Appendix I – National authorities and institutes in EEA and EU … · 2017. 1. 23. · 2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues – Appendix I EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646 163 Appendix

2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues – Appendix I

163 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Appendix I – National authorities and institutes in EEA and EU Member States responsible for pesticide residue monitoring

Country National authority/institution Web addresses for published national monitoring reports

AT Lebensmittelsicherheit und Verbraucherschutz, rechtliche

Angelegenheit Koordination der Kontrolle

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit, Familie und Jugend

http://www.bmgfj.gv.at/cms/site/standard.html?channel=CH0837&doc=CMS1201038808074

AT Österreichische Agentur für Gesundheit und

Ernährungssicherheit GmbH

BE Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain

http://www.afsca.be/publications-en/

CY State General Laboratory – Pesticide Residues Laboratory

http://www.moh.gov.cy/moh/sgl/sgl.nsf/All/8304FD6522FEAA82C225768E005646B9?OpenDocument&highlight=CY_2008_National%20Monitoring%20Pesticides%20R

esidues%20Plant%20Origin%20Products CY Medical and Public Health

Services

CZ Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority

http://www.szpi.gov.cz/en/lstDoc.aspx?nid=11452

DE Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety

(BVL) Department Food, Feed and

Commodities Unit Data Management and

Data Analysis

http://www.bvl.bund.de/berichtpsm

DE Bundesministerium für Verbraucherschutz

Ernährung und Landwirtschaft

DK Danish Veterinary and Food Administration

http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/Publikationer/Alle_publikationer/2009/006.htm

DK National Food Institute Technical University of

Denmark

EE Veterinary and Food Board http://www.vet.agri.ee/static/files/313.Taimekaitsevahendite_j22gid_2008.pdf

EFTA Food Safety Unit/IMA Directorate

EFTA Surveillance Authority

ES Agencia Española de Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutrición

SG de Coordinación de Alertas Alimentarias y Programación del Control Oficial Pesticide

data

http://www.aesa.msc.es/AESAN/web/control_oficial/seccion/planes_nacionales_especificos.shtml

FI Finnish Food Safety Authority http://www.evira.fi/portal/fi/elintarvikkeet/valvonta_ja_yritt__j__t/torjunta-ainejaamat/


164 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


FR Ministère de l'Economie, de l'industrie et de l'Emploi

DGCCRF Direction générale de la

concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes

http://www.dgccrf.bercy.gouv.fr/securite/produits_alimentaires/index.htm

GR Hellenic Ministry of Rural Development and Food, General

Directorate of Plant Produce Directorate of Plant Produce

Protection Department of Pesticides

http://www.minagric.gr/greek/2.2.5.8.1b.html

HU Hungarian Food Safety Office www.ontsz.hu

IE Pesticide Control Service, Department of Agriculture and

Food

www.pcs.agriculture.gov.ie

IS The Environment and Food Agency of Iceland

http://www.mast.is/flytileidir/matvaeli/adskotaefni/varnarefnaleifar

IT Ministro del Lavoro, della Salute e delle Politiche Sociali

Dipartimento per la Sanità Pubblica Veterinaria, la

Nutrizione e la Sicurezza degli Alimenti

Direzione Generale della Sicurezza degli Alimenti e della

Nutrizione

http://www.ministerosalute.it/fitosanitari/paginaInternaMenuFitosanitari.jsp?id=1105&lingua=italiano&menu=veg

etali

LT State Food and Veterinary Service of the Republic of

Lithuania

www.nmvrvi.lt

LT Food Department of State Food and Veterinary Service

LT National Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment institute

LU Laboratoire National de Santé http://www.securite-alimentaire.public.lu/organisme/pcnp/rpt/rpt9/index.html

LV Veterinary and Food Department

Ministry of Agriculture of Latvia

http://www.zm.gov.lv/index.php?sadala=1669&id=8616.

MT Regulatory Affairs Directorate Malta Standards Authority

MT Market Surveillance Directorate Malta Standards Authority

http://www.msa.org.mt/marketsurveillance/Results%20of%20national%20residue%20monitoring%20year%20200

8.pdf NL Food and Consumer Product

Safety Authority (VWA) http://www.vwa.nl/portal/page?_pageid=119,1639824&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&p_news_item_id=2386

8


165 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


NO The Norwegian Food Safety Authority

http://www.mattilsynet.no/planter/plantevernmidler/rester_frukt_gront/_rsrapporter_for_overv_king_av_plantevern

middelrester_i_mat_23932 http://www.mattilsynet.no/english/plant_health/list_of_exceedings_of_mrls_for_pesticide_residues_in_foods_6837

4 PL Chief Sanitary Inspectorate http://www.pis.gov.pl/?dep=266&artlang=2

http://www.pis.gov.pl/?dep=155&artlang=2 http://www.pis.gov.pl/?dep=156&artlang=2

PT Instituto Nacional de Recursos Biológicos, L-INIA

www.dgadr.pt following the next links: Produtos fitofarmacêuticos » Divulgação » Relatórios de

controlo - resíduos de pesticidas.

RO Central Laboratory for Pesticides Residues Control in Plants and Vegetable Products

(CLPRCPVP)

http://www.ansvsa.ro/?pag=18

SE National Food Administration www.slv.se

SI Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food

Ministry of Health

Republic of Slovenia

http://www.mkgp.gov.si/si/o_ministrstvu/direktorati/direktorat_za_varno_hrano/starasektor_za_varnost_in_kakovost_hrane_in_krme/varnost_hrane_in_zascita_potrosnikov/

http://www.furs.si/svn/ffs/

http://www.mz.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/javno_zdravje/sektor_za_varnost_in_zdravstveno_ustreznost_hrane/nov

osti/ SK Ministry of Agriculture of the

Slovak republic

SK State Veterinary and Food Administration of Slovak

republic

http://www.svssr.sk/sk/pdf/spotrebitel/Pesticidy_2008.pdf

UK Pesticides Safety Directorate Consumer Safety and European

Policy Branch

http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2536 (Reports of the UK's Pesticide Residues Committee)


166 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues – Appendix II

167 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Appendix II – Information on the national monitoring programmes

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 168 2. Austria ........................................................................................................................................ 170 3. Belgium ...................................................................................................................................... 172 4. Bulgaria ...................................................................................................................................... 175 5. Cyprus ........................................................................................................................................ 177 6. Czech Republic .......................................................................................................................... 179 7. Denmark ..................................................................................................................................... 182 8. Estonia ........................................................................................................................................ 185 9. Finland ....................................................................................................................................... 187 10. France ......................................................................................................................................... 190 11. Germany ..................................................................................................................................... 193 12. Greece ........................................................................................................................................ 195 13. Hungary ...................................................................................................................................... 197 14. Iceland ........................................................................................................................................ 199 15. Ireland ........................................................................................................................................ 201 16. Italy ............................................................................................................................................ 204 17. Latvia ......................................................................................................................................... 206 18. Lithuania .................................................................................................................................... 208 19. Luxembourg ............................................................................................................................... 211 20. Malta .......................................................................................................................................... 213 21. The Netherlands ......................................................................................................................... 215 22. Norway ....................................................................................................................................... 218 23. Poland ........................................................................................................................................ 221 24. Portugal ...................................................................................................................................... 224 25. Romania ..................................................................................................................................... 226 26. Slovakia ...................................................................................................................................... 229 27. Slovenia ...................................................................................................................................... 232 28. Spain .......................................................................................................................................... 235 29. Sweden ....................................................................................................................................... 237 30. United Kingdom ......................................................................................................................... 239


168 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

1. Introduction

In addition to analytical results, data providers were asked to enter a textual summary as described in the document “Guidance for Reporting the Results of the 2008 National and Community Monitoring Programmes to the European Food Safety Authority and the European Commission”.

The text should contain a summary of results, describe the organisation of monitoring programmes and sampling, the quality assurance and any other relevant information, structured under the following headings:

Country

1. Summary of Results

2. Organisation of monitoring programmes and Sampling

2.1. Responsibilities

2.2. Design of Programmes (priorities, targeting, criteria for the percentage of samples to be taken from the organic sector)

2.3. Sampling: personnel, procedures, sampling points

2.4. Enforcement action

3. Quality assurance

3.1. Status of accreditation of laboratories, number of laboratories

3.2. Analytical methods used

3.3. Participation in proficiency tests

3.4. Implementation of EU quality control procedures

3.5. Analytical uncertainty

4. Other information

Information in the following sections is published as reported by the contributing countries to EFSA. EFSA has therefore no responsibility for the accuracy of this information and for the potential discrepancy provided in Appendix II and the in Section 2 of the Annual Report.

The information provided in this section often reflects the information published by the individual competent national authorities on the Internet. The list of web addresses, where the results of national monitoring plans have been published, can be found in Appendix I. It should be noted that upon transmission of the monitoring data, EFSA validated the data and recoded the names of pesticides and food used by the reporting countries to make them comparable. In case of data inconsistencies the reporting countries were asked for corrections. Therefore, small differences in the data published separately by the national authorities (and in Appendix II) and the data reported in Section 2 of the Annual Report may occur.


169 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

A direct comparability of the MRL compliance rate between two reporting countries is not possible for several reasons. In particular, the scope and sampling strategies of the monitoring plans and the analytical performance vary between reporting countries. Furthermore, in the reference monitoring period 2008 the pesticide MRLs in place in the single countries were not fully harmonised (until October 2008). This may have resulted in national MRLs set at different level between two Member States.


170 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

2. Austria

2.1. Summary of Results

In 2008 a total of 1487 samples of fresh fruits and vegetables were analysed under the co-ordinated program, the national pesticide monitoring program and as routine samples. Beside that other products like cereals (29 samples), processed products (348 samples) and baby food (119 samples) were analyzed.

34 % of all samples of fruits and vegetables were from Austria, 42 % from the European market, 21.7 % from third countries and the rest from unknown origin. For cereals this rates were 41.4 %, 24.1 %, 31 % and 3.5 % respectively. The rates for processed food were 54.5 %, 30.2 %, 5.5 % and 9.8 %. Baby food was predominantly from the domestic and European market.

In 43.3 % of the samples of fruits and vegetables no pesticide-residues could be detected. 47.9 % of the samples had residues under or at the harmonized and/or national Maximum Residue Limits (MRL). In sum 91.2 % of these samples were in compliance with the regulations. 8.8 % of the samples of fruits and vegetables contained one or more pesticide(s) above the national or EU-MRL.

In 535 samples (27 %) more than one pesticide was analysed. Up to 12 pesticides were found in some samples.

Totally 423 different pesticides were sought, of which 154 (36.4 %) were found. The most frequently found residues in fruits and vegetables were in the co-ordinated and national programme and routine samples (percentage): Dithiocarbamates (Dithiocarbamates expressed as CS2), Boscalid, Cyprodinil, Chlorpyrifos, Fenhexamid, Fludioxonil, Amitraz, Carbendazim (sum of Benomyl and Carbendazim, expressed as Carbendazim), Imidacloprid and Propamocarb (sum of Propamocarb and its salt, expressed as Propamocarb) (Remark: Due to different frequencies of analysis the percentages may be unfortunately influenced by the total number of samples analysed, eg. for Dithiocarbamates and Amitraz).

2.2. Organization of monitoring programmes and Sampling

2.2.1. Responsibilities

The national pesticide monitoring is done according to a nation-wide sampling plan designed by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Area Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment in co-operation with the Federal Minister of Health and Women. The plan was based on data concerning dietary consumption, production and import of fruits and vegetables and results of former measurements. Furthermore the results of earlier monitoring-programs, the analytical possibilities and the budgetary situation were taken into account, too. The co-ordinated programme of the European Commission was of course also done.

The samples were taken by trained officials from the local Food Inspection Service („Lebensmittelaufsicht“).

2.2.2. Design of Programmes (priorities, targeting, criteria for the percentage of samples to be taken from the organic sector)

Due to the fact, that there were some commodities for the national programme isolated, of which higher risk for residues was identified in the last years, these specific data are


171 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

representative for the Austrian market, but the monitoring has to be seen partially as „targeted monitoring“. It was the aim, to reflect to the results of the last years and to choose special commodities of interest for further examination. This type of monitoring is foreseen for the next years. One special part of the national programme was sampling of fruits and vegetables from organic farming.

2.3. Quality assurance

2.3.1. Status of accreditation of laboratories, number of laboratories

The analysis of the co-ordinated programme, the national monitoring programme and routine samples also were made by two laboratories for food control (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Institute for Food Control, Vienna and Institute for Food Control, Innsbruck together with the there located competence-centers for pesticide-analyses). One Laboratory in Vienna (Regional Institute for Food Control in Vienna) and Graz (Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, Institute for Food Control, Graz) analysed routine samples. All laboratories involved in the co-ordinated programme and the national monitoring programme including the routine samples got the accreditation in the year 1998.

2.3.2. Analytical methods used

The analytical methods were adopted from published methods of the Dutch federal laboratories („Analytical Methods for Pesticide Residues in Foodstuffs“, 6th Ed., General Inspectorate for Health Protection, Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sport, The Netherlands) and validated in the laboratories. The fruits and vegetables were analysed up to a maximum of 393 pesticides. The methods used were a GC multimethod with ECD-, NPD- and FPD-detection. GC/MS-methods are primarily applied for confirmation purposes of the other GC methods. In addition the methodology of LC/MS was established 2006.

2.3.3. Participation in proficiency tests

The Laboratories participated at European Proficiency tests (EUPT-C2, EUPT-A003, EUPT-FV10, EUPT-SRM3). In addition the NRLs conducted a Laboratory comparison test of the Austrian national reference laboratories for pesticide residues 2008 (available at

www.ages.at/ages/ernaehrungssicherheit/rueckstaende-kontaminanten/pflanzenschutzmittel-rueckstaende-in-lebensmittel/laborvergleichstest-pestizidrueckstaende-2008).

2.4. Other information

Furthermore the routine sampling includes special samples, of which European alerts were given, too and thus the number of exceedance is higher than by doing statistical based sampling over all commodities and time of the year.


172 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

3. Belgium

3.1. Summary of results

In 2008, a total number of 1602 samples of fruits, vegetables, cereals and processed products of plant origin (including baby food) were taken by the Belgian Federal Agency for the Safety of Food Chain (FASFC) on the Belgian market and analysed for the presence of pesticide residues [table 1 and 2].

Table 1 and 2: Overview of the results of the pesticide residue monitoring programme 2008 and origin of the samples of fruit and vegetables

3.1.1. Fruit & vegetables

1413 samples of fresh or frozen fruit and vegetables were analysed in 2008. No residues were found in 28.2 % of them. 6.1 % of the samples analysed exceeded the maximum residue levels (MRL) set in the legislation. It should be noted that more exceeding levels were observed in foodstuffs from third countries than in products grown in the EU. The rate of MRL exceeding is lower than in 2007 (-0,8%) but the rate of samples with detectable residues is higher when compared to last year [diagram 1].

Diagram 1 : levels of pesticide residues in samples of fruit & vegetables

05

10152025303540455055606570

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

%

>MRL <=MRL without residues >MRL (within analytical uncertainty)

Several factors have to be taken into account when interpreting these results:

Samples Analysed without residues

with residues at or below MRL

> MRL

Fruits & vegetables

1413 28.2 % 65.7 % 6.1 %

Cereals 19 31.6 % 68.4% 0 % Processed products

67 55.2 % 44.8 % 0 %

Baby food 103 100 % 0 % 0 % TOTAL 1602 34% 60.6% 5.4%

Samples of fruits & vegetables Origin BE CE Third

countries Unknown

Samples (%)

38.1% 23.1% 37.9% 0,9%

>MRL (%) 3.7% 3.1% 10.5% 0%


173 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

The improvement of the analytical performance of the laboratories these last years. More and more pesticides are analysed (from 181 in 2004 to 349 in 2008) with a higher sensitivity of detection,

The control programme is based on the risk and a particular attention is given to foodstuff susceptible to exceed the MRL’s. Certain feeding stuff from the Dominican Republic and Thailand (aubergines, lauki, mangoes) were specially targeted. Several MRLs exceeding were observed.

Diagram 2: numbers of samples of fruit & vegetables analysed and pesticides searched for/detected during the years 2004-2008

1413

1757

13591322

1595

349181 200 307 323138113 1267261

0

200400

600800

1000

12001400

16001800

2000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Samples analysed pesticide analysed for pesticide detected

As specified in the Commission guidelines, this report does not take into account the analytical uncertainty of the result. Taking into account that uncertainty, the rate of exceeding falls to 2.4 %.

Out of a list of 349 different pesticide residues analysed in fruit and vegetables, a total of 138 were found at least once during the monitoring programme. The pesticide residues that were found most often are fungicides: iprodion, boscalid, dithiocarbamates, imazalil, difenoconazole, propamocarb, thiabendazole and cyprodinil.

3.1.2. Cereals

Out of the 19 samples of cereals analysed in 2008, no MRL exceeding was observed.

3.1.3. Processed products

Out of the 67 samples of processed products analysed, no MRL exceeding was observed.

3.1.4. Baby food

Out of 103 samples of baby food analysed, no residues were detected.

3.2. Organization of monitoring programmes and sampling

Responsibilities: The Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain (FASFC), under the responsibility of the Minister of Agriculture, is the competent authority for the control of pesticides residues in foodstuffs (http://www.afsca.be)


174 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Drafting of the monitoring plan: The monitoring programme does not provide for a total random analysis, but is based on risk assessment. Several factors were taken into account: the exceeding in previous years in Belgium and in other Member States, the RASFF messages, the toxicity of pesticides, the importance of the foodstuffs in diets, the analytical and budgetary possibilities and all other useful information. All groups of fruits and vegetables are included in the programme and a rolling programme is applied for less important commodities. The coordinated programme of the European Commission was also included in the national programme.

Sampling: Samples were taken by trained officers according to Directive 2002/63/EG, mainly at auctions, importers, wholesalers and processors.

Measures taken: In case of infringement, the responsible company/person is identified. When the exceeding of MRL is within the analytical uncertainty, a warning is issued. When the exceeding is higher, an official report is made and sent to the responsible company/person and also to the legal department of the FASFC. The legal department proposes a fine. If the fine is not paid, or in case of repeated offences, the matter is taken to court. When the dietary intake calculations indicate a risk for the consumer (estimated in accordance with document SANCO/3346/2001) a national and an international rapid alert (RASFF) is issued and measures are taken to protect consumers (tracing and recall of the foodstuffs for destruction). In 2008, 10 RASFF were issued.


• Four officially recognised laboratories were involved in the monitoring programme

2008. They are all ISO 17025 accredited for the most important analytical methods and commodities. Multiresidue methods as well as specific individual methods were performed on the samples. All certificates of accreditation can be found on the website of the Belgian Organization for Accreditation (http://belac.be/). The laboratories took into account EU Quality control procedures (ref. SANCO/2007/3131).

• Laboratories participated in different proficiency or inter-laboratory tests.


175 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

4. Bulgaria


This report summarizes the results on the Coordinated and the National pesticide residues monitoring programs in fruits, vegetables, cereals and baby food on the Bulgarian market in 2008. This report has been prepared according to the recommendation of the EC with a view to country methodological and technical availability.

In 2008, totally 971 samples of 852 fruits and vegetables, 40 cereals 29 processed products and 50 baby food products of domestic and non-domestic origin were analyzed within both the National and co-ordinated monitoring program. Pesticide residues above EC-MRL and N-MRL were not found. 18 samples (1.8 %) of the total number showed a level of pesticide residues below the EC MRLs.

4.2. Organization of Monitoring programmes and Sampling


Ministry of Health (MH) is the competent authority in the country for control of pesticide residues in foodstuffs of non animal origin and provides the national and EU co-ordinated monitoring programmes. Regional Inspections for Public Health Protection and Control /RIPHPC/ are the regional authority responsible for controls of pesticide residues.

4.2.2. Design of Programmes

The National pesticide residues monitoring program in fruits, vegetables, cereals and baby foods is prepared annually by the Ministry of Health. The elaborated program settles number of samples for whole country and sample distribution by RIPHPC. The Ministry of Health also determines the selected pesticide/commodity combinations.

Тhe annual plan is designed taking into account the following factors: - the current consumption data for Bulgarian population; - priority given to commodities eaten as fresh products; - the capacity and technical opportunity of the laboratories.

4.2.3. Sampling

Sampling is performed in accordance with official procedures referred to in Commission Directive No. 2002/63/EC. The procedures were transposed into the national legislation.

Food samples are collected by authorized for this purpose trained employees of the RIPHPC, i.e. trained inspectors of regional inspectorates. The main sampling points are importers, wholesalers and retail shops for domestic and non-domestic products.

4.2.4. Enforcement action

The laboratories submit the laboratory protocol with the results of analysis to the health inspectors in charge. The inspectors are responsible for the evaluation of the analysis results. Where MRLs are exceeded, enforcement action may be taken by the RIPHPC - the trade of


176 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

the product is prohibited, retailers and consumers are informed and procedures are put in place for product withdrawal and recall.


4.3.1. Status of accreditation of laboratories; number of laboratories

All 6 laboratories in RIPHPC, which are involved in pesticide monitoring, are in procedure for accreditation under ISO/IEC 17025 standard. The process will be finalized by the end of 2009.


The laboratories uses EN 12393 - 1,2,3 (Non-fatty foods – Multiresidue methods for the gas chromatographic determination of pesticide residues) for analysis of pesticide residues in fruits, vegetables, cereals, processed products and baby food with GC-MS and GC-ECD determination of main part of pesticides.

A brief description of method is given below: Extraction with acetone, liquid-liquid partition with dichloromethane and clean-up on a silica gel/charcoal column. The chopped test portion is homogenized in acetone and the homogenate is filtered. An aliquot potion of the filtrate is diluted with water and extracted with dichloromethane. The organic phase is concentrated and chromatographed on a column of silica gel and activated charcoal. The pesticide residues are eluted with a mixture of dichloromethane, toluene and acetone. The eluate is concentrated for examination by GC.

A single residue method (with UV spectrometer) was used for determination of Benomyl (sum of Benomyl and Carbendazim, expressed as Carbendazim)


During the year 2008 the laboratories did not take part in proficiency tests.

4.3.4. Implementation of EU quality control procedures

The EC guidelines SANCO/10232/2006 "Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis", 2006 have been implemented as far as practicable (see Table G).

4.3.5. Analytical uncertainty

The analytical uncertainty of the results is calculated based on relative standard deviation of recovery rates and results of proficiency testing if available. If the analytical results, without correction are mathematically above the MRL, the sample is defined as an exceeding. However, before any enforcement action is taken the analytical uncertainty is subtracted from the measured value. If the corrected analytical results still exceed the MRL, enforcement actions could be taken.


Background on legislation Bulgaria has implemented all EC-MRLs.


177 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

5. Cyprus


In 2008 a total of 418 samples of fruits and vegetables (273 vegetable samples and 145 fruit samples) were analyzed, 12 samples were of organic farming. Sampling rate was 56 samples /100 000 inhabitants. The main emphasis was on the local production including exports. 22.7% of the tested samples were imported ones. In addition about 400 samples were analyzed for QC and method development/validation. In 57.9% of fruits and vegetables no residues were detected (ND) and in 30.1% of the samples the residues were at the level of or below the MRL. The percentage of samples above MRLs (national or EC) was 12.0%, of which 8.4% were considered as real legal violations. 5% of the samples were classified as “critical”. In §4 term definitions are provided. Out of 161 pesticides sought in fruit and vegetables samples 51 were found to be present. The most frequently found pesticides were Cypermethrin in 14% and Chlorpyrifos in 13% of the samples.

In 2008 28 samples of cereals were also analyzed. Out of 156 pesticides sought in cereals only three pesticides were found Carbendazim (in 26.7% of the samples), Imidacloprid (in 6.7% of the samples) and Malathion (in 6.7% of the samples).

In addition 68 baby food samples were analyzed, 48 samples based on fruit and vegetables were analyzed for up to 180 pesticides, 10 samples based on cereals were analyzed for up to 200 pesticides and 6 PCBs indicators and 10 samples of infant and follow on formulae were analyzed for 15 organochlorine pesticides and 6 PCBs indicators. In all baby food samples no pesticides have been detected above the reporting level.

8 processed samples other than baby food (6 olive oil samples and 2 samples of juices) have been analyzed. In four of the six samples of olive oil, up to four pesticides (Endosulfan, Cypermethrin, Chlorpyrifos and Bromopropylate) were detected. The results were expressed in olives using the processing factors (enrichment factor) of 3 and 6,67. One of the samples was found to be above MRL for Bromopropylate and it was classified as critical.

5.2. Organization of monitoring programs and sampling

Ministry of Health is the competent authority for the enforcement of the Pesticide Residues (PR) Legislation and the execution of the national monitoring and surveillance programs. The enforcement of Legislation and sampling is allocated to the Department of Medical and Public Health Services (MPHS). The Pesticide Residue Lab (PR-SGL) of the State General Laboratory is the Official Laboratory for the Monitoring & Surveillance of PR in Food of Plant and Animal Origin. The PR-SGL Lab and the MHPS design and implement a multisectoral program for local market, including imports and exports. The sampling regime is based on a combination of “at random” sampling and target oriented sampling focusing towards problematic pesticides/food combination. This combination is in a way bias towards problematic products and might end up with higher violation rates. Nevertheless it can provide higher degree of consumer protection and cost-effectiveness. Main criteria used in the sampling design are: violations from previous years, pattern of actual pesticide usage, info from RASFF, toxicological data, consumption data especially by children and the needs of exports control. Sampling is done by well qualified Health Inspectors (with BSc or at least 3 years of education in the Public Health inspectors School of Cyprus) of the MPHS. It is focused at the key points of food chain: producers, market, import, processing, primary


178 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

storage etc. The MPHS exercise the regulatory functions. Enforcement actions are taken as follows: a) for all critical and violating samples a notification is issued to the Dept. of Agriculture, b) “Violating” samples, for which adequate evidence be provided , are legally prosecuted by the Dept. of MPHS. Every effort is made to withdraw violating products from the market and prevent them from been exported/consumed. Imported products non complying with the EU harmonized MRLs are not permitted to enter Cyprus.


The PR Lab of the SGL is accredited by the Greek Accreditation body ESYD since 2002 according to EN 45001, from June 2003 according to ISO/IEC 17025 and from July 2006 according to ISO/IEC 17025/2005. The following validated methods are mainly used: 1) “Multiresidue method for fruits, vegetables and milk including PCBs in milk”: Ethyl acetate extraction, GPC-clean up, determination/confirmation by GCMS/ITD, GC/PFPD, GC/ECD and LC/MS/MS. It covers GC and LC amendable Pesticides within polarity ranging from Kow=-0,9 up to non polar. 2) GC/FPD-S determination of dithiocarbamates as CS2 extracted in isooctane after reaction with aqueous hydrochloric acid in the presence of tin (II) chloride 3)”Multiresidue method for the determination of organochlorine and PCBs in fish and meat products”:Soxhlet extraction,GPC clean up,GC/ECD–dual column detection.. The analytical uncertainty has been estimated during validation process at different concentration levels and is taken into consideration for “decision-making” especially to discriminate between “real legal violations” and “above MRLs”.

The validation of LC/MS/MS analytical system has been extended and the number of pesticides analyzed by LC/MS/MS in 2008 has been increased to 150.

The PR-Lab applies Quality Control procedures, which are in line with the provisions of "EU-Quality control procedures" concerning the determination, confirmation and method quality. The lab participated in the European Commission’s Proficiency Test on Pesticide Residues EUPT-FV-10, EUPTSRM3, EUPTC2 and EUPT-AO-03 as well as in the EU fish oil 2008 for indicators PCBs. The Results of all the PTs were acceptable with z-scores < 2.


Background on legislation: The main legal instrument for the protection of Public Health in Cyprus is the Harmonized Food (Control and Sale) Law of 1996-2006, and the EU Pesticide Residues and sampling Regulations.

Management of results: To increase the cost-effectiveness, the use of the term “critical” sample has been introduced since 2002. Critical are those samples which are either above the MRL but when the uncertainty is subtracted cannot be considered as legal violation or are at or below the MRL and when uncertainty is added MRL is exceeded. The samples are ranked in the following categories: ‘without detectable residues”, with residues below or at MRL”, “above the MRLs” “critical” and “violating samples”. Therefore the % of above MRLs recorded in all Tables comprises the legal violations and part of the critical samples. Decisions on actions are taken according to a standardized documented SOP process and in compliance with the legislation.

Risk Assessment : For samples containing pesticides, which exceeded MRL, the PSTI values were estimated according to Sanco Document SANCO/3346/2001rev7 .


