Food
Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program 1995
October 1996
This is the ninth annual report summarizing the results of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring program. The 8 previous reports, which were published in the Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists/Journal of AOAC International, presented results from Fiscal Years (FY) 1987 through 1994. This current report includes findings obtained during FY95 (October 1, 1994 through September 30, 1995) under regulatory and incidence/level monitoring. Selected Total Diet Study findings for 1995 are also presented. Results in this and earlier reports continue to demonstrate that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards.
Table of Contents
FDA Monitoring Program
Three federal government agencies share responsibility for the regulation of pesticides.(1) The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers (i.e., approves) the use of pesticides and sets tolerances (the maximum amount of a residue that is permitted in or on a food) if use of that particular pesticide may result in residues in or on food.(2) Except for meat, poultry, and certain egg products, for which the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible, FDA is charged with enforcing tolerances in imported foods and in domestically produced foods shipped in interstate commerce. FDA also acquires incidence/level data on particular commodity/pesticide combinations and carries out its market basket survey, the Total Diet Study. For 5 years, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), through contracts with participating states, has carried out a residue testing program directed primarily at raw agricultural products. FSIS and AMS report their pesticide residue data independently.
Under this approach to pesticide residue monitoring, FDA samples individual lots of domestically produced and imported foods and analyzes them for pesticide residues to enforce the tolerances set by EPA. Domestic samples are collected as close as possible to the point of production in the distribution system; import samples are collected at the point of entry into U.S. commerce. Emphasis is on the raw agricultural product, which is analyzed as the unwashed, whole (unpeeled), raw commodity. Processed foods are also included. If illegal residues (above EPA tolerance or no tolerance for that particular food/pesticide combination) are found in domestic samples, FDA can invoke various sanctions, such as a seizure or injunction. For imports, shipments may be stopped at the port of entry when illegal residues are found. "Automatic detention" may be invoked for imports based on the finding of 1 violative shipment if there is reason to believe that the same situation will exist in future lots during the same shipping season for a specific shipper, grower, geographic area, or country.
Domestic and import food samples collected are classified as either "surveillance" or "compliance". Most samples collected by FDA are the surveillance type; that is, there is no prior knowledge or evidence that a specific food shipment contains illegal pesticide residues. Compliance samples are taken as follow-up to the finding of an illegal residue or when other evidence indicates that a pesticide residue problem may exist.
Factors considered by FDA in planning the types and numbers of samples to collect include review of recently generated state and FDA residue data, regional intelligence on pesticide use, dietary importance of the food, information on the amount of domestic food that enters interstate commerce and of imported food, chemical characteristics and toxicity of the pesticide, and production volume/pesticide usage patterns.
Analytical Methods
To analyze the large numbers of samples whose pesticide treatment history is usually unknown, FDA uses analytical methods capable of simultaneously determining a number of pesticide residues. These multiresidue methods (MRMs) can determine about half of the approximately 400 pesticides with EPA tolerances, and many others that have no tolerances. The most commonly used MRMs can also detect many metabolites, impurities, and alteration products of pesticides.(3)
Single residue methods (SRMs) or selective MRMs are used to determine some pesticide residues in foods.(3) An SRM usually determines 1 pesticide; a selective MRM measures a relatively small number of chemically related pesticides. These types of methods are usually more resource-intensive per residue. Therefore, they are much less cost effective than MRMs.
The lower limit of residue measurement in FDA's determination of a specific pesticide is usually well below tolerance levels, which generally range from 0.1 to 50 parts per million (ppm). Residues present at 0.01 ppm and above are usually measurable; however, for individual pesticides, this limit may range from 0.005 to 1 ppm. In this report, the term "trace" is used to indicate residues detected, but at levels below the limit of quantitation (LQ).
FDA/State Cooperation
Personnel in FDA field offices interact with their counterparts in many states to increase FDA's effectiveness in pesticide residue monitoring. In most cases, work-sharing agreements (Memoranda of Understanding) have been established between FDA and various state agencies.
FDA also acquires and uses state-generated pesticide residue data to complement its own and other federally sponsored residue programs. For many years, FDA has supported, through a contract with Mississippi State University (MSU), the "Foodcontam" database, which is a compilation of state-collected residue data.
Animal Feeds
In addition to monitoring foods for human consumption, FDA also samples and analyzes domestic and imported feeds for pesticide residues. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) directs this portion of the Agency's monitoring via its Feed Contaminants Compliance Program. Although animal feeds containing violative pesticide residues may present a potential hazard to a number of different categories of animals (e.g., laboratory animals, pets, wildlife, etc.), the major focus of CVM's monitoring is on feeds for livestock and poultry, animals that ultimately become, or produce, foods for human consumption.
CVM also reviews pesticide residue data supplied by various states under "Feedcon", a database operated by MSU under the auspices of the Association of American Feed Control Officials. These data are reviewed periodically by CVM so that potential problems arising from pesticide residues in foods of animal origin may be identified.
International Activities
FDA obtains information on foreign pesticide usage via contract with Landell Mills (Bath, England). Each year, FDA receives pesticide usage data for about 40 countries that export food to the United States. These data can be used by FDA to target its pesticide residue monitoring toward specific pesticide/commodity/country combinations.
In addition to the foreign pesticide usage data obtained through the commercial contract, under provisions of the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act, FDA receives information from foreign governments on pesticides used on their food exports to the United States. FDA makes this information available to FDA Districts for use in their planning of monitoring of imported foods.
As part of the exchange of information on pesticides, FDA provides foreign countries with updates on U.S. pesticide usage. FDA also supplies foreign countries annually with reports on FDA's regulatory monitoring coverage and the findings in foods imported from their respective countries, as well as a personal computer database in which coverage and findings are summarized by country/commodity/pesticide combination.
Under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the United States, Mexico, and Canada have established a NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). The NAFTA Pesticide TWG now serves as the focal point for all pesticide issues that arise among the 3 NAFTA countries. The TWG reports directly to the NAFTA Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee.
One of the major goals of the TWG is to ensure that pesticide registrations and tolerances/maximum residue limits in the 3 countries are harmonized to the extent practical, while strengthening protection of public health and the environment. A number of projects have been undertaken by the TWG to identify differing residue limits in the NAFTA countries and to determine what steps might be taken to harmonize the limits. While this is a difficult process, the TWG envisions eventual movement toward a "North America" pesticide registration and tolerance system so that citizens of all 3 countries can be assured of the safety and legality of foods produced in any 1 of the NAFTA countries.
The NAFTA TWG is cochaired by EPA, Health Canada, and Mexico's Ministry of Health (representing the Comision Intersecretarial para el Control del Proceso y Uso de Plaguicidas, Fertilizantes y Sustancias Toxicas). FDA is an active participant on the TWG and is assisting by providing expertise on enforcement monitoring programs and residue data to support harmonization activities. FDA's activities on the TWG complement its ongoing bilateral cooperation with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada.
