|
|
|
|
|
| Pesticide food safety standards as companions to tolerances and maximum residue limits |
| Carl K Winter, Elizabeth A Jara |
| Department of Food Science and Technology, University of California, Davis, CA 95616, USA |
|
|
|
摘要 Allowable levels for pesticide residues in foods, known as tolerances in the US and as maximum residue limits (MRLs) in much of the world, are widely yet inappropriately perceived as levels of safety concern. A novel approach to develop scientifically defensible levels of safety concern is presented and an example to determine acute and chronic pesticide food safety standard (PFSS) levels for the fungicide captan on strawberries is provided. Using this approach, the chronic PFSS level for captan on strawberries was determined to be 2 000 mg kg–1 and the acute PFSS level was determined to be 250 mg kg–1. Both levels are far above the existing tolerance and MRLs that commonly range from 3 to 20 mg kg–1, and provide evidence that captan residues detected at levels greater than the tolerance or MRLs are not of acute or chronic health concern even though they represent violative residues. The benefits of developing the PFSS approach to serve as a companion to existing tolerances/MRLs include a greater understanding concerning the health significance, if any, from exposure to violative pesticide residues. In addition, the PFSS approach can be universally applied to all potential pesticide residues on all food commodities, can be modified by specific jurisdictions to take into account differences in food consumption practices, and can help prioritize food residue monitoring by identifying the pesticide/commodity combinations of the greatest potential food safety concern and guiding development of field level analytical methods to detect pesticide residues on prioritized pesticide/commodity combinations.
Abstract Allowable levels for pesticide residues in foods, known as tolerances in the US and as maximum residue limits (MRLs) in much of the world, are widely yet inappropriately perceived as levels of safety concern. A novel approach to develop scientifically defensible levels of safety concern is presented and an example to determine acute and chronic pesticide food safety standard (PFSS) levels for the fungicide captan on strawberries is provided. Using this approach, the chronic PFSS level for captan on strawberries was determined to be 2 000 mg kg–1 and the acute PFSS level was determined to be 250 mg kg–1. Both levels are far above the existing tolerance and MRLs that commonly range from 3 to 20 mg kg–1, and provide evidence that captan residues detected at levels greater than the tolerance or MRLs are not of acute or chronic health concern even though they represent violative residues. The benefits of developing the PFSS approach to serve as a companion to existing tolerances/MRLs include a greater understanding concerning the health significance, if any, from exposure to violative pesticide residues. In addition, the PFSS approach can be universally applied to all potential pesticide residues on all food commodities, can be modified by specific jurisdictions to take into account differences in food consumption practices, and can help prioritize food residue monitoring by identifying the pesticide/commodity combinations of the greatest potential food safety concern and guiding development of field level analytical methods to detect pesticide residues on prioritized pesticide/commodity combinations.
|
|
Received: 26 November 2014
Accepted:
|
| Fund: The authors thank the Chilean Government and the National Commission for Scientific and Technological Research (CONICYT) for supporting this work through the Becas Chile Scholarships. |
|
Corresponding Authors:
Carl K Winter, E-mail: ckwinter@ucdavis.edu
E-mail: ckwinter@ucdavis.edu
|
Cite this article:
Carl K Winter, Elizabeth A Jara.
2015.
Pesticide food safety standards as companions to tolerances and maximum residue limits. Journal of Integrative Agriculture, 14(11): 2358-2364.
|
| CDPR (California Department of Pesticide Regulation). 2013.Pesticide residue monitoring program. Annual ResidueData, 2012. California Department of Pesticide Regulation,Sacramento, California, USA. [2015-02-03] http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/residue/rsmonmnu.htmEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2012. Settingtolerances for pesticide residues in foods. [2015-02-03]http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/enforce/residue/rsmonmnu.htmEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 2014. The foodquality protection act (FQPA) background. [2015-02-03] http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/regulating/laws/fqpa/backgrnd.htmFAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. Evaluationof Pesticide Residues for Estimation of Maximum ResidueLevels and Calculation of Dietary Intake: Training Manual.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,Rome, Italy.FDA (US Food and Drug Administration). 2014. PesticideMonitoring Program: 2011 Pesticide Report. US Foodand Drug Administration. [2015-02-03]. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Food/FoodborneIllnessContaminants/Pesticides/UCM382443.pdfGAO (Government Accountability Office). 1992. AdulteratedImported Foods are Reaching US Grocery Shelves.Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight andInvestigations. Committee on Energy and Commerce, Houseof Representatives. GAO/RCED-92-206, Washington, D.C.GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2014. Food Safety:FDA and USDA Should Strengthen Pesticide ResidueMonitoring Programs and Further Disclose MonitoringLimitations. Report to the Ranking Member, Subcommitteeon Environment and the Economy. Committee on Energyand Commerce, House of Representatives. GAO-15-38,Washington D.C.Global MRL Database. 2015. [2015-02-03]. http://www.globalmrl.comIFOAM (International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements). 2014. Growing organic sector explores itsfuture. International Federation of Organic AgricultureMovements, Bonn, Germany.[2015-02-03]. http://www.fibl.org/en/media/media-archive/media-archive14/mediarelease14/article/growing-organic-agriculture-sectorexplores-its-future.htmlIRIS (Integrated Risk Information System). 2014. Captan(CASRN 133-06-2). Integrated Risk Information System,US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.[2015-02-03]. http://www.epa.gov/iris/subst/0018.htmKatz J M, Winter C K. 2009. Comparison of pesticide exposurefrom consumption of domestic and imported fruits andvegetables. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 47, 335-338OTA (Organic Trade Association). 2014. American appetite for organic products breaks through $35 billion mark. OrganicTrade Association, Washington, D.C. [2015-02-03]. http://www.organicnewsroom.com/2014/05/american_appetite_for_organic.htmlNHANES (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey).2013. NHANES 2007-2008 dietary data NationalHealth and Nutrition Examination Survey. [2015-02-03].http://wwwn.cdc.gov/nchs/nhanes/search/datapage.aspx?Component=Dietary&CycleBeginYear=2007Tomlin C. 1994. The Pesticide Manual. 10th ed. The BritishCrop Protection Council and the Royal Society of Chemistry,UK. pp. 145-146US Congress. 1996. Food Quality Protection Act of 1996. PublicLaw 104-170, 104th Congress Winter C K. 1992. Pesticide tolerances and their relevance tosafety standards. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology,15, 137-150Winter C K. 1994. CBS 48 hours program on food safety.Distributed by Cornell University Cooperative Extension.[2015-02-03]. http://psep.cce.cornell.edu/issues/foodsafety-594.aspxWinter C K, Francis F J. 1997. Assessing, managing, andcommunicating chemical food risks. Food Technology,51, 85-92Winter C K, Katz J M. 2011. Dietary exposure to pesticideresidues from commodities alleged to contain thehighest contamination levels. Journal of Toxicology. doi:10.1155/2011/589674 |
| No Suggested Reading articles found! |
|
|
Viewed |
|
|
|
Full text
|
|
|
|
|
Abstract
|
|
|
|
|
Cited |
|
|
|
|
| |
Shared |
|
|
|
|
| |
Discussed |
|
|
|
|
