 2014 (the numbers in brackets refer to the numbers of
samples exceeding the ARfD but considered compliant with the MRL):
Chlorpyrifos in pears (133), potatoes (5) and carrots (4);
Imazalil in pears (73);
Prochloraz (RD) in mandarins (15) and oranges (13);
Thiabendazole (RD) in pears (11) and potatoes (1);
Chlorpropham (RD) in potatoes (6);
Deltamethrin in rice (6);
Lambda-cyhalothrin in pears (1);
Carbofuran (RD) in mandarins (1);
Tebuconazole (RD) in pears (1);
Fenarimol in pears (1);
Methomyl (RD) in cucumbers (1) and
Phenthoate in oranges (1).
Thus, these findings give an indication that the MRLs in place in 2014 were not sufficiently protective
for consumers and that corrective measures to lower the MRLs have to be considered. For pesticides
listed above where the toxicological reference values have been recently lowered (i.e. chlorpyrifos,
thiabendazole, lambda-cyhalothrin), such corrective measures have been taken by reviewing the
existing MRLs (the review process has been initiated or has been already completed). For
chlorpyrifos50, following the revision of the toxicological reference values, the MRLs were screened by
EFSA for possible consumer health risks (EFSA, 2015c) and where considered necessary the MRLs
were lowered.51 Thus, the MRLs currently in place for pears and potatoes are set at substantially lower
levels compared to the MRLs in place in 2014. A detailed review of the existing MRLs for chlorpyrifos
is currently ongoing. Following the lowering of toxicological reference values for lambda-cyhalothrin
(EFSA, 2015g), EFSA has, based on a refined risk assessment, derived recommendations to modify
the existing MRL for pears (EFSA, 2015g). Similarly, EFSA re-assessed the MRLs for thiabendazole in
50
51
The toxicological properties of chlorpyrifos were re-assessed by EFSA (EFSA, 2014a) and resulted in a new ARfD proposal
which was 20 times lower than the ARfD set by the European Commission in consultation with the Member States in 2005
(European Commission, 2005)
Commission Regulation (EU) 2016/60 of 19 January 2016 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of
the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for chlorpyrifos in or on certain products.
OJ L 14, 21.1.2016, p. 117.
88
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
2016, deriving proposals for lower MRLs for a number of commodities, among others also for potatoes
and pears (EFSA, 2016c).
MRLs of deltamethrin, carbofuran (RD), tebuconazole, fenarimol and methomyl (RD) were subject to
comprehensive, periodic reviews under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005; the MRLs for the
commodities listed above that were identified as being not sufficiently protective for European
consumers were recently lowered. The MRL review is ongoing for imazalil, prochloraz and
chlorpropham. For phenthoate, MRLs are listed in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 for a limited number
of crops (i.e. seed spices), but not for oranges.52 Risk managers may consider the need for setting
specific MRLs for phenthoate for all commodities covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 at a level
that is sufficiently protective for consumers.
EFSA concludes that efficient mechanisms are in place to take corrective measures for cases where
new assessments lead to the lowering of toxicological reference values. In addition, the periodic
review of existing MRLs in the framework of Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is an important
instrument that allows identifying and, where necessary, modifying existing MRLs that are not fully
protective for European consumers.
5.2.
Long-term (chronic) risk assessment individual pesticides
The chronic or long-term exposure assessment estimates the expected exposure of an individual
consumer over a long period, predicting the lifetime exposure. The underlying model assumptions for
the long-term risk assessment are explained in detail in the 2010 and 2011 EU reports on pesticide
residues (EFSA, 2013a, 2014b).
The exposure calculations are based on the most commonly consumed food commodities, i.e. the
food products covered by the three years cycle of the EU-coordinated monitoring programme.
In contrast to previous years, EFSA calculated two scenarios referred to as adjusted upper-bound and
lower-bound approach53. The adjusted upper-bound risk assessment methodology should be
considered as a conservative screening, which is likely to overestimate the real exposure. Higher tier
calculations could be performed, e.g. by means of probabilistic modelling, using distributions for food
consumption data and distributions for residue concentrations. Additional elements for refined
exposure calculations could be included in both deterministic and probabilistic risk assessment models.
EFSA has developed a methodology for probabilistic calculations (EFSA, 2008, 2009, 2012c, 2013b)
and currently discussions are on-going concerning the practical implementation. However, as long as
the conservative screening does not identify an exceedance of the toxicological reference values, no
further assessments are considered necessary. The lower-bound approach is based on assumptions
that may underestimate the exposure to a certain extent; however, the calculations are useful to
complement the adjusted upper-bound exposure assessments to understand better the uncertainties
of the calculations, which are mainly resulting from the high percentage of samples with residues at or
below the LOQ.
For the adjusted upper-bound approach and lower-bound, the residue concentration used as the input
value in the chronic exposure estimations was derived according to the following approach:
For each pesticide/crop combination, an overall mean value was calculated, using the residue
concentrations measured in the individual surveillance samples. For samples with residues below
the LOQ, EFSA used as a conservative assumption the numerical value of the LOQ to calculate the
overall mean (adjusted upper-bound approach);
If no positive findings were reported for any of the samples analysed for a given pesticide/crop
combination (i.e. all results were reported below the LOQ), the contribution of these crops to the
total dietary intake was not considered, assuming a no use/no residue situation (adjusted upper
bound approach);
52
The EU MRL legislation does not contain specific MRLs for phenthoate, except for seed spices. Although the sample
contained residues at the level of 0.159 mg/kg, thus, clearly exceeding the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg, the sample was not
considered exceeding the legal limit.
53
In previous years, only the scenario described as upper-bound approach was calculated. Thus, for comparing results of
the 2014 exposure calculations with the results of previous years, the results described as upper-bound approach need to
be taken into account.
89
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
In the lower bound approach, the results below the LOQ are replaced with zero, postulating that
no measurable residues of the pertinent pesticide were present in the sample;
For the food products covered by the 2014 EU-coordinated monitoring programme (i.e. beans
with pods, carrots, cucumbers, mandarins, oranges, pears, potatoes, spinach, rice, wheat flour,
liver, poultry muscle/fat), the mean residue concentration was calculated from the results
presented in Section 3.3 of this report;
All the results reported for liver samples (bovine, goat, sheep, swine and poultry liver) were
pooled to calculate the mean residue concentrations. The exposure was assessed on the basis of
the consumption of bovine liver;
For poultry meat and swine meat the following approach was used:
For fat-soluble pesticides, the exposure was calculated assuming the poultry meat
contained 10% of the residue measured in poultry fat, postulating a fat content of
10% for poultry meat.
For non-fat soluble pesticides, the exposure was calculated with the residue
concentration measured in muscle.
For the remaining food products considered in the long-term exposure assessment, the residue
input figures were derived from the results of the 2014 national programmes. This applies to
apples, peaches, table grapes, wine grapes, strawberries, bananas, tomatoes, peppers,
aubergines, broccoli, cauliflower, head cabbage, lettuce, peas (without pods), leek, olive oil, oats,
rye, swine meat, milk and chicken eggs;
For swine meat, a similar approach as described for poultry meat was used to calculate the input
value for the long-term risk assessment. However, the default fat content of swine meat was
assumed to be 20%;
Results concerning samples analysed with analytical methods for which the LOQ was greater than
the corresponding MRL were disregarded;
The residue values reported according to the residue definition for enforcement (in accordance
with the EU MRL legislation) were not recalculated to the residue definition for risk assessment,
lacking a comprehensive list of conversion factors;
The toxicological reference values used for the risk assessment are reported in Appendix D, Table 20
and in the Appendix of the 2013 EU report on pesticide residues (EFSA, 2015c).
Since the residue definition for dimethoate contains two compounds with significantly different
toxicities (i.e. dimethoate and omethoate), it is not possible to perform an unambiguous risk
assessment.54 Thus, for this compound EFSA calculated two scenarios: the optimistic dimethoate
scenario where it is assumed that the calculated mean residue concentrations are related only to the
less toxic dimethoate, while in the pessimistic omethoate scenario the total residue concentration
reported is assumed to refer to the more toxic omethoate.
In addition, the residue definitions for fenvalerate, methomyl and triadimenol contain compounds with
different toxicities. To perform the chronic risk assessment, it was assumed that the residues found
are related to the use of the authorised substance only (esfenvalerate, methomyl and triadimenol,
respectively).
For dithiocarbamates, five scenarios were calculated, assuming that the measured CS 2 concentration
refers exclusively to maneb, mancozeb, propineb, thiram or ziram.
54
Some reporting countries reported the results for dimethoate and omethoate separately. However, as long as the individual
concentrations of the two compounds are not reported for all samples, reliable input values for dimethoate and omethoate
cannot be calculated separately. Following discussions with the data providers, it was agreed that in future the individual
results for dimethoate and omethoate will be reported.
90
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
5.2.1.
Results of the long-term (chronic) risk assessment individual pesticides
The results for the long-term dietary exposure assessments for each pesticide (adjusted upper-bound
and lower-bound scenario) are reported in Table 15. The results are expressed as percentage of the
ADI.
Table 15: Results of long-term dietary risk assessment
Pesticide
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Adjusted upperbound
2,4-D (RD)
2-phenylphenol
Abamectin (RD)
Acephate
Acetamiprid (RD)
Acrinathrin
Aldicarb (RD)
Amitraz (RD)
Amitrole
Azinphos-ethyl*
Azinphos-methyl
Azoxystrobin
Benfuracarb
Bifenthrin
Biphenyl
Bitertanol
Boscalid (RD)
Bromide ion
Bromopropylate
Bromuconazole
Bupirimate
Buprofezin
Captan (RD)
Carbaryl
Carbendazim (RD)
Carbofuran (RD)
Carbosulfan
Chlorantraniliprole
Chlordane (RD)
Chlorfenapyr
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlormequat
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorothalonil (RD)
Chlorpropham (RD)
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
Clofentezine (RD)
Clothianidin
Cyfluthrin
Cymoxanil
Cypermethrin
Cyproconazole
Cyprodinil (RD)
Cyromazine
DDT (RD)
Pesticide
Lower-bound
Adjusted upperbound
0.42
0.22
0.25
0.13
2.08
0.02
0.07
0.00
0.98
0.18
1.61
0.00
n.d.
n.d.
2.97
0.10
n.d.
n.d.
detectable residues in one or
several commodities
5.05
0.00
0.24
0.06
n.d.
n.d.
1.77
0.06
0.11
0.00
5.67
0.21
1.85
1.10
1.22
0.57
0.12
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.39
0.01
2.67
0.18
1.01
0.74
1.85
0.01
1.69
0.23
28.33
0.09
1.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
3.28
0.02
0.53
0.00
5.47
0.11
2.67
2.40
0.05
0.00
2.15
0.11
3.03
2.48
53.87
22.46
3.40
0.50
0.41
0.02
0.21
0.00
11.34
0.07
0.35
0.00
1.08
0.05
0.99
0.00
1.68
0.54
0.40
0.01
2.05
0.06
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Deltamethrin
Diazinon
Dichlofluanid
Dichlorprop (RD)
Dichlorvos
Dicloran
Dicofol
Dicrotophos
Dieldrin (RD)
Diethofencarb
Difenoconazole
Diflubenzuron (RD)
Dimethoate (RD) dimethoate
Dimethoate (RD) omethoate
Dimethomorph
Diniconazole*
Diphenylamine
Dithianon
- maneb scenario
- mancozeb scenario
- propineb scenario
- thiram scenario
- ziram scenario
Dodine
Endosulfan (RD)
Endrin
EPN*
Epoxiconazole
Ethephon
Ethion
Ethirimol
Ethoprophos
Etofenprox
Famoxadone
Fenamidone
Fenamiphos (RD)
Fenarimol
Fenazaquin
Fenbuconazole
Fenbutatin oxide
91
Lower-bound
4.58
0.27
18.30
0.03
n.d.
n.d.
0.07
0.00
21.01
0.04
0.30
0.00
3.38
0.04
several commodities
72.70
1.38
0.02
0.00
3.57
0.13
0.16
0.01
24.29
0.71
80.96
2.37
0.68
0.17
several commodities
0.44
0.14
4.01
2.16
7.57
1.97
7.85
2.04
54.92
14.25
36.61
9.50
73.22
19.00
0.52
3.43
1.29
n.d.
1.59
1.56
0.36
0.42
2.73
0.76
1.44
0.15
3.92
0.88
4.56
3.54
0.97
0.18
0.01
0.01
n.d.
0.01
0.38
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.09
0.18
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.09
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Adjusted upperbound
Fenhexamid
Fenitrothion
Fenoxycarb
Fenpropathrin
Fenpropidin (RD)
Fenpropimorph (RD)
Fenpyroximate
Fenthion (RD)
Fenvalerate (RD)
Fipronil (RD)
Flonicamid (RD)
Fluazifop-P-butyl (RD)
Flubendiamide
Fludioxonil
Flufenoxuron
Fluopyram (RD)
Fluquinconazole
Flusilazole (RD)
Flutriafol
Folpet (RD)
Formetanate
Formothion*
Fosthiazate
Glufosinate (RD)
Glyphosate
Haloxyfop-R (RD)
Heptachlor (RD)
Hexachlorobenzene*
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(alpha)*
(beta)*
Hexaconazole
Hexythiazox
Imazalil
Imidacloprid
Indoxacarb
Ioxynil (RD)
Iprodione (RD)
Iprovalicarb
Isocarbophos*
Isofenphos-methyl*
Isoprocarb*
Kresoxim-methyl (RD)
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Lindane
Linuron
Lufenuron
Malathion (RD)
Maleic hydrazide (RD)
Mandipropamid
Mepanipyrim (RD)
Mepiquat
Meptyldinocap (RD)
Pesticide
Lower-bound
0.21
0.05
2.26
0.00
0.39
0.01
0.31
0.01
0.70
0.02
3.86
0.06
2.31
0.04
1.88
0.23
0.49
0.03
39.91
1.79
1.25
0.08
1.28
0.05
0.99
0.01
0.16
0.07
0.62
0.02
2.17
0.59
7.13
0.01
7.94
0.01
2.60
0.05
1.01
0.74
1.10
0.06
n.d.
n.d.
1.52
0.02
0.18
0.00
0.13
0.02
4.02
0.06
9.32
0.05
several commodities
several commodities
several commodities
0.35
0.01
0.76
0.01
17.16
15.86
0.54
0.06
3.56
0.28
n.d.
n.d.
1.26
0.63
0.48
0.06
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.02
0.00
12.21
0.58
1.88
0.00
3.57
0.18
0.86
0.09
1.32
0.93
4.33
2.47
0.05
0.01
0.21
0.03
0.14
0.06
0.31
0.01
Metaflumizone
Metalaxyl
Metazachlor
Metconazole
Methamidophos
Methidathion
Methiocarb (RD)
Methomyl (RD)
Methoxychlor
Methoxyfenozide
Metobromuron
Monocrotophos
Myclobutanil (RD)
Nitenpyram*
Oxadixyl
Oxamyl
Oxydemeton-methyl
(RD)
Paclobutrazol
Parathion
Parathion-methyl (RD)
Penconazole
Pencycuron
Pendimethalin
Permethrin
Phenthoate
Phosalone
Phosmet (RD)
Phoxim
Pirimicarb (RD)
Pirimiphos-methyl
Prochloraz (RD)
Procymidone (RD)
Profenofos
Propamocarb
Propargite*
Propiconazole
Propoxur
Propyzamide (RD)
Prothiofos*
Pymetrozine
Pyraclostrobin
Pyrazophos
Pyrethrins
Pyridaben
Pyrimethanil
Pyriproxyfen
Quinoxyfen
Resmethrin
Rotenone*
Spinosad
Spirodiclofen
92
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Adjusted upperbound
Lower-bound
0.68
0.40
0.18
n.d.
1.62
17.03
1.37
6.62
0.10
0.24
n.d.
2.45
1.23
n.d.
0.44
3.48
0.01
0.04
0.00
n.d.
0.04
0.11
0.01
0.03
0.00
0.04
n.d.
0.04
0.15
n.d.
0.00
0.09
n.d.
n.d.
0.60
0.00
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
n.d.
0.83
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.86
0.01
1.44
0.02
0.12
0.00
2.31
0.15
2.24
0.01
0.71
0.14
9.11
5.61
3.10
0.24
4.16
0.02
0.21
0.01
0.19
0.13
several commodities
1.11
0.28
0.02
0.00
0.30
0.00
1.06
0.00
several commodities
0.17
0.02
1.28
0.33
0.17
0.00
1.18
0.02
2.78
0.03
0.95
0.74
0.14
0.01
0.08
0.00
0.05
0.00
n.d.
n.d.
0.89
0.16
1.55
0.10
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Adjusted upperbound
Spiromesifen
Spiroxamine (RD)
tau-Fluvalinate
Tebuconazole (RD)
Tebufenozide
Tebufenpyrad
Teflubenzuron
Tefluthrin
Terbuthylazine
Tetraconazole
Tetradifon
Tetramethrin*
Thiabendazole (RD)
Thiacloprid
Thiamethoxam (RD)
Thiophanate-methyl
Pesticide
Lower-bound
Long-term exposure
(in % of ADI)
Adjusted upperbound
0.57
0.05
0.66
0.03
4.54
0.03
1.28
0.13
0.74
0.01
2.46
0.05
0.86
0.00
0.58
0.01
5.34
0.01
5.74
0.14
n.d.
n.d.
several commodities
1.46
1.15
2.83
0.28
1.07
0.02
0.38
0.01
Lower-bound
0.07
0.00
Tolclofos-methyl
0.13
0.00
Tolylfluanid (RD)
n.d.
n.d.
Topramezone
0.49
0.01
Triadimenol (RD)
3.66
0.04
Triazophos
0.58
0.00
Trichlorfon
0.26
0.04
Trifloxystrobin (RD)
1.10
0.02
Triflumuron
0.17
0.00
Trifluralin
0.16
0.00
Triticonazole
0.89
0.00
Vinclozolin (RD)
0.01
0.00
Zoxamide
*
Active substance for which no ADI was established
n.d.: No detectable residues in any of the samples
analysed
For 19 pesticides, no quantifiable residues were reported in any of the crops/food products considered
in the chronic exposure assessment; these pesticides are aldicarb (RD), amitrole, benfuracarb,
dichlofluanid, EPN, formothion, ioxynil (RD), isocarbophos, isofenphos-methyl, isoprocarb,
metconazole, metobromuron, nitenpyram, oxydemeton-methyl, parathion, parathion-methyl (RD),
rotenone, tetradifon and topramezone. Thus, in these cases the long-term dietary exposure related to
the commodities covered by the EUCP (three years cycle) was negligible.
In the upper-bound scenario of the exposure calculation, the long-term exposure amounted to less
than 10% of the ADI for 172 pesticides. EFSA concludes that due to the high safety margin, no longterm consumer health risk is expected for these pesticides.
The estimated exposure of the upper-bound scenario was in a range between 10% and 100% of the
ADI for the following 11 pesticides (ranked in ascending order of the exposure): cyfluthrin (RD),
lambda-cyhalothrin, methidathion, imazalil, diazinon, dichlorvos, dimethoate (RD), carbofuran, fipronil
(RD), chlorpyrifos and dieldrin (RD)). The long-term exposure calculated for the dimethoate,
omethoate, thiram, propineb and ziram fall in this category as well. Considering the overall
conservative approach in the dietary exposure calculations, according to the current scientific
knowledge, these pesticides were not likely to pose a consumer health concern although consumers
were exposed to a certain extent to these compounds via residues in food.
For most pesticides, the estimated exposure was significantly lower in the lower-bound scenario
compared to the upper-bound approach, which gives an indication on the high conservatism of the
risk assessment methodology used. For pesticides with a significant difference between the upperbound and lower-bound approach, the calculated exposure in the upper-bound scenario was mainly
driven by results at the LOQ.
For ten pesticides (azinphos-ethyl, dicrotophos, diniconazole, ethirimol, hexachlorobenzene,
hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha), hexachlorocyclohexane (beta), propargite, prothiofos and
tetramethrin), measurable residues were detected in food but no long-term dietary risk assessment
could be performed as there are no internationally agreed toxicological reference values available for
these compounds. None of these pesticides is approved in Europe but residues may be present in
food due to either persistence of the pesticides in the environment or due to their use in third
countries. The estimated exposure to these pesticides, using the food consumption data of EFSA
PRIMo rev. 2, was low (see Table 16).
93
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Table 16: Results of long-term exposure assessment for active substances without ADI values
Pesticide
Azinphos-ethyl
Dicrotophos
Diniconazole
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha)
Propargite
Prothiofos
Tetramethrin
Long-term exposure
(in g/kg bw per day)
Upper-bound approach
Lower-bound approach
0.0056
<0.001
0.0169
<0.001
0.0162
<0.001
0.1181
0.0017
0.0536
<0.001
0.0560
0.0034
0.3127
0.0286
0.0371
<0.001
0.1833
<0.001
Overall, based on the results of the 2014 monitoring programmes (EUCP and NP), it is concluded that
long-term dietary exposure to those pesticides covered by the EU coordinated monitoring programme
for which toxicological data are available was unlikely to pose a health risk to consumers. For the ten
pesticides without reliable toxicological assessments where detectable residues were reported
sporadically, a consumer health concern cannot be fully excluded, but considering the inherent
conservatism of the calculation and the low exposure estimates the health risk was considered to be
low.
94
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
6.
Conclusions and recommendations
Overall, based on the analysis of the design of the EU-coordinated monitoring programme, EFSA
concludes that the control system implemented for pesticide residues in food is efficient and fit for the
purpose, i.e. to derive an overview on the residue situation in food consumed by European citizens.
The EU-coordinated programme covers in a three-years cycle the food products that are the major
constituents of the European diets (EFSA, 2015b). The pesticides that have to be analysed on a
mandatory basis in the framework of the EU-coordinated programme cover the most relevant
compounds currently expected to contribute to the dietary exposure.
For further improvements of the efficiency of the EU-coordinated control programme, risk managers
should consider the following recommendations:
In the past, the choice of food products included in the EU-coordinated control programme
was mainly driven by considerations regarding the importance of a product in human diet, i.e.
the importance of food products for chronic exposure. The scope of the EU-coordinated
control programme could be extended to other food products, such as small fruits and berries
(gooseberries, currants), grapefruit, rucola, apricots, celeriac, Brussels sprouts, cherries and
tea. Although these food products are not necessarily major food commodities in terms of the
long-term exposure, they were identified as containing frequently pesticide residues and have
a potential to result in significant short-term intake.
If risk managers decide to include tea as a new commodity in the EUCP, the pesticides to be
analysed should take into account that frequently non-authorised pesticides were found in
national monitoring programmes.
Taking into account that in food of animal origin pesticide residues were found only
sporadically with a very limited number of pesticides was detected (mainly persistent
environmental pollutants), the analytical scope and the number of samples for this product
group could be reduced. As regards the pesticides to be analysed in animal products, EFSA
supports that a substantial number of pesticides has been eliminated from the list of the EUCP
for 2015 and the following years. Whereas a continued monitoring of persistent substances is
appropriate to generate the necessary data basis needed to adapt the legal limits periodically
to reflect the decreasing environmental concentrations, the pesticides that have not been
detected in previous monitoring programmes and that are not used on animal feed should be
removed from the EU-coordinated monitoring programme.
Instead of analysing the pesticide residues in animal products, risk managers should discuss
to shift the monitoring focus to animal feed. Although the EU pesticide residue legislation does
not yet contain legal limits for products that are exclusively used for feed purpose, a number
of products covered by Annex I of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is used for food and feed
purpose and would therefore be relevant candidates for being included in the EUCP, e.g.
soybeans, rape seed or barley.
The pesticides to be tested in the feed products proposed in the previous bullet point should
take into account the specific uses in these crops. A mandatory analysis of glyphosate in the
three crops mentioned should generate the necessary information to get a better
understanding on the actual exposure of livestock, not only to estimate the possible carryover in food of animal origin and the relevance for dietary exposure for humans, but also with
regard to animal health.
Honey is an animal product that was found to contain a number of pesticides that are applied
to crops foraged by bees. In addition, substances were detected that may be linked to the use
of veterinary medicinal products that are also covered by the EU pesticide legislation. The
inclusion of honey in the EUCP should be considered to generate a sound basis to estimate
the exposure of bees and to adapt the legal limits for honey in accordance with Article 16 of
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, where needed.
The following pesticides that repeatedly were found exceeding the legal limits in the
framework of the national control programmes should be considered to be added to the
EUCP: fosetyl-Al (RD), anthraquinone, BAC, DDAC (RD), isoprothiolane, dinotefuran;
bendiocarb, spinetoram.
95
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
For the following pesticides, no infringements were identified, but considering the relatively
high detection rate, they may result in a significant dietary burden to qualify them as
candidates for the EU-coordinated monitoring programmes: spirotetramat, metrafenone,
tricyclazole, etoxazole, bifenazate, ametoctradin, fluopicolide, trimethyl-sulfonium cation.
If processed products will be included in future EU-coordinated monitoring programmes, a list