179 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

6. Czech Republic


In 2008 the total of 918 samples was taken. The major part comprised of samples of fresh fruits and vegetables (691 samples), cereals (98 samples) and baby food (59 samples). From the total amount of taken samples according to the country of origin samples from the Czech Republic represented 23.8%, samples originating in the EU countries represented 52.6% and samples from the third countries represented 17.3%.

MRL (national or harmonised) was exceeded in 25 samples (2.7%). In 23 cases samples of fresh fruits and vegetables were concerned, in one case baby food and rice. The biggest number of unsatisfactory samples originated in the countries of the EU (15 samples), 6 samples in third countries and 2 samples in the Czech Republic.

Altogether 254 samples were taken in the framework of coordinated monitoring which in 2008 included beans (with pods), carrots, cucumbers, oranges, mandarins, pears, potatoes, rice and spinach.

In total 249 various active substances were monitored in samples of fruits and vegetables in the framework of national and coordinated monitoring of pesticide residues. A positive finding was revealed with 111 various active substances. The most frequently found pesticide residues, in decreasing order of frequency (found/sought) are: dithiocarbamates, imazalil, propamocarb, boscalid, orthophenylphenol, chlorpyrifos.

A positive finding was revealed with 9 various active substances from the total number of 250 monitored pesticides in cereals. They included biphenyl, bitertanol, bromide ion, chlormequat, chlorpyrifos-methyl, piperonyl butoxide, pririmiphos-methyl, propamocarb, propiconazole.



Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA) is the competent authority for controls of pesticide residues in foodstuffs and provide the national and EU co-ordinated monitoring programmes in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture.


The sampling plan for pesticide residues monitoring is always drawn up for one calendar year. The plan is elaborated by the Headquarters of CAFIA as internal provision and it is distributed to the CAFIA regional inspectorates which are responsible for its implementation. The plan is based on Commission Recommendation concerning a coordinated Community monitoring program which sets the minimum number of samples for the Czech Republic.

The commodities sampled in the framework of national monitoring program are not included into the coordinated program of monitoring in the year concerned. When choosing commodities and their proportional representation, the data about consumption of foodstuffs in the Czech Republic elaborated by the National Institute of Public Health are taken into


180 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

consideration. Similarly further information, as for example findings revealed in previous years (in the Czech Republic and other Member States) or RASFF reports.

The number of products sampled from inland and abroad is commensurate to their proportional representation on the market. Commodities coming from third countries, inland and other EU Member States are prioritized when sampling.

6.2.3. Sampling: personnel, procedures, sampling points

Sampling is performed in accordance with sampling procedures referred to in Commission Directive No. 2002/63/EC that has been incorporated into the national regulation for sampling for determination of pesticides in and on fruit and vegetables.

Samples are taken by authorized and for this purpose trained employees of the CAFIA, i.e. inspectors of the CAFIA regional inspectorates. The main sampling points are importers, wholesalers and retail shops for domestic and non-domestic products.


In case of whichever overrun of maximal residual limit a legal step follows from the side of the controlling body. The controlled person is imposed the measure to insure the withdrawal of the unsatisfactory batch from the market and announce further steps that were taken with the unsatisfactory batch, e. g. liquidation or adaptation. In the framework of administrative procedure a fine is imposed to the controlled person.



Most of analyses (98%) were carried out in the laboratory of Czech Agriculture and Food Inspection Authority (CAFIA) in Prague, only 14 samples were analysed in the laboratory of Institute of Chemical Technology (ICT) in Prague. Both laboratories are accredited by Czech Accreditation Institute (CAI) according to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard for all methods used for monitoring and/or enforcement analysis.


During the year 2008 new multiresidual method based on QUECHERS with GC-TOF/MS and LC-MS/MS detection was implemented in CAFIA laboratory. This method replaced previous GC and LC multiresidual methods and has increased efficiency of the residue analysis and allowed extension of scope of analysis. The current scope of analysis has been extended to 304 analytes (incl. metabolites) and covers 240 pesticides. Beside the QUECHERS method 4 single-methods were carried out in the 2008 (GC-MSD for dithiocarbamates, GC-ECD for inorganic bromine, LC-MS/MS for chlormequate and mepiquate and LC-MS/MS for glyphosate).


In the year 2008 both laboratories took part in 3 EU proficiency tests focused on pesticide residues (EUPT FV 10, EUPT C2 and EUPT SRM 3) with satisfactory results and in addition ICT laboratory took part in FAPAS scheme.


181 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Most of requirements from the EU quality control guidelines (Document N° SANCO/2007/3131) have been fully implemented in the CAFIA laboratory, only chapter 3 (Pesticide standards, calibration, solutions, etc.) has been implemented only partly. Substantial improvement of QC procedures has been achieved since the year 2007 and the process will continue also in the future. ICT laboratory has already implemented all parts of the guidelines.


Since the end of the year 2007 the harmonised “50% uncertainty” approach recommended in the SANCO guidelines has been applied to all results.


Health risk assessment is in the Czech Republic performed by the Ministry of Health. Non-complying samples are ceded to the MH and if they are relevant for transmission via RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed), they are notified. In 2008 we notified 5 findings of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables, all of which were classified as Information notifications.

2008.0900 - DIMETHOATE IN FRESH RADISH FROM GERMANY

2008.0950 - CARBARYL IN LITCHI FROM THAILAND, VIA THE NETHERLANDS

2008.0953 - DIMETHOATE IN RADISH FROM POLAND

2008.0968 - DIMETHOATE IN CUCUMBER FROM ROMANIA

2008.1548 - FENHEXAMID IN TOMATOES FROM THE NETHERLANDS


182 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

7. Denmark


In 2008 a total of 2048 surveillance and enforcement samples of fruit, vegetables, cereals and processed products (including baby food) were analysed: 565 samples of domestic origin, 1438 samples of foreign origin and 45 samples of unknown origin. The surveillance samples included 1640 samples of fruit and vegetables, 298 samples of cereals and 87 samples of processed foods including 20 samples of baby foods.

The amount of the samples which were organically produced constituted 6.3% of the fruit and vegetable samples while it was 15% of the cereal samples.

Due to control of the declaration “free of straw shortener” or “produced without straw shortener” 71 samples of the conventionally grown cereal samples were only analysed for chlormequat and mepiquat. Four of these samples contained chlormequat, and where not in accordance with the declaration.

Pesticide residues were found on average in 50% of fruit and vegetables, and in 24% of the cereal samples. In surveillance samples of fruit and vegetables 32 samples exceeded the maximum residue levels corresponding to 2.0% of the samples. No exceeding of the MRLs was found in cereals.

In the 23 enforcement samples analysed, MRL was exceeded in 4 samples (17%).

The most frequently found pesticides in samples of fruit and vegetables were imazalil, thiabendazole, carbendazim and chlorpyriphos. Multiple residues were found in 518 samples (25%) of the surveillance and enforcement samples. The highest number of pesticide residues, i.e. eight, was found in a sample of apple from France.

In cereals the most frequently found pesticides were chlormequat, pirimiphos-methyl and malathion. The plant growth regulator chlormequat was detected in 16 % of the samples.

In organic fruit and vegetables, residues were found in two samples. One sample was a banana from Ecuador with content of chlorpyrifos and the other sample was a pear from Argentina with content of the three pesticides carbendazim, lambda-cyhalothrin and phosmet. Since these contents are not caused by environmental pollution they are considered as illegal uses.

In processed products, including baby food no exceeding of MRLs was observed.


Responsibilities: The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration under the Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries have the responsibilities for the control of pesticide residues in foodstuffs (http://www.fvst.dk).

Design of programme: The National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, designed the monitoring programme in cooperation with the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration. Since 2006 the sampling plan has been based on dietary consumption pattern with regard to pesticide intake from a previous report [1], which analysed monitoring data from 1998-2003. This report showed that 25 commodities were responsible for more than


183 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

98% of the intake of pesticide residues (Top25 commodities). These commodities were included in the sampling plan along with commodities suggested by the Commission (monitoring plan 2008). Furthermore, about 100 samples were reserved for the sampling officers to collect from food commodities not included in the Top25 commodities. This could be e.g. minor crops not important for the intake of pesticides but which still has to comply with the MRLs or crops which in previous years often have shown violations of MRL.

The focus on the Top25 commodities will provide a better basis for comparison between years, so that trends in pesticide residues found may be analysed. All samples included in the centrally coordinated monitoring in 2008 were designed as surveillance and control samples. In addition to this, 23 samples were taken at retailers where previous violations of the MRL have occurred.

Sampling: Sampling was performed by authorised personnel from the 10 Danish Regional Veterinary and Food Control Authorities. Directive 2002/63/EC on sampling procedures for control of pesticide residues is implemented in Danish legislation.

Enforcement action: The control authorities receive the result from the laboratory. If there is any significant exceeding, the lot is regarded as illegal, and should be withdrawn, if it is still on the market. Furthermore, the control authorities follow up at the responsible companies.

If the dietary intake calculations indicate an acute risk for the consumer a rapid alert is issued to RASFF.


The analytical methods have been developed and validated by the National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark. All samples were analysed at the laboratory of the Regional Veterinary and Food Control in Ringsted. Both laboratories are accredited to pesticide analysis in compliance with EN45001/ISO17025 by the Danish Accreditation body, DANAK (certificate numbers 315 and 350). Furthermore, the laboratories participated in the relevant FAPAS proficiency test scheme and in the EU-proficiency tests. All samples of fruit and vegetables were analysed for about 220 pesticides including isomers and metabolites. In addition, part of the samples were analysed for dithiocarbamates. Due to the methodology applied it was not possible to distinguish between the dithiocarbamates included in the MRL definition. All cereal samples (except samples for the special control for straw shortener) were analysed for 124 pesticides, including isomers and metabolites. "Guidelines concerning Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis" has been applied for all methods. Mass selective confirmation was performed for part of the GC multi methods and for the LC/MS-MS methods for fruit and vegetables. Analytical uncertainty is not applied in monitoring reports, but is always applied in case of enforcement actions.


All findings above MRL were evaluated by toxicologists at the National Food Institute. Before the pesticide regulation came into force by September the 1st 2008, findings of residues without a MRL were also individually evaluated. For all samples in 2008 it was concluded that the exceedings were not expected to result in any toxicological effects.


184 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

References:

1. M.E. Poulsen, J.H. Andersen, A. Petersen, H. Hartkopp (2005). Pesticide Food Monitoring, 1998-2003 Part 2. ISBN 87-91569-54-0. http://www.foedevarestyrelsen.dk/fdir/Pub/2005002/rapport.pdf


185 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

8. Estonia


In 2008, a total of 316 samples of fruits, vegetables, cereals and baby food were analyzed for 253 residues. Samples are following: 287 samples of fruits and vegetables, 20 samples of cereals and 9 samples of baby food. No residues were found in the baby food. 128 samples of beans, carrots, mandarins, cucumbers, pears, potatoes, rice and spinach were analyzed according to the 2008 EU coordinated programme.

Pesticide residues exceeded MRL in 5 cases, all of which were not of domestic origin. • All of the samples exceeded the EC-MRLs for the residues which were included in the

EU coordinated programme. Exceeding the MRL was detected in broccoli, nectarines, beans (without pods), rice and lemons.

The results are available on home page of Veterinary and Food Board: http://www.vet.agri.ee/static/files/313.Taimekaitsevahendite_j22gid_2008.pdf



In 2008, the Veterinary and Food Board (VFB) was the competent authority for the control of pesticide residues and planning the monitoring program.


From the year 2007 VFB was responsible for drawing up the annual monitoring programme and it provides a sampling plan for the residue control of fruit and vegetables, cereals, baby-food and organic products including the commodities and pesticides required in the EU co-ordinated programme. The control programme is based on the results of the previous year sampling activities, the results of the annual monitoring for the plant protection products residues in fruit and vegetables and on the Rapid Alert Systems in place. Results of samples taken for pesticide use surveillance by Plant Protection Inspectorate (PPI) at farm level are also included in the report. The share of organic production area was in 2008 in Estonia 10% and the share of organic samples was 22%.


Sampling was done by trained official inspectors according to Directive 2002/63/EC. • VFB inspectors of the county veterinary centres carry out sampling for residues of

foodstuffs of plant origin in the context of food control activity according to the provisions of the law and by the monitoring plan. Samples are taken from domestic commodities of plant origin at retail, wholesale and production level and non-domestic commodities of plant origin at retail and wholesale level. Samples are taken according to the sampling plan and guide prepared by VFB.

• Samples taken for pesticide use surveillance by PPI at farm level are only from domestic commodities. The samples (including organic food samples) are taken by the inspectors of the county centres of the PPI. Samples are taken according to the sampling plan and guide prepared by PPI.


186 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


The laboratories do not compare the results of analysis with the MRL, only submit the laboratory certificate to the inspector in charge. The evaluation of the analysis results is the responsibility of the inspector. Where MRLs are exceeded, usually follow-up samples are not taken, but enforcement action will be taken by the inspector of VFB – the marketing of the product is prohibited, retailers and consumers are informed and procedures are put in place for product recall. In 2008 no RASFF notifications were issued.



Two laboratories analyze the samples: Health Protection Inspectorate Tartu labotatory (HPI) and Agricultural Research Centre Laboratory for Residues and Contaminants in Saku (ARC). The laboratories are accredited by the Estonian Accreditation Centre (EAK) for all analytical methods used for official control of pesticide residues in food. All certificates of the accreditation can be found on the website of the EAK (http://www.eak.ee).


The ARC laboratory used multi-residue method EN 12393–1,2,3:2008 and QuEChERS EN 15662:2008 for analysis of pesticide residues, for fruit and vegetables GC-ECD/NPD, GC/MS and LC/MS/MS equipment were used; for cereals GC-ECD/NPD and GC-MS equipment were used. HPI uses multi-residue methods T26a-GC/MS and T81-LC/MS-MS for analysis of pesticide residues in fruit, vegetables and baby food. A single residue method was used for determination of dithiocarbamates (maneb-group) in both laboratories. ARC laboratory used method EN 12396-2:1998 and GC/ECD/MSD equipment. HPI laboratory used T45-GC/MSD determination of dithiocarbamates.


ARC and HPI have participated several times in the proficiency tests organised by FAPAS in 2008. Both have participated in the European Commission's Proficiency Test.


The EC guidelines SANCO/10232/2006 “Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis” and its revision SANCO/2007/3131 “Method Validation and Quality Control procedures for Pesticide Residues” have been implemented as far as practicable.


The analytical uncertainty of the results is calculated based on relative standard deviation of recovery rates and results of proficiency testing if available. The sample was defined as an exceeding if the analytical results with correction by analytical uncertainty were above the MRL. In these cases also enforcement actions were taken.


8.4.1. Background on legislation

Estonia has implemented all EC-MRLs.


187 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

9. Finland


In 2008, a total of 1961 surveillance samples of fruit, vegetables, cereals, processed products and baby foods were analysed for residues of 256 pesticides. 286 samples were of domestic origin, 738 from other EU countries, 887 from third countries, and 50 samples had unknown origin.

No detectable pesticide residues were found in 41 % of the surveillance samples. The frequency of samples with residues was 65 % for fruit and vegetables, 56 % for cereals, and 23 % for processed products. Baby food samples had not detectable residues. The number of samples taken from organic products was 104, and residues were detected in 13 samples (13 %). Pesticide residues were found in 37 % of the domestic samples, in 67% of the samples from other EU member states, and in 61 % of the third country samples.

The maximum residue levels (MRLs) were exceeded in 117 surveillance samples (6 %), of which 84 were from third countries, 2 from Finland and 28 from other EU member states and 3 had unknown origin. 122 enforcement samples were collected as follow-up of violations. Residues exceeding the MRLs were found in 51 enforcement samples (42 %).



Finnish Food Safety Authority Evira is the central competent authority for the control of pesticide residues and planning of the monitoring programme. The control of non-domestic foodstuffs has been assigned to Customs administration while municipalities and Evira are responsible for the control of domestic products. The control of pesticide residues in alcoholic beverages is the responsibility of National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health (Valvira). The city of Helsinki is participating into the programme by collecting and analysing samples from the market area of Helsinki. Samples are both domestic and non-domestic.


The annual monitoring programme is worked out in co-ordination under Evira, and it provides a sampling plan for the residue control of fruit and vegetables, cereals, processed products of plant origin, baby-food and organic products including the commodities and pesticides required in the EU co-ordinated programme. Control is designed to cover all important dietary commodities. The sampling frequency of different commodities is determined taking into consideration food consumption figures and the results of previous monitoring programmes. Priorities are also set according to known residue problems. The number of organic samples is reflecting the share of organic production area in Finland (5.3 %).


Domestic samples are collected by local health inspectors from wholesalers, packing companies, retail shops or farms according to the annual sampling plan and guide prepared by Evira. The samples of non-domestic foodstuffs are collected by customs inspectors from wholesalers. Samples of alcoholic beverages are collected by inspectors of the Valvira.


188 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Inspectors have theoretical and practical training in sampling organised by Evira, the Customs or the Valvira. The sampling directive 2002/63/EEC is followed.


For surveillance samples exceeding the MRL, the holder of the product is requested to prevent further distribution and selling of the lot. On subsequent lots of the same origin, follow-up samples are taken (enforcement samples). In case of enforcement sampling, the lots are detained for the duration of the investigation, and lots confirmed to exceed the MRLs are to be destroyed. Under certain conditions and by permission of the authorities, a non-complying lot may be returned to the seller or to a third country or rendered compliable to regulations (e.g. aeration to decrease the level of fumigant residues).



The analyses were carried out in two accredited (FINAS) laboratories: Finnish Customs Laboratory (93 % of samples) and MetropoliLab (7 % of samples). Both laboratories have accreditation according to ISO17025 for the main analytical methods but some single residue methods are not accredited.


Virtually all samples were analysed by the multiresidue methods. Customs laboratory is using the acetonitrile extraction method (QuEChERS) while Helsinki City laboratory is using acetone extraction (Luke method). Gas chromatographic analysis of the extracts is based on detection by GCEC, GCNP or GCMS. In Customs laboratory the sample extracts were analysed by LCMSMS as well. The number of pesticides monitored for by the multiresidue method is 256 in Customs laboratory and 58 in the Helsinki City laboratory. In addition, chlormequat, inorganic bromides, hydrogen phosphide and dithiocarbamates were analysed from selected samples in the Customs Laboratory.


Both laboratories participated in the proficiency test organised by EU (FV10). Customs Laboratory participated also in the other EU proficiency tests: multiresidue cereals (C2) and single residues (SRM3).


The EU quality control guidelines (SANCO/10232/2006) have been implemented in both laboratories, albeit only partly for some elements.


The estimation of analytical uncertainty is based on the daily quality control samples and results of the proficiency tests. All results even slightly above the MRLs are defined in this report as exceedances, however, enforcement action is taken only if the result, subtracted by the uncertainty value, still exceeds the MRL.


Possible health risk in case of MRL exceedance was estimated using the UK short term intake calculation model. RASFF notification was released in 7 cases where the ARfD was


189 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

exceeded. Rasff notification was sent also in one case when pesticide residues were found in organic products.


190 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

10. France


The 2008 programme resulted in the analysing of 5 063 samples of fruits, vegetables, cereals, baby-foods and processed products marketed in France. The breakdown of samples according to origin was as follows: 64.6% were of French origin, 17.9% were of European Union origin, 16.6% were imported from third countries and 0.9 % was of unknown origin. The analyses detected and analysed 251 active substances.

a) Results of sampling plans (4068 samples)

Concerning the results of the fruits and vegetables monitoring plan (3 430 samples), 61.9% of the samples did not contain residues. 96% of the fruits and vegetables analysed therefore complied with regulations. MRLs were exceeded in 4% of cases (4.1% non compliances among vegetables and 3.9% among fruits).

Cereals and cereal products had 2.6% of non-conformity out of 352 samples. 1.5% of processed products were non conforming. Among organic products, 1.7% were non-conforming (out of 348 samples).

Spices and baby-foods did not contain residues in a quantity exceeding regulations in force (100% compliance).

And the specific exercise1 had 3.6% none conforming.

b) Results of follow-up enforcement plans (995 samples)

49.9% of the 995 samples of targeted surveillance did not contain residues. MRLs were exceeded in 7.1% of cases. 92.9% of fruits and vegetables, processed food, baby-foods and cereals analysed therefore complied with regulations.

Note: The harmonization of MRLs (Regulation No 396/2005/CE) this year led to a significant decline in the rate of non-compliance, due to the removal of cases relating to the application of different national regulations.


The monitoring programme for plant pesticide residues was carried out by the Direction Générale de la Concurrence, de la Consommation et de la Répression des Fraudes (DGCCRF - General Directorate for Competition Policy, Consumer Affairs and Fraud Control). The aims of this multi-year Community programme are to:

1. monitor compliance with MRLs, and therefore compliance with reported good agricultural practices,

2. collect data to assess actual dietary exposure of consumers to pesticide residues. This program is developed with the technical and scientific support of the AFSSA (French Agency for Food Safety). It takes into account the results of the former monitoring programmes, the requirements of the European Union coordinated programme, the dietary

1 Cf. article 29 of regulation n° 396/2005. In 2008, it concerned beans, carrots, cucumbers, oranges and mandarins, pears, potatoes, rice

and spinaches.


191 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

proportion of plant products and the specific and sometimes targeted inspections of certain fruits and vegetables (specific exercise).

Each department received a crop sampling plan. Inspections were made at every marketing level, with adjustments. The inspection of cereals grains generally took place at the storage stage, at silos, or at the processing stage, at plants. Cereal products, fruits and vegetables were sampled at retailers or wholesalers. Samplings at growers were less frequent. For all products entering the French territory, specific action was deployed at points of arrival. A priori, domestic and imported production was not broken down, although a 70/30 ratio has prevailed for several years.

In 2008, the French targeted programme focused on egg plants, lemons, cucumbers, plums, table grapes and lettuces.


Inspectors carry out sampling of plants in accordance with Directive 2002/63/EC and send samples as soon as possible under the conditions to ensure their integrity. Five of the six laboratories DGCCRF who took part in the monitoring programme and targeted surveillance programme in are COFRAC accredited, and for the remaining one, the step for accreditation is on hand. All laboratories apply the “guidance concerning quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis” and participate in proficiency tests organised by the European Union (EUPT) and by independent suppliers (BIPEA, FAPAS, CHEK). The Rennes laboratory drew up the summary of the results.

Laboratories used multi-residue methods on the majority of samples, and sometimes single residue methods on some of them, depending on the probability of finding active substances covered (dithiocarbamates, bromides, maleic hydrazide, chlormequat, benzimidazoles,... ). Techniques for multi-residue analysis include a phase of solvent extraction and, if necessary, a purification step and the identification and quantification are carried out by chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (GC/MS and/or LC/MS). Additional information supporting the decision can also be collected using sensors based on different principles.

Uncertainties of measurements are taken into account for the interpretation of the results on the analytical reports and the action to be taken : if the difference between the value measured in excess and the MLR remains lower than the uncertainty of measurement, the report of the laboratory indicates a conclusion “to follow” in order to warn the operator. When the product is still available on the market (or at following harvest if control takes place at the production step) a second sample is then carried out for control. Nevertheless, uncertainties are not integrated into the present statements of results to the attention of the European Union, because Excel table does not allow this nuance.


To avoid any distortion of competition according to the origin of products while protecting the health of consumers, services control (DGCCRF) took into account the MRLs Regulation No 396/2005/CE upon publication in the OJEU. Accordingly, the non-conformities in tables A, C and D of the Excel file must be understood as referring to Regulation No 396/2005/CE.

Concerning the risk assessment, any non-compliance gives rise to a systematic information of the central administration (office D4 in DGCCRF) by the laboratory and transmission of information on measures taken and the destination batches in order to inform the RASFF (Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed) where appropriate.


192 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

France has placed 104 notifications of food alerts on networks in 2008.


193 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

11. Germany


In 2008 in the Federal Republic of Germany a total of 16,986 samples (16,542 surveillance and 444 follow-up enforcement samples) were tested for pesticide residues. In 7,176 (43.4 %) surveillance samples no residues of pesticides could be quantified. In 8,759 (53.0 %) surveillance samples residues of pesticides were quantified but in compliance with official, national and EU MRLs. 607 (3.7 %) surveillance samples contained residues of pesticides exceeding MRLs. Multiple residues were found and quantified in 36,4 % of all samples.

Table 1 shows the number of surveillance samples divided into domestic production and imports (including samples with origin not known) and takes into account the five product groups. Residues of pesticides in imported samples and samples with unknown origin exceeded MRLs more frequently than those of domestic foods.

Non-harmonised MRLs are one reason for this result. In some countries of origin the MRLs for particular pesticides are higher (less strict) than they are in Germany. Therefore residues may be treated as MRL exceeding in Germany, while they would be permitted in the country of origin.

Table 1 Overview of the results of the tests performed on domestic and foreign produce (surveillance samples only)

Domestic produce Import produce and samples with origin not known

Food group total amount

without residues*

residues up to MRL

residues above MRL

total amount

without residues*

residues up to MRL

residues above MRL

Cereals 388 234 150 4 232 131 91 10 Fruit and vegetables, including processed products

5515 2751 2635 129 8979 3254 5263 462

Animal Products 913 483 429 1 330 162 168 0

Baby food 159 143 16 0 26 18 7 1

Total 6975 3611 3230 134 9567 3565 5529 473

* without residues means below limit of quantification

The participating laboratories reported a total of 3,999,282 analyses for the food samples. The samples were analysed for a total of 765 different pesticides (excluding isomers and metabolites) from which 307 were detected at least in one sample. Residues of 154 individual pesticides exceeded MRLs.


In Germany there is a difference between the Food Monitoring Programme and the official food control. The data generated in both programmes correspond with the provisions of


194 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Directives 76/895/EEC, 86/362/EEC, 90/642/EEC and the Commission Recommendation of 4 February 2008 (2008/103/EC) concerning a coordinated Community monitoring programme. Therefore, the report includes the respective data from both programmes:

- Monitoring programme 1,905 samples

- Official food control 15,081 samples.

The monitoring is based on a representative collection of data. With regard to bio-statistical aspects, the samples are taken randomly according to defined sampling plans. The sampling plans to be used for this purpose are laid down every year by the Federal Government together with the Federal States.

In the framework of official residue control, the samples are taken in a risk-oriented manner in order to check if there are any infringements against food legislation (e.g. surpassing of MRLs). The kind and extend of the sampling are decided on by the Federal States. When infringements are stated, the local authorities apply adequate measures (follow-up examinations, fines and, if necessary, transfer of the case to public prosecution).

1689 samples of 16986 (9.9 %) were from products produced under the rules of organic farming. In 243 (14.4 %) samples residues of pesticides could be quantified. Only 17 (1.0 %) of organic samples contained residues of pesticides exceeding MRLs. The sampling strategies for these products varied between the States. Some have special programs; others take samples rather by chance.

The Federal States are responsible for the sampling, which is carried out by correspondingly trained official inspectors according to Commission Directive 2002/63/EC.

Samples were taken on the level of producers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers.


All 29 laboratories providing data to the ‘Federal Office of Consumer Protection and Food Safety, BVL’ have been accredited to ISO 17025 standard and participated in proficiency tests.

Analytical methods used in the framework of food surveillance and of food monitoring comply with the requirements set out in the EU-guidelines document “Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis” (SANCO/2007/3131).

The analytical uncertainty is not considered in this report. The numerical measured values of residues are compared to the MRLs, only. However, food control authorities in Germany take into account the analytical uncertainty before administrative consequences follow. In these cases they use the subsequent procedure. If measured residues indicate that maximum residue levels are exceeded, the analytical uncertainty is considered. For food of plant origin an over-all reduction of 50% of the measured value, over all ranges of concentration, is generally applied. For food of animal origin the result is reduced by twice the theoretical standard deviation as derived from the Horwitz curve for the concentration range in question.

It is taken for sure that maximum residue levels are exceeded when measured values, reduced by the respective deviation, are still above the respective limit value.


195 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

12. Greece


A total number of 2455 surveillance samples were analysed by 9 laboratories, including 2229 samples of fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables, 63 of cereals, 148 of processed products and 15 of baby food. Furthermore, 41 follow up samples were also examined.

Fresh and frozen fruit and vegetables: A total of 2229 surveillance samples were examined [1893 (84.9%) were domestic samples of fruit and vegetables, 22 (1%) were samples from other EU countries and 314 (14.1%) were imported samples from TCs]. • 1830 (82.1%) were samples without detectable residues • 326 (14.6%) contained detectable residues at or below MRLs • 73 (3.3%) contained residues of one or more pesticides at concentrations above the MRLs

The total number of pesticides sought in fresh fruits and vegetables was 215. The most frequently pesticides found in fresh fruits and vegetables were chlorpyrifos, iprodione, bifenthrin, phosmet, phosalone, cypermethrin and endosulfan.

