Compared with the EUCP, the national control programmes are rather risk based, focussing on products likely to contain pesticide residues or for which MRL infringements were identified in previous monitoring programmes. These programmes are not designed to provide statistically representative results for residues expected in food placed on the European market. The reporting countries define the priorities for their national control programmes taking into account the importance of food products in trade or in the national diets, the products with high residue prevalence or non‐compliance rates in previous years, the use pattern of pesticides and the laboratory capacities. The number of samples and/or the number of pesticides analysed by the participating countries is determined by the capacities of national control laboratories and the available budget resources. Considering the specific needs in the reporting countries and the particularities of national control programmes, the results of national control programmes are not directly comparable.

In the framework of the national control programmes, reporting countries also provided results of import controls performed under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. These specific import controls are defined, inter alia based on previously observed high incidences of non‐compliant products imported from certain countries from outside the Union and/or notifications under the Rapid Alert System of the European Commission.

The first part of this chapter (Section 4.1) describes the design of the national programmes, highlighting the differences in the approaches chosen by reporting countries. In the second part of the chapter (Section 4.2), the results of the national control activities are analysed in more detail with regard to the main parameters describing the national programmes (food products/pesticides/countries of the food origin). In these analyses, EFSA put specific emphasis on MRL exceedances as these findings may give indications of agricultural practices not in line with the legal provisions or potential consumer risk. However, it should be stressed again that since the national control programmes are targeted sampling strategies, the identified cases of MRL exceedances should not be considered as being statistically representative of the food available to European consumers. The findings, in particular the MRL exceedances, should be used by risk managers for their considerations and/or to take decisions on designing the risk based national monitoring programmes, e.g. which pesticides should be covered by the analytical methods used to analyse food products, or which types of products should be included in the national control programmes in order to make the programmes more efficient. The information would be also a valuable source of information for food business operators to design the control programmes for pesticide residues.

A detailed analysis of the national control programmes reveals the different scopes of the national MRL enforcement strategies. Additional elements, such as the proportion of organic and conventional product samples or the types of food products sampled contribute to the overall variability of the national control programmes. The heterogeneity of national control programmes needs to be kept in mind when comparing results of different reporting countries. More information on the national control programmes can be found in the separate EFSA technical report that summarises the national results (EFSA, 2018a ).

All reporting countries together covered a wide variety of unprocessed agricultural food products and processed products (e.g. cereal products such as flour, polished rice, wine, vegetable oils, fruit and vegetable juices, canned fruits and vegetables, milk products, dried fruits such as raisins, dried herbs, different types of baby food, etc.) which allows to get a comprehensive picture of the pesticide residue situation for food placed on the EU market.

Similar to previous years, a wide scope of pesticides and of different food products was analysed. Considering all samples, the reporting countries analysed in total 791 different pesticides. The broadest analytical scopes at the country level was noted for Malta which reported in total 721 pesticides, followed by Germany (683 pesticides), Belgium (606 pesticides), Spain (571 pesticides), France (566 pesticides), Luxembourg (551 pesticides), Austria (519 pesticides), United Kingdom, Croatia, the Netherlands, Hungary, Sweden and Italy, all analysed at least 400 different pesticides. On average, 230 different pesticides were analysed per sample, which represents an increase of 4% compared to the previous year (Figure 41 ).

Overall, 56,749 samples (67%) analysed originated from EU reporting countries (EU Member States, Norway and Iceland). In total, 22,345 samples (26.4%) were imported from third countries; for 5,563 samples (6.6%), the origin of the products was not reported (Figure 40 ).

No major changes were noticed between 2015 and 2016 as regards the ratio of samples from domestic production, other EU/EEA countries and third countries; the information on the sample origin for the 2016 programme is presented in Figure 39 . The countries with the highest rates of samples of imported products from third countries were Bulgaria (95.7%), the Netherlands (61.7%) and Sweden (45.9%); Greece, Spain and Portugal focussed their national control programmes mainly on domestic products (more than 85% of the samples analysed).

The number of samples per reporting country and the sampling frequency per 100,000 inhabitants of the reporting country are presented in Figures 37 and 38 .

