{"id":32893,"date":"2024-04-26T16:58:26","date_gmt":"2024-04-26T14:58:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/?p=32893"},"modified":"2024-07-03T16:59:35","modified_gmt":"2024-07-03T14:59:35","slug":"annual-pesticides-report-efsa-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/regulatory-watch\/annual-pesticides-report-efsa-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Annual Pesticides Report EFSA 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"hover_box\"><div class=\"hover_box_wrapper\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"scale-with-grid visible_photo\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/07\/Tracteurs.png\" alt=\"Annual Pesticides Report EFSA 2022\" width=\"\" height=\"\"\/><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"scale-with-grid hidden_photo\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/actu_publication-rasff-2016_02.jpg\" alt=\"Annual Pesticides Report EFSA 2022\" width=\"\" height=\"\"\/><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>EFSA has just published its <a href=\"https:\/\/efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.2903\/j.efsa.2024.8753\">report for 2022 on pesticide residues<\/a> in food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Results of monitoring programmes (EU multi-annual coordinated monitoring programme (MACP) + national programmes)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of <strong>110,829 samples <\/strong>were analysed, \u00bc more than in 2021, and <strong>754 pesticides and metabolites were <\/strong>tested.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&#8211; 96.3% <\/strong>of the samples analysed complied with the MRLs, 59% of which were free of quantifiable residues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>&#8211; 3.7% <\/strong>of samples exceeded MRLs (2.2% were deemed non-compliant due to measurement uncertainty).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Of the 99,929 <\/strong>raw product samples analysed :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>3.7% exceeded the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2.2% were non-compliant, taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Basil and edible flowers, passion fruit\/maracujas, buckwheat and other pseudo-cereals, chillies, okra, sheep&#8217;s liver, cassava roots and pomegranates were the most non-compliant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>For processed products, out of the <strong>9,117 <\/strong>samples analysed :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>3.7% exceeded the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2.3% were non-compliant, taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vine leaves (canned, salted), dried cumin seeds, dried parsley, dried wild mushrooms, basil and edible flowers were the most non-compliant.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Of the 1,783 <\/strong>samples analysed for BBF products :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>80.8% free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>15.1% contained residues that were quantified but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>4.2% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.8% were non-compliant, taking into account the measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The substance most frequently found to exceed MRLs was copper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>As regards organic products, out of the <strong>6,717 <\/strong>samples analysed :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>79% free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>18.6% contained residues that were quantified but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2.4% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1.4% were non-compliant, taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>With regard to products of animal origin, out of the <strong>23,377 <\/strong>samples analysed :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>92.4% free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>6.6% contained residues that were quantified but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.6% were non-compliant, taking into account the measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The substances most frequently quantified were copper compounds, chlordecone and BACs and DDACs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Of the <strong>1,272 <\/strong>samples analysed for honey and beekeeping products :<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>84.7% free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>11.6% contained residues that were quantified but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>3.6% contained quantified residues in excess of the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>2.2% were non-compliant, taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The substances found most frequently in the samples were acetamiprid, thiacloprid and amitraz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong><u>Results of the EU&#8217;s multi-annual coordinated monitoring programme (MACP)<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of <strong>11,727 samples were <\/strong>analysed and <strong>193 pesticides were found <\/strong>in <strong>12 food products <\/strong>(apples, strawberries, peaches, wine (red and white), lettuce, head cabbage, tomatoes, spinach, oats, barley, cow&#8217;s milk and pork fat).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>98.4% <\/strong>of the samples analysed complied with the MRLs, including 51.4% with no quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>1.6% <\/strong>of samples exceeded MRLs (0.9% were deemed non-compliant due to measurement uncertainty).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The matrices where the rate of multiple residues was greater than 10% were apples (18.6%), strawberries (17.5%), peaches (16.9%), tomatoes (14.2%) and lettuces (12.4%). The highest frequency of multiple residues was found in tomatoes (16 different pesticides quantified), followed by strawberries (15 different pesticides quantified) and red wine (14 different pesticides quantified).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Among the samples grown in the EU, the most frequently reported matrix\/pesticide combinations were: spinach\/dithiocarbamates, tomatoes\/chlorfenapyr, lettuce\/thiophanate-methyl and barley\/prochloraz.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Among the samples grown outside the EU, the most commonly reported matrix\/pesticide combinations were: tomatoes\/chlorfenapyr (Morocco), tomatoes\/chlorothalonil (Turkey), tomatoes\/chlorpyrifos-methyl (Turkey), apples\/diflubenzuron (Moldova), apples\/propargite (Ukraine), barley\/fosetyl (UK), tomatoes\/buprofezin (Turkey), tomatoes\/chlormequat-chloride (Turkey) and cabbages\/pyridaben (Turkey).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The detailed results of the monitoring programmes are available on the EFSA website in the form of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.efsa.europa.eu\/en\/annual-pesticides-report-2019\">diagrams and graphs<\/a>, making the data more easily accessible: https:<a href=\"https:\/\/multimedia.efsa.europa.eu\/pesticides-report-2022\/\">\/\/multimedia.efsa.europa.eu\/pesticides-report-2022\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Phytocontrol&#8217;s core business is the analysis of pesticide residues.<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>EFSA has just published its report for 2022 on pesticide residues in food. Results of monitoring programmes (EU multi-annual coordinated monitoring programme (MACP) + national programmes)<span class=\"excerpt-hellip\"> [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":17877,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[181],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[],"class_list":["post-32893","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-regulatory-watch"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32893","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32893"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32893\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17877"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32893"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32893"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32893"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=32893"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}