Pesticide residues found in European food

The European Commission (EC) publishes annual reports of the results of Member States’ residue monitoring programmes, mainly on fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and cereal grains. These reports contain information on residue levels, multiple residues and most frequently found pesticides, along with evaluations by crop commodity and pesticide.

In the latest data available (from 2002) on average, pesticide residues were found in 42% of samples, with 5.1% of total samples containing more than the permitted national or EU-wide Maximum Residue Level (MRL) for a specific pesticide in a particular food[1]. Eight of the ten most commonly found pesticides in fresh produce in all 18 countries in the monitoring programme are classified as Bad Actor chemicals[a], as are five found most often in cereals. There are differences between countries, for example, the persistent organochlorine insecticide endosulfan, featured in the top ten for fruit and vegetables in Greece, Spain, Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, while the herbicide glyphosate was commonly found in cereals in Denmark, Sweden, UK and Norway.

It is not easy to see clear trends because not enough baseline data is generated and sampling methods cannot be easily compared across different countries. The latest data, however, show a noticeable, disturbing increase in residue occurrence: the frequency of samples exceeding MRLs increased from 3.0% in 1996 to 5.5% in 2002. Multiple residues are also found more often- an increase from 14% in 1999 to 20.7% in 2002, in particular, a rise in samples containing four or more pesticide residues.

The EC explains the 2002 rise in residue level trends as partly due to the fact that MRLs have been lowered for some pesticide/crop combinations, laboratory analysis methods are now more sensitive and can detect chemicals at lower concentrations and that more compounds are tested for. However, this begs the questions: will we find yet more residues if we expand the sampling system and how confident can we be that the monitoring system is giving a realistic picture? The infrequent level of residue testing is a concern too. The UK comes bottom in terms of samples taken per head within the EU: only 5 per 100, 000 people, compared with 45 per 100, 000 in Finland. There are over 850 pesticides used globally but EU countries analyse only 160, Germany, for example, only 90. Our current monitoring is therefore not only extremely limited but also partly blind.

Looking at problem pesticides in specific foodstuffs

The EC also co-ordinates monitoring with Member States of specific pesticides in selected foodstuffs of the highest concern for residue content. In 2001, they looked at apples, tomatoes, lettuce, strawberries and table grapes. In 2002, they studied 41 pesticides in pears, bananas, beans, potatoes, carrots, oranges/mandarins, peaches/nectarines and spinach. Residues at or below MRLs were found in 44% of samples (most frequently in oranges/mandarins), and exceeded MRLs in 3.3% (most frequently in spinach).

Most frequently detected compounds in this co-ordinated monitoring were: imazalil; thiabendazole; chlorpyrifos; maneb group; benomyl group and methidathion. Detections of chlorpyrifos. maneb and benomyl groups doubled in 2002, compared with earlier years. Chlorpyrifos is a nerve toxin, maneb fungicides are suspected probable carcinogens and disruptors of the hormone system, and benomyl associated with birth defects.

What are the health effects of consuming pesticide residues?

The agrochemical industry, many government regulators and some researchers are quick to point out that MRLs are not a safety limit but related to the residues expected to occur when growers apply pesticides following Good Agricultural Practice. Their view is that occasionally exceeding MRLs does not pose an appreciable health risk unless conventional health-based limits (the acceptable daily intake, ADI) are exceeded. But a US National Research Council study in 1993 argued strongly that exposure to neurotoxic compounds, such as chlorpyrifos, at levels considered safe for adults could lead to permanent loss of brain function in early childhood exposure and that these concerns were relevant to the average child’s exposure to pesticide residues in their diet[2]. In other words, the very low levels of pesticides found on a routine level in foodstuffs can damage our health in the medium or long-term. This study was instrumental in the US setting its Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, requiring much stricter levels be set to protect infants and children.

The additive and synergistic effects of multiple residues of pesticides with the same mode of action is not currently addressed when considering safety levels. Studies indicate that children who eat relatively large amounts of fruit and vegetables may be subject to neurotoxic disorders from combined exposure to organophosphate and carbamate pesticides, which act in similar ways on the nervous system[3].

Protecting children and other vulnerable groups

Current risk assessment methodology cannot definitely quantify the public health implications of residues in the diet but consensus is building that dietary pesticide residues are a significant public health concern, especially for young children[4]. In the EU, for example, residue levels of endosulfan and methamidophos in peppers and melons were of considerable concern in 1999. Because most residue limits are set on the basis of adult bodyweight, children consume much higher relative levels. At the 1999 residue levels of these two pesticides, a toddler could have consumed almost double her/his acceptable daily intake of endosulfan in peppers and over six times the acceptable intake of methamidophos. Methamidophos is a nerve toxin classified as highly hazardous by the World Health Organisation, while endosulfan is also toxic and accumulates in human tissue. As a precautionary measure, the EU has since greatly lowered the MRL for methamidophos on peppers.

