Victorian Produce Monitoring Program 2009-10
A summary of residue data of Victorian-grown produce
Executive summary
The Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI) has been monitoring agricultural chemical residues in fresh produce since 1987. This monitoring is used to assess whether chemicals are been used in an appropriate manner by agricultural and horticultural industries.
DPI sourced chemical residue data for 2,086 samples of grain and horticultural produce from FreshTest and the National Residue Survey (NRS) residue monitoring programs.
The data collected is used to identify any trends or areas that appear to indicate an elevated risk of pesticide residues. High risk commodities are then included in DPI's targeted monitoring programs.
FreshTest data consisted of 334 Victorian grown samples analysed from July 2009 to June 2010, comprising 150 fruits, 160 vegetables, 8 nuts and 16 herbs. The NRS data consisted of 1,752 Victorian grown samples analysed from July 2008 to June 2010, comprising 1,134 grains, 580 pome fruit (apples and pears), 17 onions, 21 nuts (almonds and macadamias).
The results showed that 98.5 per cent of samples complied with domestic maximum residue limits (MRLs) set by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) and also the MRLs set by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). This outcome is reassuring for consumers. Overall, Victorian producers are growing high quality produce and using agricultural chemicals according to good agricultural practice (GAP).
DPI will critically evaluate the results for the 1.5 per cent samples with unacceptable residues to determine if these commodities should be investigated in greater detail. If they are considered to be a high risk commodity group, they will be included in DPI's activities as either part of an audit project or included in a targeted monitoring program in the following year, whereby DPI will work with relevant industries and/or take compliance action on growers found to be using agricultural chemicals illegally.
DPI will continue to monitor FreshTest and NRS data in addition to conducting other monitoring initiatives to confirm that agricultural chemicals are being used safely and responsibly on Victorian farms.
Acronyms
APVMA Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority
DPI Department of Primary Industries
FSANZ Food Standards Australia New Zealand
MRL Maximum residue limit
TMRL Temporary maximum residue limit
ERL Extraneous residue limit
GAP Good agricultural practice
NATA National Association of Testing Authorities
NRS National Residue Survey
Definitions
Residue
The amount of a chemical, or its breakdown products, that 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.
Maximum Residue Limit (MRL)
The maximum concentration of a chemical residue that is legally permitted in or on food. Expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilogram of food (mg/kg), this limit represents the maximum residue that should appear if good agricultural practice (GAP) is followed. MRLs are set by both the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) and Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ).
Temporary Maximum Residue Limit (TMRL)
The maximum residue limit established for a specified, limited period. This is expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilograms of the food (mg/kg).
Extraneous Residue Limit (ERL)
The maximum permitted concentration of a pesticide residue arising from environmental sources (rather than the use of a pesticide directly or indirectly on the food) expressed in milligrams of the chemical per kilograms of the food (mg/kg). Some agricultural chemicals are no longer registered for use, but persist in the environment from previous use and can be detected as residues in produce (e.g. dieldrin and DDT).
Unacceptable chemical residue
A residue of a chemical or contaminant is considered unacceptable if it exceeds the relevant MRL, TMRL or ERL. If there is no MRL, TMRL or ERL 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.
Traceback
An investigation conducted after an unacceptable residue is detected in a sample of fresh produce. Following notification by the laboratory of the detection of an unacceptable residue or contaminant, a DPI Chemical Standards Officer visits the grower to identify the source and cause of the residue. Tracebacks are conducted according to defined procedures to ensure the grower or packer concerned will assess and control identified chemical use risks.
Good Agricultural Practice (GAP)
The nationally recommended, authorised or approved use pattern of a chemical that is necessary for safe, effective and reliable pest control under actual conditions at any stage of production, storage, transport, distribution and processing of food commodities and animal feed.
If agricultural chemicals are used according to GAP, the targeted pest should be effectively controlled and the produce derived from the crop should have either no detectable residues or residues that are below the MRL. If used according to GAP, the chemical should not have a negative impact on the environment or the user's health and safety.
Introduction
Victoria is Australia's largest exporter of food and fibre and its agricultural sector produces goods valued at around $9 billion a year annually.
The horticultural industry comprises fruit, vegetable, viticulture and nursery production and in Australia, is valued at $3.5 billion and Victoria contributes $1.3 billion to this yearly total, approximately 25 per cent.