of processing factors derived from processing studies should be made available to Member
States. Providing a list of agreed processing factors would facilitate the MRL enforcement and
allow a harmonised approach for the risk assessment.
The national control programmes were found to be very diverse in their strategic focus. Overall, they
provide an impressive amount of information on the pesticide residues in food placed on the European
market. EFSA noted a significant improvement of the data quality in terms of harmonisation of the
coding of pesticide residue results in accordance with the guidance document (EFSA, 2015e). The
consistent coding of data is a pre-requisite to transfer the pesticide monitoring database to the data
warehouse and to find relevant information by means of on-line search tools.
One of the major objectives of this report is to share the findings on infringements identified by the
different Member States not only with risk managers responsible for the national control programmes,
but also with the interested public and with all partners who have responsibilities in the food chain, in
particular with food business operators. The findings of non-compliant food samples in previous
control programmes should help to target future control activities towards food products, which have
a higher probability to be non-compliant. The report gives information to enhance efficiency of selfcontrol systems to implement the legal obligations imposed by the general food law. Efficient
strategies to identify at an early stage food products that potentially violate the EU food safety
standards will reduce non-compliant food being placed on the market and will have an effect on the
dietary exposure of European consumers to pesticide residues.
The findings of the national control programmes, in particular the MRL exceedances, should be also
used to shape future official control activities to make them more efficient. In particular, national risk
managers should consider the following recommendations:
Food products with elevated MRL exceedance rates should be included in the national control
programmes with a sampling frequency reflecting the importance of the products in terms of
consumption and trade volume. In addition to the commodities proposed in the first
recommendation (small fruits and berries (gooseberries, currants), grapefruit, rucola, apricots,
celeriac, Brussels sprouts, cherries, tea, soybeans, rape seed, barley and honey) the following
crops should be considered to be included in national control programmes: dry beans, fresh
herbs such as parsley or celery leaves, tropical fruit such as guavas, passion fruits, lychees,
turnips or dried wild fungi.
Member States should ensure that the national control programmes cover the pesticides most
frequently exceeding the legal limits. Where necessary the analytical scope of the
enforcement laboratories should be extended to ensure that non-compliant samples are
identified reliably, regardless in which Member State the sample is analysed.
The following specific follow-up activities are recommended by EFSA, taking into account the results
of the detailed data analysis presented in Section 4:
The presence of multiple residues is not considered to be a reason for non-compliance with
MRL legislation as long as the individual pesticide does not exceed the respective legal limits.
However, food products with multiple residues should be assessed carefully by the competent
authorities in view of possible violations of provisions of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The
concerned products may be a result of practices that are not in line with Article 20 of the
aforementioned regulation (e.g. mixing of lots with the purpose of diluting the residues).
Equally, the presence of multiple residues may give an indication that the principles of good
plant protection practice were not respected (application of several pesticides with a similar
mode of action with the purpose to avoid using single pesticides at dose rates that would lead
to exceedances of the MRL).
96
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
A relatively low number of infringements related to non-approved pesticides were identified in