The majority of samples (80,484 samples, 95.1%) were classified as surveillance samples, meaning that the samples were taken without targeting specific growers/producers/importers or consignments likely to be non‐compliant. In 4.9% of the cases, a suspect sampling strategy was applied, enforcing provisions of EU legislation on an increased level of official controls on imported food (Regulation (EC) No 669/2009). This means that samples were taking after concrete indications that certain food may be of higher risk as regards non‐compliance or consumer safety (e.g. Rapid Alert notifications or follow‐up enforcement samples following MRL violations identified in a first analysis of the product in focus).

In 2016, in total, 84,657 samples 31 of food products covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were analysed for pesticide residues in the 30 EU reporting countries. Thus, the total number of samples analysed under the EUCP and the national control programmes increased slightly compared with the previous reporting year (+0.4%), where results for 84,341 samples were reported in 2015.

4.2 Results of the overall monitoring programmes

Overall, 96.2% of the 84,657 samples analysed in 2016 fell within the legal limits (81,482 samples); 42,935 of these samples (50.7% of the total number of samples tested) did not contain quantifiable residues (results below the LOQ for all pesticides analysed) while 45.5% of the samples analysed contained quantified residues not exceeding the legal limits (38,547 samples). MRLs were exceeded in 3.8% of the samples analysed in 2016 (3,175 samples; Figure 42). Taking into account the analytical measurement uncertainty, 2.2% of all samples analysed in 2016 (1,833 samples) clearly exceeded the legal limits, triggering legal sanctions or administrative actions; these samples are considered as non‐compliant with the legal limits.

The overall MRL exceedance and non‐compliance rates slightly increased in 2016; thus, 3.8% of the samples exceeding the MRL in 2016 (2.8% in 2015) and 2.2% of the samples were considered as non‐compliant (1.6% in 2015) (Figure 42). Considering only surveillance samples (samples taken without targeting towards non‐compliances), 3.3% of the samples analysed in 2016 contained residues exceeding the MRL (2.3% in 2015). For enforcement samples (food items sampled targeting towards non‐compliances), the MRL exceedance rate was 12.4% in 2016 (11.8% in 2015).

Figure 42 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Percentage of samples compliant with the legal limit/exceeding the legal limit (MRL)

The results presented in the following sections refer to the complete data set, comprising results of surveillance and enforcement samples as well as unprocessed and processed food products, unless specifically indicated that the analysis was restricted to a subset of the results.

4.2.1 Results by country of food origin Overall, 53.8% of the samples originating from EU Member States, Iceland and Norway were free of quantifiable residues; 43.9% of the samples contained residues at or above the LOQ but below the MRL, while 2.4% of the samples exceeded the MRL and 1.2% of the samples were considered non‐compliant with the MRL taking the analytical measurement uncertainty into account. Samples from third countries were found to have a higher MRL exceedance rate (7.2%) and a higher non‐compliance rate (4.7%) compared to food produced in the EU (Figure 43). The percentage of samples from third countries free of quantifiable residues (residues below the LOQ) amounted to 40.7% while 52.1% of the samples contained quantifiable residues within the legal limits. Figure 43 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Percentage of samples exceeding the MRL and non‐compliant by origin The detailed MRL exceedance rates and the percentage of samples containing residues within the MRL originating from reporting countries and from third countries are presented in Figures 44 and 45. To allow a tentative comparison with the results generated in the previous reporting year, these two charts contain also the results for 2015. The highest MRL exceedance rates among the samples originating from the reporting countries (EU produces) were reported for products from Malta, Iceland, Cyprus, Norway, France and Poland (more than 4% of the samples exceeding the MRL). In particular, for Iceland32 and Malta it is observed an important increase of MRL breaches compared to the previous control year. For samples produced in a third country (countries for which at least 50 samples were analysed), the highest MRL exceedance rates were noted for Laos, Vietnam, China, Uganda, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Pakistan, Cambodia and Suriname. Other third countries with a substantial number of samples (more than 50 samples taken) and MRL exceedances above the average (7.2% of the samples) were India, Israel, Colombia, Egypt, Dominican Republic, Tunisia, Kenya and Brazil. Figure 44 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint MRL exceedance and quantification rates by country of origin (reporting countries) FYROM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. Figure 45 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint MRL exceedance and quantification rates by country of origin (third countries) FYROM: the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.