Cereals: A total of 63 surveillance samples were examined [23 (36.5%) were domestic samples and 40 (63.5%) were imported from TCs]. • 62 (98.4%) were samples without detectable residues • No samples contained detectable residues at or below MRLs • 1 (1.6 %) contained residues above MRLs

The total number of pesticides sought in cereals was 79. The only pesticides found in cereals were malathion and endosulfan..

Processed products: A total of 148 samples were examined [146 (98.6%) were domestic samples and 2 (1.4%) were imported from other TCs]. • 113 (76.4%) were samples without detectable residues • 35 (23.6%) contained detectable residues at or below MRLs • No samples contained residues above MRLs

Baby Food: A total of 15 surveillance samples were analysed. All of them (100 %) were samples without detectable residues.



The multi-annual and annual monitoring programmes were designed and organised by the CCA. The responsibilities of the laboratories involved, regarding the number of samples of each commodity that should be analysed and the areas of sampling were well defined by this program. The responsible for the EU co-ordinated program laboratories were clearly stated. The sampling is carried out by the responsible for sampling regional and local authorities


The program was designed based on several risk analysis criteria and parameters (number of samples for each commodity, produce, cultivation area, possible imported products, products


196 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

with exceedances from previous years, daily dietary intake contribution of each commodity, sampling location, pesticides used in practice, analytical capacity of each laboratory).


The responsible for sampling authorities, with the designated personnel, follow the methods of sampling (Commission Directive 2002/63/EC). Samples were taken from “the farm to the fork” (points of entry, wholesalers, retailers, farm gates etc.).


In the case of an MRL infringement, the relevant to the case enforcement actions specified by national law are taken.



Official laboratories involved in the pesticide monitoring program of 2008 were either accredited or in the final stage of accreditation (waiting for the certificate).


Dutch multi-residue method, MA-01, MA-02, Dithiocarbamates UV-determination, ELOT EN 12396-1:1999, Lentza-Rizos and E.J. Avramides, Analyst 1990-vol. 115.


EUPT-SRM3, EUPT FV-10, EUPT FV-11


The EC guidelines of the quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis are followed as close as possible.


The pesticide residues figures found are compared with the MRLs. However, in a case of an exceedance of the MRL, before any administrative and punitive enforcement action is taken, a default analytical uncertainty of 50% is subtracted from the measured value. If this figure still exceeds the MRL, enforcement action relevant to the case is taken.


In all cases of MRL exceedances, risk assessment for acute exposure is conducted, using the ARfD value. In the cases of pesticides that an ARfD has not been set, the ADI is used.


197 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

13. Hungary


In 2008, the programme for controlling the residues was made in the 6 pesticide residue analytical laboratories.

In 2008, 3584 samples were analysed - in the frame of the official sampling programme – for a higher number of analytes (250 pesticides and metabolites).

Among them, there were 1801 domestic (including cereals) and 1414 introduced fresh vegetable and fruit samples, 92 cereal-, 109 processed food of plant origin and 168 baby food and drink. Out of the tested 3215 samples (fruits and vegetables, taken at market place, place of production and for exports) 44.6 % did not contain pesticide residues above the level of detection. Altogether 1.6 % of the samples were objected because of pesticide residues detected above the MRL. All of these exceedances in the fruit and vegetable category with the greatest proportion in the apple, peaches, peppers and lettuce surveys.

The percentage of samples containing pesticide residues over the level of detection was 15 % of the 109 samples of processed food of plant origin, and the 168 baby food and drink samples did not contain detectable residues. The most frequently found pesticides in 2008 as % of fruit and vegetable samples sought were: dithiocarbamates, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos, azoxystrobin, captan. The most frequently found pesticides in cereal samples were pirimiphos - methyl, chlorpyrifos-methyl (9.52 %) and prochloraz (8.6%).

Rapid Alert System for Feed and Food on behalf CAO DPPSCA: the content of pesticide residues in 7 cases was reported to the Hungarian Food Safety Office, and via them, to DG SANCO.

Commodities

Origin

Pesticide

Residue mg/kg

Cucumber Turkey oxamyl 0.25 Cucumber Hungary dimethoate 1.70 Lettuce Hungary chlorothalonil 2.10 Courgettes Spain oxamyl 0.53 Lettuce Hungary oxamyl 0.77 Strawberry Egypt methomyl/cyprodinil/fludioxonil 0.07/0.39/0.30 Courgettes Turkey oxamyl 0.82



Central Agricultural Office Directorate of Plant Protection, Soil Conservation and Agri-environment (CAO DPPSCA) is responsible for coordination of testing pesticide residues in unprocessed agriculture commodities, and processed food of plant origin; heavy metals and organic contaminants in soil and raw agriculture food commodities, quality control of agrochemicals, as well as for the diagnosis of pests and control of pest management technologies during production.

Raw agriculture food and feed commodities of plant origin: coordinating institute is CAO DPPSCA supervising 6 regional laboratories.


198 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

13.2.2. Design of Programmes

The monitoring programme is based on risk assessment. Several factors were taken into account: the exceeding in previous years in Hungary and in other Member States, the RASFF messages, the toxicity of pesticides, the importance of the foodstuffs in diets, the analytical and budgetary possibilities and all other useful information. The coordinated programme of the European Commission was also included in the national programme.

13.2.3. Sampling

Sampling is carried out in accordance with joint Decree 5/2002 (II.22) MARD - MH and Decree 34/2004 (IV.26.) issued by MH and based on Commission Directive 2002/63/EC for pesticide residues. The programme for official sampling made by the analytical network covered mostly the produces representing the main consumption habits, but other crops were also included. Sampling points: Border Station Offices, wholesales, markets, places of production. Personal: border and plant protection inspectors within the country.


13.3.1. Status of accreditation of laboratories:

The laboratories work according to OECD-GLP systems, 6 laboratories have (GLP) accreditation, i.e. their procedures follow the quality assurance practice based on requirements of MSZ EN ISO 17025 standard and joint Decree 31/1999 (VIII.6.) MH- MARD and 9/2001 (III.30.) MH- MARD. Multiresidue methods as well as specific individual methods were performed on the samples. The test methods recorded in the Standard Operation Procedures (SOP) are used as they help maintaining the quality requirements. The local inspections made by quality assurance inspectors and the audits of testing plans and reports contribute to the improvement of work efficiency.

13.3.2. International proficiency tests

In 2008, 132 laboratories in Europe took part in the 10th European Proficiency test, including all the 6 Analytical Laboratories of the national plant protection organization. The Hungarian Analytical Laboratories obtained very good results.


The laboratories take into account EU Quality control procedures (ref. SANCO/3131/2007).

13.4. Other Information

In 2008, Hungary did not carry out the homogeneity exercise. Details of risk assessment: are carried out by Hungarian Food Safety Office (HFSO). It is the joint work of the CAO DPPSCA and HFSO. MARD – Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development MH – Ministry of Health


199 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

14. Iceland


In the year 2008 a total of 277 samples of fruits and vegetables were taken and analyzed for 47 pesticide residues. This includes the samples analysed under the national monitoring programme and the co-ordinated EU programme. Of these, 134 were samples of imported fruits and 143 were samples vegetables, there of 78 samples of domestically grown product. Fruits are not grown for commercial purpose in Iceland. Commodities originated from 26 countries, most from the Netherlands (20%) and Spain (16%). The residues most often found were Imazalil, Thiabendazole, Chlorpyrifos, 2-phenyl phenol and Phosalone. No sample had residues exceeding the maximum residue limits (MRL´s) this year.

Fruits and vegetables %

No Residues detected %

Residues at or below MRL %

Total 277 100 176 63.5 101 36.5 Icelandic 78 28.2 76 43.2 2 2.0 Other MS 119 43.0 80 45.5 37 36.6 Third countries 80 28.9 20 11.4 62 61.4

As a main rule the MRL´s conform to EU directives, but in few cases, where EU has recently set MRL’s Iceland had none, as Iceland has not yet implemented EC Regulation No 149/2008 with later amendments. A plan to add new pesticides to our monitoring program in 2008 and 2009 was made having regard to pesticides to be monitored in EC Recommendation No 103/2008. 4 new pesticides were added in 2008 and 8-10 are expected to be added in 2009.

In the year 2008 no samples were taken of cereal or animal product. Samples were taken of organic production but we were unable to distinguish them from other samples in the data.



Responsibilities for monitoring programmes lay with Matvælastofnun, The Icelandic Food and Veterinary Authority.

The Environmental and public health office in Reykjavik collects the samples and is responsible for enforcement action when necessary.


A sampling plan is made annually based on information on import volumes and domestic production. Experience is also taken into account, as to what pesticide residues are most often analysed in a particular product. Last but not least the co-ordinated EU programme is taken into consideration.


Samples were collected according to national regulation no 736/2003 on sampling methods for contaminants in foodstuffs which is based on EC directives. Samples were taken at wholesaler’s warehouses in Reykjavik and occasionally at retailer’s stage.


200 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Samples were taken from organic product, but it was not possible to distinguish them from other samples in the data.


When a pesticide residue exceeds MRL, a new sample is analysed to confirm the results. Enforcement actions are taken if the pesticide residues are over MRL plus deviation and they are, warning, monitoring of next two shipments from the violating producer/grower and if deemed necessary, recall of product from the market.



An Icelandic laboratory, Matis ohf carried out the analysis of fruit and vegetable samples. Matis ohf. Is accredited since May 2007 by SWEDAC on behalf of ISAC, but not all pesticides measured have been validated in accordance with ISO 17025. In 2008 the laboratory applied for accreditation for additional 12 pesticide residues making a total of 29 accredited at the end of year 2008 of 47 measured.


Analytical methods used: Extraction with organic solvents followed by GC-MS analysis.


Matis ohf. participates in CRL European Proficiency Test.


The following parts of EU quality control procedures were followed: Sampling, transport, processing and storage of samples, pesticide standards, calibration, solutions etc., extraction and concentration, contamination and interference, analytical calibration and chromatographic integration, and proficiency testing and analysis of reference material. Analytical methods and analytical performance are only partly followed as methods were not all accredited in the year 2008.


Analytical uncertainty estimation is applied on results. The analytical uncertainty calculations are based on recovery calculations which are carried out on three different types of matrix. If these recovery measurements have not been carried out the uncertainty can be estimated based on recovery measurements on cucumber matrix.


Iceland only participated partly in the co-ordinated program.


201 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

15. Ireland


A total of 1,003 samples of food of plant origin were analysed for pesticide residue content, as part of the routine monitoring programme for 2008. These samples were analysed for 302 pesticides and a limited number of samples were analysed for dithiocarbamate residues.

Of the 906 fruit and vegetables samples taken in the monitoring programme, 39.7% of samples contained no detectable residues, 58.1% contained one or more residues less than the MRL and 2.2% contained residues in excess of EU MRLs. The % of MRL exceedances found in 2008 is less than the 3.6% MRL exceedances detected in 2007.

Some 16.2% of the fruit and vegetable samples originated from domestic produce, 45.4% from other EU Member States, 32.1% from Third Countries and the remainder were of unknown origin.

In 2008, the ten most frequently detected pesticides in fruit and vegetables were: imazalil (16.2%); thiabendazole (12.5%); chlorpyrifos (9.1%); iprodione (6.5%); carbendazim (6.0%); diphenylamine (6.0%); imidacloprid (4.6%); fenhexamid (4.2%); 2,4-D (4.0%) and captan (3.9%). Of the samples with detectable residues, 37.7% contained residues of 1 pesticide, 22.7% of 2 pesticides, 17.2% of 3 pesticides, 10.6% of 4 pesticides, 7.0% of 5 pesticides and 2.7% of 6 pesticides. Of the samples containing multiple residues of more than 6 pesticides, 7 samples contained residues of 7 pesticides, 3 samples contained residues of 8 pesticides while 1 strawberry sample of domestic origin contained residues of 9 pesticides.

A total of 97 cereal samples were analysed in 2008, of which 64.9% were of Irish origin, 17.5% from other EU Member States, 8.2% from Third Countries and 9.3% of unknown origin. No residues were detected in 81.4% of the cereal samples, the remainder had detectable residues. There was no MRL breach. Pirimiphos methyl was the most commonly detected pesticide in cereals. The highest residue level was detected in a rice sample, which contained pirimiphos methyl at 0.60 mg/kg.


The Pesticide Control Service (PCS) of the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (DAFF) was responsible for the implementation of the 2008 monitoring programme. The programme was agreed following discussions between the PCS and the Food Safety Authority of Ireland (FSAI), as part of a service contract between both bodies. Officers from the PCS took samples according to the agreed plan, which were analysed at the Pesticide Control Laboratory based at the Department of Agriculture Laboratory Complex in Backweston, Ireland.


The 2008 monitoring programme was designed by taking account of the following: the current consumption data for Irish adults and children; the EU co-ordinated monitoring programme for 2008; the percentage of commodities containing residues detected in previous programmes; the capacity of the laboratory to implement the programme; the targeting of samples from sources that gave rise to MRL breaches in 2007.


202 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Samples were taken in accordance with Commission Directive 2002/63/EC. Authorised officers from the PCS carried out the sampling of food of plant origin. Samples are normally taken at wholesale level but occasionally may also be taken at retail level.


Arising from the MRL breaches detected in 2007, and other non-compliance with National legislation, 11 follow-up samples were taken and analysed, as enforcement action, in 2008. No non-compliances were detected in the enforcement samples taken. A total of 3 RASFF notifications were issued where the ARfD were marginally exceeded - one sample of Chilean table grapes contained azinphos methyl at 0.21mg/kg and 2 samples from the same consignment of table grapes from the USA contained methomyl at 0.09mg/kg and 0.06mg/kg.



The Pesticide Control Laboratory is the only laboratory involved in the official control of pesticide residues in food of plant origin in Ireland. The laboratory is accredited, to ISO 17025 standard, by the Irish National Accreditation Board (INAB) since 2000.


The modified mini Luke and the QuEChERS2 extraction methods were used to extract the fruit, vegetable and cereal samples in this programme. Samples were mainly analysed using gas and liquid chromatography. Mass spectrometry was the primary method used for the detection and identification of residues present with the selective ion monitoring mass detection used in gas chromatography and MS/MS method used in liquid chromatography. In some cases, specific detectors such as electron capture detection with chromatographic columns of different polarity were used for the detection and confirmation of certain pesticide residues in food samples.


The Pesticide Control Laboratory participated in all of the EU Proficiency tests organised by the Community Reference Laboratories (CRL) in the pesticide area, as well as the FAPAS schemes for fruit, vegetables and cereals. Participation in these tests is used to verify that the laboratory has the capacity and expertise to analyse food samples for the range of pesticide residues controlled by the legislation.


In excess of 90% of the EU Quality Control procedures are implemented.


The Laboratory applies an uncertainty factor to results used in enforcement of the legislation. The factor currently used is 50%, which was agreed at EU level and takes into consideration inter-laboratory variations that may occur when the same sample is analysed by different laboratories.

2 Quick, Easy Cheap, Effective, Rugged Safe method – an extraction and cleanup method for pesticides in food.


203 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


In all cases where an MRL breach was detected, a risk assessment was carried out, using Irish food consumption data for both Irish adults and children, to quantify the risk to consumers.


204 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

16. Italy


Of a total of 6788 samples (Tab.1 e 2), 1980 samples (29.2%) with residues not exceeding permitted levels were found, while 63 (1.1 %) were found with residues exceeding permitted levels; no residues were detected in 4745 samples (69.6%). The percentage of irregular samples is equal to 0.9% of which 1,1% for fruit and vegetables; 0 % for cereals; 0.1% for oil and wine.

Fruit and Vegetable Cereals Processed products Total

Nr. Of samples 5.515 481 792 6.788Regular samples 5.453 481 791 6.725Irregular samples 62 0 1 63Irregular samples % 1,1 0,0 0,1 0,9

Tab. 1

Fruit and Vegetable Cereals Processed

products Total

Nr. Of samples without residues 3.722 428 595 4.745Nr. Of samples without residues % 67,5 89,0 75,0 69,9Nr. Of samples with residues whithin legal limits 1.731 53 196 1.980Nr. Of samples with residues whithin legal limits % 31,4 11,0 25,0 29,2 Ta

b. 2

16.2. Organization of monitoring programme and sampling

16.2.1. Responsibility

The Ministry of Work, of Health and of Social Political – General Directorate for Food Safety and Nutrition – coordinates and defines Italian official control programmes on foodstuffs, including the annual plans regarding pesticide residues.

16.2.2. Structure of the plan

The annual official control plans on residues of plant protection products are defined by Ministerial Decree 23 December 1992, transposing Directive 90/642/EEC, integrated by the Ministerial Decree 30 July 1993 regarding the programming of official controls for importation from Third Countries. The National Program Pesticide Residues (P.N.R.A.) foresees a detailed programme implementing the checks to be carried out by the Regions and Autonomous Provinces of Trento and Bolzano, with indication of the minimum number and the typology of samples to be analysed. The division of the number of samples to be taken for each Region/Province is calculated according to the data on consumption and production of a given foodstuffs in the Region or autonomous Province concerned. The Decree contains some tables reporting the number of samples to be taken for each Region/Province for the following foodstuffs: vegetables, fruits, cereals, wine, oils, meat, milks and derivatives, eggs. The plan foresees also priority of a research of residues of plan protection products both in animal and vegetable origin foodstuffs.


205 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

As regards products of vegetable origin imported from Third Countries, the sampling is performed by Uffici di Sanità Marittima, Aerea e di Frontiera (USMAF) of Ministry of Health, in at least 3% of a lot present at importation with a priority given to fruit and vegetable origin products.

16.2.3. Sampling, staff, procedures and sampling spots

Based on the programmes of the Regions and Autonomous Province, inspectors of a Local Health Units provides for implementation of sampling of foodstuffs to be tested for PPP residues. The sampling spots indicated in P.N.R.A concerning products of plant origin are the collection centers and cooperatives for products coming from within the Region or Autonomous Province, specialised and non-specialised wholesale markets, wholesale stores, hypermarkets and supermarkets for products coming from outside the Region or Autonomous Province.

The sampling methods are those established by the Decree of the Ministry of Health of 23 July 2003, transposing Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 regarding the methods of sampling for the Official control for pesticide residues in plant and animal origin products.

16.2.4. Measures taken

In case of irregular samples, the administrative or criminal sanctions are applied which are foreseen by the Law n° 283 of 30 April 1962, by the Legislative Decree of 3 March 1993, n° 123 (transposing Directive 89/397/CE on official control of foodstuffs), and by the Regulation (EC) 882/2004. Contaminated foodstuffs are confiscated on a precautionary basis and/or destroyed.


16.3.1. Accreditation

Official control public laboratories participating in 2008 in the national programme on pesticide residues in vegetables were 37. Of 37 laboratories 25 are accredited in accordance with norm EN 17025. Table G laboratories is enclosed, showing the list of accredited and non-accredited laboratories, participating in proficiency test and ring tests during the 2008.

16.3.2. Analytical methods

Analytic methods used mainly include GC multi-residue methods, associated with selective detectors (ECG, NPD, MS) and HPLC-UV.


During the 2007, 16 Italian Laboratories attended :

• CRL European Proficiency FV10 Test of Incurred residues of pesticides in Carrot homogenate organized by Community Reference Laboratory - Pesticides in fruit and Vegetables (University of Almeria );

Some of laboratories attended FAPAS proficiency test and national ring tests.


206 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

17. Latvia


In 2008 a total of 110 samples of fruit, vegetables, cereals and baby food were analyzed for the pesticide residues: 41 samples of domestic origin; 42 samples from other European countries; 27 samples from non - European countries.

The most frequently found pesticide residues are procymidone, imazalil and carbendazim sum. In the sample of carrots buprofezin residues have been found, exceeding National MRL. The National MRL repealed before sampling of this carrots sample and there is no follow-up regarding this carrots batch.

There are of 6 samples above reporting level for imazalil in Table A2.

In the samples of organic pesticide residues have not been found. Results of baby food are reported separately in Table”Processed cereal-based foods for infants and young childern: notifications of the results of surveillance sampling of the National Programme” and Table”Baby foods (non-cereal based) for infants and young childern: notifications of the results of surveillance sampling of the National Programme”. Neither of baby food samples had detectable pesticide residues.

Samples were taken only within the EU coordinated program but within the national program sampling has not been carried out.


Ministry of Agriculture designed the monitoring program and collected data in cooperation with the Food and Veterinary Service.

Sampling was carried out by trained inspectors and samples are taken in 27 district offices of the Food and Veterinary Service. Samples are taken from domestic and non-domestic commodities on the level of wholesalers, retailers and market.


The Food and Veterinary Service is responsible for implementation of the sampling plans and the competent authority for the control of pesticides residues in foodstuffs.

Inspectors are responsible for a correct foodstuffs selection and delivery to the laboratory.

All samples were analyzed at the National Diagnostic Centre of the Food and Veterinary Service which is the only laboratory carrying out the monitoring.


Coordinated Program is implemented according to priorities set by EC. National pesticide residue control program was elaborated taking into account consumer consumption data and habits, as well as information from State Plant Protection Service about most frequently used pesticides.


207 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Samples are taken by FVS inspectors according to Commission Directive 2002/63/EC of 11 July 2002 establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in and on products of plant and animal origin and repealing Directive 79/700/EEC. Sampling points are following: retailers, wholesalers, producers.


In case of non-compliant result the investigation is carried out, the batch of product is withdrawn from the market and destroyed.



The National Diagnostic Centre Laboratory is accredited by the Latvian National Accreditation Bureau (LATAK) and by German Accreditation Body DAP according to the ISO/IEC 17025 standard. Certificates of accreditation can be found on the website of the Latvian National Accreditation Bureau (htpp://www.latak.gov.lv) and German Accreditation Body DAP ((htpp://www.dap.de).


Querchers samples preparation procedure was applied for the sample preparation in analysis of main part of pesticides. Detection of pesticides in the extract was performed using liquid chromatography – tandem mass spectrometry (HPLC-MS-MS) and gas chromatography – mass spectrometry (GC-MS). Pesticides not easily detectable with GC-MS technique were analysed using GC with ECD detector. Single methods were applied for analyses of chlormequat and mepiquat (HPLC-MS-MS) and dithiocarbamate. Dithiocarbamates are analysed as CS2 using GC-ECD after decomposing with tin chloride solution


During the year 2008 the laboratory participated in the EC Proficiency Tests EUPT-FV-10 (Spain), EUPT-FV-SRM3 (Germany) and EUPT-PT-C2 (Denmark).


The laboratory has implemented the most of requirements from the EU Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis (SANCO 10476/2003).


Calculation of the analytical uncertainty of results is based on relative standard deviation of recovery rates and results of proficiency testing if available. The estimated range of uncertainty is from 10 to 40%.


208 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

18. Lithuania


527 samples of fruit, vegetables, cereal, processed and baby food were analysed for pesticide residues in 2008. 350 samples of these were tested in accordance with the national monitoring programme (surveillance sampling) and 177 follow-up enforcement samples.

18.2. Testing in accordance with the national monitoring programme:

Fruit and vegetables:

Total number of samples tested was 304. Of the samples taken, 91 samples (29.9 %) were of domestic origin, 137 samples (45.1 %) were imports from other EU countries, 75 (24.7 %) samples were imports from third countries and 1 (0.3 %) sample was unknown origin. Samples were analysed for residues for up to 230 analites (pesticides and metabolites). Pesticide residues were not detected in 240 samples (78.9 %), 52 samples (17.1 %) contained residues in level below the tolerable level or at the level of MRL; in 12 samples (3.9 %) the EU MRLs were exceeded.

Cereals:

Total number of samples tested was 32. Of the samples taken, 14 samples (43.8 %) were of domestic origin, 5 samples (15.6 %) were imports from other EU countries, and 13 (40.6 %) samples were imports from third countries. Samples were analysed for residues for up to 230 analites. Pesticide residues were not detected in 30 samples (93.8 %), 1 sample (3.1 %) contained residues in level below MRL; in 1 sample (3.1 %) the EU MRL was exceeded.

Baby food: 10 samples of baby food were tested for pesticide residue. 8 samples (80 %) were from EU countries and 2 (20 %) from third countries. No pesticide residues were detected

Organic products: 10 samples were tested. No pesticides residues were detected.

The most frequently found pesticides were: Thiabendazole , Iprodione, Chlorpyrifos, Imazalil, and Fenhexamid .



State Food and Veterinary Service (hereinafter – SFVS) is responsible for the implementation of the monitoring programme and sampling. SFVS is accredited by EN ISO/ICE 17020:2004 standard. National Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment Institute (NFVRAI) is responsible for analysis of samples, data collection, and preparing report.

18.3.2. Design

The program was designed by taking in account of the following:

- the co-ordinated EU monitoring programme for 2008,

- the capacity of the NFVRAI laboratory to implement the programme,

- results of the previous year sampling activities,


209 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

- food groups consumed in Lithuania,

- testing of 10 samples from organic sector was included in programme.

18.3.3. Sampling: personal, procedures, sampling points.

Sampling was done by trained officials inspectors of the 10 county centres according to Directive 2002/63, which has been transposed into a national legal act approved by the order of the Minister of Health

Most of samples were normally taken at wholesale level, some domestic sample were taken from farms and imported from third countries within the customs area, at the place of unloading. A few samples were taken at retail levels.


The laboratory submits report with results of analysis to the inspector in charge. The evaluation of the analysis results is responsibility of the inspector. When MRLs are exceeded action may be taken by inspectors of counties SFVS. Inspector sends information on action taken to SFVS, which make decision to send information to RASF alerts.



The analyses were carried out in the laboratory of the National Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment Institute. This laboratory is accredited according to EN ISO/IEC 17025 by German Accreditation Body DAP for main methods used for official control of pesticide residues in food of plant origin.


Most of samples were analysed by multi-residue method EN 12393-(1-3):2000. The samples were extracted with ethyl acetate or acetone-cyclohexane, cleaned up on gel permeation column, and determined by capillary gas chromatography. The number of pesticide monitoring by this meted is 215. Dithiocarbamates were determines by method EN 12396-(1-3):2000. Pesticides surveyed: - Maneb group and Thiuram.

HPLC – method: 1 pesticide was determined by this method.

LC-MS/MS multi-residue method: The number of pesticide monitoring by this method is 29.


EUPT C2 (Denmark), GC, LC-MS/MS-Multi residue method;

EUPT-FV 10 (Spain), GC, LC-MS/MS-Multi residue method;

EUPT-SM-03 (Germany), Dithiocarbamates, Individual pesticides, LC


Quality control procedures include daily checks of instruments sensitivity, possible matrix effects by injection of test solution. Most of EU Quality control procedures for pesticide residues analysis (SANCO/10232/2006) have been implemented


210 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Laboratory uses the MU = 50 % figure to take consideration inter-laboratory variations for MRL breaches. Uncertainties of analytical results were estimated in process of in-house validation at the level of MRL.


Lithuania has implemented all EC-MRLs.

State Food and Veterinary Service is the national contact point for food and feed for the Community RASFF system, and present information on cases of exceeding of MRLs and action taken. Monitoring of foodstuffs is carried out in accordance with the EU laws, with an emphasis on the risk factors of product contamination. Contaminated products are not released onto the market.

National Food and Veterinary Risk Assessment Institute evaluate acute risk to the consumers.


211 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

19. Luxembourg


In 2008 a total number of 139 samples of fruits, vegetables, rice and flour were analysed for pesticides by the laboratory of food control of the National Laboratory of Health. In 43% of the samples residues were detected, 4 samples (2.8%) exceeded MRLs. Table: Summary of the 2008 monitoring programme (co-ordinated and national programme)

Nature

N° of samples

N° of samples with residues at below the MRL

N° of samples exceeding MRL

Fruits & vegetables 103 56 4 rice & flour 36 0 0

Total 139 56 4 As last years, most frequently found pesticides were fungicides especially in wine grapes (national programme). Concerning the EC programme most pesticides were found in pears and oranges/mandarins. No residues were detected in organically grown ('bio'-labeled) samples, neither in rice nor in flour samples.



Pesticide residues were analysed at the laboratory of food control, being a division of the National Laboratory of Health (Ministry of Health).


The annual programme based predominantly on the EC recommendation. The national programme included Luxembourgian agricultural products (flour and wine grapes).

Instead of beans without pods beans with pods and dried beans were analysed, as beans without pods are consumed just marginally and are commercially almost not available in Luxembourg.

The target to analyse at least one organic sample per commodity was less strict followed than in former years.

As the laboratory reporting levels were mostly above 0.01 mg/kg, no baby food was analyzed in 2008. It has been decided to outsource the baby food analysis in future.