Incidence/Level Monitoring
A complementary approach to regulatory monitoring, incidence/level monitoring is used to increase FDA's knowledge about particular pesticide/commodity combinations by analyzing certain foods to determine the presence and levels of selected pesticides. In 1995, a survey of triazine herbicides in various commodities was carried out and a statistically based monitoring survey that had been initiated in 1994 was completed.
The latter focused on domestic and imported fresh apples and processed rice. This is the second FDA survey of this type; the first covered domestic and imported pears and tomatoes.(4) These statistically based surveys were initiated to determine whether FDA data acquired under regulatory monitoring are statistically representative of the overall residue situation for a particular pesticide, commodity, or place of origin. In FDA's surveillance sampling for pesticide residues, sampling bias may be incurred by weighting sampling toward such factors as commodity or place of origin with a past history of violations or large volume of import shipments. In addition, the total number of samples of a given commodity analyzed for a particular pesticide each year may not be sufficient to draw specific conclusions about the residue situation for the whole volume of that commodity in commerce. Therefore, the objective of these statistically based surveys is to determine whether violation rates, frequency of occurrence of residues, and residue levels obtained from such a sampling regimen differ from those obtained through FDA's traditional surveillance approach.
Apples and rice were chosen as the second set of test commodities because they are widely consumed year round and have significant domestic and import components. Fresh apples and all types of processed rice (white, brown, glutinous, fragrant, parboiled, converted, etc., but not wild or brewer's rice) were included in the study. The same general procedures were followed in the apples/rice study as in the pears/tomatoes study.(4) Samples were collected throughout the United States by FDA inspectors, except for domestic rice. These samples were collected by USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service personnel, who are routinely present at the mills that process domestic rice. Most of the mills are located in those few states in which rice growing is a major agricultural industry.
Analyses were performed by the Buffalo (apples) and Minneapolis (rice) District Laboratories. The goal was to collect and analyze about 800 domestic and 800 import apple samples and about 575 domestic and 800 import rice samples.
Total Diet Study
The Total Diet Study is another major element of FDA's pesticide residue monitoring program.(5) In its previous annual pesticide reports, FDA provided Total Diet Study findings for 1987-1994.(6) In addition, more detailed information, including estimated dietary intakes of pesticide residues covering June 1984-April 1986(7) and July 1986-April 1991(8), has been published. In September 1991, FDA implemented revisions to the Total Diet Study that were formulated in 1990.(9) These revisions primarily consisted of collection and analysis of an updated and expanded number (to 261) of food items, addition of 6 age/sex groups (for a total of 14), and revised analytical coverage. Details of the recent revision are presented elsewhere.(10,11)
In conducting the Total Diet Study, FDA personnel purchase foods from supermarkets or grocery stores 4 times per year, once from each of 4 geographic regions of the country. The 261 foods that comprise each market basket represent over 3500 different foods reported in USDA food consumption surveys; for example, apple pie represents all fruit pies and fruit pastries. Each collection is a composite of like foods purchased in 3 cities in a given region. The foods are prepared table-ready and then analyzed for pesticide residues (as well as radionuclides, industrial chemicals, toxic elements, trace and macro elements, vitamin B6, and folic acid). The levels of pesticides found are used in conjunction with USDA food consumption data to estimate the dietary intakes of the pesticide residues.
Results and Discussion
Regulatory Monitoring
In 1995, 10,615 samples (10,133 surveillance and 482 compliance) were analyzed under regulatory monitoring. Of these, 5198 were domestic and 5417 were imports.
Figure 1 shows the percentage of the 5101 domestic surveillance samples by commodity group with no residues found, nonviolative residues found, and violative residues found. (A violative residue is defined in this report as a residue which exceeds a tolerance or a residue at a level of regulatory significance for which no tolerance has been established in the sampled food.) As in earlier years, fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest proportion of the commodities analyzed in 1995; those 2 commodity groups comprised 59% of the total number of domestic surveillance samples. In 1995, no violative residues were found in nearly 99% of all domestic surveillance samples (the same percentage as in the past several years).
Appendix A contains more detailed data on domestic surveillance monitoring findings by commodity, including the total number of samples analyzed, the percent samples with no residues found, and the percent violative samples. Of the 5101 domestic surveillance samples, 64% had no detectable residues, less than 1% had over-tolerance residue s, and less than 1% had residues of pesticides for which there was no tolerance for that particular pesticide/commodity combination. In the largest commodity groups, fruits and vegetables, 40 and 63% of the samples, respectively, had no residues detected. Less than 2% of the fruit samples and about 2% of the vegetable samples contained violative residues (Figure 1). In the milk/dairy products/eggs group, 93% of the samples had no residues detected and no violative residues were found. Within the category Other were 61 samples of baby foods/formula, nearly 3 times the number of samples of baby foods/formula collected and analyzed in 1994. This included 29 vegetable, 13 cereal, 13 fruit/fruit juice, 4 formula, 1 custard/fruit pudding, and 1 teething biscuit samples. None of the samples had violative residues.
The findings by commodity group for the 5032 import surveillance samples are shown in Figure 2. Fruits and vegetables accounted for 85% of these samples. Overall, no violative residues were found in nearly 97% of the import surveillance samples (97% in 1993 and 96% in 1994).
Appendix B contains detailed data on the import surveillance samples. Of the 5032 samples analyzed, 66% had no residues detected, less than 1% had over-tolerance residues, and 3% had residues for which there was no tolerance for that particular pesticide/commodity combination. Fruits and vegetables had 57 and 67%, respectively, with no residues detected. The fruit group had less than 1% with over-tolerance residues and the vegetable group had 1% with over-tolerance residues; each group had 3% no-tolerance residu es. No residues were found in 88% of the dairy products/eggs group and 85% of the fish/shellfish group, and no violative residues were found in either of those groups.
Pesticide monitoring data collected under FDA's regulatory monitoring approach in 1995 are available to the public as a computer database. This database summarizes FDA 1995 regulatory monitoring coverage and findings by country/commodity/pesticide combination. The database also includes the monitoring data by individual sample from which the summary information was compiled. Information on purchase of this database as well as those for 1992, 1993, and 1994 is provided at the end of this report.
Geographic Coverage
Domestic. - In 1995, domestic surveillance samples were collected from all 50 states and Puerto Rico. The largest numbers of samples were collected from the states in which agriculture is a major industry. Import. - Samples representing food shipments from 94 countries were collected. lists the numbers of samples collected and the countries from which they originated. Mexico, as usual, was the source of the largest number of samples. This large number reflects the volume and diversity of commodities imported from that country, especially during the winter months.