Broadacre grain crops are another valuable export, with Victorian grain exports for 2009-10 being valued at $686 million and accounting for approximately 10 per cent of Australian grain exports.
Agricultural chemicals are widely used in the production of these crops, and critical to the sustainability of these valuable industries is Victoria 's ability to produce large yields of high quality produce that is free from unacceptable chemical residues.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) is responsible for the registration of agricultural chemicals. This process includes the establishment of maximum residue limits (MRLs). The Department of Primary Industries (DPI) is responsible for regulating the use of these chemicals in Victoria. If chemicals are used appropriately, their use should not result in residues that exceed the MRLs.
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ) adopt APVMA set MRLs after they have undertaken their own assessment of the chemical and the appropriateness of the MRL. This is usually done within three months of the APVMA publishing a MRL. DPI's legislation recognises both APVMA and FSANZ MRLs.
MRLs are set based on good agricultural practice (GAP) and relate to the maximum residue that should occur if a chemical is used correctly. At the time MRLs are set, a dietary exposure evaluation is undertaken to ensure any resulting residues from using the chemical do not cause any undue hazard to human health. As MRLs are set with very large safety margins, the detection of unacceptable residues on fresh produce does not necessarily mean that it is unsafe for consumption.
The testing of commodities for agricultural chemical residue testing is a method used to verify whether agricultural chemicals are being used according to the label directions. Use of agricultural chemicals in accordance with label directions should not result in residues that exceed the relevant MRL.
There are numerous programs conducted in Australia which analyse fresh produce for the presence of agricultural chemicals. Two of these are the National Residue Survey (NRS) and FreshTest. Both programs are funded by industry and provide some useful information on the residue status of produce of the participating industries.
For the purposes of this report the DPI obtained data from FreshTest relating to fresh horticultural produce grown in Victoria. FreshTest is a residue monitoring program conducted by the Australian Chamber of Fruit and Vegetable Industries.
The Chamber facilitates sampling, chemical residue and microbial testing for wholesalers and their growers in Australia's central markets. Analysis of these samples is carried out by various laboratories that are NATA accredited for the tests performed. All results are compared to the MRLs in the FSANZ Food Standards Code, Standard 1.4.2 and assessed for compliance.
FreshTest does not provide grower details, only the locality of each sample's origin down to postcode level, whilst this does not allow DPI to address the issue at the farm level is does allow for regional and commodity specific issues to be indentified.
DPI also obtained chemical residue data from the NRS relating to grain and horticultural produce grown in Victoria. The NRS is an operational unit within the Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF).
The NRS monitors residues of agricultural, veterinary chemicals and environmental contaminants in Australian food commodities. Produce monitoring programs are undertaken on an annual basis and are largely funded by levies from the participating industries. The results are used to support the domestic and export markets of the participating industries.
FreshTest and the NRS compare results to MRLs set by FSANZ. These results have been used to measure the chemical residue status of Victorian-grown produce and monitor trends in chemical use. This information assists DPI in targeting areas for more detailed monitoring and enforcement of agricultural chemical use legislation.
This report summarises the results for agricultural chemical residues detected in all Victorian samples analysed by FreshTest in the 2009-10 financial year and also those analysed by the NRS in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 financial years.
Overview of FreshTest data
From 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2010, FreshTest analysed a total of 334 Victorian produce samples for agricultural chemical residues.
These samples comprised:
- 160 vegetable samples
- 150 fruit samples
- 8 nut samples
- 16 herb samples.
Sample collection
The majority (202) of the samples were sourced from the Sydney Markets, with the remainder of samples being collected at Melbourne (93), Brisbane (22), Adelaide (15) and Northern Territory (2) markets.
Samples were collected by an independent facilitator from Australia's wholesale markets and submitted to FreshTest for analysis by individual growers and wholesalers for verification of their own food safety and quality assurance systems.
Sample analysis
The samples were sent to various laboratories with NATA accredited methods for the required analyses. The most cost effective way to analyse samples for the presence of agricultural chemicals is to conduct multi-residue screens. The residue screens conducted on each sample were dependant on the requirements of the grower or wholesaler submitting the samples for analysis.
