In this blog we have commented on other times the results of the EFSA surveillance on the presence of pesticides (also called pesticides) in food from European countries, since it is a topic that always arouses interest. And since the last report with data from 2019 has just been published, I will summarize the main conclusions below.
In the coordinated global program, of some 12,000 samples, these were the results:
- 53% of the samples did not present any trace of pesticide.
- 45% of the samples presented traces of pesticides below the permitted limits.
- 2% of the samples exceeded the allowed limits.
The national programs added some 96,000 samples and their overall results were as follows:
- 96.1% of the samples presented traces of pesticides below the limits.
- 3.9% of the samples exceeded the permitted limits.
The foods in which the highest percentage of non-compliances were detected were the following: grape leaves, metro beans (yardlong bean), coriander leaves, chili peppers, watercress, passion fruit, pitahaya (dragon fruit), celery leaves, pomegranates, basil and edible flowers, teas, cassava/cassava root and prickly pear.
In the case of baby food, with more than 1,500 samples, these were the results:
- 97.8% of the samples did not present any trace.
- 0.9% presented residues below the permitted limits.
- 1.3% of the samples exceeded the limits.
From the perspective of the level of processing, non-compliances were more frequent among unprocessed foods (4%) than among processed foods (2.8%).
Regarding the presence of glyphosate – I quote it because it is a very popular and controversial pesticide – in 97% its presence was not detected, in 2.7 it was detected below the limits and only in 0.1% of samples were exceeded limits.
In the case of organic products, with more than 6,000 samples, the results were as follows:
- 86.9% of the samples did not present any trace.
- 11.8% of the samples presented remains below the permitted limits.
- 1.3% of the samples exceeded the limits.
Regarding the conventional-ecological comparison, the report says the following: “Compared to conventionally produced foods, non-compliance levels and samples with residues tend to be generally lower in organic foods. However, with regard to animal products, in 2019 this trend has changed resulting in a higher incidence of samples with measurable residues (…) in organic samples (15%) than in conventional production samples (6%).”
And the following graph is included of the percentages of conventional and organic samples in which residues have been found, below the limit (left and upper scale) and above (right and lower scale), for some food groups:
Based on all these results, the report concludes the following:
“The findings suggest that the residue levels of the food products tested are unlikely to pose any concern for the health of the consumer. (…).”
The report is freely accessible, so it is 100% available to anyone who may be interested in delving into some data.