The samples were collected by a food inspector of the food control unit. Imported products were sampled at wholesale distribution points and retailers. Wine grapes were obtained directly from winegrowers, flour samples from local mills. Due to the sampling requirements of directive 2002/63/EC (number of samples and sample sizes) no samples could be taken at the central market in the City of Luxembourg any more.


212 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Concerning the four positive samples warning letters were sent to the selling points. Additionally rapid alerts were issued for the 2 spinach and the fresh bean sample. A follow-up of these commodities is planned in 2009.



The laboratory of food control is the only laboratory doing pesticide analysis in Luxembourg. It was accredited in 2003.


Pesticides were analysed by a gas chromatographic multi-residue method with MSD (DFG S19, modified). With this method some metabolites of pesticides residue definition were not detectable, for example omethoate. Therefore, only the 'parent' compound dimethoate was analyzed and quantified. Pesticides of the Maneb group were analysed separately with the Keppel-method (CS2 product).


In 2008, the laboratory participated in two multi-residue proficiency tests (matrices carrots and cereals) as well as in the single residue PT for dithiocarbamates organized by the community reference laboratories.


Increasing demands for quality assurance makes it difficult to strike a balance between validation and output of results. Not all EU quality control procedures could be fully implemented (e.g. frequencies of verification and calibrations).


Analytical uncertainty was checked for each pesticide. Standard deviations of pesticides with good respectabilities were below 20% at reporting level. For enforcement purpose, an analytical


213 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

20. Malta


In the monitoring programme for pesticides residues for 2008, a total of 97 samples were tested for pesticide residues using a multi-residue method. Commodities of Maltese origin made up 56.7% (55 samples) of the total samples collected; out of these, 3 samples were of organic origin. 30.9% (33 samples) originated from other EU Member States while 2.06% (2 samples) originated from non-EU countries. 10.3% (10 samples) were baby food. The percentage of samples with residues exceeding the EC MRL was 8.3% (8 samples) whereas the samples found at or below EC MRL represented 12.3% (12 samples) of the total number of samples analysed.

The sampled commodities included cucumber (7 samples), potatoes (16 samples), onions (1 sample), spinach (12 samples), cauliflower (3 samples), carrots (14 samples), olives (3 samples), peaches (4 samples), tomatoes (1 sample), oranges (15 samples), broad beans (3 samples), pears (10 samples) and baby food (10 samples).

Four different pesticide residues were detected at levels exceeding the EC MRL, namely chlorpyrifos (7 samples), malathion (1 sample), carbaryl (2 samples) and dimethoate (1 sample). Another six different pesticide residues were detected at levels below EC MRL: these included tolyfluanide (1 sample), chlorpyrifos-methyl (1 sample), deltamethrin (1 sample), chlorpropham (1 sample) and lambda-cyhalothrin (1 sample). Five of the total number of samples collected in 2008 contained more than one pesticide residue.


As from 1 February 2008, the responsibility for drafting the National Monitoring Programme for fresh produce of plant origin and for the execution of such programme was delegated to the Malta Standards Authority. The priorities for drafting this programme and the frequency of monitoring for the particular produce and analysis were based on a number of factors. These include the following:

- Maltese production / imports of commodities; - past findings that may indicate a historical residue problem; - in the light of new risks (e.g. knowledge on use of banned pesticides) or other country

monitoring schemes.

The sampling of the selected fruit and vegetables was carried out in line with Commission Directive 2002/63/EC establishing Community methods of sampling for the official control of pesticide residues in, and on, products of plant and animal origin. Officers from the Market Surveillance Directorate within the Malta Standards Authority were responsible for carrying out the inspections. Sampling points included organised markets for Maltese produce, farms for organic produce and retailers for produce originating from other EU and non-EU countries. The samples were sealed and coded. The relevant details of the samples were inserted in a database to ensure that the identity of the samples is protected whilst assuring traceability of samples. Follow up actions included meeting directly with those farmers whose produce had levels higher than the EC MRL. A verbal warning was given to the farmers during the meeting. Enforcement sampling could not perform mainly due to the termination of the harvested product and since no other produce was sold through the organised markets.


214 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Samples were sent for multi-residue analysis to CEFIT Laboratory (Sicily) which is accredited by Sinal (Sistema Nazionale Acreditamento Laboratori – National System of Laboratory Accreditation) with accreditation number 0194 in conformity to ISO 45003 and certified SINCERT.

The described methods are based on EU legislation and are based on procedures that are carried out in four stages as described below:

- Extraction: pesticide residues are extracted from the sample matrix by employing appropriate solvents in such a way to obtain maximum extraction efficiency and minimum co-extraction of the sample matrix which could interfere with the analysis;

- Purification: the purification has the aim of removing interfering materials in such a way to produce an extract devoid of interfering substances;

- Analysis: the analysis is performed using gas-chromatography technique and using selective detectors: electronic capture device (ECD) for halogenated organic substances, NPD for organophosphates, and organonitrates;

- Confirmation of results: in order to confirm residues qualitatively and quantitatively in cases where MRL infringements are observed. In these cases liquid chromatography (LC-MS) is employed.

The method used by the sub-contracted laboratory is Method M, a brief description of which is given below:

Extraction with acetone and liquid partitioning dichloromethane/petroleum ether and if necessary purification with Florisil. A portion of chopped sample is homogenised with acetone and filtered. An aliquot of the filtrate is extracted with a mixture of petroleum ether/dichloromethane. The organic phase can be injected directly in the gas chromatography equipment with an appropriate detector or purified through a Florisil column. The eluant is concentrated for chromatographic analysis as described in the sections above. The uncertainty of the results is communicated on the certificate of analysis.

CEFIT laboratory operates according to the Quality System UNI ISO/IEC 17025/2005. The quality procedures used by CEFIT are in conformity to document SANCO 3131/2007 of the 31 October 2007: Quality Control Procedure for Pesticides Analysis. The active ingredients tested are in line with Commission Recommendation 2008/103/CE. The laboratory participates in the Ring Test Arpa, Ministero Delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali, UNICHIM. The measure of uncertainty of results was communicated on the certificate of analysis and was taken into account for legal purposes, but not taken into consideration for reporting to the European Commission.


In 2008, the Malta Standards Authority transposed 5 Commission Directives and implemented 1 Regulation related to Maximum Residue Levels in 6 sets of subsidiary legislation, namely LN134/08, LN185/08, LN186/08, LN12/09, LN13/09, and LN14/09.


215 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

21. The Netherlands


In 2008 the complete EU harmonisation of MRLs came into force on September 1st. However, from February 1st these MRLs have already been applied, when proven to be safe by EFSA. As a result the percentage of non-compliances of products from EU countries have decreased strongly. In 2008 imports from third countries showed a slight increase in MRL-violations. This is related to intensifying border control of higher risk products. Products from South-East Asia still often violate limits. Table 1 gives the most frequently non-complying pesticide/crop combinations with the main countries of origin. In 2008 the Netherlands issued eighteen rapid or information alerts on pesticide residues. Table 2 gives an overview. Both at the non-compliances and the RASFF-notifications occurrences of highly toxic obsolete pesticides from third world countries are predominant. It is remarkable that old organophosphates as EPN, monocrotophos and omethoate (without dimethoate) are still in use. Therefore, measures were taken to prevent imports at Schiphol airport and border control has been intensified.

In about 4300 samples 7620 residues of 156 different pesticides were found. As the scope of the coordinated program was nearly the same as in 2007 the percentage of residues within the scope was again about 75 %, showing the relevance of the not yet very wide scope. For a majority of the results an Acute Reference Dose (ARfD) has been established (table 3).

Table 1. Main products with high percentages of non-compliances, with corresponding pesticides and countries of origin. Product Pesticides %>MRL Countries Pepper carbendazim, carbofuran, dimethoate, chlorpyrifos,

various 34,5 Thailand, Dominican Rep.,

Surinam Legume vegetables

dimethoate, methomyl, epn, carbendazim, various 15,7 Thailand, Dominican Rep.

Aubergine/egg plant

methiocarb, dimethoate 13,0 Surinam, Thailand, Dominican Rep.

Mango Ìmazalil 8,6 Thailand Kiwi fruit Fenhexamid 6,5 Italy, France Cucumber, Sopropo

methiocarb, methomyl, endosulfan 6,0 Dominican Rep.

Grape methomyl, imazalil, various 4,9 Turkey, Italy, India

Figure 1. Percentage of MRL violations not including incidents

0,0

5,0

10,0

15,0

20,0

25,0

'99 '00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

% >

MR

L

NL EU non-EU


216 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Table 2. Alerts to the RASFF system issued by the Netherlands. Product Pesticide Country Aubergine (eggplant)

omethoate (0.22 mg/kg) Thailand

Cactus pears omethoate (0.06 mg/kg) and dimethoate (0.19 mg/kg) Italy Chilli pepper carbofuran (1.2 mg/kg) Thailand Coriander carbofuran (2.9 mg/kg) Thailand Cucumber 0.02 mg/kg) and dimethoate ; 0.04 mg/kg) Thailand Cucumber methomyl (0.11 mg/kg) the Netherlands Mango omethoate (0.09 mg/kg) Thailand Pepper (red) carbofuran (0.59 mg/kg) and methomyl (1.1 mg/kg) Thailand Slicing bean omethoate (0.21 mg/kg) and dimethoate (0.73 mg/kg) Spain Sopropo methamidophos (0.11 mg/kg) Suriname Sweet pepper oxamyl (0.79 mg/kg) Turkey Yard long bean methomyl (0.15 mg/kg), carbendazim (0.61 mg/kg) and omethoate (0.73

mg/kg) Thailand

Yard long bean methomyl (0.92 mg/kg) Thailand Yard long bean omethoate (0.20 mg/kg) and dimethoate (sum: 0.22 mg/kg) and EPN (0.54

mg/kg) Thailand

Yard long bean carbofuran (0.13 mg/kg) Thailand Yard long bean methomyl (0.49 mg/kg) and dimethoate (0.05 mg/kg) Thailand Yard long bean carbendazim (2.1 mg/kg) Dominican

Republic Yard long bean monocrotophos (1.9 mg/kg) Dominican

Republic

Table 3. Pesticide residues found in the EU-coordinated and Dutch monitoring program. active number of residues of pesticides in samples substances with ARfD no ARfD needed ARfD unknown totalEU-coordinated monitoring 74 3629 2087 0 5716Dutch national program 82 1097 804 3 1904Total 156 4726 2891 3 7620

21.2. Organisation of Monitoring programmes and Sampling

The Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority performs the official monitoring in the Netherlands. The samples are taken without prior information about the presence of pesticides in the individual sample. Therefore, they represent the situation on the market for the product at that time. However, sampling is directed relatively more to products that need attention because of the violation rate in previous years. Therefore, high violation rates can indicate both an efficient sampling strategy and problems in the agricultural practice. The Dutch Food and Commodity Law regulate the sampling procedure, i.e. the number of subsamples taken from a lot. This regulation is the implementation of the EC-directive 2002/63/EC. Inspectors of the five regional inspectorates are taking samples. The main sampling points are the distribution centres of retail chains, importers, warehouses for both domestic and non-domestic products, the premises of the auction system for Dutch products and at ports of EU-entry. At those inspection points it is clear who is responsible for the product, so that appropriate legal action can be taken in case of non-compliance. In 2008 again a number of samples was taken in retail shops as part of the pilot project to provide public information on samples, results and responsible companies.


217 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

21.3. Analysis and Quality assurance

One regional laboratory (VWA-Northwest, in Amsterdam) performs the analyses of the samples. The general strategy is detecting as many pesticides as possible in one analysis by using Multi-Residue-Methods (MRMs). The Dutch method consists of an acetone extraction, followed by a partition step of the residues into dichloromethane/petroleum ether. The extracts are analysed by a chromatographic separation and selective detection of residues. The main detection methods are Gas Chromatography (GC) - Ion-Trap Mass Spectrometric Detection (GC-ITD) and Liquid Chromatography – tandem Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS/MS). Only for some analytes that are not detectable sensitively enough by ITD, additionally GC with Electron Capture Detection (ECD) is used. For some pesticides not amenable to the MRM, Single Residue Methods based on LC-MS/MS detection are used. In the 2008 program this was only the case for chlormequat, propamocarb. Dithiocarbamates are analysed as CS2 using GC-FPD and GC-ITD after decomposing with acidic tin-chloride solution and extraction into iso-octane. Together the scope of the methods is about 400 analytes. The validity of the analytical results is governed by a quality assurance system under ISO17025 accreditation. The multi-residue methods are within the scope of the accreditation of the laboratory. The centralised laboratory has implemented the EU Guideline on Analytical Quality Control (SANCO/2007/3131). It takes part in FAPAS and EU proficiency tests. The average inter-laboratory relative standard deviation (RSDR) is estimated at 25 % based on EU-proficiency tests (see SANCO/2007/3131). The expanded measurement uncertainty applied to reported results is 50 %. In this report, all results above the MRL are considered to be violative. However, legal measures are taken after subtracting the measurement uncertainty from the analytical result.


218 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

22. Norway


In 2008, a total of 1 440 of fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and cereals, both imported (65%) and domestically produced (35 %) were analyzed in the monitoring programme. In addition, the monitoring programme included 44 samples of baby food.

A total of 90 different commodities of fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and cereals were analysed. The monitoring programme covered 272 pesticides including some isomers and breakdown products. Of these, 117 compounds were found.

Analysis of fresh fruit and vegetables showed that 52 % were without detectable pesticide residues. The EC-MRLs were exceeded in 38 samples (2.8 %). None of the domestic products had pesticide residues exceeding the EC-MRLs. The numbers of exceeding were very high in samples directly imported from Thailand. Nine RASSF notifications were sent on the samples from Thailand. The notifications were on three different pesticides; EPN, dicrotophos and omethoate. Nine follow-up samples were taken in 2008, all from Thailand. Four of the follow-up samples had pesticide residues that exceeded the EC-MRL.

A total of 98 samples of cereals were analysed. Of these, 83 (85 %) had no detectable pesticide residues. The EC-MRLs were exceeded in 2 samples (2 %). Analysis of 44 samples of baby food showed that none had residues. A total of 102 samples were marked and sold as organic grown products, two of the samples had detectable residues of pesticides below the EC-MRLs for conventional grown products.



The Norwegian Food Safety Authority is responsible for the monitoring of pesticide residues in food. The Norwegian Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Research (Bioforsk) was responsible for all the analyses. The Norwegian Food Safety Authority estimated short-time intake for all pesticides with an acute reference dose (ARfD) set by EC/EFSA or WHO when findings were higher than EC MRLs. The calculations were based on the residues found in the surveillance samples and UK consumption data.


The number of samples collected of each commodity is related to the food consumption and the risk for residues. The sampling is also related to the domestic production and the imports from EU-countries and third countries. The criteria for taking organic grown samples are dependent on its market share and availability on the market.


The samples were mainly taken at wholesaler’s warehouse in different parts of Norway. Some samples were also taken at retailers, farms or market places. Trained inspectors were responsible for taking the samples in accordance with the national sample plan and the official guidelines Commission Directive 2002/63/EC for sampling.


219 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Nine RASFF notifications were sent on products from Thailand. Any rests of these lots will be banned for sale and there the consumer will be informed (note on The Food Safety Authorities website). When the product is imported an enforced control will be made at the next import (at the same importer). There is however seldom rests of fresh products when the analysis are ready.

When a sample has an exceeding over 50 % of MRL the rest of the consignment is banned for sale. Any exceeding over 50% of MRL and findings without an MRL that may cause acute health risks is published on the internet.


The laboratory at Bioforsk, Plant Health and Plant Protection Division, Pesticide Chemistry section has been accredited for pesticide residue analysis since April 1st 1997. The majority of the analysing methods (including the GC-MS and LC-MS/MS multi-methods) are accredited. The laboratory also holds a flexible scope of accreditation for organic analyses.


All samples were analysed using a GC-MS multi-residue method covering 204 pesticides including some metabolites and breakdown products for fruit and vegetables and 119 pesticides for cereals. QuEChERS method was applied for sample preparation from April 2008. Before then, fruit and vegetables were extracted with acetone (Mini-Luke method) and cereals with dichloromethane:light petroleum followed by GPC. An LC-MS/MS multi-residue method (covering 81 pesticides) using extraction with acetone (for fruit and vegetables) or dichloromethane:light petroleum (for cereals), was applied on selected samples. LC-MS/MS was also used for analysis of diquat and paraquat. Chlormequat, mepiquat, dithianon and propamocarb were determined using LC-MS. Phenoxyacid herbicides and glyphosate/AMPA were analysed by GC-MS after derivatization. The dithiocarbamates were determined with a spectrophotometric method after distillation of CS2. The reporting levels are the limit of quantification for all methods.


The laboratory has participated in three EU proficiency tests organized by CRL’s for Pesticide Residues (Table G): EUPT-FV10 (carrot), EUPT-C2 (wheat) and EUPT-SRM3 (carrot).


The EC guideline SANCO/2007/3131 “Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in Food and Feed” has been implemented as far as practicable (Table G).


When a pesticide residue exceeds the MRL, quantitative determination is carried out on three replicate samples using three-level calibration. Recovery is checked and the identity of the pesticide confirmed by GC-MS or LC-MS/ (MS). The pesticide residues figures found are compared with the MRLs. If the results are above the MRLs, the sample is defined as an exceeding. As a general rule, the default expanded uncertainty figure of 50 % is applied for enforcement decisions.


220 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


Norway has implemented all EC-MRLs listed in EC 396/2005, Annex II. No national limits are in force.


221 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

23. Poland


In 2008 under the co-ordinated and national monitoring program, a total of 1584 food samples were analyzed for presence of pesticide residues. This was composed of 1154 samples (72,9%) of fruit and vegetables (FV), 150 samples (9.5%) of cereals (C), 145 samples (9.1%) of processed products – fruit juices (PP-FJ), and 135 samples (8.5%) of baby food (BF). Above numbers include 17 samples of ecological products. Domestic products made up 75.9% of the samples; 15.7% were from other EU countries, and 8.1% were from non-EU countries. For 4 samples (0.3%) country of origin was not known.

32 different pesticide residues out of 119 sought (26.9%) in samples of fruit and vegetables were found at least once during the monitoring program. For cereals this rate was 4 compounds out of 77 (4.5%). The most frequently found residues were dithiocarbamates expressed as CS2, thiabendazole, carbendazim and procymidone. No residues were found in 86.7% of all samples (including organic products). For the particular groups of food this percentage was equal to: FV 82.8%, C 95.3%, PP-FJ 99.6%, and BP 100%. Pesticide residues above the reporting limits, but below or equal to the harmonized and/or national MRLs were found in 11.5% of all samples (FV 15.1%, C 2.7%, PP-FJ 2.8%, BF 0%). In 2008 MRLs exceedances were found in 29 samples (1.8%), however most of them were slightly over the limit. After taking into account the uncertainty, 17 from above 29 samples were regarded as compliant. In consequence, the rate of violations falls to 12 samples (FV 11, C 1 – mainly domestic products) .

Moreover, 29 enforcement samples have been analyzed. The residues at or below the MRLs were found in 4 samples (13.8%), and 1 exceedance has been reported (in the cultivated fungi).



The State Sanitary Inspection (SSI), subordinated to the Ministry of Health, is the competent authority responsible for the organization and supervision of monitoring of pesticide residues in foodstuffs of plant origin present on the market. The monitoring programmes are developed in the National Institute of Public Health – National Institute of Hygiene (NIPH-NIH), and then forwarded to the SSI, which authorises and distributes these programmes to all 16 Voivodship Sanitary-Epidemiological Stations (VSES).


The monitoring programmes include Commission Recommendations as well as a national monitoring and official control of foodstuffs for compliance with MRLs. The national programmes are based on specific conditions of Polish agriculture, production and import figures, consumption data, and results of earlier measurements. These plans constantly include products for infants and babies.


222 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


All 16 VSES are involved in realization of the monitoring. Authorized and specially trained inspectors of Poviat Sanitary-Epidemiological Stations collect food samples from the market (retail, wholesale), border, and sometimes directly from producers. The sampling is performed in accordance to Commission Directive 2002/63/EC which is fully implemented into Polish law.


The VSES laboratories submit the laboratory reports to the local Sanitary Inspectors in charge. In case of MRLs infringement, the relevant enforcement action may be taken by the inspectors.



All 16 laboratories of VSES involved in monitoring and official food control are accredited according to PN-EN ISO/IEC 17025 by the Polish Centre for Accreditation (PCA). The scope of accreditation covers different number of matrix/pesticide combinations. The VSES laboratories use methods published in European Standards and in some cases in-house validated methods with GC-ECD/NPP/MS and HPLC-UV/FL determination.


In 2008, 9 of 16 VSES laboratories participated in the proficiency test for fruit and vegetables organized by EU (EUPT FV-10). Additionally some laboratories participated in other EU proficiency tests (single residues SRM3 – 4 labs and cereals C2 – 1 lab). 4 labs participated in national proficiency tests organized by NIPH-NIH (organochlorine compounds in vegetable oil).


All methods used by the VSES laboratories have been validated. Laboratories implemented the most of requirements of EU on the Quality Control Procedures guideline (SANCO/2007/3131).


The analytical uncertainty of the results is calculated on the basis of relative standard deviation of recovery rates during in-house validation procedure. In case of MRL exceedances, the default expanded uncertainty of 50% is subtracted from the measured value. The sample is defined as non-compliant if this figure is still above the MRL.


In all cases of MRL exceedances, risk assessment for acute exposure is conducted by the toxicologists at the NIPH-NIH (according to SANCO/3346/2001 rev.6). When the dietary intake calculations indicate a risk for consumer, a national and an international rapid alerts are issued by RASFF National Contact Point located in SSI and measures are taken to protect consumers.


223 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Because of the differences in methods applied and equipment used by 16 laboratories involved in official control of foodstuffs, as well as because of numerous changes of MRLs in 2008, a different reporting level for some pesticides have been used.


224 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

24. Portugal


In 2008, a total of 758 samples were analysed for residues of up to 146 pesticides and two groups (benomyl and maneb), and relevant metabolites, amounting to near 170 analytes. This number of samples comprised 662 fruits and vegetables, 57 cereals, 10 baby foods and 22 other processed products, specially tomato products and wines. The total number above includes 7 follow up enforcement samples of fruits. The majority of the samples of fruits and vegetables were analysed in the framework of the EU co-ordinated monitoring programme. Residues of at least one of the pesticides sought were found in about 31% of the fruits and vegetables surveillance samples. In total, 39 different pesticide residues have been found in fruits and vegetables. The two most frequent residues detected were the fungicides dithiocarbamates (26.4% occurrences) and thiabendazole (10.1% occurrences), which were followed, in decreasing order, by chlorpyriphos (7.5%), imazalil (7.5%) lambda-cyhalothrin (4.6%). For cereals the only pesticide found was deltamethrin but no infringements to the respective MRL occurred. Infringements to EC MRLs were reported for 6.5% fruits and vegetables sampled. Multiple residues occurred in 88 samples of fruits, vegetables and cereals (about 11 % of the sampling) where about 26% were from wine grapes. The maximum number of residues found was five. No residues of any of the pesticides sought occurred in the 10 samples of baby food analysed.


In the mainland, sampling was carried out over the territory by inspectors of ASAE, the National Authority for Food and Economical Safety. In the autonomic region of Madeira sampling was carried out by DSMSA, the Agricultural Department for Markets and Food Safety, and by the Regional Inspectorate of Economical Activities (IRAE). The autonomic region of Açores also participated in the programme, with sampling carried out by the Department of Agriculture and Veterinary and by the respective IRAE. For all cases of violations, risk assessment was carried out by Directorate-General of Agriculture and Rural Development (DGADR), which is the National Competent Authority. Results of products sampled in the mainland were reported to ASAE who is also the body responsible for enforcement actions, such as official warnings, levying of fines or preparation of prosecutions to the court, according to the severity of infringements. In the autonomic regions, Madeira IRAE and Açores IRAE are responsible for these actions.

Monitoring programmes are elaborated in a meeting with the participation of DGADR, Office for Planning and Policies (GPP) who is responsible for the co-ordination of Food Safety issues at the level of the Ministry of Agriculture, and representatives of the intervening central and regional bodies, including sampling inspectors and analysts. The national programme for 2008 was based on the EU coordinated monitoring programme, which was extended to other pesticides according to the capabilities of the laboratories and to other commodities, such as bananas, cherimoyas, cherries, small melon, lettuce, strawberries, tomatoes, table grapes. The programme of target sampling for bananas and wine grapes grown in Madeira Island was decided to continue with a view to correction the agricultural practice in that region, as previous results have shown that some small farmers have continued to use plant protection products which are no longer approved for those crops or no longer approved at all. Sampling was carried out by trained officers, according to the procedures laid down in directive 2002/63/EC. The samples were taken both at wholesale commerce, wholesaler’s warehouses and retail.


225 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


The following pesticide residue laboratories contributed to the national monitoring programme: the INIA Pesticide Residues Laboratory (LRP), in Table G referred as lab 1, the Agricultural Quality Laboratory of the Regional Agricultural Directorate of Madeira (lab 2), the Northern Regional Agricultural Directorate (lab 3), and the Regional Agricultural Directorate of Algarve (lab 4). Lab 1 is accredited for the majority of compounds analysed since June 2005 and holds flexible accreditation since May 2008. Lab 2 has already submitted to the Portuguese accreditation body (IPAC) all the necessary documentation to the accreditation process. Lab 3 is ready to send all the documentation for accreditation of the dithiocarbamates method. Lab 4 is accredited for dithiocarbamates method since 2006.

The GC multi-residue methods used are method P (labs1 and 3) and method M (lab 2), according to European Standard 12393. The determination of maneb group is based in European Standards 12396-1 (labs 1, 2 and 3) and 12396-2 (lab 2). Due to the lack of LC-MS/MS instrumentation at lab1, several pesticides which can be analysed through MRM are still analysed using SRM. This is the case of the benomyl group and thiabendazole which are determined by HPLC-DAD after ethyl acetate extraction and pH adjustment and the N-methylcarbamates group, which are determined by HPLC-FLD with on-line OPA derivatization, after extraction and clean-up identical to method P or M above (labs 1 and 2). In lab 2 a LC-MS/MS has been made available this year and validation work is expected to begin as soon as the installation of the equipment is finished. Organophosphorus insecticides precursors of sulphoxides and sulphones are analysed by oxidation of the cleaned extract obtained according to method P (lab 1). All these laboratories have participated in the EU proficiency tests, as reported in Table G.

Values detected above MRL (mean of at least 2 separate analyses) are reported as infringements, if the achieved value minus the respective estimated uncertainty (confidence level of 95%) is above the MRL. Nevertheless, every time the uncertainty does not allow to ensure exceedance of the MRL, an official warning is issued in order to alert the producer that there is also a probability of the value being above the legal limit.


Concerning violations to the MRL, spinach is still one of the most problematic plant products due the lack of phytosanitary products authorised.

Most of the non-compliances occurred as a result of the recent changes in a great number of agricultural practices due to the withdrawal of many active substances that were used during many years. These changes were direct consequences of the EC review program of the old active substances and of the MRLs harmonization in the EU.

For all samples where infringements found related to pesticides for which an acute reference dose, ARfD, has been set or with relevant acute toxicity, risk assessment was carried out both for adults and children. In the current year monitoring, none of the infringements samples has showed any health risk to adult or children.


226 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

25. Romania


During 2008 about 2708 samples of fruits, vegetables and cereals were analyzed in the national monitoring program, 2504 of fruits and vegetables total samples, 73% were from domestic market, 13% came from other EU MS, 12% from third countries and 2% with unknown origins. Total samples of cereals were 204. 66.0% of them were from domestic market, 6% came from other EU MS, 13% from third countries and 15% with unknown origins. Out of 3174 samples analysed there were sought 98 pesticide residues and 41 pesticide residues were found.

Out of 3174 samples analyzed 366 contain pesticides residues, as follows: 298 with one pesticide residue, 59 with 2 pesticide residues, 8 with 3 pesticide residues, 1 with 4 pesticide residues.

From 2504 fruits and vegetables samples 14.3% contained pesticides residues and from 204 cereals samples 3.9% contained pesticides residues.

From domestic samples, apples, grapes, and tomatoes present pesticides residues frequently. The non-domestic samples which have been found with pesticides residues are: oranges, grapes and grapefruit.

For one sample of tomato a MRL exceeding (0.38 mg/kg cyhalothrin) was found. No notification through Rapid Alert System was registered to the national level, for the related sample, so administrative measures has been taken for the inspectors involved in the official control of that sample.

For another sample chlorpyriphos was found in wheat (maximum residue level found: 0.06 mg/kg). Due to the uncertainty calculus (+/- 50%) for the method used in the laboratory, the competent authority has not considered the value for chlorpyriphos in wheat a MRL violation (the MRL is 0.05 mg/kg, so the values until 0.06 mg/kg are considered acceptable).