A total of 30,500 tests were conducted on the 334 samples. Appendix A details the multi-residue screens and the analytes included in them. Most of the samples (84 per cent) were analysed for the multi-residue screen C3. The remainder were analysed against the multi-residue screens C6 (14 per cent) and C4 (2 per cent). The results were then sent back to FreshTest, who provide them to the wholesalers and growers.
Results
Overall
The results show that 95.2 per cent of the Victorian-grown samples analysed complied with the FSANZ MRLs.
Only 16 of the 334 samples (4.8 per cent) contained residues above the MRL. DPI evaluated the results for samples containing unacceptable residues to determine if they are a high risk and should be included in future programs for further investigation. Lettuce, stone fruit, grapes and strawberries will be included in future targeted monitoring programs whereby DPI will work with the industries representing these commodity groups to improve chemical use practices.
The results will be further discussed in terms of the broad commodity groups: vegetables, fruits, nuts and herbs.
Vegetables
Table 1 summarises the results of the 160 vegetable samples covering 36 different commodity types.
Table 1. Summary of vegetable samples analysed and results.
| Produce Group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL |
50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | ||
| Stalk and Stem | Artichokes | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asparagus | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Celery | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Legume Veg | Beans | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Peas | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Brassica Veg | Broccoli | 11 | 9 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Broccolini | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Brussel Sprouts | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cauliflower | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fruiting Veg other than cucurbits | Capsicum | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Chilli | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mushrooms | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Sweet Corn | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tomatoes | 21 | 20 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fruiting Veg, cucurbits | Cucumber | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pumpkin | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Squash | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Zucchini | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Leafy Veg | Choy | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Endive | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Lettuce | 8 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |
| Lobok | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Salad Mix | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Leafy Veg (incl brassica leafy veg) | Silverbeet | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Spinach | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Bulb Veg | Garlic | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Onions | 11 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Fennel | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Leeks | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Root and Tuber | Beetroot | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carrots | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Celeriac | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Parsnips | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Potatoes | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Radish | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Turnips | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 160 | 147 | 10 | 1 | 1 | 1 | |
The majority (158) of vegetable samples had either no detectable residue or residues that were well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combination.
As summarised in Table 2, only two vegetable samples were found to contain unacceptable residues. In the case of the bok choy sample, since no MRL exists there is no permissible concentration of the chemical.
Table 2. Summary of vegetable samples with unacceptable residues.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetable | Bok choy | Mevinphos | 0.14 | No MRL |
| Lettuce | Chlorpyrifos | 0.11 | 0.01 |
There is no MRL set by the APVMA for mevinphos in bok choy.
One lettuce sample had a dimethomorph residue within 50-100 per cent of the MRL. The remaining vegetable samples complied with MRLs.
Fruit
Table 3 summarises the results of 150 fruit samples representing 22 different commodity types.
Table 3. Summary of fruit samples analysed and the results.
| Produce Group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL |
50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL |
||
| Pome Fruit | Apples | 16 | 6 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Pears | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |
| Stone Fruit | Apricots | 12 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cherries | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Nectarines | 13 | 7 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Peaches | 14 | 2 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | |
| Plums | 5 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Berries | Blackberries | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Grapes | 31 | 8 | 21 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |
| Raspberries | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Strawberries | 16 | 2 | 9 | 0 | 1 | 4 | |
| Citrus | Grapefruit | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lemons | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mandarin | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Oranges | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Cucurbits | Melon | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Tropical and Sub-tropical (Edible Peel) | Olives | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Persimmon | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Tropical and Sub-tropical (Inedible Peel) | Kiwifruit | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Lychee | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | |
| Mango | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Pomegranate | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 150 | 55 | 81 | 4 | 2 | 8 | |
The majority of the fruit samples had no detectable residues or residues that were well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combinations.
Table 4 summarises the unacceptable residues detected in ten fruit samples (6.7 per cent). There was no FSANZ or APVMA MRL for seven of the residues.