Pesticide Coverage
Table 2 lists the 345 pesticides that were detectable by the methods used; the 92 pesticides that were actually found are indicated.
FDA conducts ongoing research to expand the pesticide coverage of its monitoring program. This research includes testing the behavior of new or previously untested pesticides through existing analytical methods, and development of new methods to cover pesticides that cannot be determined by methods currently used by FDA. The research encompasses both U.S.-registered pesticides and foreign-use pesticides that are not registered in the United States. The list of pesticides detectable for 1995 (Table 2) reflects the addition of a number of pesticides for which new methods had been developed and pesticides whose recovery through the analytical methods used was demonstrated as a result of ongoing research.
Surveillance/Compliance Violation Rate Comparison
In 1995, 97 domestic and 385 import compliance samples were collected and analyzed (Table 3). Because compliance samples are collected when a pesticide residue problem is known or suspected, violation rates are expectedly higher than those for surveillance samples: 12% for domestic (10% in 1994) and 11% for imports (18% in 1994). The corresponding violation rates for surveillance samples were 1.3% for domestic and 3.2% for imports (Figure 3).
Most of the 1995 compliance samples were collected as follow-up to violative surveillance samples. These included follow-up samples from the same shipment as the violative surveillance sample, follow-up samples of the same commodity from the same grower or shipper, and audit samples from shipments presented for entry into the United States with a certificate of analysis (i.e., shipments subject to automatic detention).
Foodcontam Data
In 1995, 11 states participated in the Foodcontam project. A wide variety of commodities was reflected in the 9394 samples reported by the 10 states whose data were available. Table 4 lists the 10 states, the number of samples for each, and the number and percentage of samples with positive and "significant" findings. In this instance, a significant finding indicates a residue that exceeds federal or state regulatory limits, is not covered by a tolerance for the particular chemical/commodity combination, or denotes some unusual finding(s). For the 9394 samples reported, 0.8% were classified as significant.
Animal Feeds
In 1995, 556 domestic feed samples (532 surveillance and 24 compliance) and 69 import feed samples (65 surveillance and 4 compliance) were collected and analyzed by FDA. Of the 532 domestic surveillance samples, 301 (57%) had no pesticide residues detected and 2 (<1%) contained violative residues (Table 5). The latter involved 2 corn samples with chlorpyrifos-methyl residues. Of the 65 import surveillance samples, 29 (45%) had no pesticide residues detected and 1 (2%), a sample of feather meal (for poultry) from Canada, contained diphenylamine. No tolerance for chlorpyrifos-methyl on corn or for diphenylamine on poultry has been set. Thus, these samples were considered to have exceeded regulatory standards.
In the 231 domestic surveillance feed samples in which 1 or more pesticides were detected, a total of 346 residues were detected (254 quantifiable and 92 trace). Malathion, chlorpyrifos-methyl, and diazinon were the most frequently found residues. The findings in samples with quantifiable residues were as follows:
| Pesticide | No. of Samples with Quantifiable Residues |
Residue Found, ppm | |
| Range | Median | ||
| malathion | 149 | 0.01-7.7 | 0.09 |
| chlorpyrifos-methyl | 39 | 0.01-1.1 | 0.11 |
| diazinon | 23 | 0.01-0.81 | 0.06 |
| chlorpyrifos | 10 | 0.01-0.08 | 0.03 |
| pirimiphos-methyl | 9 | 0.01-9.9 | 0.05 |
| others | 24 | 0.01-41 | 0.19 |
Summary: Regulatory Monitoring
In summary, no residues were found in 64% of domestic surveillance samples and 66% of import surveillance samples (Figure 4) analyzed under FDA's regulatory monitoring approach in 1995. Less than 1% of domestic and import surveillance samples had residue levels that were over tolerance and less than 1% of domestic and 3% of import surveillance samples had residues for which there was no tolerance. The findings for 1995 demonstrate that pesticide residue levels in foods are generally well below EPA tolerances, corroborating results presented in earlier reports.(6)
Incidence/Level Monitoring
Statistically Based Survey
The statistically based monitoring survey of domestic and imported fresh apples and processed rice that was begun in 1994 was completed in 1995. The original goal had been to collect 1600 samples of apples (800 domestic and 800 import). Actually, 769 domestic and 1062 import samples were collected and analyzed. For rice, 575 domestic and 800 import samples had been the goal; 598 domestic and 612 import samples were actually collected and analyzed. (These numbers are not included in the counts under Fruits and Grains and Grain Products in Appendixes A and B.) The results of the survey are being evaluated and will be submitted for publication in the scientific literature.
Triazine Herbicides
The triazines are one of the most widely used classes of herbicides, and EPA has established tolerances for them on many commodities. Interest in triazines has increased recently because of potential leaching of the herbicides and their degradation products into ground and surface water. Residues of these chemicals have rarely been detected in foods, although FDA has routinely looked for the parent compounds.
Recently, FDA's Atlanta District Laboratory developed a method capable of determining 19 triazine herbicides and 4 metabolites.(12) Average recoveries ranged from 81 to 106% for the parent herbicides and 60 to 88% for the metabolites. The method was validated by the Minneapolis District Laboratory(13) and used to analyze a number of food samples in 1995. This new method was used to analyze 232 samples (92 domestic samples from 9 states and 140 import samples from 19 countries) (Table 6). Residues were found in 5 domestic samples, all of simazine in oranges. Four samples had trace amounts and 1 sample had 0.04 ppm (LQ, 0.02 ppm). None were violative. No triazine residues were detected in the import samples.
Summary: Incidence/Level Monitoring
Under this approach, a statistically based monitoring survey of domestic and imported apples and processed rice was completed in 1995. A survey of triazine herbicides in various commodities was carried out. Few residues were found, and none were violative.
Total Diet Study
The Total Diet Study is unique in that it determines pesticide residues in foods that have been prepared as they would be consumed.(5) Of the nearly 300 chemicals that can be determined by the analytical methods used, 86 pesticide and pesticide-related chemicals were found in the foods analyzed in the 3 collections reported here. To measure the low levels of pesticides found in the Total Diet Study foods, the analytical methods used are modified to permit measurement at levels 5-10 times lower than those normally used in regulatory monitoring. In general, residues present at or above 1 part per billion can be measured.
Table 7 lists the 17 most frequently found residues, the total number of findings, and the percent occurrence in the 783 food items analyzed in 1995. DDT, an environmentally persistent chemical whose U.S. registration was canceled over 2 decades ago, was the most frequently found residue. The frequency findings of DDT in Total Diet Study foods has ranged from 10 to 22% over the past 8 years.(6) A frequency of 25% for 1995 is somewhat higher than it has been in the past several years. This may not be an indicator of an increasing trend in DDT findings in Total Diet Study foods; however, the occurrence will be investigated. Malathion, which is used on a wide variety of crops both pre- and postharvest, was the next most frequently found residue. The levels of these 2 pesticides, as well as the others listed in Table 7, were well below regulatory limits.