During 2008, 466 samples of baby food products were analysed in the national monitoring program. All the 466 samples were from UE countries. The results of analysis of pesticide residues (organochlorate and organophosphoric) in baby food products obeyed to legal threshold.


Romanian Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry, National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority (NSVFSA) and Ministry of Health have the responsibility for national monitoring plan of pesticides residues in fruits, vegetables, cereals and baby food products. Each competent authority draws up one independent annual plan for control pesticide residues in food of plant origin and baby food products.

Implementation of monitoring plans is performed by Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry through Central Laboratory for Pesticides Residues Control in Plants and Vegetable Products, which analyses the samples taken by Counties and Bucharest Phytosanitary Units. For the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority (NSVFSA) the monitoring plan is implemented by the Food Safety Departments within Sanitary Veterinary and Food


227 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Safety Counties Divisions. In the Ministry of Health the monitoring plan is implemented by the Institute of Public Health in Iasi.

National legislation is ensured by the Order of National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority president, of Romanian Agriculture, Forests and Rural Development Minister, of the Minister of Health and of National Authority for Consumers Protection president, no.118/462/1030/313/2007 concerning the setting of maximum admitted pesticides limits in fruits, vegetables, cereals and other products of vegetable origin, in which were transposed the Regulation (EC) No.396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005.

Samples are taken by:

- phytosanitary inspectors, employers of Phytosanitary Units from counties according to a sampling programme that has been foreseen in December 2007,

- inspectors involved in food safety field within Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety County Division according to annual surveillance program in the field of food safety and

- inspectors from the counties Public Health Directorates according to the sampling programme for 2008.

The sampling procedure is according to the EU Directive no. 2002/63/EEC which has been transposed in national legislation. The priorities of planning the programme of the NSVFSA are fresh commodities imported from third countries and intra-community trade, the place of sampling are warehouses of importers, frequency of sampling is minimum 12 samples/product.


Central Laboratory for Pesticides Residues Control in Plants and Vegetable Products, belonging to the Agriculture and Rural Development Ministry is accredited to EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for GC-MS multiresidue method for analysis of vegetable products since 16.01.2006 with RENAR accreditation number 387-L. The laboratory implemented EU Quality control procedures for pesticides analysis – Document SANCO/3131/2007.

2304 samples were analysed by GC-MS MRM method, 669 samples were analysed by GC-ECD MRM method and 400 samples were analysed by LC-MS/MS MRM method.

Central Laboratory for Pesticides Residues Control in Plants and Vegetable Products participated to the proficiency test EUPT-C2. Central Laboratory for Pesticides Residues Control in Plants and Vegetable Products couldn’t participate at EUPT FV-10 due to the damaged sample from delayed shipping.

Analytical uncertainty is calculated for GC-MS accredited method according to “EA guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing”. The value of analytical uncertainty is ±50%.

The laboratory from the Institute of Public Health Bucharest is accredited to EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005 for GC multi-residue method for analysis of food products since 2005 with RENAR accreditation number 353/2005. Laboratories belonging to the Institute of Public Health from Iasi and Cluj Napoca are in progress accreditation. Only these 3 laboratories will analyse, in future, the pesticide residues in baby food products. Institute of Public Health


228 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Bucharest implemented EU Quality control procedures for pesticides analysis – Document SANCO/3131/2007.

466 samples were analysed by GC method, 43 different pesticide residues were found. The organochlorine pesticides (20 active substances) were analysed in 466 samples and the organophosphoric pesticides residues (23 active substances) were analysed in 209 samples. Analytical uncertainty is calculated for GC/ ECD in according to “EA guidelines on the expression of uncertainty in quantitative testing”.

Of the 7 regional laboratories (Bucharest, Calarasi, Iasi, Suceava, Timis, Galati, Dolj) belonging to the National Sanitary Veterinary and Food Safety Authority, 3 regional laboratories were accreditated. The general strategy is detection as many pesticides as possible in one analyses by using Multi-Residue-Methods (MRMs). The extracts are analyzed by chromatographic separation and selective detection of residues. The detection methods are Gas Chromatography (GC) with Electron Capture Detection (ECD) and Gas Chromatography with Nitrogen Phosphorus Detection (NPD. The scope of the methods is to detect about 32 analytes. The validity of the analytical results is governed by a quality assurance system under ISO 17025 accreditation. The multi-residues methods are within scope the accreditation of the Laboratory. The central laboratory, has implemented the EU Quality control procedures for pesticides analysis – Document SANCO/3131/2007 and it had taken a FAPAS test.

NOTE: The sum of the percentage is equal to 100% for all laboratories participating from each competent authority involved in the monitoring exercise (table G).


Government Decision no. 984/2005 regarding the penalties and sanctions for non compliance cases to the sanitary veterinary and food safety legislation, with amendments provided in Government Decisions no. 679/2006, Government Decision no. 30/2008 and Government Decision no. 917/2009.


229 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

26. Slovakia


In 2008, monitoring of pesticide residues in products of plant origin was carried out under the National Pesticide Residue Monitoring Plan, implementing Commission Recommendation governing the EU monitoring program for 2008. A total of 894 samples were analyzed; thereof 752 fruit and vegetables, 54 cereals, 33 selected processed foods and 55 baby food (Table 1). The national or EU harmonized maximum residue limit (the national or EU harmonized MRL) was exceeded in 26 fruit or vegetable samples, 2 cereal samples, and 2 baby food samples.

Table 1 Samples Number

of samples analyzed

Without detectable residues

With residues <MRL

With residues >MRL

With residues >MRL (%)

Country of origin* SK EU Third

countries Total >

MRL Total >MRL Total >MRL

Fruit and vegetables

752 388 338 26 3.4 185 5 434 18 130 3

Cereals 54 40 12 2 3.7 *Country of origin unknown for 3 samples of fruit and vegetables Processe

d foods 33 28 5 0 0

Baby food

55 52 1 2 3.6

Total 894 508 356 30 3.3

26.2. Organisation of monitoring programmes and sampling


The competencies in food official control are governed by the Slovak national food legislation. The State Veterinary and Food Administration of the SR under the Ministry of Agriculture of the SR is a competent authority for monitoring of pesticide residues in food of plant origin. The Public Health Authority of the SR under the Ministry of Health of the SR is a competent authority for baby food monitoring.

26.2.2. Design of programmes (priorities, targeting, criteria for the percentage of samples to be taken from the organic sector)

In drafting the national plan we focussed on several priorities. There were defined criteria for determining types and number of samples as are commodity consumption and production in Slovakia, observations from the sample analyses conducted in the previous year, as well as the RASSF messages. Fresh fruit and vegetables were preferred in selection of commodities. The number of collected samples was limited by analytical and budgetary possibilities. The coordinated program of the EU was a part of the national program. In compliance with this program, also 28 samples of organic agricultural products were collected and analyzed.


The type of sampling was in compliance with Commission Directive 2002/63/EC that is implemented into the Slovak food legislation. The sampling was done by qualified trained inspectors from 40 District Veterinary and Food Administrations. The samples from domestic


230 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

production were collected preferentially, directly at producer sites, other samples were collected mainly at retail level, in wholesale warehouses as well as within controls of food import from third countries at points of entry.


In the event of a MRL violation (when measurement uncertainty is considered), the inspectors acted in accordance with the Slovak legislation. After forwarding a notification of non-compliant samples to the National RASFF Contact Point a risk analysis was performed.



The National Reference Laboratory for Pesticide Residues in Food of Plant Origin – The State Veterinary and Food Institute (SVFI) in Bratislava – was authorized to perform sample analyses. This laboratory analyzed all collected samples, except 41 baby food samples that were analyzed by the official laboratory under the Public Health Authority of the SR (The National Reference Centre for Pesticide Residues). Both official laboratories have been accredited institutions for many years, regularly re-accredited by the Slovak National Accreditation Service (SNAS).


A general strategy for determination of the widest possible spectrum of pesticides by a multi-residue method (MRM) was adopted. The principal of the method is extraction into ethylacetate, followed by purification and gel permeation chromatography in ethylacetate/cyclohexane system. The detection is performed by GC/ECD, FPD and NPD. Another part of residue spectrum be due to a monitoring was analyzed by a MRM, where QUECHERS-method for sample extraction and purification is used, followed by GC/MSMS. The positive findings are confirmed with MSD. A modified method with a measurement in HPLC/DAD/FLD system is used for three fungicides (benomyl group, thiabendazol and imidacloprid). A separate method of derivatization to CS2, followed by GC/ECD detection for determination of maneb group is used. A multi-residue method using LC/MC/MS is adopted for carbamate pesticide analysis; the samples are prepared by QUECHERS-method. The samples for determination of quaternary ammonium salts (mepiquat, chlormequat) are firstly extracted into an applicable organic solvent and then analyzed by an individual method using LC/MS/MS.


In 2008, the National Reference Laboratory for Pesticide Residues (SVFI Bratislava) participated in four EUPTs organized by the CRLs and in a FAPAS proficiency test.


The quality of analytical methods is in compliance with requirements of Document SANCO/2007/3131 in both official laboratories.


For samples above the MRL a 50% “measurement uncertainty factor” is applied to the results.


231 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


In accordance with requirements contained in EU monitoring for 2008, the samples of beans without pods should have been sampled. This commodity doesn’t exist in the Slovak commercial network either fresh or frozen so it was not available for analyzing. We sampled a similar commodity – beans with pods (it is not indicated in Table “B”, but only in Table “C”).

In 2008 monitoring program, we applied two MRLs in case of some analytes, i.e. the national and EC limit (according to (EC) Regulation 396/2005). These analytes are indicated twice in Tables “C” (e.g. boscalid, fludioxonil, etc.).


232 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

27. Slovenia


In 2008 totally 1297 samples of food were analysed, out of it 22 enforcement and 1275 surveillance samples. Enforcement samples included: 2 samples of cereals, 6 samples of processed products of plant origin and 14 samples of vegetables, fruits and other plant origin. Surveillance samples included: 30 samples of animal products, 103 samples of baby food, 16 samples of cereals, 73 samples of processed products of plant origin and 1053 samples of vegetables, fruits and other plant origin. There were 730 samples without detectable residues, 547 samples with residues below or at EU-MRL and 20 samples with residues exceeding the EU-MRL. 409 samples were originated from domestic produce, 563 from other EU Member States, 311 from Third Countries and 14 were of unknown origin.

Samples of animal products were analysed for the presence of up to 191 pesticides. From 30 surveillance samples, 28 (93.33%) samples were without detectable residues and 2 (6.67%) with residues below or at EU-MRL.

Samples of baby food were analysed for the presence of up to 222 pesticides. From 103 surveillance samples 99 (96.12%) samples were without detectable residues, 3 (2.91%) with residues below or at EU-MRL and 1 (0.97%) with residues exceeding the EU-MRL.

Samples of cereals were analysed for the presence of up to 192 pesticides. From 16 surveillance samples 11 (68.75%) samples were without detectable residues, 3 (18.75%) with residues below or at EU-MRL and 2 (12.50%) with residues exceeding the EU-MRL.

Samples of processed products of plant origin were analysed for the presence of up to 196 pesticides. From 73 surveillance samples 57 (78.08%) samples were without detectable residues and 16 (21.92%) with residues below or at EU-MRL.

Samples of vegetables, fruits and other plant origin were analysed for the presence of up to 196 pesticides. From 1053 surveillance samples 525 (49.86%) samples were without detectable residues, 512 (48.62%) with residues below or at EU-MRL and 16 (1.52%) with residues exceeding the EU-MRL.

27.2. Organisation of Monitoring programmes and Sampling


The competent authorities for the preparation of legislation in the area of pesticide residues in foodstuffs is the Ministry of Health (MH) in cooperation with Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Food (MAFF).

There are two authorities competent in the field of official control of pesticide residues in products of plant origin:

Inspectorate for Agriculture, Forestry and Food (IRSAFF) is responsible for the control at the very first step of placing on the market of primary products by the primary producers. Trade with registered pesticides and their use is also a part of official control of IRSAFF and

Health Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia (HIRS) is responsible for the control of all foodstuffs, including baby food and infant formulae, in all other stages of the production chain, including importation.


233 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

The national monitoring programme covers also some food of animal origin and the competent authorities for the control of pesticide residues in animal products are:

Veterinary Administration of Republic of Slovenia (VARS) is responsible for production, processing, packing, marketing and retail trade of non-pre-packed raw meat, aquaculture, milk and eggs (in 2008 wasn’t involved yet) and

HIRS is responsible for prepacked foodstuffs of animal origin at the retail level.

A detailed national pesticide monitoring plan, incorporating the EU co-ordinated monitoring programme, was prepared for 2008 by the MH and MAFF and was given in discussion, evaluation and confirmation to the Panel (established by the Minister of Health and the Minister of Agriculture, Forestry and Food). The Panel comprises of representatives from MH, MAFF, and Phytosanitary Administration of the Republic of Slovenia, governmental and non-governmental consumer associations, official laboratories, National Chemicals Bureau, risk assessors and official control bodies.

27.2.2. Designing of Programmes (priorities, targeting)

Commodities included into the monitoring programme are selected each year covering staple food, food included in EU coordinated programme, food offered on the Slovenian market, as part of national rolling programme and non-compliant commodities of previous year. The selection of pesticides to be sought is primarily influenced by pesticide use; potential for residues based on use pattern; toxicological profile of the pesticide; analytical capabilities.


Samples were taken in accordance with Commission Directive 2002/63/EC by IRSAFF inspectors, HIRS inspectors and contracting institution at different stage of the production, processing and distribution chain, but mainly at wholesale / retail.


Follow up activities were carried out always when infringements were found (additional inspection including sampling when sample available, taking proper official measures to prevent public health, including communication of information, RASFF…).



In Slovenia three official laboratories are nominated for performing the analyses of samples. • National Institute of Public Health of Republic Slovenia (accreditation; August 2003), • Institute of Public Health Maribor (accreditation; November 2001) for HIRS and • Agricultural Institute of Slovenia (accreditation; June 2005) for IRSAFF.


Samples were analysed using: • mainly multiresidue methods based on gas and liquid chromatographic techniques

employing mass-selective detection systems, • single residue methods for determination of dithiocarbamates, chlormequat / mepiquat,

fentin and benzimidazoles were used.


234 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

27.3.3. Participation in proficiency test

All three laboratories participated in proficiency testing schemes. Basic ones were FAPAS and EUPT (EU Commission’s Proficiency Test on Pesticide Residues for different matrices).

27.3.4. Implementation of EU quality control procedure

With respect to quality of data generated in the frame of the EU residue coordinated programme, the results of the analysis of foodstuffs were obtained in compliance with the requirements of Directive 1993/99/EEC, its Article 3, applying Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis and accreditation according to the ISO17025.


All three laboratories applied an uncertainty factor to results used in enforcement of the legislation. The used factor for samples of plant origin is 50%, which is agreed at EU level.


In all cases where pesticide residues with consideration the uncertainty factor were above MRL, a risk assessment was carried out to quantify the risk to consumers.


235 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

28. Spain


The total number of samples in the Co-ordinate Programme and the National Spanish Programme 2008 was 6227; 5544 (89 %) samples were taken from fruits and vegetables, 327 (5.3 %) from cereals, 234 (3.8 %) from baby food and 122 (1.9 %) samples from other processed products.

For fruits, vegetables and other vegetables the number of samples that exceeded the MLRs was 214 (about 3.9%), 6 samples (1.8%) for cereals and no samples for baby food and processed products were above the MRL.

Pesticides most frequently found were (refer to the percentage of the total number of samples analyzed for each pesticide): For fruits and vegetables: chlorpyrifos, imazalil, dithiocarbamates, chlorothalonil, iprodione, imidacloprid, orthophenylphenol, captan, carbendazim, and cypermethrin. For cereals: pirimiphos-methyl, tebuconazole, buprofezin and malathion. For processed products: pirimiphos-methyl, azoxystrobin and chlorpyrifos and for baby food no pesticides have been found in any baby food sample.

28.2. Organisation of monitoring programmes and sampling


The Spanish Pesticide Monitoring Programme for pesticide residues in food was carried out by the Autonomous Communities. The sampling in origin is coordinated by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (MERMA). The results of consumption’s sampling, including baby food sampling, were gathered by the Spanish Nutrition and Food Safety Agency (SNFSA). The SNFSA is the contact point between Spain and the European Commission. In case the sampling happens when importation takes place, this sampling is done by the Dirección General de Salud Pública y Sanidad Exterior, belonging to the Spanish Ministry of Health and Social Policy, as well as the SNFSA.


There are two subprograms (“in origin” and “in market”) mainly distinguished for the place where samples are taken. The responsible of the coordination for the “in origin” subprogram is the Subdirección General de Medios de Producción from the MERMA. The responsible of the coordination for the “in market” subprogram is the SNFSA.

The programme takes into account; proportion of the crops accordingly with the production, requirements from EU co-ordinated programme, some special actions concerning problems with certain crop, products more consumed, alerts regarding exceeding of MRLs and results of previous years.


The responsible personal of the sampling are the inspectors from the Autonomous Communities. Samples are taken from wholesales, in farm gate and retail. Inspectors from agricultural departments take samples following the Manual Proceeding made at national level and co-ordinated by S. G. Medios de Produccion. In the moment of importation the


236 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

sampling is done by staff depending functionally on Dirección General de Salud Pública y Sanidad Exterior.


For surveillance samples exceeding the MRL, different enforcement action was undertaken: the producer or competent Authority were informed, research of possible reason why the MRLs were exceeded, follow-up enforcement sample was taken from the same product and the same origin to analize the detected residue, administrative measures. When the information is transferred to RASFF, the document SANCO/3346/2001 is taken into account.



27 laboratories carried out the analyses of the monitoring programme. Fifteen laboratories are accredited and some others are in very advance phase to obtain the accreditation. The accreditation can be occurred only if methods are validated by collaborative studies. The validation "in house" requires a lot of investigation. For the new molecules the accreditation seems difficult to obtain. The fifteen laboratories accredited assumed approximately the 64.2% of the samples. It is important to emphasize that requirements for accreditation of ENAC (organism responsible of accreditation in Spain) are very hard and it is only awarded for each pesticide and food item.


For all the samples is applied the method of multi-residues and maneb-group, and the method of benzimidazol and methyl carbamate is applied to the samples that had registration or some problems were found. In multirresidues methods the samples are extracted by a solvent, laboratories are using acetone extraction (Luke meyhod modified), ethyl acetate extraction and acetonitrile extraction method (QuEChERS). The purification for organic-halogenated and organic phosphate molecules were performed by cartridge set-pack, florisil or GPC. ECD, NPD, FPD conduct the determination or hall detector GC/MS is used, as confirmation for samples above MRL's when the techniques are applicable. Additional methods are used for determination of methyl carbamate, maneb groups, inorganic bromides, benomyl group and so on.


11 laboratories took part in Proficiency EUPT from European Commission and 14 laboratories are participating in the Spanish proficiency Test (Test-Qual) and 16 laboratories have made several exercises of intercalibration organized by FAPAS.


The majority of the laboratories participated in the EU Quality control procedures, either for all or only some elements.

28.3.5. Analytical uncertainty:

All different laboratories have procedures to estimate analytical uncertainty which is taken into account to decide an enforcement action. In addition the documents SANCO 10232/2006 is considered.


237 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

29. Sweden


In 2008, a total of 1 536 surveillance samples of fruits, vegetables, juices, fruit drinks, cereal grains, cereal products and vegetable oils were analysed for residues of 311 pesticides (375 analytes). National or EU harmonized Maximum Residue Limits (EC-MRLs) were exceeded by 82 samples (5.3 %).

In the 2008 EU co-ordinated programme 380 samples were analysed and 13 of these samples exceeded EC-MRLs for the pesticides that were included in the co-ordinated programme.

A total of 279 samples of cereal grains were analysed. Most of the samples (73%) contained no residues but five samples exceeded the MRLs.

No residues were found in the 42 samples of foods for infants and young children.

In the enforcement sampling 64 samples of fruits and vegetables were collected and 16 of these samples exceeded the MRLs.

The short-term intake was estimated for all pesticides with an acute reference dose (ARfD) set by EU or WHO. The calculation was based on the residue found in a surveillance (composite) sample and UK consumption data.

29.2. Organisation of monitoring programmes and Sampling


The National Food Administration (NFA) is the responsible authority for the monitoring of pesticide residues in foods.


The number of samples to be collected of each food is risk related and partly linked to the foods consumption rate and takes into account both the amount of domestic production and the amount of imports from EU-countries and third countries. However, the number is also based on the importance of the foodstuff in the diets of infants and young children as well as residues found in prior samples. The number of samples from the organic sector was roughly dependent on its share of the market and availability on the market.


Samples collected in accordance with the monitoring programme were defined as surveillance samples i.e. there were no suspicions about excessive amounts of pesticide residues in the lots prior to sampling

Personnel: Plant inspectors from the National Board of Agriculture collected most of the samples in accordance with instructions from NFA.

Procedures: The sampling was done according to Commission Directive 2002/63/EEC. Each sample was sealed and labelled with a unique sample identity.

Sampling points: Fresh fruit and vegetables were sampled at wholesalers' warehouses in the first trade channel. The imported cereal grains were sampled at the port where the shipment


238 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

was discharged. Samples of domestic produced cereal grains were collected at the milling plants. Most of the samples of processed or frozen fruit and vegetables, juices, fruit drinks, rice, cereal products and vegetable oils were collected in retail shops or department stores.


When a surveillance sample contained a pesticide residue above national or EC-MRL (see uncertainty), the National Food Administration prescribed a condition for the offering for sale or other handling of the food or lot to which the food belonged. The remaining part of the lot, if any, was prohibited for being put on the market. As a follow-up, next lots of the commodity from the grower/exporter were detained and enforcement samples were collected.



Both laboratories, National Food Administration (NRL) and Eurofins Food & Agro AB (Official laboratory) are accredited by the Swedish accreditation authority SWEDAC for all analytical methods used for the NFA’s official control of pesticide residues in food of plant origin.


All samples of fruit and vegetables were analysed by the multi-residue method M200. By this method, the samples were extracted with ethyl acetate after addition of sodium hydrogen carbonate. The uncleaned extracts were determined by LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS.

In all, by using both multi-residue methods and single residue methods it was possible to determine 311 pesticides corresponding to 375 analytes.


National Food Administration has participated in three proficiency tests (PTs) organised by EU. Eurofins Food & Agro AB has participated in four PTs organised by EU and 15 PTs organised by FAPAS, UK (Table G).


The EC guidelines SANCO/2007/3131 “Method validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in food and feed” have been fully implemented (Table G).


The residue figures found are compared with the MRLs. If the figures, without any correction, are mathematically above the MRL, the sample is defined as an exceeding. However, before any enforcement actions are taken the analytical uncertainty is subtracted from the measured value (95 percent confidence interval). If the corrected figure still exceeds the MRL, enforcement actions could be taken. As a general rule, the figure 50% is used as a default uncertainty for enforcement purposes.


Sweden has implemented all EC-MRLs. For a few pesticide/commodity combinations National limits were in force.


239 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

30. United Kingdom


The 2008 Annual Report of the Pesticide Residues Committee was published on 17 September 2009 and can be downloaded at www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2536. 30.2. Organisation of monitoring programmes and Sampling 30.2.1. Responsibilities

The UK monitoring programme is overseen by the independent Pesticide Residues Committee (PRC). The Chemicals Regulation Directorate of the Health and Safety Directorate is responsible for managing the UK’s monitoring programme for pesticide residues on behalf of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (for England), Welsh Assembly, Scottish Government and Government for Northern Ireland . The Food Safety Agency is responsible for risk management and is the UK’s contact point for the RASFF. 30.2.2. Design of Programmes (priorities, targeting, criteria for the percentage of samples to be

taken from the organic sector)

The purpose of the UK monitoring is to: • back up the statutory approvals process for pesticides by checking that no unexpected

residues are occurring; • check that residues do not exceed statutory EU and UK MRLs; and • check that human dietary intakes of residues are at acceptable levels.

A detailed justification of the UK’s programme for 2008 is at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/uploadedfiles/Web_Assets/PRC/Annex_b.pdf Within each survey the percentage of organic samples collected was broadly in line with the percentage market share of that food in the UK. 30.2.3. Sampling: personnel, procedures, sampling points

Around 84 % of samples were purchased by shoppers employed by a leading market research company at retail outlet in 24 locations spread throughout the twelve regions of the UK (18 towns/cities in England, and 2 each in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). The locations selected are changed each year.

Official inspectors from Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) also collected samples at non-retail sources for: table grapes, pears, (sweet) peppers, potatoes and tomatoes.

Samples were taken, prepared and analysed according to Commission Directive 2002/63/EC. 30.2.4. Enforcement action

The UK’s programme is a monitoring (surveillance) programme. No enforcement activity relating to breaches of MRLs has therefore arisen from these results. Brand name details are published for all samples.

Where residues detected in UK produce are indicative of unapproved use, this is followed up by enforcement officers. Where residues are detected in organic produce the relevant UK government department and organic registration body are informed. Local authorities are responsible for enforcing MRLs and for border controls and may organise their own testing in the light of local intelligence and priorities.


240 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

30.3. Quality assurance 30.3.1. Status of accreditation of laboratories, number of laboratories

Four laboratories are commissioned to carry out the analysis underlying this return. (One further laboratory analysed animal products only and therefore is not listed in Table G of the UK return). All of the laboratories meet the requirements of a recognised accreditation scheme, such as the United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) or the requirements of Good Laboratory Practice (GLP). 30.3.2. Analytical methods used

Methods are validated in accordance with ISO 17025 or IUPAC harmonised guidelines. The residues data provided were not corrected for recovery and are expressed on the basis of the fresh weight of the sample and as defined by the MRL. 30.3.3. Participation in proficiency tests

All laboratories carrying out work have taken part in proficiency testing exercises, including European Union Proficiency Testing (EU PT) and also the Food Analysis Performance Assessment Scheme (FAPAS) which is a UK independent proficiency testing programme. 30.3.4. Implementation of EU quality control procedures

All of the official laboratories involved in the UK’s pesticide residue monitoring follow the same European analytical quality control guidance “Method Validation and Quality Control Procedures for Pesticide Residue Analysis in Food and Feed” (Document no SANCO2007/3131). 30.3.5. Analytical uncertainty

Results provided for this return by the UK have not been corrected for analytical measurement uncertainty. Measurement uncertainty is taken into account when results are published and brand named in order to determine which are highlighted as containing residues above the relevant MRL. Full details of this policy are at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2535 30.4. Other information

Results, including brand name details, for grapes and (sweet) peppers were also reported and published monthly on the PRC website. Full details are at http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2322 (for grapes) and http://www.pesticides.gov.uk/prc.asp?id=2417 (for peppers)

724 samples of animal products were also tested under the national programme but are not covered by this report.

