monitoring obligations under mrl legislation-
DESCRIPTION
Monitoring Obligations under MRL legislation-. Helena Cooke Policy Implementation. Outline of talk. Why monitor? EU obligations and developments Findings Risk assessment, risk management and RASFF EFSA annual report. Why monitor ?. Relevance of Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in food. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Health and Safety Executive
Monitoring Obligations
under MRL legislation-
Helena Cooke
Policy Implementation
Outline of talk
• Why monitor?
• EU obligations and developments
• Findings
• Risk assessment, risk management and RASFF
• EFSA annual report
Why monitor ?
Relevance of Monitoring of Pesticide Residues in food.
The European Union: 500 million people – 27 countries
Member states of the European Union
Candidate countries
Farm to Fork- integrated approach
European Legislation
Official food and feed controls
• EU Official Food and Feed Controls (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
UK NCP- Farm to Fork principles
• 140,000 FBO
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
UK Risk Based Plan
UK Risk Based Plan
European programme
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..
Who checks that MS comply?
• Commission auditors (FVO).
• Within EU
• Exporting
countries
Findings
Findings European 2008 vs. UK
EU harmonised-
• 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
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
Compliance- UK
Development- pesticides sought in EU programme
More multi-residue pesticides
• ametryn
• anthraquinone
• bixafen
• chinomethoionate
• chlorbromuron
• chloroxuron
• dicamba
• dichlorprop-P
• fenobucarb
• fenpropidin
• formothion
• fluroxypyr
• imazapyr
• metalumizone
• sulfotep
• topramezone
SRM- costs
• inorganic bromide
• maleic hydrazide
• glufosinate ammonium
• aminopyralid
• clopyralid
• ethephon
• glyphosate
• dithiocarbamates.
SCOPE
• Olive oil
• wine (wine grapes)
• products of animal origin
Fish ?
Animal Feed
stuffs
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
Risk Assessment monitoring
EU results EFSA
• Uses PRIMO
• European diet
• 97.5th percentile
• Highest residue from monitoring
• Applies variability factor
• Determines critical consumer
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
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
Follow Up Activity
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)
Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF)
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.
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
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
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 ?
European monitoring- integral to Farm to Fork policy.