Monitoring Obligations under MRL legislation-

1. Monitoring Obligations under MRL legislation- Helena Cooke Policy Implementation

2. Outline of talk • Why monitor? • EU obligations and developments • Findings • Risk assessment, risk management and RASFF • EFSA annual report

3. Why monitor ?

4. Relevance of Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in food.

5. The European Union: 500 million people – 27 countries Member states of the European Union Candidate countries

6. Farm to Fork- integrated approach

7. European Legislation

8. Official food and feed controls • EU Official Food andFeedControls (OFFC) regime • Food & feed controls must be : • Risk-based, carried out regularly and at appropriate frequency • Covered by a single, co-ordinated, national control plan covering several years • Staff must be trained and competent • Laboratories must be competent and audited

9. UK NCP- Farm to Fork principles • 140,000 FBO

10. EU legislation requires member States to … • carry out regular official controls on pesticide residues in food commodities to check compliance with MRLs (legal limits) • establish national monitoring programmes • take part in a specific EU coordinated monitoring • take effective, proportionate and dissuasive sanctions • Submit annual results to EFSA

11. UK Risk Based Plan

12. UK Risk Based Plan

13. European programme

14. EU Coordinated control Plan Reg 915/2010 • EU Co-ordinated Community Monitoring Programme for Pesticide Residues • 3 year rolling programme 30-40 food which constitute major components of Union diet • 8 fruit and vegetable foods • 1 cereal • 2 food of animal origin • 185 pesticides to be sought..

15. Who checks that MS comply? • Commission auditors (FVO). • Within EU • Exporting countries

16. Findings

17. Findings European 2008 vs. UK EU harmonised- UK National 2008 4129 27 fruit and vegetables 240 2.1% of fruit and vegetables (1.2% overall) 45% contained residues Some surveys targeted 13 RASFF’s • 11,610 samples EU • 70,000 national • 78 pesticides sought • 3.5% exceed MRL • 35.7% contained residues above RL. • 135 findings above ARfD • 35 cases where consumer risk could not be excluded

18. Compliance- UK

19. Development- pesticides sought in EU programme

20. More multi-residue pesticides • ametryn • anthraquinone • bixafen • chinomethoionate • chlorbromuron • chloroxuron • dicamba • dichlorprop-P • fenobucarb • fenpropidin • formothion • fluroxypyr • imazapyr • metalumizone • sulfotep • topramezone

21. SRM- costs • inorganic bromide • maleic hydrazide • glufosinate ammonium • aminopyralid • clopyralid • ethephon • glyphosate • dithiocarbamates.

22. SCOPE • Olive oil • wine (wine grapes) • products of animal origin Fish ? Animal Feed stuffs

23. Risk assessment In the UK, CRD takes this role Potential intakes of national consumer groups from actual detected residues, reflecting national culinary practice and diets calculated and compared with ADI and/or ARfD This may give a different answer to PRIMO

24. Risk Assessment monitoring EU results EFSA UK Monitoring CRD Use national dietary consumption data Acute intake model Uses 97.5th percentile Assumes highest residue from monitoring Applies variability factor Determines critical consumer • Uses PRIMO • European diet • 97.5th percentile • Highest residue from monitoring • Applies variability factor • Determines critical consumer

25. Risk management The Food Standards Agency leads on this in the UK CRD have a risk assessment and risk management role Decisions on action to be taken on national basis: Range of options, potentially including withdrawal For foods traded outside the country, RASFF notification

26. Follow Up Activity

27. Actions –follow up and enforcement- European level Non compliance posing risk to consumers is followed up • Commission audits by FVO • Specific monitoring obligations in the co-ordinated plan e.g. amitraz in pears • Increased border inspection requirements for high risk food products (Regulation (EC) 669/2009)

28. Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)

29. RASFF portal • RASFF notifications can be searched by various parameters • Useful to : • Watch progress on current issue • Research past occurrences Published information does NOT include full details available to food safety officials.

30. Increased border controls- 669/2009 controls • acetamiprid , amitraz, acephate, aldicarb, benomyl, carbendazim, chlorfenapyr, chlorpyrifos, carbaryl, carbofuran, chlorpyriphos-ethyl ,clothianidin, cyfluthrin,cyprodinil,CS2 (dithiocarbamates), diafenthiuron, diazinon, dichlorvos, dicrotophos, dicofol, dimethoate, endosulfan, EPN, ethion, fenamidone, fenitrothion, fenpropathrin , fludioxonil, hexaflumuron, imidacloprid, lambda-cyhalothrin, malathion, metalaxyl, methamidophos, methiocarb, methomyl, monocrotophos, omethoate, oxamyl, oxydemeton-methyl, phenthoate, profenofos, propargite, propiconazole, prophenophos, prothiophos, quinalphos ,thiabendazole, thiamethoxam, thiacloprid, thiophanate-methyl, triazophos, triadimefon, triforine

31. EU (EFSA) Annual Report Based on data from national and EU monitoring from each member State. Contents: Rates of compliance, including patterns by country and food EU consumer risk assessment, using all the data supplied Recommendations – can relate to PPP registrations as well as future monitoring

32. European monitoring As the co-ordinated programme increases in scope and breadth. • Increased analytical capability required • Increased commitment on the official laboratories for training, workshops, EU proficiency tests • Stronger evidence to take European action • More evidence to check whether food in EU is safe Farm to Fork ?

33. European monitoring- integral to Farm to Fork policy.