4.2.2 Results by food products Among unprocessed food products,33 the MRL exceedance rate amounted to 3.9% of the samples analysed in 2016 (3% in 2015), 47.9% of the samples contained quantified residues within the legal limits (46.9% in 2015) and 48.2% of the samples were free of quantifiable residues (50.1% in 2015) (Figure 46). Among the unprocessed products with at least 60 samples analysed, the highest MRL exceedance rates (greater than 10%) were identified for basil and edible flowers, water cresses, passion fruit, teas, liver (sheep and bovine), celery leaves, prickly pears, parsley, turnips, celeries, wild fungi, fresh herbs and edible flowers, pomegranates, okra and rucola. Some of the food products with MRL exceedance rates above the average are products, which were subject to increased import controls (e.g. tea, okra, basil, parsley, celery leaves) under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009. Thus, the results for these products are biased due to the targeted sampling in the framework of border inspections. More details on results for this specific sampling programme can be found in Section 4.2.4. No MRL exceedance (products with at least 60 samples analysed) was reported for unprocessed coffee beans, rhubarbs, sweet corn and a number of products of animal origin, such as bovine and poultry (muscle and fat), sheep (fat) and milk. For processed food products, the overall MRL exceedance rate was lower (2.8%) (Figure 47) than for unprocessed products (3.9%) (Figure 46). Similar to the results reported for 2015, processed grape leaves (and similar species), tomatoes, wild fungi, sweet peppers, rice, table grapes, sweet corn and table olives most frequently exceeded the MRLs. Teas, strawberries, pineapples, milk (goat) and muscle (swine) were also found to exceeded the MRLs frequently in 2016 (more than 2% of the samples). Therefore, it is suggested to continue monitoring the above‐listed food items in the national control plans, in particular for those food items not covered by the 3‐years EUCP rolling programme (e.g. grape leaves, tomatoes, raisins and wild fungi). Figure 46 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint MRL exceedance rate and quantification rate for unprocessed food products in 2016, sorted by decreasing MRL exceedance rate Figure 47 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint MRL exceedance rate and quantification rate for processed food products (excluding baby foods), sorted by decreasing MRL exceedance rate

4.2.3 Results by pesticides Overall, in 2016, nearly 20 million analytical determinations (individual results) were submitted to and used by EFSA as basis for the data analysis presented in this report; the number of single determinations for which the residue levels were quantified at or above the LOQ amounted to 109,843 (0.56% of the total determinations; 0.55% in 2015) and related to a total of 41,722 samples (39,423 in 2015) and 350 different pesticides (349 in 2015). The pesticides mostly quantified (in terms of absolute numbers of positive analysis at or above the LOQ) were boscalid (6,815 determinations), fludioxonil (4,255 determinations), imazalil (4,061 determinations), cyprodinil (3,721 determinations), acetamiprid (3,578 determinations), azoxystrobin (3,526 determinations) and chlorpyrifos (3,371 determinations) (Table C.1). However, the most frequently quantified pesticides (percentage of samples positively analysed for the given pesticide) were hydrogen cyanide (quantified in 95.7% of the samples), copper (quantified in 72.8% of the samples analysed for copper), carbon tetrachloride (56.6%), fosetyl‐Al (29.1%), hydrogen phosphide (22.4%), bromide ion (20.6%), chlorate (14.1%), dithiocarbamates (CS 2 ) (13.9%), mercury (12%) and boscalid (9.5%). Except for carbon tetrachloride and hydrogen phosphide – which were sought in only 272 and 49 samples, respectively – all other pesticides with high quantification rates have been analysed in more than 3,000 samples (the highest number of analysis was reported for boscalid in 71,990 samples). The table providing the number of analyses/determinations, the number of positive quantifications per pesticide, the quantification rate and the number of food products analysed for the single pesticides can be found in Appendix C, Table C.1. In total 4,173 analytical determinations34 were found exceeding the MRL. The pesticides most frequently found above the MRL are presented in Figure 48 (only pesticides with more than 0.05% of MRL exceedances and with at least 2,000 samples analysed). The two pesticides with the highest MRL exceedances’ rate were the chlorate (5.6% of the samples exceeding the MRL out of the 5,273 samples analysed) and copper (2.5%, 3,103 samples analysed); these results are not reported in Figure 48 because of their different potential sources or uses, i.e. not necessarily originating from pesticide uses (see also Section 4.3). Figure 48 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Frequency of MRL exceedances per pesticide and sample origin