Table 4. Summary of unacceptable agriculture chemicals detected in randomly selected Victorian-grown fresh fruit.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | Apricots | Parathion methyl | 0.47 | 0.2 |
| Grapes | Bifenthrin | 0.03 | 0.01 | |
| Grapes | Tebufenpyrad | 0.16 | No MRL | |
| Lychee | Chlorpyrifos | 0.01 | No MRL | |
| Lychee | Cypermethrin | 0.06 | No MRL | |
| Strawberries | Cyprodinil | 0.25 | No MRL | |
| Fludioxonil | 0.18 | No MRL | ||
| Strawberries | Trichlorfon | 0.84 | 0.10 | |
| Strawberries | Cyprodinil | 0.07 | No MRL | |
| Fludioxonil | 0.06 | No MRL | ||
| Strawberries | Procymidone | 0.16 | No MRL | |
| Strawberries | Pyriproxifen | 0.03 | No MRL |
Four fruit samples had residues in the range of 50-100 per cent of the MRL. These samples are summarised in Table 5 below.
Table 5. Summary of fruit samples with residues in the range of 50-100 per cent of the MRL.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | Apricots | Dithiocarbamates | 1.5 | 3 |
| Peaches | Parathion methyl | 0.16 | 0.2 | |
| Propargite | 2 | 3 | ||
| Peaches | Propargite | 1.6 | 3 | |
| Pears | Diphenylamine | 4.7 | 7 |
Nuts
Eight nut samples were analysed. These consisted of seven chestnut samples and one sample of pistachio. As detailed in Table 6, only three chestnut samples were found to contain unacceptable residues. As there is no MRL for iprodione in chestnuts any detectable concentration is unacceptable.
Table 6. Summary of unacceptable agriculture chemicals detected in randomly selected Victorian-grown nuts.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nuts | Chestnuts | Iprodione | 0.85 | No MRL |
| Chestnuts | Iprodione | 0.19 | No MRL | |
| Chestnuts | Iprodione | 0.67 | No MRL |
Herbs
Table 7 summarises the results of 16 herb samples.
Table 7. Summary of herb samples analysed and the results.
| Produce Group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL | 50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | ||
| Herbs | Parsley | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Dill | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Coriander | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Rosemary | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Chives | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Mint | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Total | 16 | 13 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
One dill sample had an unacceptable residue of chlorthal dimethyl at a concentration of 0.1mg/kg. There is no FSANZ or APVMA MRL set for this chemical/commodity combination. There were no unacceptable residues detected in the other herb samples.
Overview of NRS data
From 1 July 2008 to 30 June 2010, the NRS analysed a total of 1,752 Victorian horticulture and grain samples for agricultural chemical residues.
These samples comprised:
- 580 fruit samples
- 1,134 grain samples
- 21 tree nut samples
- 17 vegetable samples
Sample collection
Only samples from participating industries are collected and analysed. The number of samples to be collected and analysed is determined in consultation between the NRS and the industry bodies concerned.
Samples are taken at different points in the supply chain, allowing for a true representation of the residue status of the produce of participating industries.
The sample collection is coordinated by the NRS and conducted by the business or third party staff using NRS specified protocols, procedures and sampling equipment.
Collection points for grains are:
- export terminals as ships are loaded
- container packing facilities as containers are loaded
- domestic mills
- stockfeed manufacturers
- maltsters
- feedlots
- oilseed processors
- processors of oats for human consumption.
Collection points for horticultural produce are:
- packing or processing sheds
- wholesale markets.
Sample analysis
The NRS contracts laboratories from both the public and private sector to carry out the analyses of the samples collected as part of their programs. These laboratories undergo a rigorous assessment based on their performance in proficiency programs conducted by the NRS.
The NRS has been accredited by NATA as a proficiency test provider since July 2005.
The performance of laboratories in these proficiency tests, in both accuracy and precision, give the NRS confidence in the results reported by the contract laboratories.
The grain and horticulture samples are analysed for a number of different chemical screens. The analytes included in these screens are determined by what is registered for use on the produce, the laboratory capability, cost of analysis and requirements of participating industries. Not all samples for a given commodity are analysed for the same analyte screens.
Results
Overall
The results show that 99 per cent of the Victorian grown samples analysed complied with the FSANZ MRLs.
Only 16 of the 1,752 samples (0.91 per cent) contained unacceptable residues. DPI evaluated the results for samples containing unacceptable residues to determine if they are a high risk and should to be included in future programs for further investigation. As a result, wheat and pome fruits will be included in future targeted programs.