Information obtained through the Total Diet Study is used to estimate dietary intakes of pesticides; these intakes are then compared with established standards. Food consumption data to be used in estimating dietary intakes for the revised food list have not been finalized. Therefore, dietary intake information for the market baskets collected during this period is not presented.
For several years, FDA has collected and analyzed a number of baby foods in addition to those covered under the Total Diet Study. Between 1991 and 1995, this adjunct to the Total Diet Study included 23 different food items (14 fruit juices or fruits, 4 fruit desserts, 4 grain products, and 1 vegetable). (These numbers are not included in the analyses reported in Table 7.) Table 8 lists the 16 most frequently found pesticide residues in those 23 foods in 1991-1995. Carbaryl, the residue found most frequently, is an insecticide with tolerances on many fruits and grains. Dimethoate, the next most frequently found residue, also has tolerances on a number of fruits.
Summary: Total Diet Study
In 1995, the types of pesticide residues found and their frequency of occurrence in the Total Diet Study were generally consistent with those given in previous FDA reports.(6,14) The pesticide residue levels found were well below regulatory standards. An adjunct survey of baby foods in 1991-1995 also provided evidence of only small amounts of pesticide residues in those foods.
Summary
A total of 10,615 samples of domestically produced food and imported food from 94 countries was analyzed for pesticide residues in 1995. Of these, 10,133 were surveillance samples, which are collected when there is no evidence of a pesticide problem. No residues were found in 64% of the domestic surveillance samples and 66% of the import surveillance samples. The higher violation rates in the 482 compliance samples reflect the fact that they are collected and analyzed when a pesticide problem is suspected. In addition, a survey of triazine herbicides was carried out and a statistically based monitoring survey of fresh apples and processed rice that had been initiated in 1994 was completed. Most of the Total Diet Study findings for 1995 were generally similar to those found in earlier periods
This report was compiled through the efforts of the following FDA personnel: Norma J. Yess, Young H. Lee, Byron O. Bohannon (Division of Programs and Enforcement Policy), and Bernadette M. McMahon and Charles H. Parfitt (Division of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals), Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages; Sharon A. Macuci (Division of Information Resources Management), Office of Management Systems, Washington, DC; Rodney L. Bong, Minneapolis District, Minneapolis, MN; and Sheila K. Egan and James L. Daft, Kansas City District, Kansas City, MO.
FDA pesticide monitoring data collected under the regulatory monitoring approach in 1995 are available for purchase on personal computer diskettes from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (telephone 703-487-4650); order number PB96-503156. The databases for 1992, 1993, and 1994 are also available from NTIS. The order numbers are: 1992, PB94-500899; 1993, PB94-501681; and 199 4, PB95-503132.
Table 1 |
|||||
Foreign Countries and Number of Samplesa Collected and Analyzed in 1995 |
|||||
| Country | No. of Samples |
Country | No. of Samples |
Country | No. of Samples |
| Mexico | 1723 | Ecuador | 72 | Philippines | 23 |
| Chile | 467 | Taiwan | 55 | United Kingdom | 21 |
| The Netherlands | 370 | Argentina | 51 | Germany | 17 |
| Canada | 253 | New Zealand | 48 | Denmark | 16 |
| Italy | 218 | Jamaica | 47 | Pakistan | 16 |
| Thailand | 198 | Japan | 47 | Poland | 16 |
| China, People's Rep. of | 184 | Belgium | 46 | South Africa | 16 |
| Guatemala | 174 | Panama | 43 | Lebanon | 15 |
| Costa Rica | 139 | Colombia | 42 | Australia | 14 |
| India | 137 | France | 40 | Czech Republic | 14 |
| Spain | 126 | Indonesia | 31 | Egypt | 13 |
| Dominican Republic | 91 | Brazil | 30 | Haiti | 12 |
| Peru | 85 | Honduras | 29 | Morocco | 12 |
| Israel | 83 | Korea, Rep. of | 25 | Venezuela | 12 |
| Greece | 81 | Hong Kong | 23 | Unspecified | 15 |
| Turkey | 79 | ||||
Ten or fewer samples collected from the following: |
|||||
| Austria | Hungary | Slovakia | |||
| Bahamas | Iceland | Slovenia | |||
| Belize | Ivory Coast | Sri Lanka | |||
| Bermuda | Kenya | St. Vincent | |||
| Bolivia | Macedonia | Surinam | |||
| Bosnia-Hercegovina | Malaysia | Sweden | |||
| Bulgaria | Martinique | Switzerland | |||
| Croatia | Moldavia | Syria | |||
| Cyprus | Netherlands Antilles | Tanzania | |||
| Dominica | Nicaragua | Trinidad & Tobago | |||
| El Salvador | Nigeria | Tunisia | |||
| Estonia | Norway | Turks & Caicos Island | |||
| Ethiopia | Papua New Guinea | United Arab Emirates | |||
| Faeroe Islands | Portugal | Uruguay | |||
| Fiji | Russia | Vietnam, Rep. of | |||
| Ghana | Singapore | Zambia | |||
| aSurveillance plus compliance samples. | |||||
Table 2 |
|||||
Pesticides Detectable by the Methods Used and Pesticides Found (*) in 1995 Regulatory Monitoringa,b |
|||||
| Acephate* | Dinitramine | Norflurazon | |||
| Acetochlor | Dinobuton | Nuarimol | |||
| Acrinathrin | Dinocap | Octhilinone | |||
| Alachlor* | Dioxabenzofos | Ofurace | |||
| Aldicarb* | Dioxacarb | Omethoate* | |||
| Aldrin | Dioxathion | Ovex | |||
| Allethrin | Diphenamid | Oxadiazon | |||
| Allidochlor | Diphenylamine* | Oxadixyl | |||