Assessing acute risk for neurotoxic compounds, the 2002 EU coordinated monitoring data show that the Acute Reference Dose (ArfD, a measure of the highest dose which can be safely consumed at one sitting) was exceeded in certain cases with the highest residue levels. For example, the worst case of methamidophos in beans would have delivered over four times the safety level for toddlers and aldicarb in carrots 134% of the safety level. Some samples containing aldicarb and methidathion would have exposed toddlers well above the acute reference dose, even though the MRL was not exceeded. The EC stated that health risks could not be excluded, especially for vulnerable groups, from the residue levels detected, as they noted also for toddlers consuming endosulfan in lettuce and triazophos in apples in 2001.

A new independent study reveals that between 10-226 British children under 5 years old could be eating more than the ArfD each day just by consuming a single apple or pear, since residue levels in individual fruits vary widely. This worrying scenario has been calculated for average children, not those who eat a large amount of fresh fruit, and also shows that exceeding the safety limit can occur in cases where the MRL itself is not breached[5].

A World Health Organisation study with the European Environment Agency in 2002 highlighted environmental impacts on children’s health[6]. It criticised how our combined exposure to pesticides in food and in the environment is not addressed when establishing acceptable daily intakes, acute reference doses or MRLs. Neither are variations in exposure or risks related to age and sensitivity or hazards posed by specific pesticides to infants and children. Possible health effects include disorders to our immune, hormone and nervous systems and cancer. The authors of the report urged that environmental pollution and residues in food and drinking water be minimized to protect this age group of the population.

The EU’s current baby food directives set strict residue limits of 0.01parts per million for pesticides (equivalent to the lowest detectable level) in food specifically intended for infants. The problem is that this age group is not protected to the same level when eating fresh fruit and vegetables. Yet the general success in complying with the baby food legislation shows that producing food on a large scale within these limits is possible, so these standards should be expanded to protect society as a whole in all our food. Other particularly vulnerable groups are pregnant women, nursing mothers, the elderly and those already in poor health.

What are our choices as consumers?

Some supermarkets are taking a proactive role in cutting back on pesticides in general, or banning or restricting the use of the more hazardous ones, for example, the Co-operative and Marks and Spencer in the UK. The Co-op has banned 24 pesticides and restricted a further 30 on produce grown for its stores by over 10,000 farmers worldwide. It uses a system of hazard triggers to identify problem pesticides, including cancer-causing and hormone disrupting chemicals and those which accumulate in the human body. The Co-op provides practical, crop-specific advice for its growers to help them use non-chemical methods as the preferred option and which pesticides to avoid at all costs[7].

Other companies, often the cheaper end of the range, seem to show little concern. In 2002, Dutch PAN partners Nature and Environment Foundation (SNM) sent table grapes of Italian, Spanish and Turkish origin purchased in Dutch stores of the German price-fighter supermarkets Aldi and Lidl for analysis[8]. Of the samples, 75-77% exceeded Dutch MRLs, by up to four times and an average of five pesticides were found in each contaminated sample. SNM concluded that grapes sold by Aldi and Lidl supermarkets were far more contaminated than other sources and that such fruit should never have been offered to customers.

Consumer concern about pesticides in food is rising and many supermarkets and food companies are starting to respond to consumer and public pressure. In Austria, Friends of the Earth group Global 2000 ran a successful media campaign after finding illegal pesticide residues in greenhouse peppers in 2002[9]. Within months, they had started a programme with Billa supermarket, one of the biggest chains in Austria, to address health problems of residues in fruit and vegetables. The supermarket has now set stricter MRLs than those legally established in Austria and analyses samples weekly with Global 2000 and shares the results with its suppliers. Roundtable discussions show how growers could change their agricultural practice to avoid residue and environmental problems. Billa now publishes its pesticide application information and alternative pest management methods are being trialled.