The specific results will be discussed in greater detail in terms of the broad commodity types: grains, fruit, vegetables, and nuts.
Grains
Table 8 summarises the results for 1,134 grain samples covering 14 different commodity types. The grain commodities analysed were barley, bran, canola, chickpeas, faba beans, flour, lentil, lupin, maize, mung beans, navy beans, oats, sorghum and wheat.
Table 8. Summary of Victorian grain samples analysed and results.
| Classification | Produce Group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL | 50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | |||
| Grains | Cereal Grains | Barley | 159 | 109 | 49 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Maize | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Oats | 9 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Sorghum | 9 | 3 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Wheat | 734 | 283 | 438 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| Pulses | Chickpeas | 13 | 10 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |
| Faba beans | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lentils | 10 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Lupins | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Mung beans | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Navy beans | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Oilseeds | Canola | 77 | 58 | 14 | 2 | 3 | 1 | |
| Cereal grain milling fractions | Flour | 57 | 14 | 43 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
| Bran | 57 | 3 | 65 | 1 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Total | 1134 | 500 | 625 | 11 | 8 | 3 | ||
Tests found the majority of grain samples had either no detectable residue or residues that were well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combination.
Only ten grain samples (0.88 per cent) contained unacceptable residues. These residues are summarised in Table 9 below.
Table 9. Summary of grain samples with unacceptable residues.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grain | Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.024 | *0.02 |
| Wheat | Difenoconazole | 0.026 | *0.01 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.029 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.09 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Atrazine | 0.014 | No MRL | |
| Canola | Fluquinconazole | 0.066 | *0.01 | |
| Canola | Haloxyfop | 0.18 | 0.1 | |
| Canola | Haloxyfop | 0.3 | 0.1 | |
| Canola | Triadimefon | 0.9 | No MRL | |
| Chickpea | Triadimefon | 0.021 | No MRL |
There are no MRLs set by the APVMA for atrazine in wheat , triadimefon in canola or triadimefon in chickpeas.
Seven of the samples listed in Table 9 had two or more residues detected. The other detectable residues were all well below the MRL.
Eleven grain samples had residues in the range 50-100 per cent MRL. These samples are summarised in Table 10.
Table 10. Summary of grain samples with residues in the range 50-100 per cent of the MRL.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grain | Barley | Fenitrothion | 7.3 | 10 |
| Bran | Fenitrothion | 14.3 | 20 | |
| Canola | Haloxyfop | 0.05 | 0.1 | |
| Canola | Imidacloprid | 0.028 | *0.05 | |
| Wheat | Diazinon | 0.098 | 0.1 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.011 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.017 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.018 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Paraquat | 0.03 | *0.05 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.012 | *0.02 | |
| Wheat | Flutriafol | 0.015 | *0.02 |
Traceback results
DPI is notified if the NRS report a result for a Victorian grown sample that is either above the MRL or where there is no MRL for the chemical/commodity combination.
This notification initiates a traceback investigation to determine the reason for the unacceptable residue where possible. In many instances, the grain samples are collected from a facility where multiple growers deliver to a central receival point.
As a result, traceability back to a single grower is often not possible. For two of the unacceptable residues, the tracebacks revealed that the grain was initially grown in another state.
Flutriafol in wheat
There were three samples with residues of flutriafol reported in wheat above the MRL. Flutriafol is a fungicide commonly applied to fertiliser before it is used when sowing a crop.
The most likely cause of the flutriafol residues in wheat is thought to be cross contamination via on-farm infrastructure (e.g. an auger) used for handling both the treated fertiliser and harvested grain.
Fruit
Table 11 summarises the results for 580 fruit samples analysed. The only fruit samples analysed by the NRS in this period were apples and pears.
Table 11. Summary of Victorian grown fruit samples analysed and results.
| Classification | Produce Group | Commodity | Number of samples | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysed | <LOR | <50% MRL | 50-100% MRL | >MRL | No MRL | |||
| Fruit | Pome Fruit | Apples | 340 | 87 | 251 | 28 | 4 | 0 |
| Pears | 240 | 42 | 198 | 23 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Total | 580 | 129 | 449 | 51 | 4 | 1 | ||
Tests found that the majority (575) of samples analysed had either no detectable residues or residues well below the MRL for the various chemical/commodity combination.
