Header graphic for print

Food Safety News

Breaking news for everyone's consumption

Pesticide Data Program Shows Little Contamination in 2011

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) released its latest summary of the Pesticide Data Program (PDP) last month.  In its 21st annual summary of the program, the AMS stated that for the calendar year 2011 overall pesticide residues found on foods tested were below the maximum legal residue levels set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect consumers and workers from exposure to pesticides.

In plain terms, the AMS stated in its report:  “The data reported by PDP corroborate that residues found in fruit and vegetables are at levels that do not pose risk to consumer health.”

According to the report, in 2011 11,894 food samples were tested by PDP; 32 samples (0.27 percent) exceeded the pesticide residue tolerance level set by the EPA and 399 samples (3.4 percent) were found to have residues with no established tolerance level.  Of the 32 samples with residue levels exceeding established tolerance levels, 25 were imported and 7 were domestic.  Of the 399 samples that tested positive for residues with no established tolerance, 280 were imported, 115 were domestic and 4 were of unknown origin.

The PDP sampling and testing program operations are carried out with the support of 13 states:  California, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas, Washington and Wisconsin.  Testing occurs at both state laboratories and at the AMS National Science Laboratory and the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration Laboratory.

While it is not designed for enforcement of tolerances, PDP informs the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the EPA if residues exceeding the tolerance are detected or if no EPA residue tolerance has been established for a residue found.

Fresh and processed fruit and vegetables made up 82.3 percent of total samples tested in 2011.  The AMS estimated that 72.7 percent of samples were from U.S. sources, 22.8 percent were imports, 2.8 percent were of mixed origin and 0.7 percent were of unknown origin.  Those foods included: baby food (green beans, pears and sweet potatoes), canned beets, cabbage, cantaloupe, cauliflower, cherry tomatoes, hot peppers, lettuce, mushrooms, onions, orange juice, papayas, plums, snap peas, canned and frozen spinach, sweet bell peppers, tangerines and winter squash.

Commodities were also tested.  Samples are collected close to the point of consumption and are prepared with a process assigned to emulate consumer practices.

Drinking water samples collected at water treatment facilities in 3 states and from private domestic wells and school or childcare facilities showed low levels of detectable residues.  Residues found in drinking water were found in both drinking water and groundwater.  None exceeded established maximum Contaminant Levels, Health Advisories, Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides, or Freshwater Aquatic Organism criteria.

The PDP was initiated in 1991, and plays an important role in the implementation of the 1996 Food Quality Protection Act, which directs the Secretary of Agriculture to collect pesticide residue data on foods that are highly consumed–particularly by infants and children.  Those foods include both domestic and imported canned and fresh vegetables, soybeans, eggs, dairy products and water.  The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses PDP data in its verification process to ensure all sources of exposure to pesticides meet the safety standards set forth in the Act.

Reports from previous years can be found on the AMS website.

© Food Safety News
  • farmber

    Yup — toxic pesticides seem to be within the industry-established contamination tolerances embraced by (a toothless) EPA. What a relief! But it’s a different story in Europe, however, where many tolerance levels are set much lower. Hmmmm…. why is that exactly? maybe Americans would like to see some health precautions as well, instead of industry running the show.

    And the US tolerances are based on full adult doses. Effects on vulnerable children and elders are just not in the numbers. And further there’s no toxicity information of how the chemical soup of all these pesticides combine and become more potent in our daily diets. 

    Finally organic agriculture demonstrates that our food can be (and is) grown without using these toxic chemicals at all. 17 different pesticides used to grow cilanto alone? What on earth for? (oh…. profits….)

  • Jo

    @farmber You seem to be ignorant of the fact that also in organic agriculture toxic pesticides are used. (True, modern, well-researched, comprehensively tested, synthetic, pesticides are excluded, though.) However, the organic premise that whatever my grandparents ate must be good seems a bit naive… (Or why is life expectancy rising throughout the world?) These “organic” pesticides can be just as toxic and bad for your health and the environment as any of the modern ones… And as to the European tolerance levels, quite a bit of simply represents non-tariff barriers to trade to keep out cheaper crops from poorer countries where farmers can produce at lower prices but may have more difficulties adhering to overly strict pesticide requirements. 

  • mdolan

    Consumers absolutely  have a choice to buy and eat either conventional or organic fruits and vegetables.  Most importantly, health experts around the world agree that people should eat more of both and that both are very safe.  What’s interesting is that people commenting on this story seem to believe that conventional farmers are somehow ignoring practices designed to reduce pesticide use. Like organic farmers, conventional farmers also use pesticides as a last resort, they also practice biocontrols, use crop rotation, beneficial insects etc.  In fact, conventional and organic farming is becoming more similar all the time.  We urge you to visit our website at http://www.safefruitsandveggies.com to learn more. Take a close look at our Ask the Experts section where you can see and hear from real farmers about their pest management practices.    

  • Mike Bendzela

    “Those highly toxic synthetic pesticide formulations are indiscriminate
    killers that also obliterate the beneficial insects that are keeping
    other pest populations in check…”

    Aside from the word “synthetic,” you could be describing the organic insecticide Pyganic.

    The added statement,  “requiring more chemicals with greater
    toxicity” in nonsensical. Some pests are kept in control by beneficials, others are not touched by them. The absence of beneficial insects does not “require more chemicals with greater toxicity.”