food products produced in the EU/EEA. This implies that the information on the expiry of
approvals of pesticides is efficiently communicated to European farmers, producers of
horticultural products, food business operators responsible for storage of food products and
that the control system for of the use of pesticides is covering this aspect sufficiently.
In contrast, repeated MRL violations for non-approved substances were noted for food
imported from third countries. Although third countries are officially informed on modifications
of EU MRLs via the SPS system, apparently, food business operators importing food from third
countries are not sufficiently aware of the legal requirements in the EU and the scope of the
EU pesticide legislation that also covers products that are not considered as pesticides in other
parts of the world. The EU pesticides database of the European Commission provides a
valuable source of information on the MRLs applicable in the EU. However, it may be
appropriate to offer an additional service for users of the database, i.e. to develop specific
reports that give an overview which MRLs have changed within a certain reference period. A
transparent communication of changed MRLs may help to increase the MRL compliance, in
particular for products imported from third countries.
Whereas MRL violations for non-approved pesticides were not identified as a major concern,
MRL exceedances were noted for a number of approved pesticides (e.g. chlorpyrifos in
carrots, potatoes and other crops, dimethoate in cherries, radishes, apples, iprodione in
celeriac, lettuce, spinach, apples, folpet in table grapes, carbendazim in different crops,
dithiocarbamates in products like spinach). These findings suggest that authorised plant
protection products were not used in accordance with the approved Good Agricultural
Practices. Member States should identify the reasons for the non-compliances and take
corrective measures.
Copper residues above the legal limits were identified in food of animal origin (mainly liver)
and in infant and follow-on formulae. These residues are not necessarily resulting from the
use of copper containing pesticides in feed crops, but could also stem from other sources, e.g.
the use of copper as a feed supplement, from the natural copper content of animal products
or copper added as nutrient to food covered by the baby foods legislation. The MRLs for
copper compounds are currently re-evaluation. In this review, other possible sources of
copper residues need to be taken into account to derive appropriate legal limits for the
different food products.
The applicability of the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg for naturally occurring substances for baby
foods should be clarified.
The source for fosetyl-Al residues exceeding the legal limit in food for infants and young
children should be further investigated and appropriate measures need to be taken to avoid
MRL non-compliance.
A number of products from certain third countries were subject to an increased level of
controls at the border under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. Comparing the results for import
controls submitted to EFSA with the results summarised in the report published by the
European Commission on increased checks on import of food of non-animal origin, EFSA
noted discrepancies regarding the number of samples analysed and the number of MRL
exceedances. A closer collaboration between EFSA and the European Commission service
responsible for the import controls should be established to exchange information and identify
the need for corrective measures, e.g. improvement of the coding of samples to avoid
discrepancies.
Based on the results of the chronic or long-term exposure assessment, it was concluded that residues
of the pesticides covered by the EUCP, according to the current scientific knowledge, are not likely to
pose a long-term consumer health risk.
For a number of samples a potential acute or short-term consumer health risk could not be excluded.
However, given the conservatism of the calculations, EFSA concluded that the probability of being
exposed to pesticide residues exceeding concentrations that may lead to negative health outcomes
was low. EFSA also noted that efficient mechanisms are in place to take corrective measures for
pesticides where new assessments lead to the lowering of toxicological reference values requiring an
97
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
adaptation of the legal limits. The MRL review process under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No
396/2005 is also an important instrument that allows identifying and, where necessary, modifying
existing MRLs that are not fully protective for European consumers.
98
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
References
BVL (Bundesamt fr Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit), 2002. Daten aus dem
bundesweiten
Lebensmittel-Monitoring
2002,
herausgegeben
vom
Bundesamt
fr
Verbraucherschutz und Lebensmittelsicherheit.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Reasoned opinion on the potential chronic and acute
risk to consumers health arising from proposed temporary EU MRLs. EFSA Journal 2007;5(3):32r,
1141 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.32r
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2008. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection
Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) to evaluate the suitability of existing methodologies and, if
appropriate, the identification of new approaches to assess cumulative and synergistic risks from
pesticides to human health with a view to set MRLs for those pesticides in the frame of Regulation
(EC) 396/2005. EFSA Journal 2008;6(5):704, 84 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2008.705
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009. Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment for a Selected
Group of Pesticides from the Triazole Group to Test Possible Methodologies to Assess Cumulative
Effects from Exposure through Food from these Pesticides on Human Health. EFSA Journal
2009;7(9):1167, 187 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1167
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010a. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk
assessment of the active substance imazalil. EFSA Journal 2010, 8(3):1526, 69 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1526
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010b. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk
assessment of the active substance buprofezin. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(6):1624, 77 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1624
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011a. Review of the existing maximum residue levels
(MRLs) for acetamiprid according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal
2011;9(7):2328, 59 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2328
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011b. Review of the existing maximum residue levels
(MRLs) for tebuconazole according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal
2011;9(8):2339, 96 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2339
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011c. Review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs)
for pyraclostrobin according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal
2011;9(8):2344, 92 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2344
(MRLs) for dimethomorph according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal
2011;9(8):2348, 64 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2348
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012a. Modification of the existing MRLs for chlorpyrifos in
various crops and in products of animal origin. EFSA Journal 2012;10(1):2510, 83 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2510
(MRLs) for chlorpropham according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA Journal
2012;10(2):2584, 53 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2584
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012c. Guidance on the Use of Probabilistic Methodology for
Modelling Dietary Exposure to Pesticide Residues. EFSA Journal 2012;10(10):2839, 95 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2839
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013a. The 2010 European Union Report on Pesticide
Residues in Food. EFSA Journal 2013;11(3):3130, 808 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3130
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013b. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection
Products and their Residues (PPR) on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative
assessment groups on the basis of their toxicological profile. EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3293,
131 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3293
99
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013c. Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing
MRLs for phosmet in citrus fruits, pome fruits and rape seed. EFSA Journal 2013;11(12):3510,
33 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3510
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014a. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide human
health risk assessment of the active substance chlorpyrifos. EFSA Journal 2014;12(4):3640, 34 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3640
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014b. The 2011 European Union Report on Pesticide
Residues in Food. EFSA Journal 2014;12(5):3694, 511 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3694
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014c. Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing
maximum residue levels (MRLs) for thiophanate-methyl and carbendazim according to Article 12 of
Regulation
(EC)
No
396/2005.
EFSA
Journal
2014;12(12):3919,
118
pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3919
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014d. The 2012 European Union report on pesticide
residues in food. EFSA Journal 2014;12(12):3942, 156 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3942
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015a. Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing
maximum residue levels (MRLs) for propiconazole according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No
396/2005. EFSA Journal 2015;13(1):3975, 72 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.3975
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015b; Pesticide Monitoring Program: Design Assessment.
EFSA Journal 2015;13(2):4005, 52 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4005
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015c. The 2013 European Union report on pesticide residues
in food. EFSA Journal 2015;13(3):4038, 169 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4038
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015d. Reasoned opinion on the refined risk assessment
regarding certain maximum residue levels (MRLs) of concern for the active substance chlorpyrifos.
EFSA Journal 2015;13(6):4142, 41 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4142
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015e. Reporting data on pesticide residues in food and feed
according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (2014 data collection). EFSA Journal 2015;13(7):4195,
61 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4195
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015f. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk
assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal 2015;13(11):4302, 107 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015g. Reasoned opinion on the revision of the review of the
existing maximum residue levels for lambda-cyhalothrin. EFSA Journal 2015;13(12):4324, 119 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4324
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016a. MCRA made scalable for large cumulative assessment
groups. EFSA Supporting publication 2016:EN-910.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016b. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk
assessment of the active substance fenamidone. EFSA Journal 2016;14(2):4406, 171 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4406
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016c. Reasoned opinion on the revision of the review of the
existing maximum residue levels for thiabendazole. EFSA Journal 2016;14(6):4516, 45 pp.
doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4516
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016d. National summary reports on pesticide residue
analysis performed in 2014. EFSA supporting publication 2016:EN-755. 162 pp
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016e. Report for 2014 on the results from the monitoring of
veterinary medicinal product residues and other substances in live animals and animal products.
EFSA Supporting publication 2016:EN-923. 70 pp.
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2016f. National summary reports on pesticide residue
analysis performed in 2014. EFSA supporting publication 2016:EN-1107. 173 pp.
100
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
European Commission, 2005. Review report for the active substance chlorpyrifos, finalised in the
Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at its meeting on 3 June 2005 with view
of the inclusion of chlorpyrifos in Annex I of Directive 91/414/EEC. SANCO/3059/99 rev. 1.5, 3
June 2005.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009. Submission and evaluation of
pesticide residues data for the estimation of Maximum Residue Levels in food and feed. Pesticide
Residues. 2nd Ed. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 197, 2009.
101
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Abbreviations
EU/EEA country codes
AT
BE
BG
CY
CZ
DE
DK
EE
EL
ES
FI
FR
HR
HU
IE
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Germany
Denmark
Estonia
Greece
Spain
Finland
France
Croatia
Hungary
Ireland
IS
IT
LT
LU
LV
MT
NL
NO
PL
PT
RO
SE
SI
SK
UK
Iceland
Italy
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Latvia
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
United Kingdom
Other abbreviations
ADI
ARfD
BAC
CAG
CS2
DDAC
EC
EEA
EFSA
EFTA
EU
EUCP
EURL
FAO
FYRM
GAP
HCH
HRM
LOD
LOQ
MRL
NP
PRIMo
RD
SSD
WHO
Acceptable Daily Intake

