Pesticide Residue Surveys; Country of Origin Labeling & Microbiological Data Program

1. Pesticide Residue Surveys; Country of Origin Labeling & Microbiological Data Program O. Norman Nesheim UF/IFAS Pesticide Information Coordinator

2. FDA Pesticide Residue Survey

3. Pesticide Regulation • 3 Federal agencies share responsibility for the regulation of pesticides • Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) • Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

4. Agency Roles • EPA • Registers pesticides sold/distributed in the US and regulates their use. • Sets Tolerances for pesticides used on food • Tolerances are the maximum amounts of residues that are permitted in or on a food or feed.

5. Monitoring and Enforcement of Tolerances • FDA monitors and enforces tolerances set by EPA in domestic and imported foods and animal feeds shipped in interstate commerce • USDA • Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) monitors and enforces tolerances on meat, poultry, and egg products. • AMS Pesticide Data Program (PDP) tests commodities in U.S. food supply for pesticide residues.

6. FDA Monitoring • Individual lots of domestically produced and imported foods are sampled and analyzed for pesticide residues • Domestic samples are collected close to point of production in distribution system • Import samples are collected at point of entry into U.S commerce

7. FDA Monitoring • The unwashed, whole, unpeeled, raw commodity is analyzed. • Processed foods also are analyzed. • FDA uses multi-residue analytical methods capable of determining a number of pesticide residues. • FDA methods are capable of determining residues well below tolerance levels

8. Targeted Sampling • FDA uses several factors to determine the types and numbers of samples to collect. • Review of recent FDA and state residue data • Regional information on pesticide use • Dietary importance of food • Information on the amount of domestic and imported food entering interstate commerce • Pesticide characteristics and toxicity • Production volume/pesticide usage patterns

9. FDA Monitoring Results - 2001 • Total samples analyzed – 6,475 • Domestic Samples – 2,101 • Collected from 41 states • Largest number of samples come from states that are the largest producers of fruit and vegetables • Imported – 4,374 • Collected from food shipments from 99 countries. • Mexico had the largest number of samples. Chile was next.

10. Domestic/Import Comparison- All Samples

11. Domestic/Import Comparison – Fruits and Vegetables

12. Sanctions for Illegal Residues • Domestic • Seizure of item or injunction • Import • Stop shipment at port of entry • Stop future shipments for a specific grower, geographic area, or country based on the finding of one violative shipment, if there is reason to believe the same situation exists in future lots during the same shipping season.

13. Web Address • FDA Pesticide Program Residue Monitoring • http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/pesrpts.html

14. USDA Pesticide Data Program • Tested over 50 different commodities: fresh/frozen/canned fruit and vegetables, fruit juices, whole milk, grains, corn syrup, poultry, beef, drinking water. • Samples collected close to time and point of consumption and reflect what is typically available to consumers during the year.

15. 2002 PDP Results • 2002 PDP tested fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, barley, rice beef tissues and drinking water for pesticides. • 12,889 samples • 10,056 were fruit & vegetables, including: apple juice, apple sauce, canned and frozen sweet peas, sweet corn, fresh apples, asparagus, bananas, broccoli, carrots, celery, cucumbers, mushrooms, onions peaches pineapples, potatoes, spinach and bell peppers

16. 2002 PDP Results • 58% of samples had no detectable residues • 42% of samples had detectable residues • 0.3 % of samples exceeded the established tolerance. • 2.7% of samples had no established tolerance. These residues detected at very low levels and may be due to spray drift, crop rotations, or use of sanitizers in food handling facilities. • PDP reports such findings to FDA.

17. Use of PDP Data • EPA uses PDP data to prepare realistic pesticide dietary exposure for pesticide risk assessments. • Government and ag industry use data to examine pesticide residue issues that may affect ag practices and U.S. Trade • PDP data are useful in promoting export of U.S. commodities and addressing food safety issues

18. PDP Information • More information on USDA’s Pesticide Data Program can be found at: • http://www.ams.usda.gov/science/pdp/

19. Country of Origin Labeling

20. Country of Origin Labeling(COOL) • The 2002 Farm Bill established the requirement for Country of Origin Labeling for beef, lamb, pork, fish, perishable agricultural commodities and peanuts. • USDA-AMS responsible for implementation. • USDA published proposed regulations to implement COOL on 10/30/2003

21. COOL Implementation • 9/30/2004 - Original Implementation date; however Congress passed legislation postponing implementation for all covered commodities except wild and farm raised fish and shell fish until 9/30/2006.

22. COOL Requirements • Covered commodities must be labeled at retail to indicate their country of origin. • Country of origin for fish and shell fish must include and distinguish between wild and farm raised.

23. COOL Exemptions • Covered commodities are exempt if they are an ingredient in a processed food item. Eg. Bacon, orange juice, mixed fruit party trays, mixed nuts • Food Service establishments, such as restaurants, bars, cafeterias, etc.

24. More COOL Information • Information on COOL legislation and proposed regulations can be found at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/cool/

25. USDA’s Microbiological Data Program (MDP)

26. MDP • FY 2001 – Congress authorized funding to establish a microbial baseline in the domestic food supply. • USDA-AMS Monitoring Programs Office charged with implementing the MDP.

27. Congressional Intent for MDP • “Conferees expect the microbiological data program to produce national, consistent and statistically reliable data that may be used for research and risk analysis purposes by federal agencies, such as USDA, FDA, CDC, state health departments, researchers and other stakeholders.”

28. MDP Objectives • Provide comprehensive data on pathogens and indicator organisms on fresh fruits and vegetables in the U.S. • Establish benchmark data for Federal Agencies, State Public Health Agencies, industry and other interested parties to assess potentially harmful foodborne microorganisms. • To provide uniform procedures for sampling, testing, and reporting.

29. MDP • USDA-AMS coordinated development of the MDP with CDC, FDA, USDA-ARS, and USDA-NASS • Sampling and/or microbiological lab activities are conducted with 10 states and 1 federal lab.

30. MDP • MDP uses the USDA food consumption surveys to select for sampling highly consumed commodities that can be eaten raw. • 2002 – MDP sampled and tested celery, cantaloupe, leaf lettuce, romaine lettuce and tomatoes for Escherichia coli (E. coli) and Salmonella spp.

31. MDP Results • 2002 – 10,317 samples analyzed (86% domestic, 11% imported, 3% unknown origin. (First reporting year) • E. coli isolates with virulence factors found in 0.62 percent of samples. • Three Salmonella spp. isolates from domestic lettuce

32. Use of MDP Data • Establish benchmarks for the incidence of target organisms at the wholesale level, understand trends, and improve risk communication. • Identify priorities for technology development and modeling of risks for fresh produce in the food chain

33. Use of MDP Data • MDP data can supplement the FDA/USDA “Guidance for Industry—Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables”

34. MDP Future • MDP is seeking • to use new technologies to streamline laboratory procedures • improved data collection methods • to use improved microbial detection methods that are quicker, more reliable, and more sensitive

35. MDP Resources • For more information on USDA’s Microbiological Data Program go to http://www.ams.usda.gov/Science/mpo/quick.htm