Pesticide residues in food - Monitoring programs in Europe

Transcription

1 Pesticide residues in food - Monitoring programs in Europe Daniela Brocca 48th Annual Florida Pesticide Residue Workshop FPRW 2011 St. Pete Beach, Florida July 17-20, 2011

2 Content of the presentation 1. Pesticide residues in food EU consumer s risk perception 2. Control/monitoring activities in Europe EFSA Annual Report on Pesticide Residues 3. New EU data collection system 4. Future challenges: Cumulative Risk Assessment 2

3 European consumers perceptions of food risks: Results from the 2010 EUROBAROMETER Methodology: Face-to-face interviews in respondent s home Total number of interviews: (+/ per country) Research objectives: Assess, evaluate and monitor over time*: Consumer concerns relative to food and risks associated with the food chain Consumer confidence in food safety and in action of public authorities (*Builds on a similar survey on "risk issues" conducted in 2005) 3

4 Key findings on food-related risk There is no single, widespread concern mentioned spontaneously by a majority of respondents 19% of citizens spontaneously cite chemicals, pesticides and other substances When prompted, EU citizens worry the most about chemical residues in foods (e.g. pesticides, antibiotics, pollutants like mercury or dioxins) and animal cloning. Significant differences in risk perception by Member State National and European food safety agencies (EFSA) and European institutions attract a relatively high level of confidence at 64% and 57% respectively National governments (47%) 4

5 Risks associated with food: spontaneous responses Chemical products, pesticides and other toxic substances are the major concerns QF3: Could you tell me in your own words, what are all the things that come to your mind when thinking about possible problems or risks associated with food and eating?

6 Risks associated with food: Prompted responses Higher Level of Worry EU citizens worry most about chemicals in foods, pollutants and animal cloning QF4 Please tell me to what extent you are worried or not about the following issues.

7 Risk perception: Country differences Top concerns in Member States Pesticide residues: GREECE, LITHUANIA, ITALY, LUXEMBOURG, BULGARIA, HUNGARY, FRANCE, MALTA, SLOVENIA, GERMANY, BELGIUM, AUSTRIA Antibiotics residues in meat: CYPRUS, THE NETHERLANDS Pollutants like mercury: FRANCE Quality and freshness of food: LATVIA, LITHUANIA, PORTUGAL, SPAIN, DENMARK, MALTA, ESTONIA, IRELAND The welfare of farmed animals: SWEDEN, UNITED KINGDOM, FINLAND Additives in food and drinks: POLAND, ROMANIA GMOs: AUSTRIA Food poisoning from bacteria: BULGARIA, CZECH REPUBLIC, SLOVAKIA QF4: Please tell me to what extent you are worried or not about the following issues.

8 Pesticide residues in fruit, vegetables or cereals % of Total WorriedShift since 2005 LU 85% 14 LT 88% 12 % of Total Worried NL 53% 12 SK 71% 9 EE 67% 9 LV 78% 7 BE 72% 7 DE 75% 6 SE 59% 6 EU27 72% 2 UK 53% -12 The issue that causes the overall largest concern across the EU There are significant increases of worry since 2005 in several countries QF4: Please tell me to what extent you are worried or not about the following issues.

9 Monitoring of pesticide residues in food in the EU EU legislation (*) requests EU Member States: To carry out regular official controls on pesticide residues in food commodities to check compliance with Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs - legal limits) To establish national monitoring programmes To participate in a specific EU coordinated monitoring programme (voluntarily until 2008, mandatory from 2009) (*) Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 available at: 9

10 Monitoring of pesticides residue in food in the EU EU legislation also requires: To compile and collate all the information provided on the results of the analysis of the samples taken during the previous year (both national and EU monitoring programmes) An EU Annual Report to be prepared (*) (*) The Annual Reports are available at: The Annual reports are published at: food in the EU 10

11 The EU Annual Report The EU Annual Report provides: An overview of the results of the controls/monitoring and analysis of findings (e.g. number of pesticide sought and found and MRL exceedences) An assessment of the consumer exposure to actual pesticide residues in food Possible reasons for MRL exceedences Recommendations on pesticides to be covered in future monitoring programmes, on risk management actions 11