Only five of the fruit samples (0.86 per cent) contained unacceptable residues. These residues are summarised in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Summary of fruit samples with unacceptable residues.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | Apple | Bifenthrin | 0.258 | *0.05 |
| Apple | Bifenthrin | 0.117 | *0.05 | |
| Apple | Bifenthrin | 0.072 | *0.05 | |
| Apple | Chlorpyrifos | 0.81 | T0.5 | |
| Pear | Imidacloprid | 0.043 | No MRL |
There is no MRL set by the APVMA for imidacloprid in pears.
A total of 51 of the fruit samples had residues in the range 50-100 per cent MRL. Of these samples, 28 were apples and 23 were pears. These results are summarised in Table 13.
Table 13. Summary of fruit samples with residues in the range of 50-100 per cent of the MRL.
| Category | Commodity | Chemical detected | Concentration (mg/kg) | FSANZ MRL (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fruit | Apple | Iprodione | 2.2 | 3 |
| Propargite | 2.53 | 3 | ||
| Apple | Diphenylamine | 5.51 | 10 | |
| Iprodione | 2.31 | 3 | ||
| Apple | Diphenylamine | 8.7 | 10 | |
| Iprodione | 2.04 | 3 | ||
| Apple | Propargite | 1.82 | 3 | |
| Apple | Chlorpyrifos | 0.29 | T0.5 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.94 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.92 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.01 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.11 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.48 | 3 | |
| Apple | Propargite | 1.69 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.38 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.66 | 3 | |
| Apple | Parathion-methyl | 0.25 | T0.5 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.57 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.54 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.65 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.02 | 3 | |
| Apple | Diphenylamine | 6.44 | 10 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.66 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.42 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.63 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.93 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.34 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.82 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.75 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 1.92 | 3 | |
| Apple | Iprodione | 2.19 | 3 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 5.5 | 7 | |
| Iprodione | 1.9 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 5 | 7 | |
| Iprodione | 2.3 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 5.95 | 7 | |
| Iprodione | 2.07 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Imazalil | 3.46 | 5 | |
| Iprodione | 2.53 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Imazalil | 3.96 | 5 | |
| Iprodione | 1.68 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Bifenazate | 1.55 | 2 | |
| Diphenylamine | 4.65 | 7 | ||
| Imazalil | 3.35 | 5 | ||
| Iprodione | 1.72 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Bifenazate | 1.27 | 2 | |
| Iprodione | 2.28 | 3 | ||
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.89 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 6.33 | 7 | |
| Imazalil | 3.96 | 5 | ||
| Pear | Bifenthrin | 0.26 | 0.5 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.73 | 7 | |
| Imazalil | 2.79 | 5 | ||
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 6.34 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.8 | 7 | |
| Pear | Imazalil | 3.22 | 5 | |
| Pear | Imazalil | 2.7 | 5 | |
| Pear | Imazalil | 4.38 | 5 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 4.51 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 4.7 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.62 | 7 | |
| Pear | Iprodione | 1.6 | 3 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 5.68 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.75 | 7 | |
| Pear | Diphenylamine | 3.52 | 7 |
Traceback results
DPI Chemical Standards were notified by the NRS of the five unacceptable residues detected in apples and pears. Each of these residues was investigated with DPI field staff visiting the growers.
Bifenthrin in apples
There were three apple samples with residues of bifenthrin above the MRL. The most likely cause for these unacceptable residues was found to be the use of a bifenthrin product at the fruit bearing stage. Bifenthrin products are only registered for use on apple trees at the time of blossom.
Chlorpyrifos in apples
A traceback investigation revealed that the most likely cause for this unacceptable residue was the use of a chlorpyifos product at a rate greater than that specified on the label.
Imidacloprid in pears
The grower stated that he had not treated his pears with an imidacloprid product, however he had applied an imidacloprid product on his apples. The grower thought that the most likely cause for the contamination of the pears was cross contamination between the apples and pears while they were in cool storage, however this could not be substantiated by the traceback investigation.
Vegetables
Seventeen onion samples were analysed in the 2008-10 NRS programs. There were no detectable residues reported in any of the samples.
Nuts
There were 21 tree nut samples analysed. Of these, one was a macadamia nut sample and the remainder were almonds. Sixteen of the nut samples (76 per cent) had no detectable residues.