2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues – Appendix III

241 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Appendix III Overall results reported by each reporting country

Table A – Pesticides found in fruit, vegetables and cereals, surveillance sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes ........................................................... 242

Table B – Cereals, surveillance sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country .......................................................................................... 253

Table C – Fruit and vegetables, surveillance sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country ................................................... 254

Table D – Processed products, surveillance sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country. ...................................................................... 255

Table E – Baby food, surveillance sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country. ...................................................................... 256

Table F – Samples with residues of more than one pesticide in the same sample of fruit, vegetables, cereals, surveillance and enforcement sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country. .................................................. 257

Table G – Results by reporting country of the nine commodities analyses in the 2008 EU coordinated monitoring programme. ....................................................................................... 258

Table H – Results from the 2008 EU coordinated monitoring programme according to the pesticides analysed. ................................................................................................................. 259

Table I – Results from the 2008 EU coordinated monitoring programme by commodity and reporting country ..................................................................................................................... 262

Table J – Enforcement sampling: Results of national and EU coordinated monitoring programmes per reporting country. ......................................................................................... 272


242 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE A – PESTICIDES FOUND IN FRUIT, VEGETABLES AND CEREALS, SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES

CEREALS

Compound Sought(a) Found % of samples with

quantifiable residues

LCI(b) UCI(c) Number of

countries testing

Included in the EU

programme

AMPA 90 3 3.33 0.69 9.43 2 Acetamiprid 1750 3 0.17 0.04 0.50 20 Y Azinphos-methyl 3022 1 0.03 0.00 0.18 25 Y Azoxystrobin 3036 15 0.49 0.28 0.81 26 Y Bendiocarb 777 1 0.13 0.00 0.71 9 Bifenthrin 3212 4 0.12 0.03 0.32 27 Y Biphenyl 600 1 0.17 0.00 0.93 9 Bitertanol 2490 1 0.04 0.00 0.22 20 Boscalid 1210 21 1.74 1.08 2.64 12 Bromide ion 472 141 29.87 25.78 34.22 8 Bupirimate 2152 1 0.05 0.00 0.26 22 Y Buprofezin 2396 3 0.13 0.03 0.37 24 Y Carbendazim and benomyl 2134 35 1.64 1.14 2.27 24 Y

Chlormequat 922 231 25.05 22.29 27.98 15 Y Chlorpropham (sum) 2698 2 0.07 0.01 0.27 23 Y Chlorpyrifos 3430 19 0.55 0.33 0.86 27 Y Chlorpyrifos-methyl 3507 66 1.88 1.46 2.39 27 Y Copper 1 1 100.00 5.00 100.00 1 Cypermethrin (sum) 3198 2 0.06 0.01 0.23 27 Y Cyproconazole 1866 2 0.11 0.01 0.39 17 Cyprodinil 2440 2 0.08 0.01 0.30 23 Y DDT 2881 2 0.07 0.01 0.25 23 Deltamethrin 3287 61 1.86 1.42 2.38 27 Y Dichlofluanid 2831 1 0.04 0.00 0.20 25 Y Dichlorvos 3370 3 0.09 0.02 0.26 27 Y Difenoconazole 2379 7 0.29 0.12 0.61 20 Dimethoate (sum) 3109 2 0.06 0.01 0.23 26 Y Dithiocarbamates 776 1 0.13 0.00 0.72 18 Y Endosulfan (sum) 3314 1 0.03 0.00 0.17 27 Y Epoxiconazole 1931 3 0.16 0.03 0.45 20 Ethephon 339 2 0.59 0.07 2.11 2 Fenhexamid 2607 1 0.04 0.00 0.21 25 Y Fenitrothion 3461 12 0.35 0.18 0.60 27 Y Fenpropimorph 1787 3 0.17 0.03 0.49 18 Fenvalerate and Esfenvalerate (sum of RS & SR isomers)

1912 1 0.05 0.00 0.29 15

Flucythrinate 1016 1 0.10 0.00 0.55 11 Flusilazole 2102 2 0.10 0.01 0.34 21 Y Glyphosate 646 38 5.88 4.20 7.98 6 Hexaconazole 2146 4 0.19 0.05 0.48 20 Y Hydrogen phosphide 296 35 11.82 8.38 16.06 3 Imidacloprid 1809 12 0.66 0.34 1.16 22 Y Indoxacarb 1421 1 0.07 0.00 0.39 18 Y Iprodione 3246 6 0.18 0.07 0.40 27 Y


243 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought(a) Found % of samples with


LCI(b) UCI(c) Number of

countries testing

Included in the EU

programme

Malathion 92 3 3.26 0.68 9.23 2 Malathion (sum) 3378 68 2.01 1.57 2.55 26 Y Mefenpyr-diethyl 327 2 0.61 0.07 2.19 2 Mepiquat 800 50 6.25 4.67 8.16 11 Y Metalaxyl (sum) 3081 1 0.03 0.00 0.18 27 Y Methiocarb (sum) 1571 1 0.06 0.00 0.35 21 Y Methomyl (sum) 2150 1 0.05 0.00 0.26 24 Y Metribuzin 1484 1 0.07 0.00 0.37 12 Orthophenylphenol 966 1 0.10 0.00 0.58 8 Parathion-methyl (sum) 2685 1 0.04 0.00 0.21 21 Pencycuron 1024 1 0.10 0.00 0.54 10 Permethrin 3210 1 0.03 0.00 0.17 25 Phosphamidon 2086 2 0.10 0.01 0.35 19 Phosphines 34 1 2.94 0.07 15.33 1 Picoxystrobin 1503 1 0.07 0.00 0.37 14 Piperonyl butoxide 1414 139 9.83 8.33 11.50 12 Pirimicarb (sum) 2851 1 0.04 0.00 0.20 24 Y Pirimiphos-methyl 3549 293 8.26 7.37 9.21 27 Y Prochloraz 2548 3 0.12 0.02 0.34 23 Y Procymidone 3372 2 0.06 0.01 0.21 27 Y Propamocarb 1061 3 0.28 0.06 0.82 11 Propiconazole 2652 17 0.64 0.37 1.02 23 Pyrethrins 1306 2 0.15 0.02 0.55 13 Y Pyridaben 1659 1 0.06 0.00 0.34 14 Quinclorac 406 3 0.74 0.15 2.14 3 Spiroxamine 2507 1 0.04 0.00 0.22 25 Y Tebuconazole 2990 21 0.70 0.44 1.07 26 Y Tebufenozide 1140 17 1.49 0.87 2.38 16 Y Thiabendazole 2357 1 0.04 0.00 0.24 26 Y Triadimefon (sum) 3000 2 0.07 0.01 0.24 25 Y Triazophos 2806 3 0.11 0.02 0.31 24 Tricyclazole 149 10 6.71 3.27 12.00 2 Trinexapac 350 9 2.57 1.18 4.83 3 Total 148577 1417 (a): Number of times the pesticide was sought in individual samples. Total: Total number of determinations (b): Lower Confidence Interval (c): Upper Confidence Interval


244 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES

Compound Sought

(a) Found % of samples

with quantifiable

residues

LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me 1-Naphthyl-acetamide 3506 16 0.46 0.26 0.74 1 1-Naphthylacetic acid 2071 3 0.14 0.03 0.42 2 2,4 DB 3945 1 0.03 0.00 0.14 5 2,4-D 8683 161 1.85 1.58 2.16 11 4-CPA 2547 2 0.08 0.01 0.28 3 Abamectin (sum) 11397 9 0.08 0.04 0.15 9 Acephate 46058 50 0.11 0.08 0.14 26 Y Acetamiprid 38184 614 1.61 1.48 1.74 23 Y Aclonifen 22971 15 0.07 0.04 0.11 13 Acrinathrin 40920 116 0.28 0.23 0.34 22 Aldicarb (sum) 36585 9 0.02 0.01 0.05 24 Y Aldrin/Dieldrin (sum) 39493 29 0.07 0.05 0.11 23 Alphamethrin 9777 74 0.76 0.59 0.95 5 Ametryn 10838 6 0.06 0.02 0.12 9

Amitraz 145 9 6.21 2.88 11.46 1

Amitraz (sum) 14581 12 0.08 0.04 0.14 14 Anthraquinone 5361 1 0.02 0.00 0.10 4 Atraton 729 1 0.14 0.00 0.76 1 Atrazine 35220 4 0.01 0.00 0.03 22 Azinphos-ethyl 35991 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 23 Azinphos-methyl 50295 299 0.59 0.53 0.67 29 Y Azocyclotin (sum) 2444 8 0.33 0.14 0.64 3 Azoxystrobin 49690 1807 3.64 3.47 3.80 27 Y Benalaxyl (sum) 37242 20 0.05 0.03 0.08 22 Benfluralin 18136 3 0.02 0.00 0.05 7 Benomyl 458 1 0.22 0.01 1.21 1 Bifenazate 10251 13 0.13 0.07 0.22 6 Bifenox 17594 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 9 Bifenthrin 51877 596 1.15 1.06 1.24 28 Y Binapacryl 24102 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 17 Biphenyl 21811 15 0.07 0.04 0.11 19 Bitertanol 43805 162 0.37 0.32 0.43 24 Boscalid 33658 2801 8.32 8.03 8.62 20

Bromide ion 1431 321 22.43 20.29 24.68 10

Bromopropylate 53379 300 0.56 0.50 0.63 29 Y Bupirimate 45902 208 0.45 0.39 0.52 27 Y Buprofezin 49181 219 0.45 0.39 0.51 28 Y Cadusafos 23108 5 0.02 0.01 0.05 15 Captafol 26792 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 19 Captan 38906 599 1.54 1.42 1.67 26 Y Captan/Folpet (sum) 15912 557 3.50 3.22 3.80 15 Y Carbaryl 45716 149 0.33 0.28 0.38 28 Y


245 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)

Found % of samples with


LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Carbendazim 4897 308 6.29 5.63 7.01 2 Carbendazim and benomyl 40148 1531 3.81 3.63 4.01 25 Y

Carbetamide 7332 1 0.01 0.00 0.08 4 Carbofuran 6241 30 0.48 0.32 0.69 3 Carbofuran (sum) 36955 78 0.21 0.17 0.26 22 Carbofuran, 3-hydroxy 4896 15 0.31 0.17 0.50 2 Carbophenothion 18703 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 11 Carbosulfan 21676 4 0.02 0.01 0.05 16 Carboxin 12454 1 0.01 0.00 0.04 8 Chinomethionat 26760 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 15 Chlordecone 9214 2 0.02 0.00 0.08 5 Chlorfenapyr 23536 19 0.08 0.05 0.13 9 Chlorfenprop-methyl 11084 1 0.01 0.00 0.05 3 Chlorfenson 21928 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 13 Chlorfenvinphos 45503 59 0.13 0.10 0.17 24 Chlorfluazuron 10863 1 0.01 0.00 0.05 8 Chloridazon 10273 3 0.03 0.01 0.09 8 Chlormequat 2959 89 3.01 2.42 3.69 19 Y Chloropropylate 16445 2 0.01 0.00 0.04 7 Chlorothalonil 52050 838 1.61 1.50 1.72 28 Y Chlorpropham 4274 160 3.74 3.19 4.36 3 Chlorpropham (sum) 43899 436 0.99 0.90 1.09 27 Y Chlorpyrifos 55376 4367 7.89 7.66 8.11 29 Y Chlorpyrifos-methyl 55426 387 0.70 0.63 0.77 29 Y Chlorthal 916 1 0.11 0.00 0.61 1 Chlorthal-dimethyl 25951 54 0.21 0.16 0.27 12 Chlozolinate 36103 2 0.01 0.00 0.02 17 Clethodim (sum) 8989 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 7 Clodinafop-Propargyl 6354 3 0.05 0.01 0.14 1 Clofentezine 29620 84 0.28 0.23 0.35 21 Y Clomazone 12122 7 0.06 0.02 0.12 8 Clopyralid 7411 2 0.03 0.00 0.10 6 Clothianidin 16449 36 0.22 0.15 0.30 8 Copper 2366 59 2.49 1.90 3.20 3 Coumaphos 14534 1 0.01 0.00 0.04 12 Cyazofamid 14778 13 0.09 0.05 0.15 9 Cyfluthrin (sum) 42925 47 0.11 0.08 0.15 23 Cyhalofop-butyl 7088 3 0.04 0.01 0.12 4 Cyhalothrin 7623 56 0.73 0.56 0.95 4 Cymoxanil 29429 17 0.06 0.03 0.09 14 Cypermethrin (sum) 52469 927 1.77 1.66 1.88 29 Y Cyprazin 1997 1 0.05 0.00 0.28 1 Cyproconazole 38071 80 0.21 0.17 0.26 18 Cyprodinil 51423 2683 5.22 5.03 5.41 28 Y Cyromazine 16454 43 0.26 0.19 0.35 11 DDT 41538 67 0.16 0.13 0.20 26 DMST 4674 1 0.02 0.00 0.12 3


246 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Deltamethrin 52158 315 0.60 0.54 0.67 28 Y Demeton-S-methyl 3864 4 0.10 0.03 0.26 2 Demeton-S-methyl (sum) 16295 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 16 Desmedipham 9995 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 7 Diafenthiuron 2501 2 0.08 0.01 0.29 4 Diazinon 55968 125 0.22 0.19 0.27 29 Y Dichlofluanid 51073 60 0.12 0.09 0.15 28 Y Dichlorobenzamide, 2,6- 1748 1 0.06 0.00 0.32 2 Dichlorobenzophe-none, 4,4`- 5881 14 0.24 0.13 0.40 4 Dichlorprop 5835 3 0.05 0.01 0.15 9 Dichlorvos 53095 24 0.05 0.03 0.07 28 Y Diclofop (sum) 3243 1 0.03 0.00 0.17 3 Dicloran 40396 40 0.10 0.07 0.13 22 Dicofol 49694 322 0.65 0.58 0.72 29 Y Dicrotophos 22834 7 0.03 0.01 0.06 14 Dieldrin 3153 4 0.13 0.03 0.32 5 Diethofencarb 34301 45 0.13 0.10 0.18 21 Difenoconazole 40534 557 1.37 1.26 1.49 22 Diflubenzuron 28461 120 0.42 0.35 0.50 15 Diflufenican 18418 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 8 Dikegulac 1997 5 0.25 0.08 0.58 1 Dimethachlor 13117 1 0.01 0.00 0.04 6 Dimethenamid 5778 2 0.03 0.00 0.12 7 Dimethipin 1778 2 0.11 0.01 0.41 4 Dimethoate 5149 76 1.48 1.16 1.84 2 Dimethoate (sum) 52502 687 1.31 1.21 1.41 28 Y Dimethomorph 38890 464 1.19 1.09 1.31 22 Diniconazole 23744 9 0.04 0.02 0.07 12 Dinocap 8850 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 8 Dinotefuran 2476 1 0.04 0.00 0.22 1 Dinoterb 7736 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 9 Dioxathion 19451 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 10 Diphenylamine 46568 600 1.29 1.19 1.40 28 Y Diquat 1592 15 0.94 0.53 1.55 8 Dithianon 5175 46 0.89 0.65 1.18 6

Dithiocarbamates 17544 2003 11.42 10.95 11.90 27 Y

Diuron 21379 15 0.07 0.04 0.12 9 Dodemorph 9219 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 7 Dodine 9498 85 0.89 0.72 1.11 8 EPN 18528 26 0.14 0.09 0.21 11 ETU 476 1 0.21 0.01 1.16 1 Endosulfan (sum) 52202 337 0.65 0.58 0.72 29 Y Epoxiconazole 31784 22 0.07 0.04 0.10 22 Esfenvalerate 13004 7 0.05 0.02 0.11 11 Ethephon 1459 45 3.08 2.26 4.11 4 Ethiofencarb (sum) 15884 2 0.01 0.00 0.05 14


247 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Ethion 46669 43 0.09 0.07 0.12 25 Ethirimol 9779 29 0.30 0.20 0.43 6 Ethofumesate 21960 6 0.03 0.01 0.06 15 Ethoprophos 39322 17 0.04 0.03 0.07 22 Ethoxyquin 20239 15 0.07 0.04 0.12 12 Ethylene oxide (sum) 674 1 0.15 0.00 0.82 2 Etofenprox 26720 336 1.26 1.13 1.40 14 Etoxazole 11924 9 0.08 0.03 0.14 7 Etridiazole 21080 4 0.02 0.01 0.05 11 Famoxadone 27908 111 0.40 0.33 0.48 14 Fenamidone 19629 26 0.13 0.09 0.19 14 Fenamiphos (sum) 36320 2 0.01 0.00 0.02 19 Fenarimol 49329 84 0.17 0.14 0.21 27 Y Fenazaquin 30626 79 0.26 0.20 0.32 15 Fenbuconazole 28790 103 0.36 0.29 0.43 14 Fenbutatin oxide 4781 83 1.74 1.39 2.15 3 Fenhexamid 46186 1850 4.01 3.83 4.19 27 Y Fenitrothion 53798 58 0.11 0.08 0.14 29 Y Fenobucarb 6680 1 0.01 0.00 0.08 4 Fenoxycarb 31797 167 0.53 0.45 0.61 19 Fenpropathrin 43873 28 0.06 0.04 0.09 22 Fenpropidin 22684 3 0.01 0.00 0.04 12 Fenpropimorph 32430 46 0.14 0.10 0.19 19 Fenpyroximate 25605 61 0.24 0.18 0.31 14 Fenthion 5149 4 0.08 0.02 0.20 2 Fenthion (sum) 44704 33 0.07 0.05 0.10 21 Fenthion-sulfoxide 3772 6 0.16 0.06 0.35 2 Fentin 2661 1 0.04 0.00 0.21 5 Fenvalerate 2233 1 0.04 0.00 0.25 2 Fenvalerate and Esfenvalerate (sum of RR & SS isomers)

35367 26 0.07 0.05 0.11 18

Fenvalerate and Esfenvalerate (sum of RS & SR isomers)

24274 9 0.04 0.02 0.07 18

Fipronil (sum) 28151 19 0.07 0.04 0.11 18 Flonicamid 5595 7 0.13 0.05 0.26 3 Fluazifop 10561 40 0.38 0.27 0.52 9 Fluazifop-P-butyl 16945 7 0.04 0.02 0.09 8 Fluazinam 16621 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 14 Fludioxonil 48197 1883 3.91 3.74 4.08 27 Y Flufenacet 15920 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 8 Flufenoxuron 28650 85 0.30 0.24 0.37 15 Flufenzin 1558 1 0.06 0.00 0.36 2 Flumioxazine 4811 1 0.02 0.00 0.12 3 Fluquinconazole 27183 46 0.17 0.12 0.23 14 Flusilazole 43196 37 0.09 0.06 0.12 25 Y Flutolanil 20596 9 0.04 0.02 0.08 11 Flutriafol 19722 23 0.12 0.07 0.17 12 Fluvalinate 9902 10 0.10 0.05 0.19 7


248 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Folpet 42821 173 0.40 0.35 0.47 28 Y Fonofos 24687 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 16 Formetanate 6135 40 0.65 0.47 0.89 5 Formothion 26053 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 18 Fosetyl-Al 1361 16 1.18 0.67 1.90 3 Fosthiazate 14607 5 0.03 0.01 0.08 6 Gibberellic acid 1997 9 0.45 0.21 0.85 1 Glufosinate-ammonium 2 2 100.0 22.36 100.

0 1 Glyphosate 2810 1 0.04 0.00 0.20 5 HCH (alpha-isomer) 22122 10 0.05 0.02 0.08 16 HCH (sum of isomers, except the gamma isomer)

19879 4 0.02 0.01 0.05 14

HCH, delta- 404 1 0.25 0.01 1.37 2 Haloxyfop 7484 25 0.33 0.22 0.49 2 Haloxyfop including haloxyfop-R (sum) 12849 9 0.07 0.03 0.13 10 Heptachlor (sum) 36819 8 0.02 0.01 0.04 22 Heptenophos 36270 2 0.01 0.00 0.02 20 Hexachlorobenzene 36655 16 0.04 0.02 0.07 21 Hexaconazole 44017 50 0.11 0.08 0.15 25 Y Hexaflumuron 20253 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 8 Hexythiazox 35933 160 0.45 0.38 0.52 21 Y Hydrogen phosphide 728 7 0.96 0.39 1.97 2 Imazalil 49043 3816 7.78 7.55 8.02 28 Y Imidacloprid 38387 1521 3.96 3.77 4.16 25 Y Imidacloprid, 5-hydroxy 280 2 0.71 0.09 2.56 1 Indoxacarb 37347 475 1.27 1.16 1.39 23 Y Iprobenfos 8066 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 2 Iprodione 51465 2551 4.96 4.77 5.15 29 Y Iprovalicarb 33731 86 0.25 0.20 0.31 24 Y Isazofos 7674 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 5 Isofenphos-methyl 38033 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 21 Isoprocarb 10635 1 0.01 0.00 0.05 6 Isoprothiolane 3769 1 0.03 0.00 0.15 1 Isoproturon 22693 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 9 Isoxaben 6404 2 0.03 0.00 0.11 4 Kresoxim-methyl 50530 437 0.86 0.79 0.95 27 Y Lambda-Cyhalothrin 49069 891 1.82 1.70 1.94 27 Y Lenacil 16482 5 0.03 0.01 0.07 8 Lindane 47294 16 0.03 0.02 0.05 27 Linuron 34788 374 1.08 0.97 1.19 21 Lufenuron 22350 44 0.20 0.14 0.26 12 MCPA and MCPB 6126 2 0.03 0.00 0.12 8 Malathion 4035 11 0.27 0.14 0.49 2 Malathion (sum) 51895 683 1.32 1.22 1.42 28 Y Maleic hydrazide 3326 61 1.83 1.41 2.35 5 Mecarbam 39364 3 0.01 0.00 0.02 24


249 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Mepanipyrim 39074 205 0.52 0.46 0.60 24 Y Mepiquat 2299 3 0.13 0.03 0.38 15 Y Metalaxyl (sum) 52655 723 1.37 1.28 1.48 29 Y Metaldehyde 998 2 0.20 0.02 0.72 3 Metamitron 17495 9 0.05 0.02 0.10 11 Metazachlor 23215 2 0.01 0.00 0.03 13 Methabenzthiazuron 9503 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 5 Methacrifos 19845 2 0.01 0.00 0.04 19 Methamidophos 49156 56 0.11 0.09 0.15 27 Y

Methazole 1 1 100.0 5.00 100.0 1

Methidathion 54667 249 0.46 0.40 0.52 29 Y Methiocarb 4896 17 0.35 0.20 0.56 2 Methiocarb (sum) 39090 110 0.28 0.23 0.34 25 Y Methiocarb-sulfon 3769 2 0.05 0.01 0.19 1 Methiocarb-sulfoxid 3770 15 0.40 0.22 0.66 2 Methomyl 5151 73 1.42 1.11 1.78 2 Methomyl (sum) 40566 343 0.85 0.76 0.94 25 Y Methoprotryne 8258 4 0.05 0.01 0.12 4 Methoxyfenozide 25569 643 2.51 2.33 2.71 12 Metobromuron 22376 18 0.08 0.05 0.13 11 Metoxuron 12047 2 0.02 0.00 0.06 8 Metrafenone 11558 14 0.12 0.07 0.20 5 Metribuzin 28566 5 0.02 0.01 0.04 18 Metsulfuron-methyl 11126 5 0.04 0.01 0.10 7 Mevinphos 38002 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 21 Mirex 10018 2 0.02 0.00 0.07 8 Monocrotophos 43519 32 0.07 0.05 0.10 24 Myclobutanil 51435 1165 2.26 2.14 2.40 27 Y Naphthoxyacetic acid, 2- 3098 1 0.03 0.00 0.18 3 Napropamide 17142 8 0.05 0.02 0.09 11 Nitrothal-isopropyl 9359 3 0.03 0.01 0.09 7 Novaluron 2805 1 0.04 0.00 0.20 2 Ofurace 18113 1 0.01 0.00 0.03 6 Omethoate 9064 85 0.94 0.75 1.16 7 Orthophenylphenol 22155 620 2.80 2.59 3.02 18 Oxadiazon 11476 1 0.01 0.00 0.05 5 Oxadixyl 41230 29 0.07 0.05 0.10 24 Oxamyl 37939 77 0.20 0.16 0.25 25 Y Oxamyl-Oxime 7806 42 0.54 0.39 0.73 6 Oxydemeton-methyl (sum) 30918 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 22 Y

Oxyfluorfen 11288 16 0.14 0.08 0.23 6 Paclobutrazol 19820 9 0.05 0.02 0.09 12 Parathion 51212 8 0.02 0.01 0.03 28 Y Parathion-methyl 1895 1 0.05 0.00 0.29 2 Parathion-methyl (sum) 45820 22 0.05 0.03 0.07 23 Penconazole 51835 269 0.52 0.46 0.58 28 Y


250 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Pencycuron 27420 44 0.16 0.12 0.22 15 Pendimethalin 42788 181 0.42 0.36 0.49 23 Pentachloroaniline 6034 10 0.17 0.08 0.30 2 Permethrin 44582 23 0.05 0.03 0.08 26 Phenmedipham 19424 31 0.16 0.11 0.23 9 Phenthoate 28164 9 0.03 0.01 0.06 17 Phorate (sum) 44290 5 0.01 0.00 0.03 24 Phosalone 54224 160 0.30 0.25 0.34 29 Y Phosmet 46194 446 0.97 0.88 1.06 23 Phosphamidon 40016 1 0.00 0.00 0.01 22 Picolinafen 8034 2 0.02 0.00 0.09 7 Picoxystrobin 26248 10 0.04 0.02 0.07 14 Piperonyl butoxide 26842 135 0.50 0.42 0.60 13 Pirimicarb 4511 109 2.42 1.99 2.91 2 Pirimicarb (sum) 49478 647 1.31 1.21 1.41 25 Y Pirimicarb, Desmethyl- 4411 42 0.95 0.69 1.28 2 Pirimiphos-methyl 54676 148 0.27 0.23 0.32 29 Y Prochloraz 45049 686 1.52 1.41 1.64 25 Y Procymidone 54974 897 1.63 1.53 1.74 29 Y Profenofos 44957 99 0.22 0.18 0.27 28 Y Prometryn 25289 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 17 Propachlor 18670 8 0.04 0.02 0.08 13 Propamocarb 24625 739 3.00 2.79 3.22 14 Propaquizafop 7044 1 0.01 0.00 0.08 6 Propargite 43549 274 0.63 0.56 0.71 27 Y Propiconazole 45894 60 0.13 0.10 0.17 24 Propoxur 35751 3 0.01 0.00 0.02 20 Propyzamide 46983 94 0.20 0.16 0.24 25 Proquinazid 2618 1 0.04 0.00 0.21 2 Prosulfocarb 16219 23 0.14 0.09 0.21 7 Prothiofos 30814 5 0.02 0.01 0.04 17 Pymetrozine 24833 118 0.48 0.39 0.57 13 Pyraclostrobin 28458 1084 3.81 3.59 4.04 16 Pyraflufen-ethyl 3244 1 0.03 0.00 0.17 3 Pyrethrins 21106 24 0.11 0.07 0.17 17 Y Pyridaben 39944 141 0.35 0.30 0.42 20 Pyrifenox 27379 23 0.08 0.05 0.13 17 Pyrimethanil 50462 1025 2.03 1.91 2.16 27 Y Pyriproxyfen 39828 387 0.97 0.88 1.07 24 Y Quinalphos 46013 15 0.03 0.02 0.05 23 Quinoxyfen 39491 265 0.67 0.59 0.76 24 Y Quintozene 13049 11 0.08 0.04 0.15 3 Quintozene (sum) 23570 7 0.03 0.01 0.06 21 Quizalofop 10976 5 0.05 0.01 0.11 9 Quizalofop-ethyl 5647 1 0.02 0.00 0.10 3 Rotenone 9445 6 0.06 0.02 0.14 6 Silafluofen 5755 1 0.02 0.00 0.10 2 Simazine 30542 3 0.01 0.00 0.03 19 Spinosad 29192 420 1.44 1.31 1.58 14


251 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound Sought (a)



LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number of countries

testing

Included in the

EU program

me Spirodiclofen 16943 75 0.44 0.35 0.55 9 Spiromesifen 10535 42 0.40 0.29 0.54 7 Spiroxamine 36048 152 0.42 0.36 0.49 25 Y Sulphur 8866 22 0.25 0.16 0.38 5 Tebuconazole 47935 951 1.98 1.86 2.11 27 Y Tebufenozide 31424 190 0.60 0.52 0.70 22 Y Tebufenpyrad 39060 134 0.34 0.29 0.41 19 Tecnazene 32462 3 0.01 0.00 0.03 21 Teflubenzuron 25188 156 0.62 0.53 0.72 14 Tefluthrin 27775 15 0.05 0.03 0.09 11 Tepraloxydim 7168 2 0.03 0.00 0.10 2 Terbufos (sum) 17227 3 0.02 0.00 0.05 15 Terbuthylazine 28724 38 0.13 0.09 0.18 15 Terbuthylazine, Desethyl- 3134 8 0.26 0.11 0.50 2 Terbutryn 22360 1 0.00 0.00 0.02 14 Tetraconazole 42468 107 0.25 0.21 0.30 22 Tetradifon 43200 29 0.07 0.04 0.10 23 Tetramethrin 17811 6 0.03 0.01 0.07 9 Thiabendazole 44611 2329 5.22 5.02 5.43 28 Y Thiacloprid 33339 783 2.35 2.19 2.52 16 Thiamethoxam 33011 201 0.61 0.53 0.70 17 Thifensulfuron-methyl 5180 1 0.02 0.00 0.11 7 Thiodicarb 8232 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 7 Thiofanox 10641 1 0.01 0.00 0.05 7 Thiophanate-methyl 33371 308 0.92 0.82 1.03 25 Y Thiram 685 4 0.58 0.16 1.49 2 Tolclofos-methyl 50564 173 0.34 0.29 0.40 29 Y Tolylfluanid 49275 83 0.17 0.13 0.21 29 Y Tri-allate 12491 1 0.01 0.00 0.04 8 Triadimefon 4832 62 1.28 0.99 1.64 2 Triadimefon (sum) 51691 886 1.71 1.60 1.83 27 Y Triadimenol 5899 245 4.15 3.66 4.69 4 Triazophos 47510 37 0.08 0.05 0.11 25 Trichlorfon 26190 9 0.03 0.02 0.07 13 Trifloxystrobin 42798 924 2.16 2.02 2.30 25 Y Triflumizole 25722 33 0.13 0.09 0.18 10 Triflumuron 22725 410 1.80 1.64 1.99 12 Trifluralin 37149 45 0.12 0.09 0.16 19 Triforine 16415 3 0.02 0.00 0.05 9 Vamidothion 21980 1 0.00 0.00 0.03 15 Vinclozolin 2214 1 0.05 0.00 0.25 2 Vinclozolin (sum) 51212 204 0.40 0.35 0.46 27 Y Zoxamide 20070 45 0.22 0.16 0.30 12 tau-Fluvalinate 34719 37 0.11 0.08 0.15 19 Total 8660497 66873 (a): Number of times the pesticide was sought in individual samples. Total: Total number of determinations (b): Lower Confidence Interval (c): Upper Confidence Interval