Acute Reference Dose
Benzalkonium Chloride
Cumulative Assessment Group
Carbon disulphide
Didecyldimethylammonium chloride
European Commission
European Economic Area
European Food Safety Authority
European Free Trade Association
European Union
EU-coordinated programme
European Union Reference Laboratory
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
Good Agricultural Practice
Highest Residue Measured
Limit of Detection
Limit of Quantification
Maximum Residue Level
National control programme
Pesticide Residue Intake Model
Residue Definition
Standard Sample Description
World Health Organization
102
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Appendix A Authorities responsible in the reporting countries for

pesticide residue monitoring
Country
Austria
Belgium
Bulgaria
Croatia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
National competent
authority
Austrian Federal Ministry of
Health
Austrian Agency for Health and
Food Safety
Federal Agency for the Safety of
the Food Chain (FASFC)
Bulgarian Food Safety Agency
Ministry of Agriculture
Pesticides Residues Laboratory
of the State General Laboratory
of Ministry of Health
Czech Agriculture and Food
Inspection Authority
State Veterinary Administration
Danish Veterinary and Food
Administration
National Food Institute,
Technical University of Denmark
Veterinary and Food Board
Finnish Food Safety Authority
Evira and Finnish Customs
Ministre de lconomie et des
finances. Direction gnrale de
la concurrence, de la
consommation et de la
rpression des fraudes
Ministre de lAgriculture et de
lAgroalimentaire et de la Foret.
Direction gnrale de
lalimentation
Federal Office of Consumer
Protection and Food Safety
(BVL)
Ministry of Rural Development
and Food
General Directorate of
Sustainable Plant Produce
Directorate of Plant Produce
Protection
Department of Plant Protection
Products & Biocides
National Food Chain Safety
Office
Food and Veterinary Authority.
The Environmental and Public
Health office in Reykjavik
Department of Agriculture, Food
and the Marine
Ministry of Health
Ministry of Agriculture
Food and Veterinary Service of
Latvia
National Food and Veterinary
Risk Assessment Institute
Web address for published national monitoring

reports
https://www.verbrauchergesundheit.gv.at/lebensmittel/le
bensmittelkontrolle/monitoring/pestizid.html
http://www.ages.at/ages/ernaehrungssicherheit/ruecksta
ende-kontaminanten/pflanzenschutzmittel-rueckstaendein-lebensmittel/pestizidmonitoring/
http://www.afsca.be
http://www.babh.government.bg
http://www.mps.hr/
http://www.moh.gov.cy/sgl
http://www.szpi.gov.cz/lstDoc.aspx?nid=11386
http://www.svscr.cz
http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/fvst_ansvar_opgaver/S
ider/Kontrol%20af%20pesticidrester%20i%20fdevarer.a
spx
http://www.food.dtu.dk/Publikationer/Kemikaliepaavirkni
nger/Pesticidrester
http://www.vet.agri.ee
http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/tietoa+evirasta/asiakokonais
uudet/vierasaineet/kasvinsuojeluainejaamat/valvonta/
http://www.economie.gouv.fr/dgccrf/securite/produitsalimentaires
http://agriculture.gouv.fr/dispositif-surveillance-controlesecurite-sanitaire-aliments-564
www.bvl.bund.de/berichtpsm
http://www.minagric.gr/index.php/en/citizenmenu/foodsafety-menu
http://www.minagric.gr/index.php/el/for-farmer-2/cropproduction/fytoprostasiamenu/ypoleimatafyto
https://www.nebih.gov.hu
http://www.mast.is
www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie
http://www.salute.gov.it/portale/temi/p2_5.jsp?lingua=it
aliano&area=fitosanitari&menu=vegetali
www.zm.gov.lv
http://www.nmvrvi.lt
103
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Country
Luxembourg
Malta
Netherlands
Norway
National competent
authority
Food Safety Service
Administration of Veterinary
Services
Malta Competition and
Consumer Affairs Authority
Netherlands Food and Consumer
Product Safety Authority
(NVWA)
Norwegian Food Safety
Authority
Poland
Portugal
The State Sanitary Inspection

Direo Geral de Alimentao e
Veterinria (DGAV)
Romania
National Sanitary Veterinary and

Food Safety Authority
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural
Development
Ministry of Health
State Veterinary and Food
Administration of the Slovakian
Republic
Public Health Authority of the
Slovakian Republic
Administration of the Republic of
Slovenia for Food Safety,
Veterinary Sector and Plant
Protection
Spanish Agency for Consumer
Affairs, Food Safety and
Nutrition
National Food Agency
Health and Safety Executive
Chemicals Regulation
Directorate
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
United
Kingdom
Web address for published national monitoring

reports
http://www.securitealimentaire.public.lu/organisme/pcnp/sc/cs9_prod_phyto/
ppp_residus_pesticides/index.html
www.mccaa.org.mt
www.nvwa.nl
http://www.mattilsynet.no/mat_og_vann/uonskede_stoff
erimaten/rester_av_plantevernmidler_i_mat/lavt_innhold
_av_plantevernmiddelrester_i_maten_i_2014.20205
http://www.mattilsynet.no/planter_og_dyrking/plantever
nmidler/rapport_rester_av_plantevernmidler_i_naeringsm
idler_2014.20206/binary/Rapport:%20Rester%20av%20
plantevernmidler%20i%20n%C3%A6ringsmidler%20201
4
http://www.gis.gov.pl
http://www.dgv.minagricultura.pt/portal/page/portal/DGV/genericos?generico
=4217393&cboui=4217393
http://www.ansvsa.ro
http://www.madr.ro
http://www.svps.sk/
http://www.uvhvvr.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/ostanki_p
esticidov/porocila/
http://aesan.msssi.gob.es/AESAN/web/control_oficial/sec
cion/planes_nacionales_especificos.shtml
www.livsmedelsverket.se
http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/guidance/industries/pestici
des/advisory-groups/PRiF/PRiFarchive/2014/2014_Survey_Details
104
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Appendix B Background information and detailed results of the EUcoordinated programme

Table 17: Description of the 2014 EU-coordinated control programme
Pesticide
2,4-D (RD)
2-phenylphenol
Abamectin (RD)
Acephate
Acetamiprid (RD)
Acrinathrin
Aldicarb (RD)
Amitraz (RD)
Amitrole
Azinphos-ethyl
Azinphos-methyl
Azoxystrobin
Benfuracarb
Bifenthrin
Type of
Residue definition according to
food
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005
analysed(a)
on EU MRLs(b)
P
2,4-D (sum of 2,4-D and its esters
expressed as 2,4-D); 2,4-D (sum of
2,4-D, its salts, its esters and its
conjugates, expressed as 2,4-D)
(PA)
P
P
Abamectin (sum of avermectin
B1a, avermectinB1b and delta-8,9
isomer of avermectin B1a)
P
P
Acetamiprid (P) Acetamiprid and
IM-2-1 metabolite (A)
P
P
Aldicarb (sum of aldicarb, its
sulfoxide and its sulfone, expressed
as aldicarb)
P
Amitraz (amitraz including the
metabolites containing the 2,4 dimethylaniline moiety expressed
as amitraz) (d)
P
A
P
P
P
PA
Biphenyl
Bitertanol
Boscalid (RD)
Bromide ion
Bromopropylate
Bromuconazole
Bupirimate
Buprofezin
Captan (RD)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Carbaryl
Carbendazim (RD)
P
PA
Carbofuran (RD)
Carbosulfan
Chlorantraniliprole
Chlordane (RD)
P
P
A
Chlorfenapyr
Boscalid (P)
Captan;
Captan/Folpet (sum) for beans;
Analysis mandatory for the

following food products(c)
Ma, Or
Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf

Pe

Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Ri
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf,

Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Ri,
Ri,
Ri,
Ri,
Ri,
Wf
Wf
Wf
Wf
Wf

Carbendazim and benomyl (sum of Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf
benomyl and carbendazim
expressed as carbendazim) (P);
Carbendazim and thiophanatemethyl, expressed as carbendazim
(A)
Carbofuran (sum of carbofuran and Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf
3-hydroxy-carbofuran expressed as
carbofuran)
Chlordane (sum of cis- and transisomers and oxychlordane

expressed as chlordane)
Li, Pm, Pf
105
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlormequat
Chlorobenzilate
Chlorothalonil (RD)
Chlorpropham (RD)
Chlorpyrifos
Type of
food
analysed(a)
on EU MRLs(b)
P
PA
A
P
Chlorothalonil
P
Chlorpropham; Chlorpropham
(chlorpropham and 3-chloroaniline,
expressed as chlorpropham)
PA
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
PA
Clofentezine (RD)
Clothianidin
Cyfluthrin
P
PA
Cymoxanil
Cypermethrin
P
PA
Cyproconazole
Cyprodinil (RD)
Cyromazine
DDT (RD)
PA
P
P
A
Deltamethrin
PA
Diazinon
PA
Dichlofluanid
Dichlorprop (RD)
P
A
Dichlorvos
Dicloran
Dicofol
P
P
P
Dicrotophos
Dieldrin (RD)
P
A
Difenoconazole
Difenoconazole
Diflubenzuron (RD)
Dimethoate (RD)
P
P
P
P
Dimethomorph
Diniconazole
Diphenylamine
Dithianon
P
P
P
P
Clofentezine (sum of all

compounds containing the 2chlorobenzoyl moiety expressed as
clofentezine) (cereals),
Clofentezine (other P)

Ca, Pe, Ri, Wf
Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf,
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp

Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Cyprodinil
DDT (sum of p,p-DDT, o,p-DDT,
p-p-DDE and p,p-TDE (DDD)
expressed as DDT)
Deltamethrin (cis-deltamethrin)
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Dichloprop (sum of dichlorprop

(including dichlorprop-P) and its
conjugates, expressed as
dichlorprop)
Dicofol (sum of p, p' and o,p'

isomers)
Aldrin and Dieldrin (Aldrin and
dieldrin combined expressed as
dieldrin)

Be
Li, Pm, Pf
Diflubenzuron
Dimethoate (sum of dimethoate
and omethoate expressed as
dimethoate)

106
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Dithiocarbamates
(RD)
Dodine
Endosulfan (RD)
Endrin
EPN
Epoxiconazole
Ethephon
Ethion
Ethirimol
Ethoprophos
Etofenprox
Famoxadone
Fenamidone
Fenamiphos (RD)
Fenarimol
Fenazaquin
Fenbuconazole
Fenbutatin oxide
Fenhexamid
Fenitrothion
Fenoxycarb
Fenpropathrin
Fenpropimorph
(RD)
Fenpropimorph
(RD)
Fenpyroximate
Fenthion (RD)
Type of
food
analysed(a)
on EU MRLs(b)
P
Dithiocarbamates
(dithiocarbamates expressed as
CS2, including maneb, mancozeb,
metiram, propineb, thiram and
ziram)
P
PA
Endosulfan (sum of alpha- and
beta-isomers and endosulfansulphate expresses as endosulfan)
A
P
PA
P
P
P
P
P
PA
P
P
Fenamiphos (sum of fenamiphos
and its sulphoxide and sulphone
expressed as fenamiphos)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
Fenpropidin (sum of fenpropidin
and CGA289267 expressed as
fenpropidin) (A)
PA
Fenpropimorph
P
PA
Fenvalerate (RD)
PA
Fipronil (RD)
Flonicamid (RD)
Fluazifop-P-butyl
(RD)
Flubendiamide
Fludioxonil
Flufenoxuron
Fenthion (fenthion and its oxygen

analogue, their sulfoxides and
sulfone expressed as parent)
Fenvalerate (any ratio of
constituent isomers (RR, SS, RS &
SR) including esfenvalerate)
Fenvalerate (sum of fenvalerate
(any ratio of constituent isomers
including esfenvalerate) and CPIA
(chlorophenyl isovaleric acid),
expressed as fenvalerate)
Fipronil (sum Fipronil and sulfone
metabolite (MB46136) expressed
as Fipronil)
Flonicamid (sum of flonicamid,
TNFG and TNFA)
Fluazifop-P-butyl (fluazifop acid
(free and conjugate))
P
P
P

Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Ma, Or, Ri, Wf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Ma, Or, Pe
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp

Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Po, Sp

107
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Fluopyram (RD)
Fluquinconazole
Flusilazole (RD)
Flutriafol
Folpet (RD)
Formetanate
Formothion
Fosthiazate
Glufosinate (RD)
Glyphosate
Haloxyfop-R (RD)
Heptachlor (RD)
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorocyclohex
ane (alpha)
Hexachlorocyclohex
ane (beta)
Hexaconazole
Hexythiazox
Imazalil
Imidacloprid
Indoxacarb
Ioxynil (RD)
Type of
food
analysed(a)
on EU MRLs(b)
PA
Fluopyram (P);
Fluopyram (sum fluopyram and
fluopyram-benzamide (M25)
expressed as fluopyram) (A)
PA
PA
Flusilazole (P),
Flusilazole (sum of flusilazole and
its metabolite IN-F7321 ([bis-(4fluorophenyl)methyl]silanol)
expressed as flusilazole) (A)
P
P
Folpet (beans),
Captan/Folpet (sum)
P
Formetanate (Sum of formetanate
and its salts expressed as
formetanate(hydrochloride))
P
P
A
Glufosinate-ammonium (sum of
glufosinate, its salts, MPP and NAG
expressed as glufosinate
equivalents)
PA
PA
Haloxyfop including haloxyfop-R
(Haloxyfop-R methyl ester,
haloxyfop-R and conjugates of
haloxyfop-R expressed as
haloxyfop-R)
A
Heptachlor (sum of heptachlor and
heptachlor epoxide expressed as
heptachlor)
A
A
Iprodione (RD)
Iprovalicarb
Isocarbophos
Isofenphos-methyl
Isoprocarb
Kresoxim-methyl
(RD)
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Lindane
Linuron
Lufenuron
Malathion (RD)
Maleic hydrazide
(RD)
Mandipropamid



Wf
Be, Ca, Po, Sp
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
P
P
P
P
P
A
Be,
Be,
Be,
Be,
Be,
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
A
Ioxynil, including its esters

expressed as ioxynil
Iprodione
Ca,
Ca,
Ca,
Ca,
Ca,
Cu,
Cu,
Cu,
Cu,
Cu,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Ma,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Or,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Pe,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Po,
Sp,
Sp
Sp,
Sp,
Sp,
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf
Ri, Wf

Kresoxim-methyl
Lambda-Cyhalothrin
Be, Ca, Cu,

Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Malathion (sum of malathion and

malaoxon expressed as malathion)
Maleic hydrazide

108
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Mepanipyrim (RD)
Mepiquat
Meptyldinocap (RD)
Metaflumizone
Metalaxyl
Metazachlor
Metconazole
Methamidophos
Methidathion
Type of
food
analysed(a)
on EU MRLs(b)
P
Mepanipyrim (Mepanipyrim and its
metabolite (2-anilino-4-(2hydroxypropyl)-6methylpyrimidine) expressed as
mepanipyrim) Mepanipyrim
PA
P
Meptyldinocap (sum of 2,4 DNOPC
and 2,4 DNOP expressed as
meptyldinocap)
A
P
A
P
P
PA
Methiocarb (RD)
Methomyl (RD)
Methoxychlor
PA
Methoxyfenozide
Metobromuron
Monocrotophos
Myclobutanil (RD)
Nitenpyram
Oxadixyl
Oxamyl
Oxydemeton-methyl
(RD)
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Paclobutrazol
Parathion
P
PA
Parathion-methyl
(RD)
PA
Penconazole
Pencycuron
Pendimethalin
Permethrin
Phenthoate
Phosalone
Phosmet (RD)
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
Phoxim
Pirimicarb (RD)
P
P
Pirimiphos-methyl
PA

Pe, Ri, Wf

Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Methiocarb (sum of methiocarb

and methiocarb sulfoxide and
sulfone, expressed as methiocarb)
Methomyl and thiodicarb (sum of
Be, Ca, Cu,
methomyl and thiodicarb expressed
as methomyl)
Be, Ca, Cu,
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Myclobutanil
Oxydemeton-methyl (sum of
oxydemeton-methyl and demetonS-methylsulfone expressed as
oxydemeton-methyl)
Parathion-methyl (sum of
Parathion-methyl and paraoxonmethyl expressed as Parathionmethyl)
Phosmet (phosmet and phosmet

oxon expressed as phosmet)
Pirimicarb (sum of Pirimicarb and
desmethyl pirimicarb expressed as
Pirimicarb)
Be,
Be,
Be,
Be,
Be,
Be,
Ca, Cu,
Ca, Cu,
Cu,
Ca, Cu,
Ca, Cu,
Ca, Cu,


Li, Pm, Pf
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Li, Pm, Pf
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,
Be, Ca, Cu,


Li, Pm, Pf
109
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Type of
food
(a)
(b)
analysed
on EU MRLs
Prochloraz (RD)
PA
Prochloraz (sum of prochloraz and Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf
its metabolites containing the
2,4,6-Trichlorophenol moiety
expressed as prochloraz)
Procymidone (RD)
P
Procymidone
Profenofos
PA
Li, Pm, Pf
Propamocarb
P
Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Po
Propargite
P
Propiconazole
P
Propoxur
P
Propyzamide (RD)
P
Propyzamide
Prothioconazole
PA
Prothioconazole (ProthioconazoleBe, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp, Ri, Wf
(RD)
desthio) (P);
Prothioconazole (sum of
prothioconazole-desthio and its
glucuronide conjugate, expressed
as prothioconazole-desthio) (A)
Prothiofos
P
Pymetrozine
P
Cu
Pyraclostrobin
P
Pyrazophos
A
Li, Pm, Pf
Pyrethrins
P
Pyridaben
P
Pyrimethanil
P
Pyriproxyfen
P
Quinoxyfen
P
Resmethrin
A
Li, Pm, Pf
Rotenone
P
Spinosad
PA
Spirodiclofen
P
Spiromesifen
P
Spiroxamine (RD)
PA
Spiroxamine (P),
Spiroxamine carboxylic acid
expressed as spiroxamine (A)
tau-Fluvalinate
P
Tebuconazole (RD)
PA
Tebuconazole (P);
Tebuconazole (sum of
tebuconazole, hydroxytebuconazole, and their
conjugates, expressed as
tebuconazole)
Tebufenozide
P
Tebufenpyrad
P
Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp,
Teflubenzuron
P
Tefluthrin
P
Terbuthylazine
P
Tetraconazole
PA
Tetradifon
P
Tetramethrin
P
Thiabendazole (RD)
P
Thiacloprid
P
Thiabendazole
Thiamethoxam (RD)
PA
Thiamethoxam (sum of
thiamethoxam and clothianidin
expressed as thiamethoxam)
Thiophanate-methyl
P
Tolclofos-methyl
P
Pesticide
110
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
Tolylfluanid (RD)
Topramezone
Triadimenol (RD)
Triazophos
Trichlorfon
Triflumuron
Trifluralin
Triticonazole
Vinclozolin (RD)
Zoxamide
Type of
food
(a)
(b)
analysed
on EU MRLs
P
Tolylfluanid (Sum of tolylfluanid
and dimethylaminosulfotoluidide
expressed as tolylfluanid)
A
P
Triadimefon and triadimenol (sum
of triadimefon and triadimenol)
PA
Li, Pm, Pf
P
P
Trifloxystrobin (P)
P
P
P
P
Vinclozolin (sum of Vinclozolin and Be, Ca, Cu, Ma, Or, Pe, Po, Sp,
all metabolites containing the 3,5dichloraniline moiety, expressed as
Vinclozolin)
P
(a): P: to be analysed in plant products; A: to be analysed in animal products

(b): Legal residue definition applicable in 2014 for the relevant food products covered by the EUCP; if not specifically
mentioned, the residue definition comprises the parent compound only
(c): Be: beans with pods, Ca carrots, Cu: Cucumber, Ma: mandarins, Or: oranges, Pe: pears, Po: Potatoes, Sp:
spinach, Ri: rice, Wf: wheat flour, Li: liver of ruminants, swine and poultry, Pm: poultry muscle; Pf: poultry fat
(d): According to Regulation (EU) No 788/2012 It is accepted if amitraz (parent) and its multi-residue-methodamendable metabolites 2,4-dimethyl formanilide (DMF) and N-(2,4-dimethyl-phenyl)-N'-methyl formamide (DMPF)
are targeted and reported separately.
111
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Appendix C Background information and detailed results for national