The UK government issued advice from 1997-2000 that peeling fruit and vegetables was a sensible additional precaution when preparing fruit and vegetables for small children, due to concerns about incidences of high levels of pesticide residues in some fruit and vegetables[10]. The US Environmental Protection Agency continues to advise peeling to remove pesticide residues, bacteria and dirt. Peeling, however, will not remove systemic pesticides, which are taken up by the crop plant tissues. Organic food certainly contains far fewer pesticide residues than conventional food, as demonstrated by one of the most comprehensive studies of food residues in the US. The Head of the UK’s Food Standards Agency, not known for his support for organic farming, was recently forced to admit that “organic food contains fewer residues of pesticides used in conventional agriculture, so buying organic is one way to reduce the chances that your food contains these pesticides”. The US study, however, did find pesticide residues in 23% of organic food samples, of which almost half were banned organochlorines, probably derived from contaminated soil. The authors concluded that their presence reflects the widespread environmental contamination by persistent pesticides over many decades[11].

Harmonising residue standards across the EU-25

The EU is currently developing proposals for harmonising MRLs across Europe. Harmonisation makes sense but we are anxious that stricter levels already set in certain countries are not diluted in the process. PAN Europe’s position paper on this proposal details our main arguments and recommendations[12]. These include:

o Regulators should consider combination effects of multiple residues in food and protection of the most vulnerable groups should be the standard for all.
o EU MRLs should be set at the lowest levels possible, with the goal of zero residues.
o MRLs should be set for processed foods, as well as fresh.
o More effective monitoring systems for residues, with quarterly publication of results, and more involvement of public interest groups in decision-making about food safety.

Residue levels found in food produced in the new Member States have often been much lower than in the more industrialised farming sector in Western Europe. However, the trend in recent years is rising. For example, in Hungary, pesticides were found in only 2% of samples during the Soviet era but rose under liberalisation and by 1997, 17% of glasshouse crops contained residues, and 13% contained banned products[13]. The challenge is to make sure that Central and Eastern European farmers do not jump to use more pesticides as they enter the EU market and receive subsidy payments.

Minimising residues in food is also about strategies to move away from dependency on pesticides in the first place. The withdrawal of hundreds of pesticides from the EU market in 2003 will mean that MRLs for these compounds will be set at zero by 2005, so growers urgently need advice on how to control pests, disease and weeds by other methods. Our campaign for Pesticide Use Reduction in Europe (PURE) describes our key demands for legally binding targets across the EU, including measures to support farmers to change their practice[14]. It is essential that European farmers, particularly those with few resources, receive appropriate support from government, consumers and the food industry to help them shift to safer and more sustainable pest management. Special assistance is needed to help the millions of smallholder producers in developing countries who earn their living by growing for the export market to meet European pesticide standards, especially in horticulture, coffee and cocoa crops.

References

1. Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in Products of Plant Origin in the European Union, Norway, Iceland, and Liechtensten. 2002 Report. SANCO/17/04 final, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate General, European Commission, 2004. http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/inspections/fnaoi/reports/annual_eu/index_en.html
2. Pesticides in the diet of infants and children. National Research Council, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1993.
3. Have we lost our heads ? Neurotoxic residues harmful to the developing brain of our children, Luijk R. and S. Schalk (Consumentenbond) and H. Muilerman (Stichting Natuur en Milieu), Utrecht, Netherlands, 2000.
4.. Pesticide residues in conventional, integrated pest management (IPM)-grown and organic foods: insights from three US data sets. Baker, B.P., Benbrook, C.M., Groth, E. and Lutz Benbrook, K. Food Additives & Contaminants 19 (5) 427-446 , 2002
5. Modeling the dietary pesticides exposures of young children. Pennycook, FR et al., International Journal Occupational & Environmental Health 10 304-309, 2004.
6. Children, health and environment: a review of evidence. Environmental Issue report no.29, WHO Regional Office for Europe and European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, 2002.
7. Progressive retailer reduces pesticide use, J Harvey. Pesticides News 63 p 7, 2004.
8.. Worst ever levels of residues in grapes in discount supermarkets. PAN Europe Newsletter issue 15 p3. PAN Europe, London, 2003.
9. Austria- putting pressure on supermarkets, H Burtscher, 2003. Presentation made at PAN Europe network conference 2003.
10. Repealing peeling advice, S Bell. Pesticides News 56 8-9, 2002.
11. Op.cit. 4.
12. PAN Europe position paper on MRL Harmonisation, March 2004. www.paneurope.info
13. Challenges for regulation in Hungary, G Simon. Pesticides News 64 p 11, 2004.
14. PURE Campaign, www.pan-europe.net

[a] Bad Actor chemicals classified in PAN North America’s pesticides database as having one or more of the following characteristics: (1) highly acutely toxic, (2) cholinesterase inhibitor (i.e. a nerve toxin), (3) known/probable carcinogen, (4) known groundwater pollutant or (5) known reproductive or developmental toxicant. Classification based on official sources. Database can be consulted on-line at http://www.pesticideinfo.org/