| Alpha-cypermethrin | Dipropetryn | Oxamyl* | |||
| Ametryn | Disulfoton | Oxydemeton-methyl* | |||
| Aminocarb | Diuron | Oxyfluorfen | |||
| Amitraz* | Edifenphos | Oxythioquinox | |||
| Anilazine | Endosulfan* | Paclobutrazol | |||
| Aramite | Endrin* | Paraquat | |||
| Atrazine | EPN | Parathion* | |||
| Azinphos-ethyl | EPTC | Parathion-methyl* | |||
| Azinphos-methyl* | Esfenvalerate* | Pebulate | |||
| Bendiocarb | Etaconazole | Penconazole | |||
| Benfluralin | Ethalfluralin | Pendimethalin | |||
| Benodanil | Ethephon* | Permethrin* | |||
| Benomyl/carbendazim*c | Ethiofencarb | Perthane | |||
| Benoxacor | Ethion* | Phenothrin | |||
| Bensulide | Ethofumesate | Phenthoate | |||
| Benzoylprop-ethyl | Ethoprop | Phenylphenol, ortho-* | |||
| BHC* | Ethoxyquin* | Phorate* | |||
| Bifenox | Ethylenebisdithiocarbamates*d | Phosalone* | |||
| Bifenthrin* | Ethylene dibromide | Phosmet* | |||
| Binapacryl | Ethylene dichloride | Phosphamidon* | |||
| S-Bioallethrin | Etridiazole | Phosphine | |||
| Biphenyl | Etrimfos | Piperonyl butoxide | |||
| Bitertanol* | Famphur | Piperophos | |||
| Bromacil | Fenamiphos* | Pirimicarb | |||
| Bromophos | Fenarimol* | Pirimiphos-ethyl | |||
| Bromophos-ethyl | Fenbuconazole | Pirimiphos-methyl* | |||
| Bromopropylate* | Fenfuram | Pretilachlor | |||
| Bromoxynil | Fenitrothion* | Probenazole | |||
| Bufencarb | Fenobucarb | Prochloraz | |||
| Bulan | Fenoxaprop ethyl ester | Procyazine | |||
| Bupirimate | Fenoxycarb | Procymidone* | |||
| Butachlor | Fenpropathrin | Prodiamine | |||
| Butocarboxim | Fenpropimorph | Profenofos* | |||
| Butralin | Fenson | Profluralin | |||
| Cadusafos | Fensulfothion | Prolan | |||
| Captafol | Fenthion | Promecarb | |||
| Captan* | Fenuron | Prometryn | |||
| Carbaryl* | Fenvalerate* | Pronamide | |||
| Carbofuran* | Fipronil | Propachlor | |||
| Carbon tetrachloride | Flamprop-M-isopropyl | Propanil | |||
| Carbophenothion* | Flamprop-methyl | Propargite* | |||
| Carbosulfan | Fluazifop butyl ester | Propazine | |||
| Carboxin | Fluchloralin | Propetamphos | |||
| Chlorbenside | Flucythrinate | Propham | |||
| Chlorbromuron | Flusilazole | Propiconazole | |||
| Chlorbufam | Fluvalinate | Propoxur | |||
| Chlordane* | Folpet* | Prothiofos* | |||
| Chlordecone | Fonofos* | Prothoate | |||
| Chlordimeform* | Formetanate hydrochloride* | Pyrazon | |||
| Chlorethoxyfos | Formothion | Pyrazophos | |||
| Chlorfenvinphos | Fuberidazole | Pyrethrins | |||
| Chlorflurecol methyl ester | Furilazole | Pyridaphenthion | |||
| Chlorimuron ethyl ester | Gardona* | Quinalphos | |||
| Chlornitrofen | Heptachlor* | Quintozene* | |||
| Chlorobenzilate | Heptenophos | Quizalofop ethyl ester | |||
| Chloroform | Hexachlorobenzene* | Ronnel | |||
| 3-Chloro-5-methyl-4-nitro-1H-pyrazole | Hexaconazole | Schradan | |||
| Chloroneb | Hexazinone | Secbumeton | |||
| Chloropropylate | Imazalil* | Simazine* | |||
| Chlorothalonil* | Imazamethabenz methyl ester | Simetryn | |||
| Chloroxuron | Iprobenfos | Strobane | |||
| Chlorpropham* | Iprodione* | Sulfallate | |||
| Chlorpyrifos* | Isazofos | Sulfotep* | |||
| Chlorpyrifos-methyl* | Isocarbamid | Sulfur dioxide* | |||
| Chlorthiophos | Isofenphos | Sulphenone | |||
| Clomazone | Isoprocarb | Sulprofos | |||
| Coumaphos | Isopropalin | TCMTB | |||
| Crotoxyphos | Isoprothiolane | Tebuconazole | |||
| Crufomate | Lactofen | Tebupirimfos | |||
| Cyanazine | Lambda-cyhalothrin | Tecnazene | |||
| Cyanofenphos | Leptophos | TEPP | |||
| Cyanophos | Lindane* | Terbacil | |||
| Cycloate | Linuron* | Terbufos | |||
| Cyfluthrin | Malathion* | Terbumeton | |||
| Cyhexatin* | Mecarbam | Terbuthylazine | |||
| Cypermethrin* | Mephosfolan | Terbutryn | |||
| Cyprazine | Merphos* | Tetradifon* | |||
| Cyproconazole | Metalaxyl* | Tetraiodoethylene | |||
| Daminozide | Metasystox thiol | Tetrasul | |||
| DCPA* | Metazachlor | Thiabendazole* | |||
| DDT* | Methabenzthiazuron | Thiobencarb | |||
| Deltamethrin | Methamidophos* | Thiodicarb | |||
| Deltamethrin, trans | Methidathion* | Thiometon | |||
| Demeton* | Methiocarb* | Thionazin | |||
| Desmetryn | Methomyl* | Thiophanate-methyl | |||
| Dialifor | Methoprotryne | Tolylfluanid | |||
| Di-allate | Methoxychlor* | Toxaphene | |||
| N,N-Diallyl dichloroacetamide | Methylene chloride | Tralomethrin | |||
| Diazinon* | Metobromuron | Traloxydim | |||
| Dichlobenil | Metolachlor | Triadimefon* | |||
| Dichlofenthion | Metolcarb | Triadimenol* | |||
| Dichlofluanid | Metoxuron | Tri-allate | |||
| Dichlone* | Metribuzin | Triazamate | |||
| 4-(Dichloroacetyl)-1-oxa-4-azapiro[4.5]decane | Mevinphos* | Triazophos | |||
| Dichlorvos* | Mirex* | Tribufos | |||
| Diclobutrazol | Monocrotophos* | Trichlorfon | |||
| Diclofop-methyl | Monolinuron | Tricyclazole | |||
| Dicloran* | Monuron | Tridiphane | |||
| Dicofol* | Myclobutanil* | Trietazine | |||
| Dicrotophos | Naled | Triflumizole | |||
| Dieldrin* | Napropamide | Trifluralin* | |||
| Diethatyl-ethyl | Neburon | Triflusulfuron methyl ester | |||
| Dilan | Nitralin | Trimethacarb | |||
| Dimethachlor | Nitrapyrin | Vamidothion sulfone | |||
| Dimethametryn | Nitrofen | Vernolate | |||
| Dimethipin | Nitrofluorfen | Vinclozolin* | |||
| Dimethoate* | Nitrothal-isopropyl | XMC | |||
| a The list of pesticides detectable is expressed in terms of the parent pesticide. However, monitoring coverage and findings may have included metabolites, impurities, and alteration products. | |||||
| b Some of these pesticides are no longer manufactured or registered for use in the United States. | |||||