4.2.4 Results on glyphosate residues in food Glyphosate, an herbicide attracting a high level of public interest, was analysed in 2016 by 26 reporting countries. Overall, 6,761 samples of different food products (including processed products) were analysed for glyphosate residues; of these, 124 were baby food samples35 and 76 were food samples of animal origin. Considering the individual food products analysed, glyphosate residues were mainly analysed in wheat and rye (813 and 542 samples, respectively), apples, tomatoes, wine grapes, honey and other apicultural products, strawberries, table grapes, sweet peppers, lettuces, asparagus, plums, leeks, potatoes, kiwi fruits, carrots, cherries and pineapples. For other food products, results for less than 100 samples were reported. Compared with 2015, in 2016, the overall number of samples analysed for glyphosate increased by 27% (5,329 samples were analysed in 2015). In total, 77.3% of the samples tested originated from the EU, 12.7% from third countries and for 10% the sample origin was not identified (unknown origin). The majority of the samples was analysed by Germany (60%), followed by the United Kingdom (7.5%) and Croatia (5.3%). Overall, 3.6% of the samples analysed for glyphosate contained quantified residues of this active substance. Considering the individual food products analysed, the highest quantification rate was observed for dry lentils (38% of the samples containing quantified levels of glyphosate, i.e. 16 samples of the 42 samples analysed), followed by linseeds (20% of the samples: 3 out of 15 samples), soya beans (16% of the samples: 6 out of 38 samples), dry peas (12% of the samples: 2 out of 17 samples) and tea (10% of the samples: 3 out of 29 samples). In cereals, glyphosate was mainly found in buckwheat and other pseudo‐cereals (24% of the samples: 15 out of 62 samples), followed by barley (19% of the samples: 6 out of 31 samples), millet (18% of the samples: 2 of the 11 tested samples), wheat (13% of the samples: 105 of the 813 samples) and rye (4% of the samples: 23 of the 542 samples). No detection of glyphosate residues was reported for rice samples. Five samples of honey and other apicultural products from Germany (MRL = 0.05* mg/kg);

Seven samples of buckwheat and other pseudo‐cereals, of which 5 were from Lithuania, one from China and one from Ukraine (MRL = 0.1* mg/kg);

One sample of poppy seeds from Slovakia (MRL = 0.1* mg/kg);

Six other samples (four of buckwheat and other pseudo‐cereals, one of millet and one of honey and other apicultural products) were reported with unknown origin. Among the 6,761 samples analysed, 19 samples (0.28%) exceeded the MRL for glyphosate: Glyphosate residues were not quantified in baby food samples.36 Four countries (Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Cyprus) reported analysis in 3,332 samples of 108 different food products, mainly wine grapes, tomatoes, table grapes, strawberries, lettuce, apples, potatoes; other food products, were tested for trimethyl‐sulfonium cation, but for less than 100 samples. Trimethyl‐sulfonium cation was quantified in 1.8% of these samples, mostly in cultivated fungi (48% of the samples: 26 out of 54 samples analysed), citrus fruits (24% of the mandarins analysed (5 of the 21 samples), 9% of oranges (2 of the 22 samples), 6% of grapefruits (2 of the 34 samples), 4% of limes (1 of the 26 samples) and 4% of lemons (3 of the 83 samples), 14% of the papaya samples (1 of the 7 seven samples), and table grapes (5% of the samples: 8 of the 166 samples). In addition, some positive results were reported for teas, pumpkin seeds, pomegranates, celeriacs, lentils (dry), melons, sweet peppers, apricots, asparagus and plums. Trimethyl‐sulfonium cation was exceeded in seven samples (0.2% of the total samples tested): three samples on cultivated fungi (two originated from Germany and one from Poland), one sample of table grapes from Chile and three samples of tea (one sample originated from China and the other two were from unknown origin). The use of plant protection products containing glyphosate trimesium, a variant of glyphosate, may lead not only to residues of glyphosate, but also to residues of trimethyl‐sulfonium cation, a compound for which specific MRLs have been established. The following results for trimethyl‐sulfonium cation residues have been reported:

4.2.5 Results on import controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 According to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 669/200936 on import controls, in 2016, certain food products from Cambodia, China, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Kenya, Thailand, Turkey and Vietnam were subject to an increased level of official controls for certain pesticides at the point of entrance into the EU territory. A description of the required controls (type of products, countries of origin and the type of hazard) relevant for the calendar year 2016 can be found in Appendix C, Table C.2. As for the last EU report on pesticide residues (2015 control year), the results presented in this paragraph are based on the 2016 results provided by the European Commission, i.e. summary statistics on the exceedance rate with no detailed information on the pesticides analysed and quantified. In 2016, 65,010 consignments of products covered by the Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 on an increased level of official import controls on the imports of certain feed and food of non‐animal origin at the EU borders were imported to the EU. In total, 8,092 of these consignments were selected for laboratory analyses. A total of 343 consignments (4.3% of the total number of consignments submitted to analysis) were considered as non‐compliant with EU legislation on pesticide residues, taking into account the analytical measurement uncertainty. Among food commodities for which at least 30 samples were analysed in 2016, the highest non‐compliance rates were reported for the following items: vine leaves from Turkey (41.9%), sweet peppers from Dominican Republic (12.6%) and from Egypt (10.5%), tea leaves from China (11.4%), lemons from Turkey (8.8%), chilli peppers from Thailand (8.1%), yardlong beans from Thailand (7.1%) and from Dominican Republic (7.6%), strawberries from Egypt (5.2%) and aubergines from the Dominican Republic (5.1%). Figure 49 reports the percentages of non‐compliant food products analysed according to the provisions of Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 by sample origin and food item. Figure 49 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Frequency of non‐compliant samples analysed in the framework of the reinforced import controls under Regulation (EC) No 669/2009 *: The number in brackets after the name of the country of origin/food product refer to the number of samples analysed for pesticide residues under Reg. 669/2009 and the number of non‐compliant samples.