control programmes
Table 18: Scope of pesticide analysis (pesticides sought and detected)
Pesticide
No of
determinations
1,1-dichloro-2,2bis(4ethylphenyl)ethane
1,2-Dibromo-3chloropropane
1-naphthylacetamide
1-naphthylacetic acid
2,3,5-Trimethacarb
2,4,5-T (RD)
2,4-D (RD)
2,4-DB (RD)
2-phenylphenol
3,4,5-Trimethacarb
4-CPA
6-Benzyladenine
8-hydroxyquinoline
Abamectin (RD)
Acephate
Acequinocyl
Acetamiprid (RD)
Acetochlor
Acibenzolar-S-methyl
(RD)
Acifluorfen
Aclonifen
Acrinathrin
Alachlor
Alanycarb
Aldicarb (RD)
Aldimorph
Allethrin
Allidochlor
Ametoctradin (RD)
Ametryn
Amidithion
Amidosulfuron (RD)
Aminocarb
Aminopyralid
Amisulbrom
Amitraz (RD)
Amitrole
Ancymidol
Anilazine
Anilofos
Anthraquinone
Aramite
Aspon
Asulam
Atraton
Atrazine
Azaconazole
Azadirachtin
4,756
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
No of
countries
analysing
5
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
378
0.00
No
8,799
3,119
5,666
1,763
17,660
12,060
39,932
2,634
13,281
3,392
5
33,319
61,276
2,751
60,201
17,460
16,319
20
8
0
0
312
0
959
0
4
2
0
93
54
0
2,064
0
0
6
2
2
5
21
12
30
2
7
4
1
22
30
3
29
16
12
0.23
0.26
0.00
0.00
1.77
0.00
2.40
0.00
0.03
0.06
0.00
0.28
0.09
0.00
3.43
0.00
0.00
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
2,091
34,451
60,962
26,656
4,855
52,988
146
11,939
2,475
9,598
23,692
2,480
13,795
12,560
6,464
8,660
30,142
2,500
6,195
1,192
4,866
17,890
10
5,758
12,384
3,467
43,410
21,032
10,159
0
27
93
3
0
3
0
1
0
28
10
0
0
0
0
0
28
0
0
0
0
101
0
0
2
0
7
0
18
2
17
29
17
3
28
1
9
2
6
13
1
9
9
3
6
24
7
4
2
3
10
1
3
8
5
24
14
8
0.00
0.08
0.15
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.29
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.56
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.18
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
112
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Azafenidin
Azamethiphos
Azimsulfuron
Azinphos-ethyl
Azinphos-methyl
Aziprotryne
Azoxybenzene
Azoxystrobin
BAC (RD)
Barban
Beflubutamid
Benalaxyl
Benazolin
Bendiocarb
Benfluralin
Benfuracarb
Benfuresate
Benodanil
Bensulfuron-methyl
Bensulide
Bensultap
Bentazone (RD)
Benthiavalicarb
Benzoximate
Benzoylprop-Ethyl
Benzthiazuron
Bifenazate (RD)
Bifenox
Bifenthrin
Binapacryl
Bioallethrin
Bioresmethrin
Biphenyl
Bis(tributyltin) oxide
Bispyribac
Bitertanol
Bixafen (RD)
Boscalid (RD)
Bromacil
Bromadiolone
Bromfenvinfos
Bromfenvinfosmethyl
Bromide ion
Bromocyclen
Bromophos
Bromophos-ethyl
Bromopropylate
Bromoxynil (RD)
Bromuconazole
Bupirimate
Buprofezin
Butachlor
Butafenacil
Butamifos
Butocarboxim
Butoxycarboxim
Butralin
437
10,097
6,616
52,780
63,777
5,784
1,690
65,922
8,427
1,136
11,777
40,516
2,450
21,749
26,618
34,026
2,452
3,304
4,863
4,330
2,013
14,446
15,445
3,286
6,473
1
31,224
25,379
68,960
12,965
1,886
3,051
43,438
39
4,404
59,314
23,003
64,324
22,571
164
3,461
530
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
3,649
132
0
0
8
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
92
1
774
0
0
0
31
0
0
13
16
6,823
2
0
0
0
No of
countries
analysing
1
9
7
29
30
5
1
30
7
1
13
18
2
16
13
24
3
4
7
2
1
16
9
5
7
0
13
13
29
13
5
3
25
1
5
30
18
29
13
1
4
2
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
5.54
1.57
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.29
0.00
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.07
10.61
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
1,961
5,274
40,665
52,627
65,409
13,290
53,692
65,377
64,614
6,238
10,252
4,963
15,256
9,573
17,616
418
0
1
1
13
0
3
244
531
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
4
21
25
30
13
29
30
30
9
8
3
9
6
11
21.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.37
0.82
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
113
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Buturon
Butylate
Cadusafos
Cafenstrole
Camphechlor (RD)
Captafol
Captan (RD)
Carbaryl
Carbendazim (RD)
Carbetamide
Carbofuran (RD)
Carbon tetrachloride
Carbophenothion
Carbosulfan
Carboxin
Carfentrazone-ethyl
Carpropamid
Carvone
Chinomethionat
Chlorantraniliprole
Chlorbenside
Chlorbromuron
Chlorbufam
Chlordane (RD)
Chlordecone
Chlordimeform
Chlorethoxyfos
Chlorfenapyr
Chlorfenethol
Chlorfenprop-Methyl
Chlorfenson
Chlorfenvinphos
Chlorfluazuron
Chlorflurenol
Chlorflurenol-Methyl
Chloridazon
Chlorimuron
Chlormephos
Chlormequat
Chlornitrofen
Chlorobenzilate
Chloroneb
Chloropropylate
Chlorothalonil (RD)
Chlorotoluron
Chloroxuron
Chlorpropham (RD)
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos-methyl
Chlorsulfuron
Chlorthal
Chlorthal-dimethyl
Chlorthiamid
Chlorthion
Chlorthiophos
Chlozolinate
Chromafenozide
Cinidon-ethyl
1,840
9,323
51,858
2,013
254
20,031
39,528
63,509
63,112
14,552
59,122
256
23,599
35,074
37,574
15,007
2,099
1,272
31,622
44,341
7,854
16,362
9,365
29,892
1,212
4,804
437
56,084
1,690
7,987
25,691
65,701
16,336
30
30
21,083
764
20,228
8,563
1,136
40,165
5,961
13,160
54,504
22,522
15,458
65,086
71,875
71,216
6,174
36
38,421
4,875
1,354
13,808
39,082
11,622
7,123
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
0
2
0
0
0
1,305
42
1,798
0
45
0
0
7
1
0
0
0
0
1,150
0
1
0
31
9
0
0
211
0
0
1
1
14
0
0
3
0
0
739
0
3
0
0
451
0
0
610
4,726
574
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
1
0
114
No of
countries
analysing
2
8
27
1
2
16
26
30
28
10
26
1
14
28
24
10
2
1
20
24
11
11
8
25
3
9
1
29
1
3
20
30
10
1
1
16
3
16
26
1
28
8
10
28
15
16
29
30
30
11
2
19
5
2
11
22
6
7
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.30
0.07
2.85
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.59
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.10
0.74
0.00
0.00
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
8.63
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.83
0.00
0.00
0.94
6.58
0.81
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Cinmethylin
Cinosulfuron
Clethodim (RD)
Climbazole
Clodinafop
Cloethocarb
Clofentezine (RD)
Clomazone
Clopyralid
Clothianidin
Copper
Coumachlor
Coumaphos
Coumatetralyl
Crimidine
Crotoxyphos
Crufomate
Cyanazine
Cyanofenphos
Cyanophos
Cyazofamid
Cyclanilide
Cycloate
Cycloprothrin
Cycloxydim (RD)
Cycluron
Cyenopyrafen
Cyflufenamid
Cyflumetofen
Cyfluthrin
Cyhalofop-butyl (RD)
Cyhalothrin
Cyhalothrin, gammaCyhexatin (RD)
Cymiazole
Cymoxanil
Cypermethrin
Cyphenothrin
Cyprazin
Cyproconazole
Cyprodinil (RD)
Cyprofuram
Cyromazine
Cythioate
Daimuron
Dalapon
Daminozide (RD)
Dazomet (RD)
DDAC
DDT (RD)
Deltamethrin
Demeton
Demeton-O-methyl
Demeton-S
Demeton-S-Methyl
Desmedipham
Desmetryn
Diafenthiuron
437
7,837
14,881
2,196
9,607
437
52,645
38,602
18,887
28,618
2,419
3,776
25,218
3,858
3,483
1,690
1,644
24,320
13,583
13,488
43,678
6,134
7,691
78
14,755
4,047
2,013
24,417
7,235
54,698
9,206
1,786
137
1,231
4,059
47,227
66,303
3,874
4,238
61,723
62,754
855
28,632
2,695
2,105
2,013
1,804
2,640
8,550
56,449
70,417
184
3
3,320
30,671
20,739
10,296
28,817
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
0
0
0
0
0
120
14
20
131
1,866
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
61
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
0
97
0
17
0
0
0
40
1,786
0
0
92
3,705
0
73
0
0
0
2
0
68
469
877
0
0
0
0
4
0
10
115
No of
countries
analysing
1
4
11
1
6
1
27
18
14
21
2
2
21
2
5
1
3
14
14
7
20
5
10
1
13
3
1
11
4
27
7
5
2
4
6
28
29
4
1
29
29
2
21
3
2
1
4
2
7
27
30
1
1
3
19
13
12
16
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.04
0.11
0.46
77.14
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.20
0.00
0.18
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
2.69
0.00
0.00
0.15
5.90
0.00
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.80
0.83
1.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.03
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Dialifos
Diallate
Diazinon
Dicamba
Dichlobenil
Dichlofenthion
Dichlofluanid
Dichlone
Dichlorophen
Dichlorprop (RD)
Dichlorvos
Diclobutrazol
Diclofop (RD)
Dicloran
Dicofol
Dicrotophos
Dieldrin (RD)
Dienochlor
Diethatyl
Diethofencarb
Difenoconazole
Difenoxuron
Difenzoquat
Diflubenzuron (RD)
Diflufenican
Diflufenzopyr
Dikegulac
Dimefox
Dimefuron
Dimepiperate
Dimethachlor
Dimethenamidp
Dimethipin
Dimethirimol
Dimethoate (RD)
Dimethomorph
Dimethylvinphos
Dimetilan
Dimoxystrobin
Diniconazole
Dinitramine
Dinobuton
Dinocap (RD)
Dinoseb
Dinotefuran
Dinoterb
Dioxabenzofos
Dioxacarb
Dioxathion
Diphenamid
Diphenylamine
Dipropetryn
Diquat
Disulfoton (RD)
Ditalimfos
Dithianon
Dithiocarbamates
(RD)
16,169
4,682
71,654
13,655
31,018
20,994
59,035
437
2,899
24,910
63,096
22,675
12,946
60,324
48,662
47,958
55,259
1
437
56,213
63,692
2,936
1,730
48,659
35,016
7,678
3,168
2,404
8,811
2,225
16,094
12,470
2,311
2,603
63,983
59,724
4,864
2,005
32,848
56,823
5,901
4,466
8,442
5,328
28,291
5,833
3,968
9,647
24,013
12,102
60,732
3,886
642
38,799
23,450
15,860
14,086
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
0
64
2
1
9
1
0
0
12
12
0
0
11
59
2
85
0
0
14
1,709
0
0
155
1
0
1
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
493
1,421
0
0
5
12
0
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
0
0
114
0
5
0
0
303
1,482
116
No of
countries
analysing
12
7
30
14
17
13
28
1
4
17
29
12
8
29
27
29
28
0
1
29
30
7
2
27
18
3
5
2
6
1
13
9
3
2
27
29
4
2
20
28
5
5
14
7
17
7
5
8
12
9
30
2
5
22
15
14
25
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.01
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.12
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.02
2.68
0.00
0.00
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.77
2.38
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.19
0.00
0.78
0.00
0.00
1.91
10.52
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Dithiopyr
Diuron (RD)
DNOC
Dodemorph
Dodine
Edifenphos
Emamectin
Empenthrin
Endosulfan (RD)
Endrin
EPN
Epoxiconazole
EPTC
Esprocarb
Etaconazole
Ethalfluralin
Ethametsulfuronmethyl
Ethephon
Ethidimuron
Ethiofencarb
Ethion
Ethiprole
Ethirimol
Ethofumesate (RD)
Ethoprophos
Ethoxyquin
Ethoxysulfuron
Ethylene oxide (RD)
Etofenprox
Etoxazole
Etridiazole
Etrimfos
Famoxadone
Famphur
Fenamidone
Fenamiphos (RD)
Fenarimol
Fenazaflor
Fenazaquin
Fenbuconazole
Fenbutatin oxide
Fenchlorphos (RD)
Fenfluthrin
Fenfuram
Fenhexamid
Fenitrothion
Fenobucarb
Fenothiocarb
Fenoxaprop
Fenoxaprop-ethyl
Fenoxaprop-P
Fenoxaprop-P-Ethyl
Fenoxycarb
Fenpiclonil
Fenpropathrin
Fenpropidin (RD)
Fenpropimorph (RD)
4,330
33,137
4,398
8,306
32,811
9,693
8,784
50
68,600
48,121
58,956
61,700
10,691
4,238
10,242
6,436
4,196
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
15
0
0
311
0
12
0
183
4
0
33
0
0
2
0
0
No of
countries
analysing
2
18
6
10
23
8
10
1
29
29
30
30
11
1
9
6
6
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.95
0.00
0.14
0.00
0.27
0.01
0.00
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
5,430
2,075
35,448
66,157
6,037
44,411
27,928
64,346
22,298
6,259
12
56,295
33,026
26,841
40,758
51,744
8,258
56,198
49,888
65,901
687
57,939
58,210
17,555
23,291
149
6,547
64,430
65,698
14,094
7,488
14,565
437
8,211
8,536
62,770
17,780
64,183
37,507
56,660
226
0
0
28
0
100
4
8
32
0
0
501
107
5
0
204
0
58
5
14
0
40
267
84
0
0
0
1,936
16
13
0
1
0
0
0
93
0
128
20
89
20
2
16
30
6
27
18
29
15
4
2
30
16
14
24
28
6
29
27
30
1
29
30
21
20
1
4
30
29
11
6
4
1
9
9
29
10
29
25
30
4.16
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
0.23
0.01
0.01
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.89
0.32
0.02
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.10
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.46
0.48
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.02
0.09
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.20
0.05
0.16
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
117
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Fenpyrazamine
Fenpyroximate
Fenson
Fensulfothion
Fenthion (RD)
Fentin acetate (RD)
Fentin hydroxide
(RD)
Fenuron
Fenvalerate (RD)
Fipronil (RD)
Flamprop
Flamprop-isopropyl
Flamprop-methyl
Flamprop-MIsopropyl
Flamprop-M-Methyl
Flazasulfuron
Flocoumafen
Flonicamid (RD)
Florasulam
Fluacrypyrim
Fluazifop-P-butyl
(RD)
Fluazinam
Fluazuron
Flubendiamide
Flubenzimine
Fluchloralin
Flucycloxuron
Flucythrinate
Fludioxonil
Flufenacet (RD)
Flufenoxuron
Flufenzin
Flumethrin
Flumetralin
Flumetsulam
Flumioxazine
Fluometuron
Fluopicolide
Fluopyram (RD)
Fluorodifen
Fluoroimide
Fluotrimazole
Fluoxastrobin
Flupyrsulfuron-methyl
Fluquinconazole
Flurenol-butyl
Fluridone
Flurochloridone
Fluroxypyr (RD)
Flurprimidole
Flurtamone
Flusilazole (RD)
Flusulfamide
Fluthiacet-Methyl
Flutolanil
14
53,420
22,240
21,568
56,707
10
397
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
9
140
0
0
16
0
0
No of
countries
analysing
1
28
10
18
28
1
8
Detection
rate
(in %)
64.29
0.26
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.00
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
8,518
35,960
50,346
3,791
1,950
2,949
2,216
0
68
62
0
0
0
0
11
19
24
4
3
4
3
0.00
0.19
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
437
11,400
2,576
35,796
14,508
5,123
27,154
0
0
0
262
1
1
75
1
10
1
18
13
5
22
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.01
0.02
0.28
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
36,619
4,850
27,830
5,552
5,163
6,974
29,032
61,239
10,377
55,860
1,388
1,925
12,795
961
14,813
7,124
49,604
38,397
2,384
1
10,531
25,722
6,521
55,895
437
1,763
19,905
28,406
4,946
22,354
61,403
5,361
836
47,106
9
0
59
0
0
0
0
3,554
0
67
0
0
0
0
0
0
475
888
0
0
0
4
0
8
0
0
2
5
0
0
41
2
0
14
20
2
19
2
4
5
19
30
12
29
2
4
8
1
8
8
24
22
1
0
4
15
5
29
1
2
13
17
3
12
28
2
2
25
0.02
0.00
0.21
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.80
0.00
0.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.96
2.31
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.04
0.00
0.03
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
118
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Flutriafol
Fluvalinate
Fluxapyroxad
Folpet (RD)
Fomesafen
Fonofos
Foramsulfuron
Forchlorfenuron
Formetanate
Formothion
Fosetyl-Al (RD)
Fosthiazate
Fosthietan
Fuberidazole
Furalaxyl
Furathiocarb
Furmecyclox
Genite
Gibberellic acid
Glufosinate (RD)
Glyphosate
Griseofulvin