252 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646


253 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE B – CEREALS, SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY

Country No. of sam-ples

Sought Found % sought from found

Samples with no measurable residues

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues below or

at the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues above

the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 29 386 4 1.0 25 86.2 68.3 96.1 4 13.8 3.9 31.7 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Belgium 19 226 8 3.5 6 31.6 12.6 56.6 13 68.4 43.4 87.4 0 0.0 0.0 14.6 Bulgaria 40 39 1 2.6 39 97.5 86.8 99.9 1 2.5 0.1 13.2 0 0.0 0.0 7.2 Cyprus 28 156 3 1.9 24 85.7 67.3 96.0 2 7.1 0.9 23.5 2 7.1 0.9 23.5 Czech Republic 98 250 9 3.6 78 79.6 70.3 87.1 19 19.4 12.1 28.6 1 1.0 0.0 5.6 Denmark 298 169 11 6.5 227 76.2 70.9 80.9 71 23.8 19.1 29.1 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Estonia 20 224 2 0.9 17 85.0 62.1 96.8 2 10.0 1.2 31.7 1 5.0 0.1 24.9 Finland 143 254 11 4.3 63 44.1 35.8 52.6 78 54.5 46.0 62.9 2 1.4 0.2 5.0 France 352 248 13 5.2 206 58.5 53.2 63.7 137 38.9 33.8 44.2 9 2.6 1.2 4.8 Germany 620 629 34 5.4 365 58.9 54.9 62.8 241 38.9 35.0 42.8 14 2.3 1.2 3.8 Greece 63 79 2 2.5 62 98.4 91.5 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 4.6 1 1.6 0.0 8.5 Hungary 92 136 11 8.1 65 70.7 60.2 79.7 27 29.3 20.3 39.8 0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Ireland 93 292 4 1.4 75 80.6 71.1 88.1 18 19.4 11.9 28.9 0 0.0 0.0 3.2 Italy 481 255 10 3.9 428 89.0 85.8 91.6 53 11.0 8.4 14.2 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Latvia 13 76 1 1.3 12 92.3 64.0 99.8 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Lithuania 32 230 2 0.9 30 93.8 79.2 99.2 1 3.1 0.1 16.2 1 3.1 0.1 16.2 Luxembourg 20 70 0 0.0 20 100.0 86.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 Netherlands 88 442 23 5.2 39 44.3 33.7 55.3 47 53.4 42.5 64.1 2 2.3 0.3 8.0 Norway 98 157 8 5.1 83 84.7 76.0 91.2 13 13.3 7.3 21.6 2 2.0 0.2 7.2 Poland 150 88 4 4.5 143 95.3 90.6 98.1 4 2.7 0.7 6.7 3 2.0 0.4 5.7 Portugal 57 131 1 0.8 49 86.0 74.2 93.7 8 14.0 6.3 25.8 0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Romania 204 98 3 3.1 195 95.6 91.8 98.0 8 3.9 1.7 7.6 1 0.5 0.0 2.7 Slovakia 54 169 5 3.0 40 74.1 60.3 85.0 12 22.2 12.0 35.6 2 3.7 0.5 12.7 Slovenia 16 189 3 1.6 11 68.8 41.3 89.0 3 18.8 4.0 45.6 2 12.5 1.6 38.3 Spain 327 185 12 6.5 304 93.0 89.6 95.5 17 5.2 3.1 8.2 6 1.8 0.7 4.0 Sweden 279 108 19 17.6 204 73.1 67.5 78.2 70 25.1 20.1 30.6 5 1.8 0.6 4.1 United Kingdom 217 89 16 18.0 130 59.9 53.1 66.5 84 38.7 32.2 45.5 3 1.4 0.3 4.0 Total 3931 5375 220 2940 934 57 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


254 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE C – FRUIT AND VEGETABLES, SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY

Country No. of samples

Sought Found % sought from found

Samples with no measurable

residues

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues below or

at the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues above

the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 1428 396 151 38.1 620 43.4 40.8 46.0 685 48.0 45.3 50.6 123 8.6 7.2 10.2 Belgium 1413 349 139 39.8 399 28.2 25.9 30.7 928 65.7 63.1 68.2 86 6.1 4.9 7.5 Bulgaria 852 39 10 25.6 823 96.6 95.1 97.7 29 3.4 2.3 4.9 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Cyprus 418 161 51 31.7 242 57.9 53.0 62.7 126 30.1 25.8 34.8 50 12 9.0 15.5 Czech Republic 745 249 111 44.6 396 53.2 49.5 56.8 326 43.8 40.2 47.4 23 3.1 2.0 4.6 Denmark 1640 170 81 47.6 817 49.8 47.4 52.3 791 48.2 45.8 50.7 32 2.0 1.3 2.7 Estonia 287 253 58 22.9 196 68.3 62.6 73.6 87 30.3 25.0 36.0 4 1.4 0.4 3.5 Finland 1560 256 146 57.0 544 34.9 32.5 37.3 902 57.8 55.3 60.3 114 7.3 6.1 8.7 France 3430 251 110 43.8 2124 61.9 60.3 63.6 1168 34.1 32.5 35.7 138 4.0 3.4 4.7 Germany 14435 678 279 41.2 5990 41.5 40.7 42.3 7860 54.5 53.6 55.3 585 4.1 3.7 4.4 Greece 2229 215 81 37.7 1830 82.1 80.4 83.7 326 14.6 13.2 16.2 73 3.3 2.6 4.1 Hungary 3215 266 148 55.6 1459 45.4 43.6 47.1 1660 51.6 49.9 53.4 96 3.0 2.4 3.6 Iceland 277 47 19 40.4 178 64.3 58.3 69.9 99 35.7 30.1 41.7 0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Ireland 832 292 102 34.9 304 36.5 33.3 39.9 508 61.1 57.6 64.4 20 2.4 1.5 3.7 Italy 5515 288 114 39.6 3722 67.5 66.2 68.7 1731 31.4 30.2 32.6 62 1.1 0.9 1.4 Latvia 87 78 11 14.1 65 74.7 64.3 83.4 19 21.8 13.7 32.0 3 3.4 0.7 9.7 Lithuania 304 230 44 19.1 240 78.9 73.9 83.4 52 17.1 13.0 21.8 12 3.9 2.1 6.8 Luxembourg 103 71 26 36.6 43 41.7 32.1 51.9 56 54.4 44.3 64.2 4 3.9 1.1 9.6 Malta 87 82 10 12.2 67 77.0 66.8 85.4 12 13.8 7.3 22.9 8 9.2 4.1 17.3 Netherlands 3772 445 164 36.9 1329 35.2 33.7 36.8 2204 58.4 56.8 60.0 239 6.3 5.6 7.2 Norway 1342 239 116 48.5 702 52.3 49.6 55.0 602 44.9 42.2 47.6 38 2.8 2.0 3.9 Poland 1154 119 32 26.9 955 82.8 80.5 84.9 174 15.1 13.1 17.3 25 2.2 1.4 3.2 Portugal 662 149 41 27.5 410 61.9 58.1 65.6 209 31.6 28.0 35.3 43 6.5 4.7 8.6 Romania 2504 99 40 40.4 2145 85.7 84.2 87.0 358 14.3 12.9 15.7 1 0.0 0.0 0.2 Slovakia 750 173 76 43.9 388 51.7 48.1 55.4 336 44.8 41.2 48.4 26 3.5 2.3 5.0 Slovenia 1053 224 110 49.1 525 49.9 46.8 52.9 512 48.6 45.6 51.7 16 1.5 0.9 2.5 Spain 5544 467 119 25.5 3447 62.2 60.9 63.5 1883 34.0 32.7 35.2 214 3.9 3.4 4.4 Sweden 1119 289 132 45.7 323 28.9 26.2 31.6 719 64.3 61.4 67.1 77 6.9 5.5 8.5 United Kingdom 2027 230 140 60.9 730 36.0 33.9 38.1 1256 62.0 59.8 64.1 41 2.0 1.5 2.7

Total 58784 6805 2661 31013 25618 2153


255 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

(a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval

TABLE D – PROCESSED PRODUCTS, SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY.

Country No. of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues below or at the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues above the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 301 202 67.1 61.5 72.4 99 32.9 27.6 38.5 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Belgium 67 37 55.2 42.6 67.4 30 44.8 32.6 57.4 0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Bulgaria 29 29 100.0 90.2 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 Cyprus 8 4 50.0 15.7 84.3 3 37.5 8.5 75.5 1 12.5 0.3 52.7 Czech Republic 16 13 81.3 54.4 96.0 3 18.8 4.0 45.6 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Denmark 67 47 70.1 57.7 80.7 20 29.9 19.3 42.3 0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Finland 234 181 77.4 71.4 82.5 52 22.2 17.1 28.1 1 0.4 0.0 2.4 France 273 164 60.1 54.0 65.9 105 38.5 32.7 44.5 4 1.5 0.4 3.7 Germany 59 15 25.4 15.0 38.4 38 64.4 50.9 76.4 6 10.2 3.8 20.8 Greece 148 113 76.4 68.7 82.9 35 23.6 17.1 31.3 0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Hungary 109 94 86.2 78.3 92.1 15 13.8 7.9 21.7 0 0.0 0.0 2.7 Ireland 78 60 76.9 66.0 85.7 18 23.1 14.3 34.0 0 0.0 0.0 3.8 Italy 792 595 75.1 72.0 78.1 196 24.7 21.8 27.9 1 0.1 0.0 0.7 Lithuania 4 4 100.0 47.3 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 Luxembourg 16 16 100.0 82.9 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Netherlands 370 130 35.1 30.3 40.2 227 61.4 56.2 66.3 13 3.5 1.9 5.9 Poland 145 140 96.6 92.1 98.9 4 2.8 0.8 6.9 1 0.7 0.0 3.8 Portugal 22 21 95.5 77.2 99.9 1 4.5 0.1 22.8 0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Slovakia 33 28 84.8 68.1 94.9 5 15.2 5.1 31.9 0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Slovenia 73 57 78.1 66.9 86.9 16 21.9 13.1 33.1 0 0.0 0.0 4.0 Spain 122 107 87.7 80.5 93.0 15 12.3 7.0 19.5 0 0.0 0.0 2.4 Sweden 96 73 76.0 66.3 84.2 23 24.0 15.8 33.7 0 0.0 0.0 3.1 United Kingdom 48 39 81.3 67.4 91.1 9 18.8 8.9 32.6 0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Total 3110 2169 914 27 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


256 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE E – BABY FOOD, SURVEILLANCE SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY.

Country No of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a) %

UCI (b)

No. of samples

% No. of samples

% No. of samples

%

Austria 119 110 92.4 86.1 96.5 9 7.6 3.5 13.9 0 0.0 0.0 2.5 Belgium 103 103 100.0 97.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 2.9 0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Bulgaria 50 50 100.0 94.2 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 5.8 0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Cyprus 68 68 100.0 95.7 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0 0.0 0.0 4.3 Czech Republic 59 53 89.8 79.2 96.2 5 8.5 2.8 18.7 1 1.7 0.0 9.1 Denmark 20 20 100.0 86.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 Estonia 9 9 100.0 71.7 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 28.3 0 0.0 0.0 28.3 Finland 24 24 100.0 88.3 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 France 13 13 100.0 79.4 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Germany 185 161 87.0 81.3 91.5 23 12.4 8.0 18.1 1 0.5 0.0 3.0 Greece 15 15 100.0 81.9 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Hungary 168 168 100.0 98.2 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.8 0 0.0 0.0 1.8 Latvia 10 10 100.0 74.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Lithuania 10 10 100.0 74.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Malta 10 10 100.0 74.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Netherlands 75 67 89.3 80.1 95.3 8 10.7 4.7 19.9 0 0.0 0.0 3.9 Norway 44 44 100.0 93.4 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 6.6 0 0.0 0.0 6.6 Poland 135 135 100.0 97.8 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 2.2 0 0.0 0.0 2.2 Portugal 10 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 10 100.0 74.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Romania 466 466 100.0 99.4 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 0 0.0 0.0 0.6 Slovakia 55 52 94.5 84.9 98.9 1 1.8 0.0 9.7 2 3.6 0.4 12.5 Slovenia 103 99 96.1 90.4 98.9 3 2.9 0.6 8.3 1 1.0 0.0 5.3 Spain 234 234 100.0 98.7 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 1.3 0 0.0 0.0 1.3 Sweden 42 42 100.0 93.1 100.0 0 0.0 0.0 6.9 0 0.0 0.0 6.9 United Kingdom 35 28 80.0 63.1 91.6 7 20.0 8.4 36.9 0 0.0 0.0 8.2 Total 1840 1778 57 5 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


257 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE F – SAMPLES WITH RESIDUES OF MORE THAN ONE PESTICIDE IN THE SAME SAMPLE OF FRUIT, VEGETABLES, CEREALS, SURVEILLANCE AND ENFORCEMENT SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY.

Country Number of samples analysed

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19 20 22 26 Samples with multiple residues Number %

Austria 1516 170 143 114 62 39 27 9 7 2 2 1 1 577 38.1 Belgium 1539 228 163 112 72 32 22 11 6 2 2 1 651 42.3 Cyprus 446 47 21 10 4 1 83 18.6 Czech Republic 844 85 56 19 17 7 4 2 2 1 3 1 196 23.2 Denmark 1961 269 154 63 24 6 1 1 518 26.4 Estonia 307 29 18 5 2 4 58 18.9 Finland 1825 260 178 147 94 45 11 10 8 4 3 1 761 41.7 France 4738 464 276 125 90 51 21 9 7 1043 22.0 Germany 15431 2104 1293 895 637 348 202 142 91 41 30 11 12 8 4 1 1 1 1 5815 37.7 Greece 2333 86 32 10 1 4 3 1 1 138 5.9 Hungary 3307 488 252 116 50 23 7 5 6 1 948 28.7 Iceland 277 23 17 12 6 1 59 21.3 Ireland 936 124 96 58 37 15 7 3 1 341 36.4 Italy 5996 502 222 122 56 21 10 4 5 3 1 946 15.8 Latvia 100 1 1 2 2.0 Lithuania 503 20 9 2 31 6.2 Luxembourg 123 15 10 3 2 1 31 25.2 Malta 87 4 1 5 5.7 Netherlands 3889 595 426 306 197 98 48 21 13 6 4 1 1 1 1 1 1717 44.2 Norway 1449 163 89 71 29 10 4 6 2 374 25.8 Poland 1325 28 6 34 2.6 Portugal 726 62 15 7 4 88 12.1 Romania 2708 59 8 1 68 2.5 Slovakia 806 100 49 21 5 3 1 179 22.2 Slovenia 1085 118 81 77 28 14 7 1 1 1 328 30.2 Spain 5997 343 155 49 20 15 4 1 2 589 9.8 Sweden 1462 239 154 104 47 19 12 6 2 2 585 40.0 United Kingdom 2244 346 233 164 86 58 19 7 6 4 923 41.1 Total 63960 6971 4157 2615 1570 814 411 238 153 63 49 17 17 11 5 2 1 2 1 1 17088 26.7


258 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE G – RESULTS BY REPORTING COUNTRY OF THE NINE COMMODITIES ANALYSES IN THE 2008 EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMME. Country No of

samples Samples with no

measurable residues LCI

(a) UCI

(b) Samples with residues below or at the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 103 59 57.3 47.2 67.0 42 40.8 31.2 50.9 2 1.9 0.2 6.8 Belgium 292 106 36.3 30.8 42.1 172 58.9 53.0 64.6 14 4.8 2.6 7.9 Bulgaria 278 266 95.7 92.6 97.7 12 4.3 2.3 7.4 0 0.0 0.0 1.1 Cyprus 262 169 64.5 58.4 70.3 61 23.3 18.3 28.9 32 12.2 8.5 16.8 Czech Republic 254 153 60.2 53.9 66.3 96 37.8 31.8 44.1 5 2.0 0.6 4.5 Denmark 445 233 52.4 47.6 57.1 211 47.4 42.7 52.2 1 0.2 0.0 1.2 Estonia 121 83 68.6 59.5 76.7 36 29.8 21.8 38.7 2 1.7 0.2 5.8 Finland 365 146 40.0 34.9 45.2 205 56.2 50.9 61.3 14 3.8 2.1 6.4 France 813 429 52.8 49.3 56.2 355 43.7 40.2 47.2 29 3.6 2.4 5.1 Germany 729 393 53.9 50.2 57.6 328 45.0 41.3 48.7 8 1.1 0.5 2.2 Greece 215 192 89.3 84.4 93.1 17 7.9 4.7 12.4 6 2.8 1.0 6.0 Hungary 150 88 58.7 50.3 66.6 60 40.0 32.1 48.3 2 1.3 0.2 4.7 Iceland 46 38 82.6 68.6 92.2 8 17.4 7.8 31.4 0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Ireland 283 128 45.2 39.3 51.2 151 53.4 47.4 59.3 4 1.4 0.4 3.6 Italy 1747 1284 73.5 71.4 75.6 448 25.6 23.6 27.8 15 0.9 0.5 1.4 Latvia 100 77 77.0 67.5 84.8 20 20.0 12.7 29.2 3 3.0 0.6 8.5 Lithuania 114 83 72.8 63.7 80.7 25 21.9 14.7 30.6 6 5.3 2.0 11.1 Luxembourg 96 55 57.3 46.8 67.3 39 40.6 30.7 51.1 2 2.1 0.3 7.3 Malta 77 57 74.0 62.8 83.4 11 14.3 7.4 24.1 8 10.4 4.6 19.4 Netherlands 808 265 32.8 29.6 36.2 519 64.2 60.8 67.5 24 3.0 1.9 4.4 Norway 362 217 59.9 54.7 65.0 144 39.8 34.7 45.0 1 0.3 0.0 1.5 Poland 409 373 91.2 88.0 93.8 33 8.1 5.6 11.1 3 0.7 0.2 2.1 Portugal 462 348 75.3 71.1 79.2 96 20.8 17.2 24.8 18 3.9 2.3 6.1 Romania 796 725 91.1 88.9 93.0 71 8.9 7.0 11.1 0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Slovakia 112 69 61.6 51.9 70.6 39 34.8 26.1 44.4 4 3.6 1.0 8.9 Slovenia 318 214 67.3 61.8 72.4 98 30.8 25.8 36.2 6 1.9 0.7 4.1 Spain 537 326 60.7 56.4 64.9 192 35.8 31.7 40.0 19 3.5 2.1 5.5 Sweden 380 170 44.7 39.7 49.9 197 51.8 46.7 57.0 13 3.4 1.8 5.8 United Kingdom 936 467 49.9 46.6 53.1 459 49.0 45.8 52.3 10 1.1 0.5 2.0 Total 11610 7213 4145 251 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


259 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE H – RESULTS FROM THE 2008 EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMME ACCORDING TO THE PESTICIDES ANALYSED. Compound No of

samples (a)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number % Number % Number % Acephate 8287 8285 100.0 99.9 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 2 0.02 0.00 0.09 Acetamiprid 5971 5927 99.3 99.0 99.5 41 0.69 0.49 0.93 3 0.05 0.01 0.15 Aldicarb (sum) 6537 6537 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 Azinphos-methyl 9274 9169 98.9 98.6 99.1 102 1.10 0.90 1.33 3 0.03 0.01 0.09 Azoxystrobin 8733 8565 98.1 97.8 98.4 163 1.87 1.59 2.17 5 0.06 0.02 0.13 Bifenthrin 9512 9477 99.6 99.5 99.7 32 0.34 0.23 0.47 3 0.03 0.01 0.09 Bromopropylate 9928 9820 98.9 98.7 99.1 108 1.09 0.89 1.31 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Bupirimate 8358 8347 99.9 99.8 99.9 11 0.13 0.07 0.24 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Buprofezin 8392 8357 99.6 99.4 99.7 34 0.41 0.28 0.57 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 Captan 6597 6589 99.9 99.8 99.9 5 0.08 0.02 0.18 3 0.05 0.01 0.13 Captan/Folpet (sum) 1511 1335 88.4 86.6 89.9 176 11.65 10.07 13.37 0 0.00 0.00 0.20 Carbaryl 8777 8755 99.7 99.6 99.8 13 0.15 0.08 0.25 9 0.10 0.05 0.19 Carbendazim and benomyl

6994 6719 96.1 95.6 96.5 254 3.63 3.21 4.10 21 0.30 0.19 0.46

Chlormequat 969 903 93.2 91.4 94.7 62 6.40 4.94 8.13 4 0.41 0.11 1.05 Chlorothalonil 9659 9561 99.0 98.8 99.2 97 1.00 0.82 1.22 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 Chlorpropham 1611 1270 78.8 76.8 80.8 340 21.10 19.14 23.18 1 0.06 0.00 0.35 Chlorpropham (sum) 7301 7293 99.9 99.8 100.0 7 0.10 0.04 0.20 1 0.01 0.00 0.08 Chlorpyrifos 10343 9108 88.1 87.4 88.7 1207 11.67 11.06 12.30 28 0.27 0.18 0.39 Chlorpyrifos-methyl 10403 10304 99.0 98.8 99.2 94 0.90 0.73 1.10 5 0.05 0.02 0.11 Clofentezine 4941 4937 99.9 99.8 100.0 3 0.06 0.01 0.18 1 0.02 0.00 0.11 Cypermethrin (sum) 9707 9595 98.8 98.6 99.0 109 1.12 0.92 1.35 3 0.03 0.01 0.09 Cyprodinil 8750 8642 98.8 98.5 99.0 106 1.21 0.99 1.46 2 0.02 0.00 0.08 Deltamethrin 9955 9888 99.3 99.1 99.5 67 0.67 0.52 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Diazinon 10607 10580 99.7 99.6 99.8 7 0.07 0.03 0.14 20 0.19 0.12 0.29 Dichlofluanid 9277 9265 99.9 99.8 99.9 12 0.13 0.07 0.23 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Dichlorvos 9737 9736 100.0 99.9 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 Dicofol 9369 9266 98.9 98.7 99.1 101 1.08 0.88 1.31 2 0.02 0.00 0.08 Dimethoate (sum) 9934 9896 99.6 99.5 99.7 14 0.14 0.08 0.24 24 0.24 0.15 0.36 Diphenylamine 8538 8359 97.9 97.6 98.2 178 2.08 1.79 2.41 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 Dithiocarbamates 4369 3902 89.3 88.4 90.2 442 10.12 9.24 11.05 25 0.57 0.37 0.84


260 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound No of samples

(a)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number % Number % Number % Endosulfan (sum) 10111 10072 99.6 99.5 99.7 26 0.26 0.17 0.38 13 0.13 0.07 0.22 Fenarimol 8613 8612 100.0 99.9 100.0 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Fenhexamid 8095 8087 99.9 99.8 100.0 8 0.10 0.04 0.19 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Fenitrothion 9703 9690 99.9 99.8 99.9 7 0.07 0.03 0.15 6 0.06 0.02 0.13 Fludioxonil 8302 8227 99.1 98.9 99.3 73 0.88 0.69 1.10 2 0.02 0.00 0.09 Flusilazole 6827 6827 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Folpet 6698 6696 100.0 99.9 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 2 0.03 0.00 0.11 Hexaconazole 7232 7226 99.9 99.8 100.0 6 0.08 0.03 0.18 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Hexythiazox 5338 5306 99.4 99.2 99.6 32 0.60 0.41 0.85 0 0.00 0.00 0.06 Imazalil 8857 7220 81.5 80.7 82.3 1624 18.34 17.53 19.16 13 0.15 0.08 0.25 Imidacloprid 6341 6154 97.1 96.6 97.5 185 2.92 2.52 3.36 2 0.03 0.00 0.11 Indoxacarb 5771 5714 99.0 98.7 99.3 57 0.99 0.75 1.28 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 Iprodione 9655 9458 98.0 97.7 98.2 182 1.89 1.62 2.18 15 0.16 0.09 0.26 Iprovalicarb 4956 4954 100.0 99.9 100.0 2 0.04 0.00 0.15 0 0.00 0.00 0.06 Kresoxim-methyl 8760 8732 99.7 99.5 99.8 28 0.32 0.21 0.46 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Lambda-Cyhalothrin 9142 8989 98.3 98.0 98.6 152 1.66 1.41 1.95 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 Malathion (sum) 9906 9532 96.2 95.8 96.6 374 3.78 3.41 4.17 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Mepanipyrim 6747 6746 100.0 99.9 100.0 1 0.01 0.00 0.08 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Mepiquat 710 710 100.0 99.6 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.42 0 0.00 0.00 0.42 Metalaxyl (sum) 9879 9790 99.1 98.9 99.3 87 0.88 0.71 1.09 2 0.02 0.00 0.07 Methamidophos 8538 8533 99.9 99.9 100.0 3 0.04 0.01 0.10 2 0.02 0.00 0.08 Methidathion 10230 10099 98.7 98.5 98.9 131 1.28 1.07 1.52 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Methiocarb (sum) 6632 6622 99.8 99.7 99.9 8 0.12 0.05 0.24 2 0.03 0.00 0.11 Methomyl (sum) 6770 6733 99.5 99.2 99.6 24 0.35 0.23 0.53 13 0.19 0.10 0.33 Myclobutanil 9186 9135 99.4 99.3 99.6 51 0.56 0.41 0.73 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Oxamyl 5802 5793 99.8 99.7 99.9 5 0.09 0.03 0.20 4 0.07 0.02 0.18 Oxydemeton-methyl (sum)

4853 4853 100.0 99.9 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.06

Parathion 9680 9679 100.0 99.9 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 1 0.01 0.00 0.06 Penconazole 9252 9248 100.0 99.9 100.0 4 0.04 0.01 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Phosalone 10033 10012 99.8 99.7 99.9 21 0.21 0.13 0.32 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Pirimicarb (sum) 8686 8671 99.8 99.7 99.9 14 0.16 0.09 0.27 1 0.01 0.00 0.06


261 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Compound No of samples

(a)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)


LCI (b)

UCI (c)

Number % Number % Number % Pirimiphos-methyl 10404 10292 98.9 98.7 99.1 112 1.08 0.89 1.29 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Prochloraz 7362 7222 98.1 97.8 98.4 140 1.90 1.60 2.24 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Procymidone 10370 10280 99.1 98.9 99.3 84 0.81 0.65 1.00 6 0.06 0.02 0.13 Profenofos 8321 8311 99.9 99.8 99.9 8 0.10 0.04 0.19 2 0.02 0.00 0.09 Propargite 7338 7306 99.6 99.4 99.7 32 0.44 0.30 0.62 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Pyrethrins 3930 3922 99.8 99.6 99.9 8 0.20 0.09 0.40 0 0.00 0.00 0.08 Pyrimethanil 8832 8751 99.1 98.9 99.3 79 0.89 0.71 1.11 2 0.02 0.00 0.08 Pyriproxyfen 5381 5260 97.8 97.3 98.1 120 2.23 1.85 2.66 1 0.02 0.00 0.10 Quinoxyfen 6216 6216 100.0 100.0 100.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 Spiroxamine 6579 6577 100.0 99.9 100.0 2 0.03 0.00 0.11 0 0.00 0.00 0.05 Tebuconazole 8491 8353 98.4 98.1 98.6 138 1.63 1.37 1.92 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Tebufenozide 4682 4656 99.4 99.2 99.6 21 0.45 0.28 0.68 5 0.11 0.03 0.25 Thiabendazole 8202 7319 89.2 88.5 89.9 879 10.72 10.06 11.41 4 0.05 0.01 0.12 Thiophanate-methyl 5561 5504 99.0 98.7 99.2 55 0.99 0.75 1.29 2 0.04 0.00 0.13 Tolclofos-methyl 9426 9415 99.9 99.8 99.9 11 0.12 0.06 0.21 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Tolylfluanid 8731 8727 100.0 99.9 100.0 4 0.05 0.01 0.12 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Triadimefon (sum) 9492 9463 99.7 99.6 99.8 29 0.31 0.20 0.44 0 0.00 0.00 0.03 Trifloxystrobin 7164 7105 99.2 98.9 99.4 59 0.82 0.63 1.06 0 0.00 0.00 0.04 Vinclozolin (sum) 8395 8384 99.9 99.8 99.9 10 0.12 0.06 0.22 1 0.01 0.00 0.07 Total 620523 611570 8682 271 (a): Number of times the pesticide was sought in individual samples. Total: Total number of determinations (b): Lower Confidence Interval; (c): Upper Confidence Interval