4.2.6 Results on baby food Reporting countries analysed 1,676 samples of baby foods (i.e. foods covered by Directives 2006/125/EC and 2006/141/EC), including 153 samples of infant formulae and 77 follow‐on formulae, 357 processed cereal‐based baby foods and 1,089 other baby foods including 423 samples taken in the framework of the EUCP. Quantified residues (at or above the LOQ) were found in 171 samples (10.2%), while the majority of samples were free of quantifiable residues (89.8%). In 13 samples, more than one residue was quantified in the same sample (Figure 50). For 1.9% of the samples (32 samples), the residue concentrations were considered by the reporting countries exceeding the MRL37 (for more details, see below); 1.4% of the samples (24 samples) were considered non‐compliant with the legal limits, taking into account the analytical measurement uncertainty. Compared with the overall results for 2016, the quantification rate (percentage of samples with quantified residues) is significantly lower in baby food samples (10.2%) compared to the quantification rate recorded considering all food groups (49.3%). In 2015, the pesticide quantification rate in baby foods was slightly higher (11%). Figure 50 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Number of quantified residues per individual baby food samples Considering the samples of all baby food categories, 21 different pesticides were quantified in concentrations at or above the LOQ. Similar to the previous reporting years, the most frequently quantified compound in baby food was copper (quantified in 91 samples, mainly baby foods classified as ‘other than processed cereal‐based foods’), followed by chlorate (29 samples, all type of baby foods), fosetyl‐Al (23 samples, not quantified in infant and follow‐on formulae), BAC (8 samples, all type of baby food), hexachlorobenzene (8 samples), DDT (6 samples), pendimethalin (6 samples), didecyldimethylammonium chloride (DDAC) (3 samples), dieldrin (2 samples), dodine (2 samples) and tricyclazole (2 samples). Other pesticides that occurred in quantifiable concentrations in only one single sample were: acetamiprid, boscalid, chlordane, deltamethrin, difenoconazole, dithiocarbamates, imazalil, mercury, pymetrozine and pyrethrins. The frequent occurrences of copper are explained by the legal context: copper is a nutrient that is added to infant formula and follow‐on formula and can also be added to processed‐cereal‐based food and baby food. Copper compounds in baby food may also result from other sources (natural occurrence of copper in plant or animal products or the use of copper as feed additives). BAC and DDAC belong to the group of quaternary ammonium compounds that are widely used in biocides (disinfectants), but since they have been used as pesticides in the past, they fall under the remit of the pesticide MRL regulation. Chlorate is a substance that is formed as a by‐product from the use of chlorine disinfectants (chlorine, chlorine dioxide and chlorite), is used as processing aids to allow good hygiene practices in food processing and as a biocidal in the process of disinfecting drinking water. These uses are necessary to ensure a good hygiene of food products but also lead to detectable residues of chlorate in food in the food chain not necessarily linked to a use as a pesticide. Finally, some of the other quantified substances (i.e. hexachlorobenzene, DDT and dieldrin) can be considered as persistent environmental contaminants. Overall, EFSA noted 34 analytical determinations in 32 samples (1.9% of the baby food samples) in which the residue concentrations exceeded the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg,38 most frequently for fosetyl‐Al (20 samples vs 56 in 2015) and chlorate (6 samples). The overall MRL exceedance rate is lower in 2016 than in 2015 (4.8% of the samples), mainly because of lower MRL exceedances reported for fosetyl‐Al.