Halfenprox
Halofenozide
Halosulfuron
Halosulfuron-methyl
Haloxyfop-R (RD)
Heptachlor (RD)
Heptenophos
Hexachlorobenzene
Hexachlorobutadiene
Hexachlorocyclohexa
ne (alpha)
Hexachlorocyclohexa
ne (beta)
Hexachlorocyclohexa
ne (RD)
Hexaconazole
Hexaflumuron
Hexazinone
Hexythiazox
Hydrogen phosphide
Hymexazol
Imazalil
Imazamethabenz
Imazamox
Imazapic
Imazapyr
Imazaquin
Imazethapyr
Imazosulfuron
Imibenconazole
Imidacloprid
Inabenfide
Indoxacarb
Iodfenphos
Iodosulfuron-methyl
Ioxynil (RD)
59,234
6,115
14,706
31,928
10,205
34,446
6,721
18,722
34,912
38,152
3,174
47,710
1
17,739
22,733
41,899
2,786
1,691
2,013
3,546
4,721
10
3,807
11,566
1,116
3,289
18,669
39,455
40,569
53,868
273
26,492
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
406
0
1
76
2
0
0
14
36
0
1,023
8
0
2
0
1
0
0
59
1
200
0
0
0
0
0
15
19
0
430
0
60
No of
countries
analysing
30
7
10
24
5
21
6
13
21
27
4
28
0
14
12
22
4
1
1
6
21
1
4
5
1
3
21
25
25
28
2
25
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.69
0.00
0.01
0.24
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.10
0.00
32.23
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.93
0.03
4.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.05
0.00
0.80
0.00
0.23
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
26,218
116
25
0.44
Yes
39,272
25
0.00
No
63,573
35,687
16,440
58,643
136
5,440
63,144
5,737
10,501
4,761
15,279
14,938
10,980
8,058
10,000
61,067
4,331
63,779
13,370
11,215
13,255
98
7
1
328
18
1
4,621
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
0
2,587
0
785
0
0
0
29
20
12
30
2
3
30
7
9
1
10
7
6
6
5
30
2
29
8
9
16
0.15
0.02
0.01
0.56
13.24
0.02
7.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
4.24
0.00
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
119
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Ipconazole
Iprobenfos
Iprodione (RD)
Iprovalicarb
Isazofos
Isobenzan
Isocarbamid
Isocarbophos
Isodrin
Isofenphos
Isofenphos-methyl
Isomethiozin
Isonoruron
Isoprocarb
Isopropalin
Isoprothiolane
Isoproturon
Isopyrazam
Isoxaben
Isoxaflutole (RD)
Isoxathion
Ivermectin
Karbutilate
Kasugamycin
Kresoxim-methyl
(RD)
Lactofen
Lambda-cyhalothrin
Lenacil
Leptophos
Lindane
Linuron
Lufenuron
Malathion (RD)
Maleic hydrazide
(RD)
Mandipropamid
MCPA (RD)
Mecarbam
Mecoprop
Mefenacet
Mefluidide
Mepanipyrim (RD)
Mephosfolan
Mepiquat
Mepronil
Meptyldinocap (RD)
Mercury
Merphos
Mesosulfuron
Mesotrione (RD)
Metaflumizone
Metalaxyl
Metaldehyde
Metamitron
Metazachlor
Metconazole
Methabenzthiazuron
8,522
10,539
63,510
61,970
11,021
4,720
2,219
42,863
9,876
35,404
55,391
40,46
2,753
40,335
6,589
39,665
42,808
647
19,454
10,378
9,314
165
1,168
33
63,995
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
2
2,312
176
0
0
0
5
0
0
3
0
0
2
0
92
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
326
No of
countries
analysing
8
8
30
30
9
3
3
25
9
20
29
3
4
26
5
25
25
2
11
10
6
1
1
1
30
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.02
3.64
0.28
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.51
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
4,129
47,904
29,573
7,948
61,941
59,477
52,984
65,348
3,178
0
1,291
16
0
89
454
61
117
92
3
28
15
7
30
30
28
29
9
0.00
2.69
0.05
0.00
0.14
0.76
0.12
0.18
2.89
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
46,323
24,924
49,834
17,731
6,886
4,231
62,714
10,253
7,572
35,182
4,862
1,661
184
7,649
8,463
34,093
57,133
6,445
39,633
42,889
50,456
25,029
339
19
2
1
1
2
181
0
152
1
2
235
0
0
0
11
1,374
9
20
2
2
6
28
15
26
17
4
1
29
7
23
20
10
1
1
5
6
24
26
2
20
24
29
14
0.73
0.08
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.29
0.00
2.01
0.00
0.04
14.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
2.40
0.14
0.05
0.00
0.00
0.02
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
120
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Methacrifos (RD)
Methamidophos
Methfuroxam
Methidathion
Methiocarb (RD)
Methomyl (RD)
Methoprene
Methoprotryne
Methothrin
Methoxychlor
Methoxyfenozide
Metobromuron
Metolachlor
Metolcarb
Metominostrobin
Metosulam
Metoxuron
Metrafenone
Metribuzin
Metsulfuron-methyl
Mevinphos
Milbemectin (RD)
Mirex
Molinate
Monalide
Monocrotophos
Monolinuron
Monuron
Myclobutanil (RD)
Naled
Naphthoxyacetic
acid, 2Napropamide
Naptalam
Neburon
Nicosulfuron
Nicotine
Nitenpyram
Nitralin
Nitrapyrin
Nitrofen
Nitrothal-Isopropyl
Norflurazon
Novaluron
Noviflumuron
Nuarimol
Octhilinone
Ofurace
Orbencarb
Orthosulfamuron
Oryzalin
Oxadiargyl
Oxadiazon
Oxadixyl
Oxamyl
Oxasulfuron
Oxycarboxin
Oxydemeton-methyl
40,668
62,194
1,272
67,193
60,023
60,351
2,904
8,768
15
53,769
57,061
43,477
11,979
11,606
3,849
13,764
21,437
44,288
55,668
15,795
53,827
5,413
12,044
14,570
6,982
61,181
24,407
16,363
63,829
8,492
4,479
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
42
0
40
82
100
1
0
0
8
684
13
0
1
0
0
0
295
20
0
1
1
0
2
0
14
0
0
1,380
0
0
No of
countries
analysing
27
30
1
30
28
28
6
7
1
29
30
27
12
8
2
11
16
23
27
13
27
3
11
13
3
29
16
12
30
8
4
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.07
0.00
0.06
0.14
0.17
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.01
1.20
0.03
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.67
0.04
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
2.16
0.00
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
33,561
4,921
6,167
11,282
1,165
46,754
5,021
7,292
36,425
14,650
4,764
25,229
2,105
36,544
182
22,062
3,758
400
4,384
6,707
27,130
61,828
62,239
3,261
12,658
50,986
2
0
0
0
31
0
0
0
0
0
0
27
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
16
15
0
0
3
18
3
8
12
5
28
7
2
24
10
7
16
2
20
1
10
5
1
3
8
14
30
29
3
9
26
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.66
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
121
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
No of
countries
analysing
Detection
rate
(in %)
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
25,951
54,232
624
66,324
55,508
55
34
0
0
4
17
29
4
29
28
0.21
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.01
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
4,919
65,751
58,369
64,363
4,330
9,421
5,383
5,422
1,285
66,032
15,827
2,682
37,739
9,165
58,105
40,941
66,790
2,430
53,832
45,824
30
0
683
85
314
0
0
1
0
1
106
0
0
35
3
9
11
6
0
182
0
3
7
29
30
30
2
5
6
5
1
28
13
3
20
10
29
24
30
4
27
25
2
0.00
1.04
0.15
0.49
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.08
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.00
0.34
0.00
10.00
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
46,009
4,805
23,210
47,241
7,134
437
335
60,008
38,402
69,830
483
3,412
478
3,570
2,868
42,001
66,503
67,530
14,405
6,229
2,066
32,443
6,379
40,948
10,214
48,666
21,485
2,543
22,564
7
0
0
2
0
0
0
732
0
784
0
0
0
0
1
501
43
90
0
0
3
1
0
4
0
1,624
5
0
0
29
6
14
21
8
1
2
28
24
30
2
6
1
3
2
24
30
29
8
5
2
15
7
23
11
24
13
3
15
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.22
0.00
1.12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.03
1.19
0.06
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
3.34
0.02
0.00
0.00
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
(RD)
Oxyfluorfen
Paclobutrazol
Paraquat
Parathion
Parathion-methyl
(RD)
Pebulate
Penconazole
Pencycuron
Pendimethalin
Penfluron
Penoxsulam
Pentachlorophenol
Pentanochlor
Penthiopyrad
Permethrin
Pethoxamid
Phenkapton
Phenmedipham (RD)
Phenothrin
Phenthoate
Phorate (RD)
Phosalone
Phosfolan
Phosmet (RD)
Phosphamidon
Phosphines and
phosphides (RD)
Phoxim
Picloram
Picolinafen
Picoxystrobin
Pinoxaden
Piperalin
Piperophos
Pirimicarb (RD)
Pirimiphos-ethyl
Pirimiphos-methyl
Prallethrin
Pretilachlor
Primisulfuron
Primisulfuron-Methyl
Probenazole
Prochloraz (RD)
Procymidone (RD)
Profenofos
Profluralin
Profoxydim
Prohexadione
Promecarb
Prometon
Prometryn
Propachlor (RD)
Propamocarb
Propanil
Propaphos
Propaquizafop
122
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Propargite
Propazine
Propetamphos
Propham
Propiconazole
Propineb
Propisochlor
Propoxur
Propoxycarbazone
(RD)
Propyzamide (RD)
Proquinazid
Prosulfocarb
Prosulfuron
Prothiocarb
Prothiofos
Prothoate
Pymetrozine
Pyracarbolid
Pyraclofos
Pyraclostrobin
Pyraflufen-ethyl
Pyrazophos
Pyrazoxyfen
Pyrethrins
Pyributicarb
Pyridaben
Pyridalyl
Pyridaphenthion
Pyridate (RD)
Pyrifenox
Pyrimethanil
Pyrimidifen
Pyriproxyfen
Pyroquilon
Pyroxsulam
Quinalphos
Quinclorac
Quinmerac
Quinoclamine
Quinoxyfen
Quintozene (RD)
Quizalofop
Rabenzazole
Resmethrin
Rimsulfuron
Rotenone
Schradan
Sebuthylazine
Secbumeton
Siduron
Silafluofen
Silthiofam
Simazine
Simeconazole
Simetryn
Spinetoram
61,036
20,515
19,590
43,250
64,542
65
1,201
52,550
6,296
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
251
1
0
1
470
0
0
19
0
No of
countries
analysing
30
15
11
25
29
1
1
29
5
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.41
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.73
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
62,760
37,209
38,597
7,820
2,166
37,079
58,484
2,451
49,940
437
3,005
59,665
11,277
58,637
479
27,579
4,238
63,190
14,133
42,945
12,663
40,328
65,159
7,324
60,810
5,431
3,853
55,683
11,750
11,522
7,664
63,526
48,945
9,523
4,330
17,803
20,979
40,754
2,105
5,128
1,301
5,074
7,307
13,421
41,168
438
3,039
14,371
111
79
112
0
0
42
3
0
155
0
0
2,816
0
1
0
36
0
206
18
0
0
1
2,273
0
759
0
0
13
2
3
0
384
12
6
0
4
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40
28
19
18
8
1
26
29
2
29
1
6
30
12
29
1
24
1
30
7
21
11
21
30
4
30
5
3
26
13
8
6
29
24
11
2
25
15
26
2
4
6
5
6
7
24
1
4
6
0.18
0.21
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.01
0.00
0.31
0.00
0.00
4.72
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.13
0.00
0.33
0.13
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.49
0.00
1.25
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.60
0.02
0.06
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.28
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
123
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Spinosad
Spirodiclofen
Spiromesifen
Spirotetramat (RD)
Spiroxamine (RD)
Streptomycin
Sulcotrione
Sulfallate
Sulfentrazone
Sulfometuron-Methyl
Sulfosulfuron
Sulfotep
Sulphur
Sulprofos
tau-Fluvalinate
TCMTB
Tebuconazole (RD)
Tebufenozide
Tebufenpyrad
Tebupirimphos
Tebutam
Tebuthiuron
Tecloftalam
Tecnazene
Teflubenzuron
Tefluthrin
Tembotrione (RD)
Temephos
TEPP
Tepraloxydim (RD)
Terbacil
Terbucarb
Terbufos
Terbumeton
Terbuthylazine
Terbutryn
Tetrachlorvinphos
Tetraconazole
Tetradifon
Tetramethrin
Tetrasul
Thenylchlor
Thiabendazole (RD)
Thiacloprid
Thiametoxam (RD)
Thiazopyr
Thidiazuron
Thiencarbazone
Thifensulfuron
Thifensulfuronmethyl
Thiobencarb
Thiocyclam
Thiofanox
Thiometon
Thionazin
Thiophanate-ethyl
Thiophanate-methyl
53,593
51,387
45,064
24,186
59,160
216
11,001
182
5,289
78
4,130
38,879
2,246
8,399
58,000
3,076
64,606
57,512
62,660
1,236
1,812
2,127
4,231
49,444
53,863
55,002
12,980
1,476
4,866
20,880
11,948
1,913
33,636
9,742
55,426
38,396
28,272
64,113
65,531
43,118
11,466
2,105
60,846
61,066
59,343
2,105
2,676
1,689
143
14,910
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
1,022
174
250
206
226
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
27
0
43
0
2,283
88
183
0
0
0
0
0
22
18
0
0
0
5
3
0
1
0
37
4
0
301
9
17
0
0
2,783
1,625
727
0
0
0
0
0
No of
countries
analysing
29
28
25
12
30
1
8
1
6
1
5
20
3
10
28
5
30
29
30
4
3
2
1
27
28
28
5
6
5
11
11
4
21
9
28
21
19
29
30
27
8
2
29
30
28
2
3
1
1
10
Detection
rate
(in %)
1.91
0.34
0.55
0.85
0.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.20
0.00
0.07
0.00
3.53
0.15
0.29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.04
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.07
0.01
0.00
0.47
0.01
0.04
0.00
0.00
4.57
2.66
1.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
13,987
4,476
6,347
25,492
7,265
2,682
59,016
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
11
4
5
15
6
4
29
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.63
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
124
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Pesticide
No of
determinations
Thiosultap sodium
Thiram
Tiocarbazil
Tolclofos-methyl
Tolfenpyrad
Tolylfluanid (RD)
Topramezone
Tralkoxydim
Tralomethrin
Transfluthrin
Triadimenol (RD)
Tri-allate
Triamiphos
Triapenthenol
Triasulfuron
Triazamate
Triazophos
Triazoxide
Tribenuron-methyl
Tribufos
Trichlamide
Trichlorfon
Trichloronat
Triclopyr (RD)
Tricyclazole
Tridemorph
Tridiphane
Trietazine
Trifenmorph
Trifloxysulfuron
Triflumizole (RD)
Triflumuron
Trifluralin
Triflusulfuron
Triflusulfuron-Methyl
Triforine
Trimethacarb
Trimethyl-sulfonium
cation
Trinexapac
Trinexapac-Ethyl
Triticonazole
Tritosulfuron
Uniconazole
Valifenalate
Vamidothion
Vernolate
Vinclozolin (RD)
XMC
Ziram
Zoxamide
4
78
3,783
65,236
7,334
50,887
5,917
12,481
2,409
7,068
62,660
27,465
3,169
2,665
8,841
11,720
68,509
4,775
5,777
2,475
2,013
51,674
16,487
22,267
42,007
7,679
417
2,356
439
63,004
4,238
31,687
53,724
61,008
685
8,983
29,891
4,004
1,724
No of
detections
(results >LOQ)
0
0
0
76
10
2
0
0
0
0
665
1
0
0
0
0
56
0
0
0
1
6
0
5
229
2
0
0
0
1,392
0
32
89
12
0
0
2
0
26
No of
countries
analysing
1
3
5
30
8
27
6
10
5
8
28
17
4
2
13
7
29
2
9
2
1
28
11
12
27
7
1
3
2
29
1
10
29
29
1
7
20
5
2
Detection
rate
(in %)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.12
0.14
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.01
0.00
0.02
0.55
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.21
0.00
0.10
0.17
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.00
1.51
Pesticide
covered by
2014 EUCP
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
6,087
9,074
53,194
7,708
3,463
4,801
23,769
2,464
28,312
2,543
2
58,746
14
0
2
0
2
0
0
0
5
0
0
61
3
7
29
4
5
4
19
3
23
3
1
29
0.23
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.06
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.10
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
125
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
25
Table 19: Food to be analysed in 2014 according to Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 on import controls
Country
of origin
Food name (code) in