| c The analytical methodology determines carbendazim, which may result from use of benomyl or carbendazim. | |||||
| d Such as maneb. | |||||
Table 3 |
|||
Compliance Samples by Commodity Group in 1995 |
|||
|
Commodity Group
|
Total No. of Samples |
Samples with No Residues Found, % |
Samples Violative, % |
| Domestic | |||
| Grains and grain products | 3 | 33 | 0 |
| Milk/eggs | 5 | 100 | 0 |
| Fish | 5 | 80 | 0 |
| Fruits | 23 | 48 | 0 |
| Vegetables | 56 | 48 | 21 |
| Other | 5 | 80 | 0 |
| Total | 97 | 54 | 12 |
| Import | |||
| Grains and grain products | 49 | 63 | 0 |
| Cheese | 3 | 100 | 0 |
| Fish/shellfish | 17 | 41 | 0 |
| Fruits | 71 | 68 | 18 |
| Vegetables | 196 | 52 | 14 |
| Other | 49 | 86 | 6 |
| Total | 385 | 61 | 11 |
Table 4 |
|||||
Summary of Foodcontam Findings for 1995a |
|||||
| State | Total Samples | No. Positive | Positive, % | No. Significant | Significant, % |
| Arkansas | 351 | 14 | 4.0 | 2 | 0.6 |
| California | 4694 | 1164 | 24.8 | 40 | 0.9 |
| Georgia | 540 | 128 | 23.7 | 7 | 1.3 |
| Indiana | 158 | 93 | 58.9 | 0 | - |
| North Carolina | 688 | 215 | 31.3 | 9 | 1.3 |
| New York | 965 | 321 | 33.3 | 14 | 1.5 |
| Oregon | 277 | 39 | 14.1 | 0 | - |
| Pennsylvania | 582 | 124 | 21.3 | 5 | 0.9 |
| Virginia | 703 | 88 | 12.5 | 2 | 0.3 |
| Wisconsin | 538 | 7 | 1.3 | 0 | - |
| Total | 9394 | 2193 | 23.3 | 79 | 0.8 |
|
aData from Florida not available.
|
|||||
Table 5 |
|||||
Summary of Findings in Domestic Surveillance Feed Samples in 1995 |
|||||
| Type of Feed | Total No. of Samples |
Samples with No Residues Found |
Violative Samples | ||
| No. | % | No. | % | ||
| Whole/ground grains | 167 | 98 | 59 | 2 | 1 |
| Plant by-products | 120 | 76 | 63 | 0 | - |
| Mixed feed rations | 116 | 35 | 30 | 0 | - |
| Animal by-products | 104 | 74 | 71 | 0 | - |
| Hay & hay products | 25 | 18 | 72 | 0 | - |
| Total | 532 | 301 | 57 | 2 | <1 |
Table 6 |
||
Commodity Targeted Monitoring of Domestic and Imported Foods for Triazine Herbicides Conducted in 1995 |
||
| Commodity | Number of Samples Analyzed | |
| Domestic | Import | |
| Apples | 9 | 16 |
| Bananas | 2 | 23 |
| Cherries | 25 | - |
| Corn | 10 | 15 |
| Grapefruit | 8 | 4 |
| Grapes | 5 | 20 |
| Olives | - | 25 |
| Oranges | 20 | 5 |
| Pears | 6 | 19 |
| Plums | 7 | 13 |
| Total | 92 | 140 |
Table 7 |
||
Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Total Diet Study Foods in 1995a |
||
| Pesticideb | Total No. of Findings | Occurrence, % |
| DDT | 192 | 25 |
| Malathion | 141 | 18 |
| Chlorpyrifos-methyl | 130 | 17 |
| Chlorpyrifos | 97 | 12 |
| Dieldrin | 92 | 12 |
| Endosulfan | 81 | 10 |
| Chlorpropham | 44 | 6 |
| Methamidophos | 40 | 5 |
| Carbarylc | 39 | 5 |
| Iprodione | 31 | 4 |
| Thiabendazoled | 29 | 4 |
| Dimethoate | 28 | 4 |
| Permethrin | 25 | 3 |
| Hexachlorobenzene | 24 | 3 |
| BHC | 22 | 3 |
| Dicloran | 21 | 3 |
| Diazinon | 21 | 3 |
| a Based on 3 market baskets analyzed in 1995 consisting of 783 items. | ||
| b Isomers, metabolites, and related compounds are not listed separately; they are covered under the "parent" pesticide from which they arise. | ||
| c Reflects overall incidence; however, only 95 selected foods per market basket (i.e., 285 items total) were analyzed for N-methylcarbamates. | ||
| d Reflects overall incidence; however, only 67 selected foods per market basket (i.e., 201 items total) were analyzed for the benzimidazole fungicides (thiabendazole and benomyl). | ||
Table 8 |
||
Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Selected Baby Foods in 1991-1995a |
||
| Pesticideb | Total No. of Findings | Occurrence, % |
| Carbarylc | 77 | 28 |
| Dimethoate | 71 | 26 |
| Iprodione | 45 | 16 |
| Omethoate | 39 | 14 |
| Malathion | 36 | 13 |
| Chlorpyrifos | 35 | 13 |
| Endosulfan | 29 | 11 |
| Chlorpyrifos-methyl | 26 | 9 |
| Thiabendazoled | 23 | 8 |
| Permethrin | 22 | 8 |
| Parathion | 20 | 7 |
| Dicloran | 14 | 5 |
| Propargitee | 10 | 4 |
| Acephate | 9 | 3 |
| Dieldrin | 8 | 3 |
| Benomyld | 7 | 3 |
| a Based on 12 collections consisting of 276 items. | ||
| b Isomers, metabolites, and related compounds are not listed separately; they are covered under the "parent" pesticide from which they arise. | ||
| c Reflects overall incidence; however, only 17 selected foods per collection (i.e., 204 items total) were analyzed for N-methylcarbamates. | ||
| d Reflects overall incidence; however, only 16 selected items (i.e., 192 items total) were analyzed for the benzimidazole fungicides (thiabendazole and benomyl). | ||
| e Reflects overall incidence; however, only 16 selected foods per collection (i.e., 192 items total) were analyzed for this sulfur-containing compound. | ||
Appendix A |
||||
Analysis of Domestic Surveillance Samples by Commodity Group in 1995 |
||||
| Commodity Group | Total No. of Samples |
Samples with No Residues Found, % |
Samples Violative, % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Over Tolerance |
No Tolerance | |||
| A. Grains and Grain Products | ||||
| Corn & corn products | 53 | 81 | 0 | 0 |
| Oats | 18 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Rice & rice products | 56 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Soybeans | 38 | 82 | 0 | 0 |
| Wheat | 146 | 38 | 1 | 0 |
| Cereal products | 23 | 87 | 0 | 0 |
| Other grains & grain products | 55 | 38 | 2 | 0 |
| Total | 389 | 59 | <1 | 0 |
| B. Milk/Dairy Products/Eggs | ||||
| Cheese & cheese products | 66 | 68 | 0 | 0 |
| Eggs | 259 | 98 | 0 | 0 |