4.2.7 Results on organic food In total, 5,495 samples of organic food (excluding baby foods)39 were taken (6.5% of the total number of samples tested in 2016 compared to 6.4% in 2015); the 767 samples of organic products taken in the framework of the EUCP are also included in this total number of samples. Overall, 4,568 samples did not contain quantifiable residues (83.1% of the analysed samples in 2016 compared to 85.8% in 2015). In total, 927 samples contained quantified residues (16.9% in 2016 vs 14.2% in 2015); of those, 856 samples contained residues, whose measured levels were below or at the MRL (15.6% of the samples compared to 13.5% in 2015) and 71 samples with residue levels above the MRL (1.3% vs 0.7% in 2015). Of the 71 samples exceeding the MRLs, 41 samples were considered non‐compliant by the reporting country considering the uncertainty of the analytical measurement. Multiple MRL exceedances were found for three samples: one sample of tomatoes from China, one sample of lettuce from Bulgaria and one sample of fresh herbs from India. Compared to conventionally produced food (non‐organic), the MRL exceedance and quantification rates were significantly lower in organic food. In 2016, the estimated MRL exceedance rate was 1.3% in organic food, while 4% for conventional food; the same rates’ pattern was observed for the quantification rates, which were 15.6%40 in organic food and 48.5% in conventional food. In Figure 51, the results for individual organic food groups are analysed separately, showing the major difference in the findings, in particular for fruits and nuts, vegetables and cereals. Figure 51 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Comparison of organic and conventional foods: quantification and MRL exceedance rates for main food product groups (including all pesticides) In total, 151 different pesticides were quantified in 2016 (compared to 140 in 2015) in concentrations at or above the LOQ. The pesticides measured most frequently (quantified in at least five samples) are presented in Figure 52. There, the pesticides permitted in organic farming, naturally occurring compounds and substances resulting from environmental contamination (persistent pesticides no longer used in the EU), are specifically labelled with an asterisk. Similar to the previous reporting years, the most frequently quantified residue in organic food was copper in 218 samples in 28 different food items, mostly in wine grapes, rice, rye and soya beans, followed by bromide ion in 107 samples (in 28 different food items, mostly in tomatoes), fosetyl‐Al in 82 samples (27 commodities, mostly in wine grapes), spinosad in 74 samples (23 commodities, mainly in tomatoes), hexachlorobenzene in 64 samples (eggs, milk and pumpkin seeds), chlorate in 49 samples (26 food items, mostly in carrots, lettuce and cucumbers), carbon tetrachloride in 44 samples (13 food commodities, mainly in oil plants), DDT in 39 samples (five food items, mostly eggs and milk), chlorpyrifos in 31 samples (18 commodities), boscalid in 18 samples (12 commodities), dithiocarbamates in 18 samples (10 commodities), thiacloprid in 18 samples (mainly in honey and other apicultural products), imidacloprid in 17 samples (11 different commodities). Other pesticides were found in less than 16 samples (Figure 52). Copper, spinosad, azadirachtin and pyrethrins are allowed to be used in organic farming so far as the corresponding use is authorised in the general agricultural in the Member State concerned; thus, the presence of residues of these compounds is linked to agricultural practices permitted in organic farming in the Union; as a result, the positive measurements of these substances in organic food are not unexpected. Residues of hexachlorobenzene, DDT and dieldrin are resulting from environmental contaminations (mainly from the soil), due to the use of these persistent compounds as pesticides in the past. Quantifications of copper, bromide ion, chlorate, carbon tetrachloride and dithiocarbamates in certain commodities may result from other sources than pesticide uses, e.g. CS 2 measured for dithiocarbamates (see Section 3.3.2. Head cabbage) are naturally found in some plants, particularly in Brassicaceae and Alliaceae. Among the top three most frequently quantified residues in organic food, it is noted the occurrence of fosetyl‐Al residues. The current legal residue definition is ‘sum of fosetyl‐Al and phosphonic acid and their salts expressed as fosetyl’. Phosphonic acid is naturally present in the environment or can come from use of certain fertilisers, therefore these findings do not necessary indicate that there was a use of fosetyl‐aluminium. Food business operators have been made aware of this explicitly in 2014 by a Note on the DG SANTE webpage and through the relevant trade associations. The occurrence of other pesticides not authorised in organic farming can – as for conventional products – be the result of spray drift, environmental contaminations or contaminations during handling, packaging, storage or processing of organic products. This occurrence could also be linked to wrong labelling of conventionally produced food as organic food. MRL exceedances41 in organic products were reported mainly for chlorate (22 samples) and additional 53 determinations for 29 other pesticides. The details on samples of organic products exceeding a legal limit can be also found from the Excel file published as a supplement to this report. The overall results above are not directly comparable with the findings presented in the recently published EFSA technical report on pesticide residue measured in organic versus conventional food products (EFSA, 2018a, b, c, d). There, the data analysis and systematic comparison focussed on samples taken and analysed in the framework of the EUCP in the reference period 2013, 2014 and 2015 (for a total of 28,912 conventional and 1,940 organic food samples). Thus, the data analysis was limited to the food items mostly consumed by EU citizens, and did not addressed some ‘minor’ food, for which the likelihood of the detection of pesticide residues is higher. Furthermore, the analytical scope as limited to the EUCP requirements. In the above technical report, 44% of the conventional produced food samples contained one or more quantifiable residues, while in organic food the frequency of samples with measurable pesticide residues was lower (6.5% of the organic samples); instead, the MRL exceedance rate for conventional and organic food amounted to 1.2% and 0.2% of the samples tested, respectively, without considering the occurrence of the residue related to naturally occurring substances. Therefore, if all the organic food items are considered and a larger analytical scope is accounted for without discriminations among national and EUCP control plans (which have different sampling strategies), the MRL exceedance rate estimated in 2016 (0.7%, in case the quantified residues related to residues that do not necessarily originate from the use of pesticides) is higher than the corresponding rate gathered from the EUCP results alone (0.2%). To conclude, EFSA recommends continuing monitoring pesticide residues in organically food items tested in the frame of both the national and EUCP programmes. Figure 52 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Pesticides most frequently quantified in organic samples (at least five positive quantifications reported)