food classification under
Reg. 396/2005(a)
Food
Aubergines
Chinese celery
Yardlong beans (Vigna unguiculata spp.sesquipedalis)
China
Chinese broccoli
Pomelos
Tea, whether or not flavoured
Dominican Aubergines
Bitter melon (Mormodica charantia)
Republic
Peppers (Capsicum spp.)
Yardlong beans (Vigna unguiculata spp.sesquipedalis)(b)
Egypt
Oranges (fresh or dried)
Strawberries
Kenya
Beans with pods (unshelled)
Peas with pods (unshelled)
Morocco
Mint
Nigeria
Dried beans
Peru
Table grapes
Thailand
Aubergines
Basil (holy, sweet)
Coriander leaves
Yardlong beans (Vigna unguiculata spp.sesquipedalis)
Turkey
Vine leaves
Vietnam
Basil (holy, sweet)
Coriander leaves
Dragon fruit
Mint
Okra
Parsley
Cambodia
Celery leaves (0256030)

Beans with pods (0260010)
Broccoli (0241010)
Grapefruit (0110010)
Courgettes (0232030).
Basil (0256080)


Basil (0256080)
Frequency
of checks
50%
50%
50%
20%
20%
10%
10%
10%
20%
20%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
10%
50%
10%
20%
10%
10%
10%
20%
10%
10%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
20%
(a): Corresponding name in the food classification under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (only if the food product to be
analysed under Regulation 669/2005 is not listed in Annex I, Part A of Regulation 212/2013).
126
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Appendix D Background information and detailed results for dietary risk

assessment
Table 20: ADI/ARfD values for compounds added to the EUCP and changed ADI/ARfD values
(compared with toxicological reference values reported in 2013 EU report on pesticide
residues in food (EFSA, 2015c)
Pesticide
ADI
(mg/kg bw per d)
Year
Source
ARfD
(mg/kg bw)
Year
Source
Dichlorprop (RD)
Ethirimol
Famoxadone
Fenamidone(a)
Fenpropidin (RD)
Glufosinate (RD)(b)
Glyphosate(c)
Metalaxyl
Metazachlor
Pendimethalin
Topramezone
0.06
0.035
0.006
0.03
0.02
0.019
0.5
0.08
0.08
0.0125
0.001
2006
2010
2014
2003
2012
2013
2015
2014
2008
2015
2014
COM
EFSA
EFSA
COM
COM
COM
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
0.5
n.n.
0.1
n.n.
0.02
0.019
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.001
2006
2010
2014
2003
2012
2013
2015
2014
2008
2015
2014
COM
EFSA
EFSA
COM
COM
COM
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
EFSA
(a):
Fenamidone: in December 2015 in the framework of the peer review, Member State experts did not set reference values
of fenamidone because no conclusion on the genotoxic potential of fenamidone could be drawn (EFSA, 2016b). In
absence of more EFSA performed the risk assessment on the basis of the toxicological reference values established in the
past.
(b): Glufosinate: the toxicological reference values derived for glufosinate ammonium (ADI: 0.021 mg/kg bw per day, ARfD:
0.021 mg/kg bw) were recalculated to glufosinate to match with the residue definition.
(c): Glyphosate: In November 2015, the EFSA conclusion on the peer review of glyphosate was published (EFSA, 2015f),
where new toxicological reference values were proposed. The risk assessment was performed with the new ADI and ARfD
(previous ADI: 0.3 mg/kg bw per day, previously no ARfD was considered necessary).
127
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Results of short-term dietary risk assessment for food products in focus of the EUCP,
expressed as percentage of the ARfD
In the following Figures the residue concentrations are presented individually expressed as percentage
of the ARfD. The blue dots refer to results reported under the EUCP, whereas the orange dots refer to
findings in samples that were analysed in the framework of the national control programmes. The
figures in brackets next to the name of the pesticides represent the number of samples with residues
below the LOQ, number of samples with detectable residues below the MRL, and the number of
samples with residues above the MRL.
128
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 63: Short-term dietary risk assessment - beans with pods

129
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 64: Short-term dietary risk assessment - carrots

130
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 65: Short-term dietary risk assessment - cucumbers

131
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 66: Short-term dietary risk assessment - mandarins
132
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 67: Short-term dietary risk assessment - oranges

133
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 68: Short-term dietary risk assessment - pears

134
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 69: Short-term dietary risk assessment - potatoes
135
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 70: Short-term dietary risk assessment - spinach
136
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 71: Short-term dietary risk assessment - rice
137
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 72: Short-term dietary risk assessment wheat flour
138
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611
Figure 73: Short-term dietary risk assessment - liver
Figure 74: Short-term dietary risk assessment poultry muscle/fat
139
EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

Authority 2016 EFSA Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authority 2016 EFSA Journal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Authority 2016 EFSA Journal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENTIFIC REPORT

ENDORSED: 21 October 2016

The 2014 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

an assessment of consumer exposure to pesticide residues based on the information provided by

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EU-coordinated control programme

Design of the EU-coordinated control programme

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

Malta; 155 Belgium; 151

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

2,4-D (RD) (3272/104/0)

The numbers in brackets after the name of the pesticide

Residues > MRL

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

Results by food products

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

Beans with pods

Figure 3: Number of detectable residues in individual beans with pod samples

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

Beans with pods

Iprodione (RD) (829/93/0)

* Pesticide not analysed in 2011

2011 detectable residues MRL

2014 detectable residues MRL

2011 residues > MRL

2014 residues > MRL

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

EFSA Journal 2016;14(10):4611

2014 EU Report on Pesticide Residues

Pesticides most frequently detected in beans with pods in 2014

% samples above LOQ