| Milk/cream & milk products | 761 | 93 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1086 | 93 | 0 | 0 |
| C. Fish/Shellfish | ||||
| Fish | 295 | 53 | 0 | 0 |
| Shellfish | 128 | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 423 | 64 | 0 | 0 |
| D. Fruits | ||||
| Blueberries | 64 | 61 | 0 | 17 |
| Cranberries | 20 | 10 | 0 | 0 |
| Grapes | 52 | 52 | 0 | 0 |
| Raspberries | 33 | 24 | 0 | 0 |
| Strawberries | 107 | 15 | 1 | 2 |
| Other berries | 8 | 75 | 0 | 0 |
| Grapefruit | 22 | 27 | 0 | 0 |
| Lemons | 28 | 57 | 0 | 0 |
| Oranges | 171 | 6 | 0 | 0 |
| Other citrus fruits | 6 | 33 | 0 | 0 |
| Apples | 189 | 46 | 0 | 0 |
| Pears | 69 | 32 | 7 | 0 |
| Apricots | 28 | 25 | 4 | 0 |
| Cherries | 64 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Nectarines | 26 | 8 | 0 | 0 |
| Olives | 12 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Peaches | 200 | 20 | <1 | <1 |
| Other pit fruits | 11 | 73 | 0 | 0 |
| Cantaloupe | 45 | 62 | 0 | 2 |
| Honeydew | 14 | 57 | 0 | 0 |
| Watermelon | 73 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Apple juice | 110 | 76 | 0 | <1 |
| Other fruit juices | 22 | 82 | 0 | 0 |
| Fruit jams/ jellies/ pastes/ toppings | 11 | 36 | 0 | 0 |
| Other fruits | 52 | 88 | 0 | 2 |
| Total | 1437 | 40 | <1 | 1 |
| E. Vegetables | ||||
| Corn | 105 | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| Green/ snow/ sugar/ sweet peas | 84 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| String beans | 100 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Other beans & peas | 32 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| Cucumbers | 41 | 61 | 0 | 2 |
| Eggplant | 17 | 71 | 0 | 12 |
| Peppers, hot | 12 | 83 | 0 | 0 |
| Peppers, sweet | 40 | 58 | 0 | 0 |
| Squash | 33 | 58 | 0 | 3 |
| Tomatoes | 100 | 56 | 0 | 0 |
| Other fruits used as vegetables | 10 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Broccoli | 23 | 74 | 0 | 0 |
| Cabbage | 65 | 83 | 0 | 0 |
| Cauliflower | 20 | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| Celery | 30 | 30 | 0 | 3 |
| Collards | 18 | 67 | 0 | 6 |
| Endive/escarole | 11 | 91 | 0 | 45 |
| Kale | 11 | 45 | 0 | 9 |
| Lettuce, head | 115 | 37 | <1 | 0 |
| Mustard greens | 12 | 17 | 0 | 0 |
| Romaine | 85 | 35 | 4 | 1 |
| Spinach | 37 | 32 | 0 | 5 |
| Other leaf/ stem vegetables | 48 | 60 | 0 | 19 |
| Mushrooms/ truffles & products | 15 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrots | 130 | 57 | 2 | 0 |
| Onions/ leeks/ scallions/ shallots | 28 | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Potatoes | 239 | 56 | 0 | 2 |
| Radishes | 15 | 73 | 0 | 0 |
| Red beets | 15 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Sweet potatoes/ yams | 25 | 64 | 0 | 0 |
| Other root/ tuber vegetables | 9 | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Vegetables, dried or paste | 45 | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Other vegetables/ vegetable products | 15 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1585 | 63 | <1 | 2 |
| F. Other | ||||
| Peanuts | 50 | 94 | 0 | 0 |
| Other nuts | 17 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Vegetable oils | 13 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Honey & other sweeteners | 17 | 88 | 0 | 0 |
| Baby foods/formula | 61 | 97 | 0 | 0 |
| Other food products | 23 | 83 | 0 | 4 |
| Total | 181 | 94 | 0 | <1 |
| A-F Total | 5101 | 64 | <1 | <1 |
Appendix B |
||||
Analysis of Import Surveillance Samples by Commodity Group in 1995 |
||||
| Samples Violative, % | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Commodity Group | Total No. of Samples |
Samples with No Residues Found, % |
Over Tolerance |
No Tolerance |
| A. Grains and Grain Products | ||||
| Rice, basmati | 22 | 77 | 0 | 5 |
| Rice, jasmine | 34 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| Other rice & rice products | 23 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| Wheat & wheat products | 21 | 71 | 0 | 0 |
| Other grains & grain products | 16 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Bakery products | 21 | 86 | 0 | 5 |
| Breakfast/snack foods | 12 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Macaroni | 43 | 79 | 0 | 0 |
| Spaghetti | 18 | 72 | 0 | 0 |
| Other pasta products | 28 | 61 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 238 | 80 | 0 | <1 |
| B. Dairy Products/Eggs | ||||
| Cheese & cheese products | 75 | 93 | 0 | 0 |
| Eggs | 27 | 74 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 102 | 88 | 0 | 0 |
| C. Fish/Shellfish | ||||
| Fish | 99 | 83 | 0 | 0 |
| Shellfish | 22 | 95 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 121 | 85 | 0 | 0 |
| D. Fruits | ||||
| Blackberries | 30 | 40 | 0 | 3 |
| Blueberries | 38 | 97 | 0 | 0 |
| Grapes | 202 | 31 | 0 | 1 |
| Raspberries | 53 | 36 | 0 | 9 |
| Strawberries | 67 | 18 | 0 | 10 |
| Other berries | 20 | 55 | 0 | 0 |
| Clementines | 11 | 82 | 0 | 0 |
| Limes | 18 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Oranges | 30 | 70 | 0 | 7 |
| Tangerines | 12 | 58 | 0 | 0 |
| Other citrus fruits | 14 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Apples | 48 | 50 | 0 | 8 |
| Pears | 69 | 48 | 0 | 1 |
| Apricots | 10 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Cherries | 19 | 47 | 0 | 0 |
| Nectarines | 16 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Olives | 77 | 92 | 0 | 1 |
| Peaches | 52 | 48 | 0 | 4 |
| Plums | 31 | 55 | 0 | 0 |
| Other pit fruits | 13 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Bananas | 228 | 34 | <1 | 0 |
| Kiwi fruit | 20 | 75 | 0 | 0 |
| Mangoes | 69 | 96 | 0 | 0 |