4.2.8 Results on animal products In total, 8,351 samples of products of animal origin covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were analysed. In Figure 53, the total number of samples taken is broken‐down by food product/product group. Figure 53 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Number of samples of animal products tested, broken‐down by food group The majority of these samples (83%, 6,906 samples) was free of quantifiable residues; in 317 samples (4%), more than one pesticide was reported (Figure 54). Compared with the overall results for other food products, the quantification rate was significantly lower for animal products (49.3% for all food groups compared to 17% for animal products). For 159 samples (1.9%), an MRL exceedance was identified, particularly for honey (19 samples), liver (84 samples) and milk (50 samples). In 2015, 0.4% of the samples (33 samples) exceeded MRLs. Compared to the results on the 2015 control activities; in 2016 and increase of the MRL exceedance rate was observed (1.9% in 2016 compared to 0.4% in 2015) mainly due to the findings reported on chlorate in milk (out of 159 samples, 31 samples were of milk and 1 on honey, containing residues of chlorate above the MRL. Figure 54 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Number of quantified residues per individual sample of animal origin Among the 629 pesticides analysed in food of animal origin, 49 different pesticides were quantified (residue levels at or above the LOQ). The most frequently quantified substances were: copper, DDT, hexachlorobenzene, thiacloprid, chlordane, HCH‐beta, chlorate, BAC, DDAC, HCH‐alpha and dieldrin (Figure 55). Most of these compounds are banned or no longer used as pesticides in Europe, but they are still found in the food chain due to their persistence in the environment. It is noted that copper residues in animal products are not necessarily linked to the use of copper as a pesticide, but may result from the use of feed supplements, which contain copper compounds. Out of 1,131 samples of honey and other apicultural products analysed, 236 samples (20.1%) contained at least one pesticide residue; 19 samples numerically exceeded the MRL (1.7%) and nine samples were reported as MRL non‐compliant by the reporting countries (0.8%). The MRL was exceeded for the following substances: glyphosate, amitraz, fluvalinate and coumaphos. Among the 619 different pesticides sought in honey and related products, 30 were quantified, mostly copper (quantified in 100% of the samples, i.e. in the 42 samples analysed), thiacloprid (quantified in 17% of the samples, 100 of the 588 samples tested), glyphosate (8.2%, 18 of the 220 samples analysed), chlordane (7.8%, 28 of the 358 samples analysed), dimoxystrobin (5%, 16 of the total of 319 samples analysed) and chlorate (5%, 1 of the 20 samples analysed). Other pesticides were also quantified in honey (in decreasing order of quantifications rate): flonicamid, acetamiprid, fluvalinate, amitraz, azoxystrobin, fosetyl‐Al, carbendazim, DDT, boscalid, isopyrazam, tebuconazole, heptachlor, tau‐fluvalinate, picoxystrobin, coumaphos, HCH‐beta, endosulfan, imidacloprid, propargite, dimethoate, endrin, HCH‐alpha, methoxychlor, chlorpyrifos. Some of these substances are environmental contaminants resulting from past uses as pesticides (e.g. chlordane, DDT, methoxychlor, heptachlor, HCH alpha and beta, lindane and dieldrin). Others, such as thiacloprid are due to the use of pesticides in crops that are foraged by bees. Thiacloprid was also frequently quantified in 2014 and 2015 (EFSA, 2016a–c, 2017a–d). Coumaphos (two quantifications) and amitraz (13 quantifications) residues in honey originate more likely from treatments of beehives with antiparasitic products authorised under Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 on veterinary medicinal products, rather than from pesticides uses; it is noted that both compounds are no longer approved as pesticides in Europe. In the Excel file published as supplement to this report, further details on the pesticide/food combinations are reported, which were found to exceed the legal limits. Figure 55 Open in figure viewer PowerPoint Pesticides most frequently quantified in animal products (in absolute numbers of detections at or above the LOQ)