262 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE I – RESULTS FROM THE 2008 EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMME BY COMMODITY AND REPORTING COUNTRY

BEANS WITHOUT PODS Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues below or at

the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Samples with residues above the

MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Belgium 1 1 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 95.0 0 0.0 0.0 95.0 Bulgaria 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Czech Republic 24 15 62.5 40.6 81.2 9 37.5 18.8 59.4 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 Estonia 2 1 50.0 1.3 98.7 0 0.0 0.0 77.6 1 50.0 1.3 98.7 Finland 4 4 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 France 2 2 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 77.6 0 0.0 0.0 77.6 Greece 22 22 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 12.7 0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Hungary 13 13 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Ireland 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Italy 123 110 89.4 82.6 94.3 12 9.8 5.1 16.4 1 0.8 0.0 4.4 Latvia 11 9 81.8 48.2 97.7 2 18.2 2.3 51.8 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 Lithuania 16 15 93.8 69.8 99.8 1 6.3 0.2 30.2 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Malta 3 3 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 63.2 0 0.0 0.0 63.2 Poland 47 47 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 6.2 0 0.0 0.0 6.2 Portugal 58 52 89.7 78.8 96.1 6 10.3 3.9 21.2 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Slovenia 8 8 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 31.2 0 0.0 0.0 31.2 Spain 16 15 93.8 69.8 99.8 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 1 6.3 0.2 30.2 Sweden 1 0 0.0 0.0 95.0 1 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 95.0 Total 381 347 31 3 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


263 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

CARROTS

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 15 12 80.0 51.9 95.7 3 20.0 4.3 48.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Belgium 52 39 75.0 61.1 86.0 10 19.2 9.6 32.5 3 5.8 1.2 15.9 Bulgaria 48 45 93.8 82.8 98.7 3 6.3 1.3 17.2 0 0.0 0.0 6.1 Cyprus 33 21 63.6 45.1 79.6 3 9.1 1.9 24.3 9 27.3 13.3 45.5 Czech Republic 38 32 84.2 68.7 94.0 5 13.2 4.4 28.1 1 2.6 0.1 13.8 Denmark 55 51 92.7 82.4 98.0 4 7.3 2.0 17.6 0 0.0 0.0 5.3 Estonia 21 21 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 13.3 0 0.0 0.0 13.3 Finland 39 33 84.6 69.5 94.1 6 15.4 5.9 30.5 0 0.0 0.0 7.4 France 126 107 84.9 77.5 90.7 18 14.3 8.7 21.6 1 0.8 0.0 4.3 Germany 105 73 69.5 59.8 78.1 32 30.5 21.9 40.2 0 0.0 0.0 2.8 Greece 27 19 70.4 49.8 86.2 4 14.8 4.2 33.7 4 14.8 4.2 33.7 Hungary 15 14 93.3 68.1 99.8 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Iceland 11 10 90.9 58.7 99.8 1 9.1 0.2 41.3 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 Ireland 33 32 97.0 84.2 99.9 1 3.0 0.1 15.8 0 0.0 0.0 8.7 Italy 197 178 90.4 85.3 94.1 19 9.6 5.9 14.7 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Latvia 15 9 60.0 32.3 83.7 4 26.7 7.8 55.1 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 Lithuania 15 13 86.7 59.5 98.3 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Luxembourg 12 11 91.7 61.5 99.8 1 8.3 0.2 38.5 0 0.0 0.0 22.1 Malta 13 12 92.3 64.0 99.8 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Netherlands 93 68 73.1 62.9 81.8 23 24.7 16.4 34.8 2 2.2 0.3 7.6 Norway 85 62 72.9 62.2 82.0 23 27.1 18.0 37.8 0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Poland 49 49 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 5.9 0 0.0 0.0 5.9 Portugal 64 57 89.1 78.8 95.5 3 4.7 1.0 13.1 4 6.3 1.7 15.2 Romania 89 87 97.8 92.1 99.7 2 2.2 0.3 7.9 0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Slovakia 15 10 66.7 38.4 88.2 4 26.7 7.8 55.1 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 Slovenia 47 45 95.7 85.5 99.5 2 4.3 0.5 14.5 0 0.0 0.0 6.2 Spain 96 93 96.9 91.1 99.4 2 2.1 0.3 7.3 1 1.0 0.0 5.7 Sweden 26 23 88.5 69.8 97.6 3 11.5 2.4 30.2 0 0.0 0.0 10.9 United Kingdom 96 66 68.8 58.5 77.8 30 31.3 22.2 41.5 0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Total 1530 1292 210 28


264 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

(a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


265 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

CUCUMBERS Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 15 10 66.7 38.4 88.2 5 33.3 11.8 61.6 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Belgium 21 9 42.9 21.8 66.0 10 47.6 25.7 70.2 2 9.5 1.2 30.4 Bulgaria 59 59 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Cyprus 30 21 70.0 50.6 85.3 7 23.3 9.9 42.3 2 6.7 0.8 22.1 Czech Republic 44 25 56.8 41.0 71.7 18 40.9 26.3 56.8 1 2.3 0.1 12.0 Denmark 51 33 64.7 50.1 77.6 18 35.3 22.4 49.9 0 0.0 0.0 5.7 Estonia 12 10 83.3 51.6 97.9 2 16.7 2.1 48.4 0 0.0 0.0 22.1 Finland 48 22 45.8 31.4 60.8 26 54.2 39.2 68.6 0 0.0 0.0 6.1 France 70 43 61.4 49.0 72.8 25 35.7 24.6 48.1 2 2.9 0.3 9.9 Germany 94 54 57.4 46.8 67.6 40 42.6 32.4 53.2 0 0.0 0.0 3.1 Greece 26 24 92.3 74.9 99.1 1 3.8 0.1 19.6 1 3.8 0.1 19.6 Hungary 13 12 92.3 64.0 99.8 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Iceland 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Ireland 14 9 64.3 35.1 87.2 5 35.7 12.8 64.9 0 0.0 0.0 19.3 Italy 104 90 86.5 78.4 92.4 12 11.5 6.1 19.3 2 1.9 0.2 6.8 Latvia 15 12 80.0 51.9 95.7 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 Lithuania 17 13 76.5 50.1 93.2 2 11.8 1.5 36.4 2 11.8 1.5 36.4 Luxembourg 12 7 58.3 27.7 84.8 5 41.7 15.2 72.3 0 0.0 0.0 22.1 Malta 7 6 85.7 42.1 99.6 1 14.3 0.4 57.9 0 0.0 0.0 34.8 Netherlands 149 60 40.3 32.3 48.6 80 53.7 45.3 61.9 9 6.0 2.8 11.2 Norway 46 44 95.7 85.2 99.5 2 4.3 0.5 14.8 0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Poland 50 44 88.0 75.7 95.5 6 12.0 4.5 24.3 0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Portugal 51 43 84.3 71.4 93.0 8 15.7 7.0 28.6 0 0.0 0.0 5.7 Romania 103 96 93.2 86.5 97.2 7 6.8 2.8 13.5 0 0.0 0.0 2.9 Slovakia 14 8 57.1 28.9 82.3 6 42.9 17.7 71.1 0 0.0 0.0 19.3 Slovenia 55 35 63.6 49.6 76.2 18 32.7 20.7 46.7 2 3.6 0.4 12.5 Spain 69 43 62.3 49.8 73.7 23 33.3 22.4 45.7 3 4.3 0.9 12.2 Sweden 29 19 65.5 45.7 82.1 10 34.5 17.9 54.3 0 0.0 0.0 9.8 United Kingdom 96 54 56.3 45.7 66.4 41 42.7 32.7 53.2 1 1.0 0.0 5.7 Total 1329 920 381 28 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


266 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

MANDARINS Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 2 0 0.0 0.0 77.6 2 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 77.6 Belgium 25 0 0.0 0.0 11.3 24 96.0 79.6 99.9 1 4.0 0.1 20.4 Bulgaria 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Cyprus 13 10 76.9 46.2 95.0 3 23.1 5.0 53.8 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Czech Republic 15 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 13 86.7 59.5 98.3 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 Denmark 51 2 3.9 0.5 13.5 49 96.1 86.5 99.5 0 0.0 0.0 5.7 Estonia 14 0 0.0 0.0 19.3 14 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 19.3 Finland 54 4 7.4 2.1 17.9 50 92.6 82.1 97.9 0 0.0 0.0 5.4 France 80 4 5.0 1.4 12.3 74 92.5 84.4 97.2 2 2.5 0.3 8.7 Germany 106 6 5.7 2.1 11.9 97 91.5 84.5 96.0 3 2.8 0.6 8.0 Greece 18 16 88.9 65.3 98.6 2 11.1 1.4 34.7 0 0.0 0.0 15.3 Hungary 15 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 13 86.7 59.5 98.3 1 6.7 0.2 31.9 Iceland 9 2 22.2 2.8 60.0 7 77.8 40.0 97.2 0 0.0 0.0 28.3 Ireland 59 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 59 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Italy 189 96 50.8 43.4 58.1 87 46.0 38.8 53.4 6 3.2 1.2 6.8 Lithuania 5 2 40.0 5.3 85.3 3 60.0 14.7 94.7 0 0.0 0.0 45.1 Luxembourg 5 0 0.0 0.0 45.1 5 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 45.1 Netherlands 135 4 3.0 0.8 7.4 128 94.8 89.6 97.9 3 2.2 0.5 6.4 Norway 32 2 6.3 0.8 20.8 30 93.8 79.2 99.2 0 0.0 0.0 8.9 Poland 11 8 72.7 39.0 94.0 3 27.3 6.0 61.0 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 Portugal 17 8 47.1 23.0 72.2 9 52.9 27.8 77.0 0 0.0 0.0 16.2 Romania 38 18 47.4 31.0 64.2 20 52.6 35.8 69.0 0 0.0 0.0 7.6 Slovakia 4 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 4 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 Slovenia 13 3 23.1 5.0 53.8 10 76.9 46.2 95.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Spain 22 6 27.3 10.7 50.2 16 72.7 49.8 89.3 0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Sweden 61 0 0.0 0.0 4.8 57 93.4 84.1 98.2 4 6.6 1.8 15.9 United Kingdom 24 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 24 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 Total 1032 208 803 21 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


267 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

ORANGES Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 13 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 11 84.6 54.6 98.1 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 Belgium 56 3 5.4 1.1 14.9 50 89.3 78.1 96.0 3 5.4 1.1 14.9 Bulgaria 16 13 81.3 54.4 96.0 3 18.8 4.0 45.6 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Cyprus 18 11 61.1 35.7 82.7 5 27.8 9.7 53.5 2 11.1 1.4 34.7 Czech Republic 27 4 14.8 4.2 33.7 23 85.2 66.3 95.8 0 0.0 0.0 10.5 Denmark 85 0 0.0 0.0 3.5 84 98.8 93.6 100.0 1 1.2 0.0 6.4 Finland 92 0 0.0 0.0 3.2 86 93.5 86.3 97.6 6 6.5 2.4 13.7 France 99 21 21.2 13.6 30.6 75 75.8 66.1 83.8 3 3.0 0.6 8.6 Greece 25 22 88.0 68.8 97.5 3 12.0 2.5 31.2 0 0.0 0.0 11.3 Hungary 18 2 11.1 1.4 34.7 16 88.9 65.3 98.6 0 0.0 0.0 15.3 Ireland 45 3 6.7 1.4 18.3 39 86.7 73.2 94.9 3 6.7 1.4 18.3 Italy 272 177 65.1 59.1 70.7 92 33.8 28.2 39.8 3 1.1 0.2 3.2 Latvia 10 4 40.0 12.2 73.8 6 60.0 26.2 87.8 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Lithuania 12 3 25.0 5.5 57.2 6 50.0 21.1 78.9 3 25.0 5.5 57.2 Luxembourg 10 2 20.0 2.5 55.6 8 80.0 44.4 97.5 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Malta 15 12 80.0 51.9 95.7 3 20.0 4.3 48.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Netherlands 184 7 3.8 1.5 7.7 170 92.4 87.6 95.8 7 3.8 1.5 7.7 Norway 57 6 10.5 4.0 21.5 51 89.5 78.5 96.0 0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Poland 40 27 67.5 50.9 81.4 13 32.5 18.6 49.1 0 0.0 0.0 7.2 Portugal 50 23 46.0 31.8 60.7 22 44.0 30.0 58.7 5 10.0 3.3 21.8 Romania 142 107 75.4 67.4 82.2 35 24.6 17.8 32.6 0 0.0 0.0 2.1 Slovakia 13 4 30.8 9.1 61.4 9 69.2 38.6 90.9 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Slovenia 23 1 4.3 0.1 21.9 22 95.7 78.1 99.9 0 0.0 0.0 12.2 Spain 68 21 30.9 20.2 43.3 45 66.2 53.7 77.2 2 2.9 0.4 10.2 Sweden 65 2 3.1 0.4 10.7 56 86.2 75.3 93.5 7 10.8 4.4 20.9 United Kingdom 95 1 1.1 0.0 5.7 93 97.9 92.6 99.7 1 1.1 0.0 5.7 Total 1550 477 1026 47 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


268 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

PEARS

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 16 3 18.8 4.0 45.6 13 81.3 54.4 96.0 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Belgium 42 11 26.2 13.9 42.0 29 69.0 52.9 82.4 2 4.8 0.6 16.2 Bulgaria 16 14 87.5 61.7 98.4 2 12.5 1.6 38.3 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Cyprus 29 14 48.3 29.4 67.5 14 48.3 29.4 67.5 1 3.4 0.1 17.8 Czech Republic 35 18 51.4 34.0 68.6 17 48.6 31.4 66.0 0 0.0 0.0 8.2 Denmark 61 17 27.9 17.1 40.8 44 72.1 59.2 82.9 0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Estonia 13 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 12 92.3 64.0 99.8 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Finland 31 7 22.6 9.6 41.1 22 71.0 52.0 85.8 2 6.5 0.8 21.4 France 95 30 31.6 22.4 41.9 62 65.3 54.8 74.7 3 3.2 0.7 9.0 Germany 121 17 14.0 8.4 21.5 103 85.1 77.5 90.9 1 0.8 0.0 4.5 Greece 26 18 69.2 48.2 85.7 7 26.9 11.6 47.8 1 3.8 0.1 19.6 Hungary 24 5 20.8 7.1 42.2 19 79.2 57.8 92.9 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 Iceland 11 11 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 Ireland 37 5 13.5 4.5 28.8 31 83.8 68.0 93.8 1 2.7 0.1 14.2 Italy 343 214 62.4 57.0 67.5 126 36.7 31.6 42.1 3 0.9 0.2 2.5 Latvia 15 12 80.0 51.9 95.7 3 20.0 4.3 48.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Lithuania 13 4 30.8 9.1 61.4 8 61.5 31.6 86.1 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 Luxembourg 13 2 15.4 1.9 45.4 11 84.6 54.6 98.1 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Malta 8 5 62.5 24.5 91.5 3 37.5 8.5 75.5 0 0.0 0.0 31.2 Netherlands 91 29 31.9 22.5 42.5 61 67.0 56.4 76.5 1 1.1 0.0 6.0 Norway 49 24 49.0 34.4 63.7 25 51.0 36.3 65.6 0 0.0 0.0 5.9 Poland 50 46 92.0 80.8 97.8 4 8.0 2.2 19.2 0 0.0 0.0 5.8 Portugal 54 14 25.9 15.0 39.7 38 70.4 56.4 82.0 2 3.7 0.5 12.7 Romania 90 86 95.6 89.0 98.8 4 4.4 1.2 11.0 0 0.0 0.0 3.3 Slovakia 18 4 22.2 6.4 47.6 13 72.2 46.5 90.3 1 5.6 0.1 27.3 Slovenia 52 17 32.7 20.3 47.1 33 63.5 49.0 76.4 2 3.8 0.5 13.2 Spain 110 24 21.8 14.5 30.7 82 74.5 65.4 82.4 4 3.6 1.0 9.0 Sweden 62 7 11.3 4.7 21.9 55 88.7 78.1 95.3 0 0.0 0.0 4.7 United Kingdom 144 22 15.3 9.8 22.2 121 84.0 77.0 89.6 1 0.7 0.0 3.8 Total 1669 681 962 26


269 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

(a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval POTATOES

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 15 11 73.3 44.9 92.2 4 26.7 7.8 55.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Belgium 61 24 39.3 27.1 52.7 37 60.7 47.3 72.9 0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Bulgaria 67 65 97.0 89.6 99.6 2 3.0 0.4 10.4 0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Cyprus 79 61 77.2 66.4 85.9 18 22.8 14.1 33.6 0 0.0 0.0 3.7 Czech Republic 27 23 85.2 66.3 95.8 4 14.8 4.2 33.7 0 0.0 0.0 10.5 Denmark 75 73 97.3 90.7 99.7 2 2.7 0.3 9.3 0 0.0 0.0 3.9 Estonia 34 30 88.2 72.5 96.7 4 11.8 3.3 27.5 0 0.0 0.0 8.4 Finland 35 33 94.3 80.8 99.3 2 5.7 0.7 19.2 0 0.0 0.0 8.2 France 155 76 49.0 40.9 57.2 77 49.7 41.6 57.8 2 1.3 0.2 4.6 Germany 113 106 93.8 87.7 97.5 7 6.2 2.5 12.3 0 0.0 0.0 2.6 Greece 25 25 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 11.3 0 0.0 0.0 11.3 Hungary 24 19 79.2 57.8 92.9 4 16.7 4.7 37.4 1 4.2 0.1 21.1 Ireland 47 37 78.7 64.3 89.3 10 21.3 10.7 35.7 0 0.0 0.0 6.2 Italy 290 209 72.1 66.5 77.2 81 27.9 22.8 33.5 0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Latvia 14 13 92.9 66.1 99.8 1 7.1 0.2 33.9 0 0.0 0.0 19.3 Lithuania 13 10 76.9 46.2 95.0 3 23.1 5.0 53.8 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Luxembourg 13 4 30.8 9.1 61.4 9 69.2 38.6 90.9 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Malta 19 11 57.9 33.5 79.7 2 10.5 1.3 33.1 5 26.3 9.1 51.2 Netherlands 66 34 51.5 38.9 64.0 32 48.5 36.0 61.1 0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Norway 46 37 80.4 66.1 90.6 9 19.6 9.4 33.9 0 0.0 0.0 6.3 Poland 61 61 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 4.8 0 0.0 0.0 4.8 Portugal 57 56 98.2 90.6 100.0 1 1.8 0.0 9.4 0 0.0 0.0 5.1 Romania 200 199 99.5 97.2 100.0 1 0.5 0.0 2.8 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 Slovakia 17 16 94.1 71.3 99.9 1 5.9 0.1 28.7 0 0.0 0.0 16.2 Slovenia 84 76 90.5 82.1 95.8 8 9.5 4.2 17.9 0 0.0 0.0 3.5 Spain 70 55 78.6 67.1 87.5 14 20.0 11.4 31.3 1 1.4 0.0 7.7 Sweden 46 39 84.8 71.1 93.7 7 15.2 6.3 28.9 0 0.0 0.0 6.3 United Kingdom 301 209 69.4 63.9 74.6 90 29.9 24.8 35.4 2 0.7 0.1 2.4 Total 2054 1612 430 11 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


270 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

RICE

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 15 12 80.0 51.9 95.7 3 20.0 4.3 48.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Belgium 4 4 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 0 0.0 0.0 52.7 Bulgaria 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Cyprus 28 24 85.7 67.3 96.0 1 3.6 0.1 18.3 3 10.7 2.3 28.2 Czech Republic 24 19 79.2 57.8 92.9 5 20.8 7.1 42.2 0 0.0 0.0 11.7 Denmark 28 23 82.1 63.1 93.9 5 17.9 6.1 36.9 0 0.0 0.0 10.1 Estonia 12 9 75.0 42.8 94.5 2 16.7 2.1 48.4 1 8.3 0.2 38.5 Finland 39 30 76.9 60.7 88.9 7 17.9 7.5 33.5 2 5.1 0.6 17.3 France 115 89 77.4 68.7 84.7 20 17.4 11.0 25.6 6 5.2 1.9 11.0 Germany 88 55 62.5 51.5 72.6 30 34.1 24.3 45.0 3 3.4 0.7 9.6 Greece 23 23 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0 0.0 0.0 12.2 Hungary 13 7 53.8 25.1 80.8 6 46.2 19.2 74.9 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Ireland 17 16 94.1 71.3 99.9 1 5.9 0.1 28.7 0 0.0 0.0 16.2 Italy 153 138 90.2 84.3 94.4 15 9.8 5.6 15.7 0 0.0 0.0 1.9 Latvia 13 12 92.3 64.0 99.8 1 7.7 0.2 36.0 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Lithuania 13 13 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Luxembourg 20 20 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 0 0.0 0.0 13.9 Netherlands 36 22 61.1 43.5 76.9 13 36.1 20.8 53.8 1 2.8 0.1 14.5 Norway 25 23 92.0 74.0 99.0 1 4.0 0.1 20.4 1 4.0 0.1 20.4 Poland 50 49 98.0 89.4 99.9 0 0.0 0.0 5.8 1 2.0 0.1 10.6 Portugal 56 48 85.7 73.8 93.6 8 14.3 6.4 26.2 0 0.0 0.0 5.2 Romania 68 68 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 4.3 0 0.0 0.0 4.3 Slovakia 15 13 86.7 59.5 98.3 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Slovenia 15 11 73.3 44.9 92.2 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 2 13.3 1.7 40.5 Spain 38 34 89.5 75.2 97.1 4 10.5 2.9 24.8 0 0.0 0.0 7.6 Sweden 65 61 93.8 85.0 98.3 2 3.1 0.4 10.7 2 3.1 0.4 10.7 United Kingdom 72 49 68.1 56.0 78.6 20 27.8 17.9 39.6 3 4.2 0.9 11.7 Total 1060 887 148 25 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


271 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

SPINACH

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 12 10 83.3 51.6 97.9 1 8.3 0.2 38.5 1 8.3 0.2 38.5 Belgium 30 15 50.0 31.3 68.7 12 40.0 22.7 59.4 3 10.0 2.1 26.5 Bulgaria 27 25 92.6 75.7 99.1 2 7.4 0.9 24.3 0 0.0 0.0 10.5 Cyprus 32 7 21.9 9.3 40.0 10 31.3 16.1 50.0 15 46.9 29.1 65.3 Czech Republic 20 16 80.0 56.3 94.3 2 10.0 1.2 31.7 2 10.0 1.2 31.7 Denmark 39 34 87.2 72.6 95.7 5 12.8 4.3 27.4 0 0.0 0.0 7.4 Estonia 13 11 84.6 54.6 98.1 2 15.4 1.9 45.4 0 0.0 0.0 20.6 Finland 23 13 56.5 34.5 76.8 6 26.1 10.2 48.4 4 17.4 5.0 38.8 France 71 57 80.3 69.1 88.8 4 5.6 1.6 13.8 10 14.1 7.0 24.4 Germany 102 82 80.4 71.4 87.6 19 18.6 11.6 27.6 1 1.0 0.0 5.3 Greece 23 23 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 12.2 0 0.0 0.0 12.2 Hungary 15 15 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 0 0.0 0.0 18.1 Ireland 16 11 68.8 41.3 89.0 5 31.3 11.0 58.7 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 Italy 76 72 94.7 87.1 98.5 4 5.3 1.5 12.9 0 0.0 0.0 3.9 Latvia 7 6 85.7 42.1 99.6 1 14.3 0.4 57.9 0 0.0 0.0 34.8 Lithuania 10 10 100 100 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 0 0.0 0.0 25.9 Luxembourg 11 9 81.8 48.2 97.7 0 0.0 0.0 23.8 2 18.2 2.3 51.8 Malta 12 8 66.7 34.9 90.1 1 8.3 0.2 38.5 3 25.0 5.5 57.2 Netherlands 54 41 75.9 62.4 86.5 12 22.2 12.0 35.6 1 1.9 0.0 9.9 Norway 22 19 86.4 65.1 97.1 3 13.6 2.9 34.9 0 0.0 0.0 12.7 Poland 51 42 82.4 69.1 91.6 7 13.7 5.7 26.3 2 3.9 0.5 13.5 Portugal 55 47 85.5 73.3 93.5 1 1.8 0.0 9.7 7 12.7 5.3 24.5 Romania 66 64 97.0 89.5 99.6 2 3.0 0.4 10.5 0 0.0 0.0 4.4 Slovakia 16 14 87.5 61.7 98.4 0 0.0 0.0 17.1 2 12.5 1.6 38.3 Slovenia 21 18 85.7 63.7 97.0 3 14.3 3.0 36.3 0 0.0 0.0 13.3 Spain 48 35 72.9 58.2 84.7 6 12.5 4.7 25.2 7 14.6 6.1 27.8 Sweden 25 19 76.0 54.9 90.6 6 24.0 9.4 45.1 0 0.0 0.0 11.3 United Kingdom 108 66 61.1 51.3 70.3 40 37.0 27.9 46.9 2 1.9 0.2 6.5 Total 1005 789 154 62 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


272 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

TABLE J – ENFORCEMENT SAMPLING: RESULTS OF NATIONAL AND EU COORDINATED MONITORING PROGRAMMES PER REPORTING COUNTRY.

CEREALS Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % France 70 47 67 55 78 23 33 22 45 0 0 0 4 Germany 17 11 65 38 86 4 24 7 50 2 12 1 36 Lithuania 22 21 95 77 100 1 5 0 23 0 0 0 13 Poland 3 3 100 37 100 0 0 0 63 0 0 0 63 Slovenia 2 0 0 0 78 2 100 22 100 0 0 0 78 Spain 2 2 100 22 100 0 0 0 78 0 0 0 78 Total 116 84 30 2 (a):Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval

PROCESSED FOOD

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


the MRL

LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 47 36 77 62 88 11 23 12 38 0 0 0 6 France 39 32 82 66 92 7 18 8 34 0 0 0 7 Germany 2 0 0 0 78 1 50 1 99 1 50 1 99 Lithuania 9 8 89 52 100 1 11 0 48 0 0 0 28 Netherlands 1 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 95 1 100 5 100 Poland 8 8 100 69 100 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 31 Slovenia 6 6 100 61 100 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 39 Total 112 90 20 2 (a): Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


273 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

BABYFOOD

Country Number of

samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Germany 6 6 100 61 100 0 0 0 39 0 0 0 39 Lithuania 1 1 100 5 100 0 0 0 95 0 0 0 95 Total 7 7 0 0 (a):Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval

FRUIT AND VEGETABLES Country Number

of samples


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)


LCI (a)

UCI (b)

Number % Number % Number % Austria 59 24 41 28 54 29 49 36 63 6 10 4 21 Belgium 107 45 42 33 52 52 49 39 58 10 9 5 17 Czech Republic 1 0 0 0 95 1 100 5 100 0 0 0 95 Denmark 23 7 30 13 53 12 52 31 73 4 17 5 39 Finland 122 23 19 12 27 48 39 31 49 51 42 33 51 France 886 418 47 44 51 397 45 41 48 71 8 6 10 Germany 359 133 37 32 42 186 52 47 57 40 11 8 15 Greece 41 29 71 54 84 11 27 14 43 1 2 0 13 Ireland 11 6 55 23 83 5 45 17 77 0 0 0 24 Lithuania 145 101 70 61 77 41 28 21 36 3 2 0 6 Netherlands 29 5 17 6 36 21 72 53 87 3 10 2 27 Norway 9 0 0 0 28 4 44 14 79 5 56 21 86 Poland 18 13 72 47 90 4 22 6 48 1 6 0 27 Portugal 7 5 71 29 96 1 14 0 58 1 14 0 58 Slovakia 2 0 0 0 78 2 100 22 100 0 0 0 78 Slovenia 14 4 29 8 58 9 64 35 87 1 7 0 34 Spain 124 84 68 59 76 26 21 14 29 14 11 6 18 Sweden 64 11 17 9 29 37 58 45 70 16 25 15 37 Total 2021 908 886 227 (a):Lower Confidence Interval; (b): Upper Confidence Interval


274 EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646

Documents

Appendix I – National authorities and institutes in EEA and EU … · 2017. 1. 23. · 2008 Annual Report on Pesticide Residues – Appendix I EFSA Journal 2010;8(6):1646 163 Appendix