There was a single almond sample that was found to contain an unacceptable glyphosate residue of 0. 66mg/kg well above the relevant MRL of 0.2mg/kg.
The traceback initiated for this sample revealed that the most likely cause for the unacceptable glyphosate residue was due to a combination of directly spraying dropped nuts and soil that had been treated with glyphosate being carried through the processing line and contaminating the nuts.
There was also a residue of glyphosate (0.13mg/kg) detected in an almond sample in the 50-100 per cent MRL range.
Discussion
DPI utilises FreshTest and NRS data to monitor agricultural chemical residues in Victorian grown produce. Analysing industry-generated data is a cost effective means of identifying areas that require additional monitoring by DPI.
The FreshTest and NRS data comprised a broad range of Victorian grown horticultural commodities that were sampled and tested during 2008 -2010. These samples were screened for a range of agricultural chemical residues.
The data provides a snapshot of the residue status of Victorian grown horticultural produce. The results reported are indications of what chemicals are being used on particular crops and if they are being using in accordance with GAP.
Of the 2,086 samples analysed by FreshTest and the NRS for agricultural chemicals, 2,054 complied with FSANZ MRLs. This high compliance rate (98.5 per cent) indicates that the vast majority of tested Victorian horticultural produce was grown in accordance with GAP.
It should be noted that 882 of the samples (42.3 per cent) contained no detectable agricultural chemical residues.
Sixteen of the samples found to have unacceptable residues were detected in produce analysed by FreshTest. Names of the growers of these samples were not provided to DPI. As a result, DPI was unable to conduct tracebacks to identify the cause of the unacceptable residues, however FreshTest have a process that investigates samples that have unacceptable residues, which includes corrective action and re-testing.
Any unacceptable residues detected in the NRS programs are reported to the relevant authorities in the state where the samples originated. For Victorian grown produce, DPI is notified of any unacceptable residues. DPI field staff then conduct a traceback to determine (where possible) the cause of the unacceptable residue. This is then reported back to the NRS.
Residues that are detected in the 50-100 per cent MRL range are noted and evaluated. Residues in this concentration range are approaching the MRL, particularly if the MRL is low. Monitoring may be needed to ensure that the chemical is being used according to the label and to also ensure that the correct MRL has been established.
DPI has used the data in this report to plan proactive monitoring of chemical use on Victorian produce. These activities may include targeted residue monitoring, audits, surveys and industry engagement to improve chemical use compliance. Lettuce, table grapes, pome fruit, stone fruit, strawberries and wheat will be included into future monitoring programs.
With the exception of lettuce, DPI has worked with the industry groups representing the commodities containing unacceptable residues to address issues associated with the use of agricultural chemicals. Further monitoring of these commodity groups will verify if there has been any practice change in the use of agricultural chemicals.
The results of this survey should give consumers confidence that the vast majority of Victorian-grown horticultural produce is grown according to GAP, resulting in a very low percentage of detectable residues. DPI will continue to monitor and enforce standards of agricultural chemical use.
Acknowledgements
The project coordinator wishes to acknowledge the following people and organisations that have supported this project:
- The NRS grain and horticulture team, in particular Kevin Healy and Alastair James for providing results for this report
- FreshTest, in particular Sonja van Eijk and John Roach for providing results for this report
- DPI Program Manager, Chemical Standards Field Services, Alan Roberts
- DPI Director, Plant Biosecurity and Product Integrity, Russell McMurray
- DPI Senior Chemical Standards Officers, David Rumbold and Steven Field
- DPI Project Support Officer, Chemical Standards Field Services, Kathryne Charnas
- DPI Manager Grain & Horticulture, Plant Biosecurity and Product Integrity, Jonathan Fahey
Contacts
For more information on the project, please contact Maresa Heath, Project Officer-Plant Residues, Chemical Standards Field Services on (03) 9217 4179, email maresa.heath@dpi.vic.gov.au
References
Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ), Food Standards Code, Standard 1.4.2.
http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm
Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) Table 1 Maximum residue limits of agricultural and veterinary chemicals and associated substances in food commodities
http://www.apvma.gov.au/residues/standard.php
National Residue Survey
http://www.daff.gov.au/agriculture-food/nrs