12 2008 Annual Report (*) No of commodities/samples analysed: >350 food items > samples analyzed > single analytical determinations 862 distinct pesticides sought: 365 different active substances found in fruit&veg 76 in cereals (*) The 2009 Annual report will be published on the EFSA website in September

13 Number of samples analyzed (*) Netherlands; 4335 United Kingdom; 2327 Greece; 2496 Romania; 3174 Hungary; 3584 France; 5063 Finland; 2083 Denmark; 2048 Austria; 1983 Belgium; 1709 Poland; 1613 Sweden; 1600 Norway; 1493 Slovenia; 1267 Ireland; 1014 Bulgaria; 971 Czech Republic; 919 Slovakia; 894 Portugal; 758 Lithuania; 527 Cyprus; 522 Estonia; 316 Iceland; 277 Luxembourg; 139 Latvia; 110 Malta; 97 Germany; Spain; 6353 Italy; 6788 (*) Total number of samples taken in 2008 by each reporting country (surveillance and enforcement samples of fruit, vegetables, cereals, processed commodities and baby food). Total 70,143 samples. 13

14 Origin of samples analyzed (*) Imported 20% Unknown 3% EU 77% (*) Origin of samples (EU: EU27, Iceland and Norway; Imported: countries extra-eu); surveillance and enforcement samples of fruit, vegetables, cereals, processed commodities and baby food. 14

15 Number of food commodities analysed (*) (*) The number of different raw commodities sampled in the 2008 national and EU programmes by each country (excluding processed and baby food). EU legislation sets MRLs for ca. 400 agricultural commodities. Apporx different raw commodities analysed in 2008

16 Number of pesticides included in the EU monitoring programme Number of pesticides Sampling year Food of plant origin Food of animal origin 16

17 Number of pesticides sought (*) (*) The number of pesticides analysed in 2008 by each reporting country (surveillance samples only, EU+ national programmes). Total number pesticides: 862; average number per country:

18 Samples exceeding the MRLs: trend over the time % 96.0% 95.0% 95.0% 95.0% 94.5% 94.5% 96.1% 95.5% 95.7% 96.7% 96.6% 97.0% 3.5% 4.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.0% 5.5% 5.5% 3.9% 4.5% 4.3% 3.3% 3.4% 3.0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% No measurable residues detected above MRL Residues detected above MRL MRL compliance rate for samples from the national and EU coordinated pesticide residue programmes Note that for 2008 only surveillance samples are included, while for , enforcement samples are included as well 18

19 Samples exceeding the MRLs by food group Fruit and vegetables Cereals Processed Babyfood 96.3% 98.5% 99.1% 99.8% 3.7% 1.5% 0.9% 0.2% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% No measurable residues detected above MRL Residues detected above MRL MRL compliance rate for surveillance samples in the national programme and the EU coordinated pesticide monitoring programme

20 MRL exceedances: origin of samples Unknown 13% EU origin 21% Imported food 66% Exceedances of EU MRLs according to origin of sample (2008 surveillance samples of fruit, vegetables and cereals) 20

21 MRL exceedances: origin of samples extra-eu 21

22 Risk assessment EU coordinated monitoring programme (in 2008, 132 pesticides analysed in 9 crops) Analysis of randomly selected samples in order to collect data on occurrence of pesticide in fruit, vegetables and cereals representative for the European market which are appropriate to assess the actual dietary exposure of the European population Acute (short-term) risk assessment Chronic(long-term) risk assessment 22

23 Results acute RA Out of 499 pesticide/crop combinations for which the acute RA was needed, for 35 combinations theoretical exposure exceeded 100% of the ARfD: for those the short-term risk could not be excluded Dimethoate/omethoate on potatoes and spinach: 10,763 % and 2,938% of ARfD Methiocarb/cucumbers: 2,519% Dimethoate/omethoate on pears: 1,730% Methomyl/thiodicarb on oranges: 1,644% 23

24 Results acute RA Based on the frequency of samples exceeding the threshold residue level (residue leading to 100% of ARfD) the critical events were classified as: Exceptional event (<0.1%): 6 of the 35 cases Seldom events (<1%): 27 of the 35 cases Non-seldom event (>1%): 2 cases (azinphosmethyl/pears and omethoate-dimethoate/oranges) 24