| Papayas | 81 | 72 | 0 | 9 |
| Pineapples | 65 | 75 | 5 | 0 |
| Plantains | 18 | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Other tropical fruits | 56 | 89 | 0 | 7 |
| Cantaloupe | 82 | 40 | 5 | 2 |
| Honeydew | 53 | 6 | 0 | 6 |
| Watermelon | 28 | 50 | 0 | 0 |
| Other vine fruits | 17 | 82 | 0 | 0 |
| Apple juice | 19 | 68 | 0 | 11 |
| Other fruit juices | 52 | 94 | 0 | 0 |
| Fruit jams/jellies/toppings | 41 | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| Fruits, dried or paste | 90 | 90 | 0 | 0 |
| Other fruits & fruit products | 8 | 88 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 1757 | 57 | <1 | 3 |
| E. Vegetables | ||||
| Corn | 45 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Green/snow/sugar/sweet peas | 90 | 51 | 0 | 12 |
| Mung beans | 11 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| String beans | 78 | 47 | 3 | 8 |
| Other beans, peas, & corn | 63 | 81 | 0 | 5 |
| Cucumbers | 96 | 49 | 0 | 4 |
| Eggplant | 23 | 48 | 0 | 0 |
| Okra | 33 | 73 | 0 | 9 |
| Peppers, hot | 261 | 46 | 3a | 5 |
| Peppers, sweet | 295 | 76 | 0 | 1 |
| Squash/pumpkins | 110 | 35 | 0 | 4 |
| Tomatoes | 332 | 59 | 0 | 0 |
| Other fruits used as vegetables | 30 | 87 | 0 | 10 |
| Artichokes | 26 | 96 | 0 | 0 |
| Asparagus | 101 | 63 | 12 | 1 |
| Bamboo shoots | 20 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Broccoli | 53 | 70 | 0 | 0 |
| Cabbage | 16 | 63 | 0 | 0 |
| Celery | 20 | 20 | 0 | 0 |
| Chicory | 16 | 94 | 0 | 6 |
| Endive/escarole | 45 | 98 | 0 | 0 |
| Lettuce, head | 40 | 38 | 3 | 8 |
| Radicchio | 59 | 98 | 0 | 2 |
| Romaine | 44 | 50 | 7 | 3 |
| Spinach | 22 | 36 | 5 | 0 |
| Other leaf/ stem vegetables | 67 | 64 | 1 | 10 |
| Mushrooms/truffles, whole | 47 | 96 | 0 | 2 |
| Mushrooms/truffles, pieces & products | 51 | 96 | 0 | 2 |
| Carrots | 46 | 67 | 0 | 0 |
| Cassava | 18 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Onions | 27 | 89 | 0 | 0 |
| Potatoes | 22 | 95 | 0 | 0 |
| Radishes | 13 | 62 | 0 | 0 |
| Shallots/scallions/leeks | 23 | 91 | 0 | 0 |
| Sweet potatoes/yams | 14 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Water chestnuts | 46 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Other root/tuber vegetables | 42 | 86 | 0 | 0 |
| Vegetables, dried or paste | 140 | 83 | 0 | 6 |
| Vegetables with sauce | 22 | 77 | 0 | 9 |
| Other vegetables & vegetable products | 28 | 82 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 2535 | 67 | 1a | 3a |
| F. Other | ||||
| Spices | 14 | 75 | 0 | 0 |
| Cashews | 42 | 62 | 0 | 7 |
| Peanuts | 20 | 85 | 0 | 0 |
| Other nuts & nut products | 35 | 89 | 0 | 3 |
| Edible seeds | 24 | 75 | 0 | 17 |
| Vegetable oils, crude | 14 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Vegetable oils, refined | 15 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Beverage bases | 13 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Bottled water, mineral/spring | 19 | 100 | 0 | 0 |
| Honey & other sweeteners | 25 | 76 | 0 | 0 |
| Other food products | 58 | 79 | 0 | 0 |
| Total | 279 | 83 | 0 | 3 |
| A-F Total | 5032 | 66 | <1a | 3a |
| a Includes samples that have both residue(s) over tolerance and residue(s) with no tolerance. | ||||
References
(1) Yess, N.J. (1995) U.S. Food and Drug Administration monitoring of pesticide residues in foods. Pestic. Outlook 6, 28-31.
(2) Code of Federal Regulations (1996) Title 40, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Parts 180, 185, and 186.
(3) Pesticide Analytical Manual (1968 and revisions) Vols I (3rd Ed., 1994) and II (1971), Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC (available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161).
(4) Roy, R.R., Albert, R.H., Wilson, P., Laski, R.R., Roberts, J.I., Hoffmann, T.J., Bong, R.L., Bohannon, B.O., & Yess, N.J. (1995) U.S. Food and Drug Administration pesticide program: incidence/level monitoring of domestic and imported pears and tomatoes. J. AOAC Int. 78, 930-940.
(5) Pennington, J.A.T., Capar, S.G., Parfitt, C.H., & Edwards, C.W. (1996) History of the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study (Part II), 1987-1993. J. AOAC Int. 79, 163-170.
(6) Food and Drug Administration (1995) Food and Drug Administration pesticide program - residue monitoring - 1994. J. AOAC Int. 78, 117A-143A (and earlier reports in the series).
(7) Gunderson, E.L. (1995) Dietary intakes of pesticides, selected elements, and other chemicals: FDA Total Diet Study, June 1984-April 1986. J. AOAC Int. 78, 910-921.
(8) Gunderson, E.L. (1995) FDA Total Diet Study, July 1986-April 1991, dietary intakes of pesticides, selected elements, and other chemicals. J. AOAC Int. 78, 1353-1363.
(9) Pennington, J.A.T. (1992) Total Diet Studies: the identification of core foods in the United States food supply. Food Addit. Contam. 9, 253-264.
(10) Pennington, J.A.T. (1992) The 1990 revision of the FDA Total Diet Study. J. Nutr. Educ. 24, 173-178.
(11) Pennington, J.A.T. (1992) Appendices for the 1990 revision of the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study. PB92-176239/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.
(12) Pardue, J.R. (1995) Multiresidue method for the chromatographic determination of triazine herbicides and their metabolites in raw agricultural products. J. AOAC Int. 78, 856-862.
(13) Bong, R., Kramer, J., Heaney, L., & Murphy, L. (1995) Validation of a multiresidue method for triazine herbicides in various food commodities. Lab. Inf. Bull. 3998, Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD.