• 
• 
• 

Victorian Produce Monitoring Program 2007/08

Results of Victorian Government targeted chemical residue testing of fresh produce

Download the PDF version of this document: Victorian Produce Monitoring Program

Biosecurity and Farm Services Divisions

ISSN: 1036-1227 (print)

Executive summary

The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is committed to maintaining a high standard of agricultural chemical use in Victoria. Chemical residue monitoring is one way that DPI can assess and improve Good Agricultural Practice with chemicals.

The Victorian Produce Monitoring Program (VPMP) was conducted over an eighteen month period beginning January 2007 and concluding June 2008. The VPMP is a targeted program that tests for chemical residues in specific produce where there may be chemical residue issues. Vegetable crops investigated were leafy vegetables, root and tuber vegetables. The fruit crops that were targeted were strawberries, pome fruits, stone fruits and table grapes. In total, 457 samples from 11 different commodities in the produce categories of fruit and vegetables were collected and analysed. A total of 32,314 separate analyses were carried out for agricultural chemicals.

Of the 32,314 agricultural chemical tests there were only 39 (0.1%) tests with unacceptable residues when compared to the Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs). A total of 31,336 (97%) of the tests had no detectable residues. These findings highlight the fact that Victorian produce is, on the whole, grown according to Good Agricultural Practice resulting in a small number of unacceptable residues.

The detection of unacceptable residues on fresh produce does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe for consumption. Maximum residue limits, which are established at a level that is indicative of Good Agricultural Practices, are being used to determine acceptability. They include a large safety margin to protect the consumer. The unacceptable residues detected in this program were reported to the Department of Human Services (DHS), who in each case, determined that all were well below any level that would present a risk to public health. The targeted approach of this program assists in identifying and investigating high-risk agricultural chemical use practices in the Victorian horticulture industry. When unacceptable residues were detected, DPI Authorised Officers conducted traceback investigations to find the source of the residue. Information gathered from these traceback investigations was used by DPI to assist growers and industries in preventing any unacceptable residues recurring.

Acronyms

APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

DPI Department of Primary Industries

ERL Extraneous Residue Limit

FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand

LOD Limit of Detection

ML Maximum Limit

MRL Maximum Residue Limit

TMRL Temporary MRL

VPMP Victorian Produce Monitoring Program

Definitions

Contaminants

Substances not intentionally added to a product, but may be present following routine agricultural production are called contaminants. This includes metals, such as cadmium and lead. Contaminants are expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of the food (mg/kg) and use the maximum level (ML) food standard.

Extraneous Residue Limit (ERL)

The maximum permitted concentration of a pesticide residue, arising from environmental sources other than the use of a pesticide directly or indirectly on the food, expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of the food (mg/kg). Some agricultural chemicals are no longer registered for use, but persist in the environment from previous use and can cause residues in produce (eg. dieldrin and DDT).

Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)

Good Agricultural Practice is the nationally recommended, authorised or registered use pattern of a chemical that is necessary for effective and reliable pest control under actual conditions at any stage of production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.

With respect to agricultural pesticides, if these chemicals are used in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice, then the targeted pest should be effectively controlled and at the same time the produce derived from the crop should have either no detectable residues or residues that are below the maximum residue limit. If used according to Good Agricultural Practice the chemical should have no negative impact on the environment.

Limit of Detection (LOD)

The minimum concentration of a residue present in a sample that can be confidently detected and positively identified by a specific laboratory method.

Maximum Level (ML)

The maximum concentration of a specified contaminant, metal or natural toxicant, which is permitted to be present in a nominated food. This is expressed, unless otherwise specified, in milligrams of the contaminant or the natural toxicant per kilogram of the food (mg/kg).

A maximum level (ML) is only set for heavy metals and contaminants where it serves an effective risk management function and only for foods that provide a significant contribution to dietary exposure to a particular contaminant. MLs are set at concentrations that are consistent with the protection of public health and safety and are reasonably achievable from sound production and resource management practices.

Maximum Residue Limit (MRL)

The maximum level of a chemical that is legally permitted to be present in food, and is generally expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilograms of the food (mg/kg). This limit represents the level of residue that should not be exceeded if good agricultural practice is followed.

Residue

Within the context of agriculture, this refers to the amount of a chemical treatment, or its breakdown products, which can remain in or on produce. This can include elements (such as heavy metals) or pesticides, which may be present through agricultural or industrial activities or natural circumstances.

Temporary Maximum Residue Limit (TMRL)

The maximum residue limit established for a specified, limited period.

Traceback

An investigation conducted once an unacceptable residue is detected in a sample of fresh produce. Following notification from the laboratory of the detection of an unacceptable residue of contaminant, a DPI Chemical Standards Officer visits the grower to identify the source and cause of the residue. Traceback are conducted in accordance with defined procedures to ensure the grower or packer concerned will assess and control identified chemical use risks.

Unacceptable Chemical Residue

A residue of a chemical or contaminant is considered unacceptable when it exceeds the relevant MRL, TMRL, ML or ERL. If there is no MRL, TMRL, ML or ERL listed for an agricultural chemical or contaminant in a particular food, there must be no detectable residues of that chemical in that food (i.e. any detectable residue is unacceptable). An unacceptable residue in this instance does not equate to being unsafe, as it is unlikely to present a risk to human health at the low concentrations normally detected.

Withholding Period (WHP)

The minimum permissible time between the last application of an agricultural chemical to a crop and the harvesting of the agricultural or horticultural produce to which the chemical was applied.

1 Introduction

Victoria conducts one of the most comprehensive targeted monitoring surveys for identifying and quantifying chemical residues in horticultural produce in Australia.

Conducted annually since 1987, the main objective of the Victorian Produce Monitoring Program (VPMP) is to confirm that agricultural chemicals are being used according to Good Agricultural Practice and produce is free from unacceptable agricultural chemical residues.

The VPMP is designed to target particular commodity and chemical combinations for the presence of agricultural chemical residues. The objectives of the program are to:

• Determine if unacceptable chemical residues are present in a range of Victorian grown fresh horticultural produce.
• Determine the cause of any unacceptable chemical residues detected in fresh Victorian produce and take appropriate corrective action.
• Use any knowledge obtained in determining unacceptable chemical use practices to work with the horticultural industry to prevent the recurrence of unacceptable residues.
• Report the findings to stakeholders including the public, industry and government.

This report presents the results obtained for the analysis of Victorian grown produce samples for the 2007/08 VPMP and the activities conducted as a consequence of these findings.

2 Victorian Produce Monitoring Program 2007/08

The 2007/08 program was conducted over an eighteen month period from January 2007 to June 2008.

A total of 457 horticulture samples were collected from the Melbourne Wholesale Market and analysed at the DPI, Future Farming Systems Research Division at Werribee.

The horticulture industry can be broken into three main groups and in each of these groups are specific produce groups as outlined below:

1. Major fruit crops

a. Pome (apples and pears)

b. Citrus (oranges and mandarins)

c. Stone (peaches, nectarines, apricots, plums and cherries)

d. Berries (grapes and strawberries).

2. Major vegetable crops

a. Bulb (onions)

b. Brassica (broccoli, cauliflower and cabbage)

c. Leafy (lettuce)

d. Legume, stalk and stem (beans, peas and asparagus)

e. Root and tuber (carrots and potatoes)

f. Fruiting vegetables (cucurbits) (melons, pumpkins and cucumber)

g. Fruiting vegetables (other) (capsicums, mushrooms and tomatoes).

3. Minor crops (almonds, herbs, olives, bok choy, celeriac, fennel, sweet corn, spinach, lemons, celery, zucchini, squash, chillies, blueberries, raspberries, avocadoes etc).

For the 2007/08 VPMP samples from the major fruit and vegetable crops were targeted for collection. Each group was analysed for chemicals that would maximise the chance of finding residues in the produce. These commodity/chemical combinations were identified from a variety of intelligence sources.

2.1 Sample collection

In the 2007/08 program a total of 457 samples were collected from the following produce groups:

1. Leafy vegetables

2. Root and tuber vegetables

3. Berries

4. Pome fruit

5. Stone fruit.

See Table 1 for a summary of the produce type and number collected for analysis.

All samples were collected from the Melbourne Wholesale Markets in Footscray by staff from Rudge Produce Systems between December 2006 and March 2008. The samples were collected randomly. Photos of all samples collected were taken from at least three different angles and a receipt of purchase for each sample was obtained. This information assisted in identifying the grower of the produce if an unacceptable residue was detected in the sample.

All samples consisted of whole units or packages (eg strawberries) weighing at least 1kg. For medium size produce (units typically 25-250g), the samples comprised at least 10 individual units. This is in accordance with international sampling protocols for residue testing.

2.2 Residue analysis

All samples were analysed at the DPI, Future Farming Systems Research Division at Werribee. On arrival at the laboratory, samples were prepared and homogenised according to the FSANZ Standard 1.4.2, Schedule 4. Samples were then stored under appropriate conditions to prevent any chemical residue degradation until they were analysed. Samples were stored for various periods of time, but rarely exceed a month prior to analysis.

The laboratory is accredited by the National Association of Testing Authorities (NATA) for the analyses performed during the program. The laboratory also participates in a relevant proficiency testing program managed by the National Measurement Institute (NMI). Appendix A identifies the agricultural chemicals tested for in each sample.

Some samples were tested for the presence of extraneous residues of organochlorine (OC) compounds that are no longer registered for use in Victoria as agricultural chemicals. Many of these OC compounds are still present in some of Victoria’s arable soils due to their persistent nature. These include BHC (alpha, beta and delta isomers), oxychlordane, cis-chlordane, trans-chlordane, endrin, DDD, DDE, DDT, dieldrin, Aldrin, heptachlor, heptachlor epoxide, hexachlorbenzene (HCB) and lindane (gamma BHC).

There were a number of chemicals that were analysed for that are unlikely to be found in given produce groups as they are not registered for that crop, there is no permit for the use of that chemical on the crop or it is not know to be a common off-label use of the chemical. Many of the analyses conducted were part of general screens that the laboratory offered and were therefore included in the analysis list. The inclusion of these chemicals also meant that any use of unregistered chemicals on horticulture crops would have been detected.

Table 1: Summary of produce groups sampled for analysis

Produce Category	Produce Group	Produce Type	Number of Samples Collected	Total Number of Samples per Group
Fruit	Berries	Strawberries	80	125
		Table Grapes	45
	Pome Fruit	Apples (Fresh)	30	90
		Apples (Controlled Atmosphere)	30
		Pears (Fresh)	15
		Pears (Controlled Atmosphere)	15
	Stone Fruit	Apricots	20	81
		Nectarines	21
		Peaches	20
		Plums	20
Vegetables	Leafy	Lettuce Leaf (Summer)	15	80
		Lettuce Leaf (Winter)	26
		Lettuce Head (Summer)	24
		Lettuce Head (Winter)	8
		Other Leafy Vegetables	7
	Root & Tuber	Carrots	41	81
		Potatoes	40
			Total	457

 

2.3 Residue standards

The standards referenced in this report are published by the APVMA, the Commonwealth agency responsible for chemical registration, and by FSANZ, the agency responsible for setting food safety limits in Australia. Generally, these limits are at similar or the same levels, however there are some instances where the lack of harmonisation between the APVMA and FSANZ MRL setting processes lead to a discrepancy in the MRL standards. When the APVMA approves a new label use or issues a permit for use, there is currently a delay of up to one year for FSANZ to incorporate the associated MRLs into the Food Standards Code.

The standards referenced are:

• APVMA, Maximum Residue Limits of Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals and Associated Substances in Food Commodities
• FSANZ Food Standards Code, Standard 1.4.2 Maximum Residue Limits.

2.4 Traceback investigations

For each unacceptable residue detected, a traceback investigation was conducted to identify the property of origin and determine the source and cause of the residue. DPI staff authorised under the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 are responsible for conducting these investigations.

For a traceback to be considered as confirmed, the investigating officer must verify that:

1. The sample in question was grown on the property

2. The grower used the chemical detected in the sample.

If either of these criteria cannot be verified (by referring to written records or confirmation from the grower), the traceback investigation is considered unconfirmed.

3 Results

Of the 32,314 individual chemical tests, 39 unacceptable residues were detected.

3.1 Agricultural chemicals

Of the 32,314 individual tests for agricultural chemicals 99.9% complied with the FSANZ and/or the APVMA MRL and extraneous residue limit (ERL) standards. A summary of the residues identified in the VPMP samples is presented in Table 2.

3.2 Unacceptable residues

Thirty nine unacceptable agricultural chemical residues were detected, consisting of 29 insecticide, eight fungicide and two herbicide residues. All results are summarised in Appendices B to F. This represents 0.1% of the total number of tests. Eighteen of the unacceptable residues detected were found to have no MRL established by FSANZ or APVMA. The results for these samples are summarised in Table 3.

The detection of an unacceptable residue is an indication that a chemical has not been used in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice. It does not necessarily mean that there are health risks associated with the consumption of the food in which the residue was detected.

Table 2: Summary of results for samples analysed for agricultural chemicals

Produce Group	No of Samples	Total Tests	Tests <LOD	Tests <50% MRL	Tests 50-100% MRL	Tests >MRL	Tests with NO MRL
Pome Fruit
(Fresh)
Apples	30	2158	2125	33	0	0	0
Pears	15	1057	1038	17	2	0	0
(CA)
Apples	30	2280	2185	91	0	4	0
Pears	15	1140	1080	60	0	0	0
Berries
Strawberries	80	4958	4668	263	6	11	10
Table Grapes	45	3780	3632	147	0	0	1
Stone Fruit
Apricots	20	1560	1525	35	0	0	0
Nectarines	21	1638	1584	54	0	0	0
Peaches	20	1560	1498	58	3	1	0
Plums	20	1560	1540	20	0	0	0
Root & Tuber Vegetables
Carrots	41	2461	2437	16	6	2	0
Potatoes	40	2560	2558	2	0	0	0
Leafy Vegetables
(Summer)
Lettuce - Head	15	1050	1026	23	0	1	0
Lettuce - Leaf	24	1679	1638	39	1	1	0
(Winter)
Lettuce - Head	8	560	548	12	0	0	0
Lettuce - Leaf	26	1821	1774	42	0	1	4
(Other Leafy Vegetables)
Endive, Rucola, Radicchio	7	490	480	7	0	0	3
Total	457	32312	31336	919	18	21	18

 

 

Table 3: Summary of unacceptable test results

Produce Category	Produce Group	Produce Type	Chemical Detected	Residue Concentration (mg/kg)	FSANZ MRL/ML (mg/kg)
Fruit	Stone	Peaches	Parathion Methyl	0.38	0.2
	Pome	Apple	Bifenthrin	0.16	0.05
		Apple	Bifenthrin	0.07	0.05
		Apple	Bifenthrin	0.12	0.05
		Apple	Bifenthrin	0.11	0.05
	Berries	Table Grapes	Parathion Ethyl	0.02	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fenitrothion	0.16	0.1
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.02	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.04	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.58	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.04	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.56	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.3	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.23	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.05	No MRL
		Strawberries	Fipronil	0.1	No MRL
		Strawberries	Imidacloprid	0.07	No MRL
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.58	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	1.6	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.41	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.31	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.11	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.34	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.19	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.14	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.3	0.1
		Strawberries	Trichlorfon	0.14	0.1
Vegetables	Root & Tuber	Carrots	Linuron	0.1	0.05
		Carrots	Linuron	0.09	0.05
	Leafy	Lettuce Head (Summer)	Tebuconazole	0.09	0.02
		Lettuce Leaf (Summer)	Dimethoate	2.3	2
		Lettuce Leaf (Summer)	Procymidone	0.4	No MRL
		Lettuce Leaf (Winter)	Fipronil	0.02	No MRL
		Lettuce Leaf (Winter)	Tebuconazole	0.04	0.02
		Endive	Azoxystrobin	0.02	No MRL
		Endive	Iprodione	0.29	No MRL
		Endive	Boscalid	0.01	No MRL
		Lettuce Leaf	Prochloraz	0.04	No MRL
		Lettuce Leaf	Prochloraz	0.07	No MRL

 

The results of all the samples with unacceptable residues were forwarded onto the Department of Human Services for them to assess if there was a health risk associated with the residues. The detection of unacceptable residues may have serious implications associated with trade or marketing of the produce in which the residues were detected or on Victorian horticulture produce in general. If these residues were detected in an export market the result could be quite costly for the horticulture industry and may ultimately lead to the closure of an export industry. DPI has worked with various groups including growers, advisors and quality assurance auditors to address this issue.

3.3 Summary of residues detected in produce categories

3.3.1 Fruit

A total of 296 fruit samples were collected. These samples consisted of apples, pears, strawberries, table grapes, apricots, nectarines, peaches and plums. A total of 21,693 individual residue tests were conducted on these samples for agricultural chemicals. Twenty seven unacceptable chemical residues were detected with 21 of these results in strawberries when compared to the APVMA and FSANZ MRLs.

One grape sample was found to contain a residue of an unregistered chemical. It was confirmed during the traceback that a product containing the detected active ingredient was used on the produce. The product had previously been registered for use on grapes and the grower used it not knowing that the product was no longer registered.

There was an unacceptable residue detected in one peach sample and four apple samples had unacceptable residues of the insecticide bifenthrin.

The unacceptable residues detected in the fruit samples were all insecticides.

3.3.2 Vegetables

A total of 161 vegetable samples were collected. These samples consisted of carrots, potatoes and lettuce. A total of 10,621 individual residue tests for agricultural chemicals were conducted on these samples. There were 12 unacceptable residues detected in the vegetable samples. There were two carrot samples with unacceptable linuron residues. There were 10 leafy vegetable samples with unacceptable chemical residues when compared to the APVMA and FSANZ MRLs.

Of the unacceptable residues detected in the vegetable samples tested, eight were fungicides, two were herbicides and two were insecticides.

4 DPI compliance tools

Investigations into unacceptable chemical residues are twofold; the initial investigation aims to identify the cause of the unacceptable residue and the subsequent stage involves investigating compliance with Victoria’s Control of Use (CoU) legislation.

This report details findings from the initial investigations.

Control of Use investigations can result in a number of actions. In terms of immediate action, DPI can serve a Contaminated Agricultural Produce Notice that places controls on the handling, movement and sale of specified produce until it can be shown that residues are at an acceptable level. A Testing of Agricultural Produce Notice is generally also served concurrently with the Contaminated Agricultural Produce Notice. This requires the owner to bear the cost of analytical testing to determine the residue status of the produce subject to the notice. These notices are only issued when the investigating officer is of reasonable belief that the produce is contaminated.

In terms of subsequent regulatory action where CoU investigations are conducted, DPI has a number of options available to ensure compliance with the Act. The specific action taken will depend on the circumstances of the offence and an assessment of the offence and facts according to the DPI Chemical Standards Compliance Policy.

Potential actions taken for offences against the CoU Act are:

1. Advisory and Compliance Letters: these letters are issued when a minor breach of the legislation is detected and to provide advice on improving levels of Good Agricultural Practice.

2. DPI Official Warning: an official warning applied by DPI to a person or business, which remains on record for future reference.

3. Infringement Notice: for certain offences, DPI may serve an infringement Notice requiring the payment equivalent to 2 Penalty Units (1 Penalty Unit is currently equivalent to approximately $115). If the infringement Notice amount is not paid, or if the person served with the Notice chooses, the matter will be heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria.

4. Prosecution: where warranted, DPI may prosecute offences under the Act. All offences relating to the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals (Control of Use) Act 1992 are ‘Summary Offences’, heard in the Magistrates’ Court of Victoria. Penalties which may be applied by the Court vary depending upon the nature of the offence, however maximum penalties are usually in the range of 200 Penalty Units in the case of a corporation, and in any other case, 100 Penalty Units.

5 Traceback investigations

DPI Authorised Officers conducted 36 traceback investigations in response to the detection of unacceptable residues in samples.

The property of origin was confirmed in all of these cases. Nine tracebacks were also conducted on samples containing residues between 50-100% of the established MRL to verify if Good Agricultural Practice was being used.

5.1 Fruit

5.1.1 Strawberries

A total of 20 strawberry samples were found to have unacceptable chemical residues. DPI Chemical Standards have worked with the Strawberry Growers’ Association to assist them in dealing with issues associated with seasonal pest pressures.

Fipronil

Nine strawberry samples had unacceptable residues of fipronil. Residue traceback investigations determined that growers were using fipronil off-label to control an influx of Western Flower Thrips in the Silvan and Wandin areas. There was no established MRL for fipronil in strawberries. This meant that any use would be likely to cause an unacceptable residue. Seven traceback investigations found that the growers had applied the chemical to their crop. However, two found growers had used fipronil on neighbouring areas and the residue was caused by internal spray drift.

Trichlorfon

Trichlorfon was detected in 10 strawberry samples at unacceptable concentrations. Growers were using trichlorfon to control Rutherglen bug, which infested the Silvan and Wandin areas in November. Growers were using a product that was registered for use on strawberries, but not in Victoria. In addition, the label does not stipulate spray intervals and as a result some growers were applying the chemical several times in an attempt to control the pests. This repeated use, led to unacceptable residues.

Fenitrothion and Imidacloprid

There were also another two strawberry samples with unacceptable residues. One with a residue of fenitrothion and another with imidacloprid. The investigating officer was unable to establish that these chemicals had been used by the respective growers and their source remains undetermined.

5.1.2 Apples

Four apple samples contained unacceptable residues of bifenthrin. Chemical products with this active constituent were used off-label in the Goulburn Valley area as a cheaper alternative for controlling Codling moth and Mealy bug. The chemical label did not stipulate spray intervals for a crop and as a result, repeated use of the chemical resulted in unacceptable residues.

5.1.3 Table grapes

A table grape sample was found to have a residue of parathion-ethyl, which is an unregistered chemical and therefore illegal to use. The investigating officer was able to establish that a parathion-ethyl product had been used on the grape sample in question and placed a Contaminated Agricultural Produce Notice on the remainder of the crop. Sampling and testing of the produce was carried out until the residue status of the produce was acceptable. The product had previously been registered by the APVMA, and a drum of the product had been kept on farm for several years. The grower was unaware the product had been de-registered, highlighting the importance for growers to make enquiries to check if anything has changed if intending to use products that have been stored for extended periods.

5.1.4 Peaches

There was a peach sample with an unacceptable residue of parathion-methyl. The investigating officer was able to confirm that the grower had used parathion-methyl on his peaches, but was unable to establish a reason for the high residue from the grower’s explanation of their use pattern.

5.2 Vegetables

5.2.1 Carrots

Two carrot samples were found to have unacceptable residues of linuron. These were found to be most likely associated with the persistent nature of the compound and possibly due to spray drift when spraying adjacent blocks with the herbicide.

5.2.2 Leafy vegetables

Leafy vegetables were a targeted produce group in the 2007/08 VPMP. A total of 80 lettuce and other salad vegetable samples were collected as part of this produce group. The samples collected consisted of head lettuce, leaf lettuce and a variety of other leafy vegetables including endive, rucola and radicchio. The classification of the lettuce samples into either leaf or head lettuce was important as some agricultural chemicals have different MRLs for lettuce leaf and lettuce head, likewise for the registered uses of some chemical products.

Ten unacceptable agricultural chemical residues were detected in leafy vegetable samples. Three of these samples were endive, six lettuce leaf and one lettuce head sample. Five of the unacceptable residues were due to there being no established MRLs with the APVMA and/or FSANZ for the particular chemical/commodity combinations.

Tebuconazole

Two separate lettuce samples had unacceptable residues of tebuconazole. These samples both originated from the same property, one was a lettuce head sample harvested in the summer and the other was a lettuce leaf sample harvested in the winter. The grower used a rate which was higher than the label/permit rate and he did not adhere to the withholding period.

Dimethoate, Procymidone and Fipronil

The unacceptable dimethoate residue was on a lettuce grown in a hydroponic situation and was most likely due to internal spray drift from seedlings being sprayed near lettuce soon to be harvested.

The unacceptable procymidone residue was most likely due to the spraying unit not being cleaned thoroughly after using a procymidone product on another vegetable crop prior to spraying the salad mix block.

The unacceptable fipronil residue on a lettuce sample was most likely due to the failure to adequately decontaminate the spray tank from previous spraying.

6 Discussion

To put the results of this report into context it is important to understand that Maximum Residue Limits are established based on Good Agricultural Practice and do not represent a food safety level.

If registered chemicals are used according to the label they should effectively control the targeted weed, pest or disease. At the time the maximum residue limits are set, a dietary exposure evaluation is undertaken to ensure any resulting residues from the use of the chemical do not cause an undue hazard to human health. The dietary evaluation is based on the acceptable daily intake of the active ingredient that can be consumed by a human over a lifetime without appreciable health risk. As acceptable daily intake of chemicals are established using animals, safety margins are factored in when setting the maximum residue limits for chemicals on fresh produce. Any unacceptable residues that were detected in the samples as part of this program were reported to the Department of Human Services (DHS), who in each case, determined that all were well below any level that would present a risk to public health.

The results of this program demonstrate that chemicals are generally being used safely and appropriately by industry and in accordance with Good Agricultural Practice. This is also confirmed by the findings of the National Residue Survey (NRS) 2007/08 where 845 horticulture samples were analysed for agricultural chemicals and 99.76% of these samples were found to be compliant when compared to the FSANZ Food Standards Code. The samples in the NRS survey included horticulture samples originating from Victoria.

As the VPMP is a targeted program, compared with the NRS, it is expected that there will be a greater number of unacceptable residues found in produce in the VPMP. The ability for laboratories to screen for a wider range of pesticide residues coupled with extensive industry knowledge on what is currently being used on various crops has increased the probability of unacceptable residues being detected.

The 2007/08 VPMP increased the number of samples from particular produce groups. This provides more comprehensive residue results, which have allowed DPI Chemical Standards to confidently assess and demonstrate any residue issues that exist in an industry. DPI Chemical Standards can then work to assist the industry to resolve the issues. This occurred with issues in the strawberry and apple industries.

Twenty one of the 39 unacceptable residues were detected in strawberries. The strawberry industry was subject to elevated pest pressures, namely Rutherglen bug and Western Flower Thrips, in the 2006/07 season, which contributed to the unacceptable residues. DPI worked with the strawberry industry to develop an industry workplan to address the chemical use issues in the industry. The strawberry industry is currently implementing a number of projects and activities to reduce the pest issues and improve its chemical usage practices. This has included grower training on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) and chemical use. The industry is also funding the development of new chemical options and IPM techniques. DPI staff will continue to work with the strawberry industry to assist them, where they can, in resolving issues relating to agricultural chemical use. DPI will conduct future monitoring to ensure that these issues have been resolved.

Unacceptable residues of bifenthrin were found in four apple samples. These residues were due to the off-label use of a bifenthrin product on apple trees at a growth stage of the fruit for which the chemical was not registered for use. DPI staff responded to this issue by coordinating meetings with growers, resellers and agronomists and also manufacturers to communicate the risks of continued off-label use of bifenthrin products.

There were ten unacceptable residues detected in leafy vegetable samples. Five of these were due to there being no established MRL for the particular commodity/chemical combinations. The other unacceptable residues occurred for various reasons including internal spray drift and contamination of spray equipment. Each of these issues were dealt with through one on one discussions with the growers concerned.

It should be noted that approximately 43% of the samples with unacceptable residues originated from properties with quality assurance (QA) systems in place. This demonstrates that growers implementing QA systems may need to review how they manage chemical residue risks.

7 Further information

For additional copies of this report, contact the Communications Manager, Chemical Standards Branch on (03) 9217 4391.

Useful Websites

Department of Primary Industries, Chemical Standards Branch, Victoria

www.dpi.vic.gov.au/chemicalstandards

Food Standards Australia New Zealand

www.foodstandards.gov.au

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority

www.apvma.gov.au

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry

www.daff.gov.au

Acknowledgments

The Project Coordinator wishes to acknowledge the following people and organisations that have supported this project:

• Program Manager of Chemical Standards Field Services, Mr Alan Roberts.
• Director, Chemical Standards, Mr Russell McMurray
• Chemical Standards Authorised Officers: Mr Les Toohey, Mr David Stewart, Mr Steven Field, Mr Michael Laity, Ms Jo Robinson, Mr Neil Harrison and Ms Jane Rhodes for their efforts in conducting tracebacks of unacceptable residues.
• DPI horticultural and Chemical Standards staff for providing information on chemical use practices and registration status, in particular Ms Angela Gaw, Departmental Liaison Officer (formerly Senior Project Officer, Stockfood and Grains).
• Staff at DPI’s Primary Industries Research Victoria (PIRVic) laboratory, Werribee for conducting the analyses on the samples and providing advice when required: Ms Pei Zhang, Ms Joanne Bui, Mr Damien Wren, Tharmalingam Nogarajah, Ms Sylvia Tjia, Mr Wal Stammers, Suk-Kiung Lee, Mr Carlos Aguirre, Ms Maureen DePasquale, Mr Ron Walsh, Ms Myle Hoang, Mr Tony Ive, Mr Gavin Rose and Ms Pat Johnstone.
• Staff from Rudge Produce Systems at the Victorian Wholesale Market, in particular Mr George Temelkoski, Ms Carolyn Brown and Mr Anthony Bernobic.
• Chem Res Technical Services P/L Consultant, Mr Graham Roberts.

Maresa Heath & David Rumbold
DPI Chemical Standards Field Services, Farm Services Victoria

9 Appendices

Appendix A. Matrix identifying aricultural chemicals analysed for on each sample type

Click here to see the full table

Appendix B. Summary of results for agricultural chemicals in pome fruit

Analyte	LOD (mg/kg)	Total No. Tests	<LOD	≤50% MRL	50-100% MRL	>MRL	No MRL
Aldrin + Dieldrin	0.01	90	90
Azinphos ethyl	0.01	90	90
Azinphos methyl	0.01	90	81	8
Azoxystrobin	0.01	90	90
BHC (total)	0.01	90	90
Bifenthrin	0.01	90	85	9	1	4
Boscalid	0.01	90	90
Bupirimate	0.05	90	90
Buprofezin	0.05	90	90
Carbaryl	0.01	90	87	3
Carbendazim	0.05	53	28	25
Chlordane (total)	0.01	90	90
Chlorothalonil	0.1	90	90
Chlorpyrifos	0.01	90	81	10
Chlorpyrifos methyl	0.01	90	90
Cyfluthrin	0.01	90	90
Cyhalothrin	0.01	90	90
Cypermethrin (total)	0.01	90	90
Cyproconazole	0.01	90	90
Cyprodinil	0.01	90	90
DDT (total)	0.01	90	90
Deltamethrin	0.01	90	90
Diazinon	0.01	90	90
Dichlorvos	0.01	90	90
Difenconazole	0.01	90	90
Dimethoate	0.01	90	90
Dimethomorph	0.01	90	90
Diphenylamine	0.2	70	36	34
Endosulfan (total)	0.01	90	90
Endrin	0.01	90	90
Ethion	0.01	90	90
Fenamiphos	0.05	90	90
Fenarimol	0.05	90	90
Fenchlorphos	0.01	90	90
Fenitrothion	0.01	90	84	6
Fenoxycarb	0.01	90	72	18
Fenpyroximate	0.01	53	53
Fenthion	0.01	90	90
Fenvalerate (total)	0.01	90	90
Fipronil	0.01	90	90
HCB	0.01	90	90
Heptachlor (total)	0.01	90	90
Imazalil	0.05	53	43	10
Imidacloprid	0.01	90	90
Indoxacarb	0.01	90	81	9
Iprodione	0.05	90	54	36
Lindane	0.01	90	90
Malathion	0.01	90	90
Metalaxyl	0.01	90	90
Methidathion	0.01	90	90
Methiocarb	0.01	90	90
Methomyl	0.01	90	90
Mevinphos	0.02	90	90
Myclobutanil	0.01	90	86	4
Oxyfluorfen	0.01	90	90
Parathion ethyl	0.01	90	90
Parathion methyl	0.01	90	74	15	1
Penconazole	0.01	90	90
Pendimethalin	0.02	90	90
Permethrin (total)	0.02	90	90
Pirimicarb	0.01	90	88	2
Prochloraz	0.01	90	90
Procymidone	0.1	90	90
Propiconazole	0.01	90	90
Prothiofos	0.01	90	90
Pyraclostrobin	0.01	90	90
Pyrimethanil	0.02	90	90
Spinosad	0.01	90	90
Tebuconazole	0.01	90	90
Tebufenapyrad	0.01	53	50	3
Tebufenozide	0.01	90	86	4
Thiabendazole	0.05	53	53
Triadimefon	0.01	90	90
Triadimenol	0.01	90	90
Trichlorfon	0.01	90	90
Trifloxystrobin	0.01	90	90
Total (Pome Fruit)		6635	6442	196	2	4	0

 

Appendix C. Summary of results for agricultural chemicals in stone fruit

Analyte	LOD (mg/kg)	Total No. Tests	<LOD	≤50% MRL	50-100% MRL	>MRL	No MRL
Abamectin	0.01	81	81
Azinphos ethyl	0.01	81	81
Azinphos methyl	0.01	81	80	1
Azoxystrobin	0.01	81	81
Bifenthrin	0.01	81	60	21
Boscalid	0.01	81	81
Bupirimate	0.05	81	81
Buprofenzin	0.05	81	81
Captan	0.5	81	81
Carbaryl	0.01	81	79	2
Carbendazim	0.1	81	80	1
Chlorothalonil	0.05	81	81
Chlorpyrifos	0.01	81	79	2
Chlorpyrifos methyl	0.01	81	81
Clofentezine	0.02	81	81
Cyfluthrin	0.01	81	81
Cyhalothrin	0.01	81	81
Cypermethrin (total)	0.01	81	81
Cyproconazole	0.01	81	81
Cyprodinil	0.01	81	81
Deltamethrin	0.01	81	81
Diazinon	0.01	81	81
Dichlorvos	0.01	81	81
Dicofol	0.5	81	81
Difenconazole	0.01	81	81
Dimethoate	0.01	81	80	1
Dimethomorph	0.01	81	81
Dithiocarbamates	0.1	81	50	31
Emamectin	0.01	81	81
Endosulfan (total)	0.05	81	81
Ethion	0.01	81	81
Fenamiphos	0.01	81	81
Fenarimol	0.05	81	81
Fenchlorphos	0.01	81	81
Fenitrothion	0.01	81	81
Fenoxycarb	0.01	81	81
Fenthion	0.01	81	80	1
Fenvalerate (total)	0.01	81	81
Fipronil	0.01	81	81
Fluazinam	0.01	81	81
Flusilazole	0.05	81	81
Hexythiazox	0.01	81	81
Imazalil	0.1	81	81
Imidacloprid	0.01	81	80	1
Indoxacarb	0.01	81	80	1
Iprodione	0.1	81	38	42	1
Linuron	0.01	81	81
Malathion	0.01	81	81
Metalaxyl	0.01	81	81
Methidathion	0.01	81	81
Methiocarb	0.01	81	81
Methomyl	0.01	81	80	1
Mevinphos	0.01	81	81
Myclobutanil	0.01	81	81
Oxadixyl	0.01	81	81
Parathion ethyl	0.01	81	81
Parathion methyl	0.01	81	62	16	2	1
Penconazole	0.01	81	81
Pendimethalin	0.02	81	81
Permethrin (total)	0.02	81	81
Pirimicarb	0.01	81	81
Prochloraz	0.01	81	81
Procymidone	0.05	81	81
Propargite	0.1	81	73	8
Propiconazole	0.01	81	54	27
Prothiofos	0.01	81	81
Pyraclostrobin	0.01	81	81
Pyrimethanil	0.01	81	81
Spinosad	0.01	81	80	1
Tebuconazole	0.01	81	81
Tebufenozide	0.01	81	81
Tetraconazole	0.01	81	81
Thiacloprid	0.01	81	71	10
Thiodicarb	0.01	81	81
Triadimefon	0.01	81	81
Triadimenol	0.01	81	81
Trichlorfon	0.01	81	81
Trifloxystrobin	0.01	81	81
Total (Stone Fruit)		6318	6147	167	3	1	0

 

Appendix D. Summary of results for agricultural chemicals in berries

Analyte	Min LOD (mg/kg)	Max LOD (mg/kg)	Total No. Tests	<LOD	≤50% MRL	50-100% MRL	>MRL	No MRL
Abamectin	0.01		45	45
Aldrin + Dieldrin	0.01		80	79	1
Azinphos ethyl	0.01		125	125
Azinphos methyl	0.01		125	125
Azoxystrobin	0.01		125	125
BHC (total)	0.01		80	80
Bifenazate	0.02	0.02	80	52	26	2
Bifenthrin	0.01	0.02	45	45
Boscalid	0.01		125	125
Bupirimate	0.05	0.05	45	45
Buprofenzin	0.05	0.05	45	45
Captan	0.5	0.5	45	45
Carbaryl	0.01		125	118	7
Carbendazim	0.1	0.1	45	34	11
Chlordane (total)	0.01		80	80
Chlorothalonil	0.05	0.1	125	124	1
Chlorpyrifos	0.01		125	113	12
Chlorpyrifos methyl	0.01		125	125
Clofentezine	0.02	0.02	45	45
Cyfluthrin	0.01		45	45
Cyhalothrin	0.01		45	45
Cypermethrin (total)	0.01		45	45
Cyproconazole	0.01		125	125
Cyprodinil	0.01		125	122	3
DDT (total)	0.01		80	80
Deltamethrin	0.01		45	45
Diazinon	0.01		125	125
Dichlorvos	0.01		125	125
Dicofol	0.5	0.5	45	43	2
Difenconazole	0.01		125	125
Dimethoate	0.01		125	101	23	1
Dimethomorph	0.01		125	125
Dithiocarbamates	0.1	0.1	45	21	24
Emamectin	0.01		45	45
Endosulfan (total)	0.05	0.05	125	125
Endrin	0.01		80	80
Ethion	0.01		125	125
Fenamiphos	0.01	0.05	125	125
Fenarimol	0.05	0.05	125	125
Fenchlorphos	0.01		125	125
Fenhexamid	0.01		45	43	2
Fenitrothion	0.01		125	124			1
Fenoxycarb	0.01		125	125
Fenthion	0.01		125	125
Fenvalerate (total)	0.01		45	45
Fipronil	0.01		125	116				9
Fluazinam	0.01		45	45
Fludioxonil	0.01		45	43	2
Flusilazole	0.05		45	45
Forchlorfenuron	0.01		45	45
HCB	0.01		80	80
Heptachlor (total)	0.01		80	80
Hexaconazole	0.01		45	45
Hexythiazox	0.01		45	45
Imazalil	0.1		45	45
Imidacloprid	0.01		125	123	1			1
Indoxacarb	0.01		125	122	2	1
Iprodione	0.05	0.1	125	104	21
Lindane	0.01		80	80
Linuron	0.01		45	45
Malathion	0.01		125	109	16
Metalaxyl	0.01		125	123	2
Methidathion	0.01		125	123	2
Methiocarb	0.01		125	124	1
Methomyl	0.01		125	76	49
Mevinphos	0.01	0.02	125	125
Myclobutanil	0.01		125	82	43
Oxadixyl	0.01		45	45
Oxyfluorfen	0.01		80	80
Parathion ethyl	0.01		125	124				1
Parathion methyl	0.01		125	125
Penconazole	0.01		125	125
Pendimethalin	0.02	0.02	125	125
Permethrin (total)	0.02	0.02	45	45
Pirimicarb	0.01		125	119	6
Prochloraz	0.01		125	125
Procymidone	0.05	0.1	125	125
Propargite	0.1	0.1	45	45
Propiconazole	0.01		125	125
Prothiofos	0.01		125	105	20
Pyraclostrobin	0.01		125	107	18
Pyrimethanil	0.01	0.02	125	90	34	1
Quinoxyfen	0.01		45	45
Spinosad	0.01		125	100	25
Spiroxamine	0.01		45	44	1
Tebuconazole	0.01		125	125
Tebufenozide	0.01		125	125
Tetraconazole	0.01		45	39	6
Thiacloprid	0.01		45	45
Thiodicarb	0.01		45	45
Triadimefon	0.01		125	125
Triadimenol	0.01		125	123	2
Trichlorfon	0.01		125	107	5	3	10
Trifloxystrobin	0.01		125	83	42
Total (Berries)			8740	8300	410	8	11	11

 

Appendix E. Summary of results for agricultural chemicals in root & tuber vegetables

Analyte	Min LOD (mg/kg)	Max LOD (mg/kg)	Total No. Tests	Non Target Chemicals Detected	<LOD	<50% MRL	50-100% MRL	>MRL	No MRL
Aldrin + Dieldrin	0.01		40		40
Azinphos ethyl	0.01		81		81
Azinphos methyl	0.01		81		81
Azoxystrobin	0.01		81		81
BHC (total)	0.01		40		40
Bifenthrin	0.01		81		81
Boscalid	0.01		81		73	8
Carbaryl	0.01		81		81
Chlordane (total)	0.01		40		40
Chlorothalonil	0.1		41		41
Chlorpyrifos	0.01		81		80		1
Chlorpyrifos methyl	0.01		81		81
Cyfluthrin	0.01		81		81
Cyhalothrin	0.01		81		81
Cypermethrin (total)	0.01		81		81
Cyproconazole	0.01		81		81
Cyprodinil	0.01		81		81
DDT (total)	0.01		41	1	39	2
Deltamethrin	0.01		81		81
Diazinon	0.01		81		81
Dichlorvos	0.01		81		81
Difenconazole	0.01		81		81
Dimethoate	0.01		81		80	1
Dimethomorph	0.01		81		81
Dithiocarbamates	0.1	0.1	41		41
Endosulfan (total)	0.01		40		40
Endrin	0.01		40		40
Ethion	0.01		81		81
Fenamiphos	0.01	0.05	81		81
Fenarimol	0.05		41		41
Fenchlorphos	0.01		81		81
Fenitrothion	0.01		81		79	2
Fenoxycarb	0.01		81		81
Fenthion	0.01		81		81
Fenvalerate (total)	0.01		81		81
Fipronil	0.01		81		81
HCB	0.01		40		40
Heptachlor (total)	0.01		40		40
Imidacloprid	0.01	0.05	81		81
Indoxacarb	0.01		81		81
Iprodione	0.05		41		41
Lindane	0.01		40		40
Linuron	0.01		41		30	4	5	2
Malathion	0.01		81		80	1
Metalaxyl	0.01		81		81
Methidathion	0.01		81		81
Methiocarb	0.01		81		81
Methomyl	0.01		81		81
Mevinphos	0.01	0.02	81		81
Myclobutanil	0.01		81		81
Oxyfluorfen	0.01		40		40
Parathion ethyl	0.01		81		81
Parathion methyl	0.01		81		81
Penconazole	0.01		81		81
Pendimethalin	0.02		81		81
Permethrin (total)	0.02		81		81
Pirimicarb	0.01		81		81
Prochloraz	0.01		81		81
Procymidone	0.1		41		41
Propiconazole	0.01		81		81
Prothiofos	0.01		81		81
Pyraclostrobin	0.01		81		81
Pyrimethanil	0.01	0.02	81		81
Spinosad	0.01		81		81
Tebuconazole	0.01		81		81
Tebufenozide	0.01		81		81
Triadimefon	0.01		81		81
Triadimenol	0.01		81		81
Trichlorfon	0.01		81		81
Trifloxystrobin	0.01		81		81
Total (Root & Tuber Veg)			5021	1	4995	18	6	2	0

 

Appendix F. Summary of results for agricultural chemicals in leafy vegetables

Analyte	LOD (mg/kg)	Total No. Tests	<LOD	<50% MRL	50-100% MRL	>MRL	No MRL
Aldrin + Dieldrin	0.01	80	80
Azinphos ethyl	0.01	80	80
Azinphos methyl	0.01	80	80
Azoxystrobin	0.01	80	76	3			1
BHC (total)	0.01	80	80
Bifenthrin	0.01	80	80
Boscalid	0.01	80	57	22			1
Carbaryl	0.01	80	80
Chlordane (total)	0.01	80	80
Chlorothalonil	0.1	80	78	2
Chlorpyrifos	0.01	80	80
Chlorpyrifos methyl	0.01	80	80
Cyfluthrin	0.01	80	80
Cyhalothrin	0.01	80	80
Cypermethrin (total)	0.01	80	69	11
Cyproconazole	0.01	80	80
Cyprodinil	0.01	80	80
DDT (total)	0.01	80	80
Deltamethrin	0.01	80	80
Diazinon	0.01	80	80
Dichlorvos	0.01	80	80
Difenconazole	0.01	80	80
Dimethoate	0.01	80	69	9	1	1
Dimethomorph	0.01	80	79	1
Endosulfan (total)	0.01	80	80
Endrin	0.01	80	80
Ethion	0.01	80	80
Fenamiphos	0.05	80	80
Fenarimol	0.05	80	80
Fenchlorphos	0.01	80	80
Fenitrothion	0.01	80	80
Fenoxycarb	0.01	80	80
Fenthion	0.01	80	80
Fenvalerate (total)	0.01	80	80
Fipronil	0.01	80	79				1
HCB	0.01	80	80
Heptachlor (total)	0.01	80	80
Imidacloprid	0.01	80	26	54
Indoxacarb	0.01	80	71	8
Iprodione	0.05	80	80				1
Lindane	0.01	80	80
Malathion	0.01	80	80
Metalaxyl	0.01	80	79	1
Methidathion	0.01	80	80
Methiocarb	0.01	80	80
Methomyl	0.01	80	79	1
Mevinphos	0.02	80	80
Myclobutanil	0.01	80	80
Oxyfluorfen	0.01	80	80
Parathion ethyl	0.01	80	80
Parathion methyl	0.01	80	80
Penconazole	0.01	80	80
Pendimethalin	0.01	80	80
Permethrin (total)	0.02	80	78	2
Pirimicarb	0.01	80	75	5
Prochloraz	0.01	80	78				2
Procymidone	0.1	80	79				1
Propiconazole	0.01	80	80
Propyzamide	0.1	80	80
Prothiofos	0.01	80	80
Pyraclostrobin	0.01	80	80
Pyrimethanil	0.02	80	80
Quintozene	0.01	80	78	2
Spinosad	0.01	80	78	2
Tebuconazole	0.01	80	78			2
Tebufenozide	0.01	80	80
Triadimefon	0.01	80	80
Triadimenol	0.01	80	80
Trichlorfon	0.01	80	80
Trifloxystrobin	0.01	80	80
Total (Leafy Veg)		5600	5466	123	1	3	7

 

www.dpi.vic.gov.au