{"id":520346,"date":"2025-05-21T15:37:04","date_gmt":"2025-05-21T13:37:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/?p=520346"},"modified":"2025-05-21T15:37:06","modified_gmt":"2025-05-21T13:37:06","slug":"efsa-annual-report-on-pesticides-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/regulatory-watch\/efsa-annual-report-on-pesticides-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"EFSA Annual Report on Pesticides 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"hover_box\"><div class=\"hover_box_wrapper\"><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"scale-with-grid visible_photo\" src=\"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/06\/Champ-irrigu\u00e9.png\" alt=\"Champ irrigu\u00e9\" width=\"700\" height=\"400\"\/><img decoding=\"async\" class=\"scale-with-grid hidden_photo\" src=\"\/wp-content\/uploads\/2018\/03\/actu_publication-rasff-2016_02.jpg\" alt=\"EFSA Annual Report on Pesticides 2023\" width=\"\" height=\"\"\/><\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The EFSA has just published its <a href=\"https:\/\/efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/epdf\/10.2903\/j.efsa.2025.9398\">report for 2023<\/a> on pesticide residues in food.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Results of monitoring programs (EU Multi-Annual Coordinated Monitoring Program (MACP) + national programs)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of <strong>132,793 samples<\/strong> were analyzed for <strong>741 pesticides and metabolites<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2013 <strong>96.3%<\/strong> of the samples analyzed were found to be compliant with MRLs, with 58% free of quantifiable residues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u2013 <strong>3.7%<\/strong> of samples exceeded the MRLs (2% were deemed non-compliant given the measurement uncertainty).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With regard to raw products, out of the <strong>120,122<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/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 the measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vine leaves and similar species, cumin seeds, pitahaya (dragon fruit) and chili peppers had the highest levels of non-compliance.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>For processed products, out of the <strong>11,167<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>5.6% exceeded the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>3.1% were non-compliant taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Vine leaves (canned, salted), chamomile flowers, dried celery leaves, dried basil and mint, dried parsley, processed dried beans, dried licorice, coriander seeds, processed Swiss chard\/beet leaves, processed cumin seeds, and soybean oil soybean oil had the highest non-compliance rates.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>For BBF products, out of the <strong>1,504<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>91.3% were free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>5.5% contained quantified residues but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>3.2% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.6% were non-compliant when taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The substance most frequently quantified above the MRLs was copper.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>For organic products, out of the <strong>7,074<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>80% were free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>19% contained quantified residues but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.4% were non-compliant when taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The pesticides most frequently detected above the limit of quantification (LOQ) but below the MRL were copper (94.6%), bromide ion (11.3%) and chlorates (7.6%). The pesticide that exceeded the MRL the most was ethylene oxide (1.4%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With regard to products of animal origin, out of the <strong>20,700<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>90% were free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>9.2% contained quantified residues but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.8% were non-compliant (quantifications above the MRL).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>0.6% were non-compliant taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The most frequently quantified substances were copper compounds and chlordecone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>With regard to honey and bee products, out of the <strong>1,743<\/strong> samples analyzed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>88.2% were free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>10.1% contained quantified residues but below the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1.7% contained quantified residues above the MRL.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>1.2% were non-compliant taking into account measurement uncertainty.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The substances most frequently found in the samples were acetamiprid, amitraz, and boscalid.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Results of the EU Multi-Annual Coordinated Control Program (MACP)<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>A total of <strong>13,246 samples<\/strong> were analyzed and <strong>197 pesticides were tested for<\/strong> in <strong>12 food products<\/strong> (carrots, cauliflower, kiwis (green, red, and yellow), onions, oranges, pears, potatoes, dried beans, brown rice, rye, beef liver, and poultry fat).<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>98%<\/strong> of the samples analyzed were found to comply with the MRLs, with 69.9% free of quantifiable residues.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>2%<\/strong> of the samples exceeded the MRLs (1% were considered non-compliant due to measurement uncertainty).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>The matrices with the highest multiple residue levels were pears (65%) and oranges (64%). Two pear samples contained 14 pesticide residues and one orange sample contained 12 different pesticide residues.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Among samples grown in the EU, the most frequently reported matrix\/pesticide combinations were: chlorpropham\/potatoes, chlorpyrifos, linuron\/carrots, imidacloprid\/cauliflower, chlorpyrifos\/oranges, mepiquat\/pears, diflubenzuron, imidacloprid and tricyclazole\/rice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Among samples grown outside the EU, the most frequently reported pesticide\/matrix combinations were: fenamiphos, thiabendazole\/carrots, glyphosate, chlorpyrifos, ETO, fosetyl\/dry beans, buprofezin, chlorpyrifos\/oranges, diflubenzuron\/pears, thiamethoxam, acetamiprid, carbendazim, chlormequat, chlorpyrifos, imidacloprid, propiconazole, tricyclazole\/rice.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Detailed results of the monitoring programs 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: <a href=\"https:\/\/multimedia.efsa.europa.eu\/pesticides-report-2023\/\">https:\/\/multimedia.efsa.europa.eu\/pesticides-report-2023\/<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p><strong>Pesticide residue analysis is Phytocontrol&#8217;s core business.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Your Phytocontrol laboratory offers analysis of more than <strong>680 pesticides and metabolites<\/strong> under <strong>COFRAC<\/strong> accreditation. You can consult our COFRAC technical appendix No. 1-1904 available in your customer area or on the COFRAC website.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Need technical, regulatory, or pricing information? Our customer service team is available from 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through Friday at +1 800 900 775 or .<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>And to stay up to date with all the latest news from Phytocontrol, join us on our LinkedIn page!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The EFSA has just published its report for 2023 on pesticide residues in food. Results of monitoring programs (EU Multi-Annual Coordinated Monitoring Program (MACP) + national<span class=\"excerpt-hellip\"> [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8,"featured_media":17879,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[181],"tags":[],"yst_prominent_words":[3098],"class_list":["post-520346","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\/520346","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\/8"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=520346"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520346\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":520348,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/520346\/revisions\/520348"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/17879"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=520346"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=520346"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=520346"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.phytocontrol.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=520346"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}