25 Results acute RA Maximum IESTI (in % of ARfD) Frequency of exceedance of threshold residue (% of samples above the threshold) Azinphos methyl Omethoate 1 Methomyl Chlorpropham Methomyl Methomyl Lambda cyhalothrin Procymidon Carbendazim Oxamyl Spinach Omethoate Methiocarb Chlormequat Procymidone Methamidophos Imazalil Omethoate Omethoate Tebuconazole Carbaryl Oxamyl Lambda cyhalothrin Omethoate Carbaryl Methomyl Diazinon Methomyl Procymidone 0.1 Imazalil Methomyl Imazalil Potatoes Pears Oranges Cucumbers Carrots Endosulfan Chlorpyrifos 0.01 Summary of the 2008 results of the short-term consumer risk assessment for the pesticide/crop combinations for which a potential consumer risk could not be excluded 25

26 Results acute RA Cypermethrin/peaches 26

27 Results chronic RA For all pesticides - except one (Diazinon) - a chronic exposure did not raise consumer health concerns However, with old data reporting system, the estimated exposure was based on conservative assumptions and was affected by large uncertainties Conclusion: past data submission format did not allow to perform sound exposure assessment Follow-up: In 2010 a new data reporting system (*) implemented in all 29 reporting countries (*) EFSA Data Model description available at: 27

28 Results chronic RA See Appendix VI 28

29 Data collection: new system (2010) Principles the of EFSA Standard Data Model for data reporting: Uses a Generic Structure Designed for Sample Level data Uses a Standard Transmission format Uses Standard Terminology EFSA Data Model description available at: 29

30 Data collection: EFSA new system Additives Contaminants Field 1 Field 2 Field 3 Field 4 Field 5 Field 6 Pesticides 30

31 Data collection: new system The new (2010) data collection system foresees: Replacement mail sending/receiving system (web interface) Storing data in a centralised EFSA location (data warehouse) Development of a database application (to query/import/export data, to avoid typing errors) Development of a data model (information reported at sample level) Defined data model elements Use of standardised terminology for e.g. pesticides and food names Implementation XML schema for data exchange/transmission 31

32 Data collection: new system EFSA promoted the change of the reporting system in order to make best use of the data generated at country level Improve comparability of MS results Identifying emerging trends Improvements in risk assessment Enable cumulative risk assessment 32

33 Cumulative Risk Assessment (CRA) Regulation (EC) 396/2005 on pesticide MRLs emphasizes the importance to carry out further work to develop a methodology to take into account cumulative and synergistic effects of pesticides Consumer exposure to residues of pesticides toxicologically acting with the same mode of action 33

34 Cumulative Risk Assessment 2 residues: 10.9% 3 residues: 6.5% 1 residue: 20.0% No measurable residues: 53.3% 4 residues: 4.1% 5 residues: 2.4% 6 residues: 1.3% 7 residues: 0.6% 8 residues; 0.9% Number of residues found in individual surveillance samples from the national and EU coordinated pesticide monitoring programmes

35 Cumulative Risk Assessment In the context of the EU Annual Report, CRA of pesticide residues is not yet performed At present, no agreed international/european CRA methodology is available. However, EFSA has published a first scientific opinion on the issue (suitability of existing methodologies) and a second opinion (operational tool) is on the way In the future, CRA will be also performed for the consumer exposure assessment to actual residues of pesticides measured in food available for the EU consumers 35

36 Conclusions A well-established monitoring programme of pesticide residues in food is in place in Europe Considerable efforts have been made by Member States regarding increasing the scope of analytical methods and increase of samples analysed No clear trends regarding non-compliance rate or multiple residues was identified In several cases, a potential acute consumer health risk could not be excluded Chronic consumer health risk very unlikely, although in one case it could not be excluded definitively In the past, aggregate data were reported by Member States; this, impeded detailed analysis of data and made risk assessment inaccurate. A new data collection system has been developed/implemented in the EU in In the near future, the cumulative risk assessment will possible 36

37 Thank you! 37