U. S. Food and Drug Administration
Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition
Pesticide Program: Residue Monitoring 2000
May 2002

Food and Drug Administration Pesticide Program

Residue Monitoring 2000

Table of Contents

• FDA Monitoring Program
  • Regulatory Monitoring
    • Analytical Methods
    • FDA/State Cooperation
    • Animal Feeds
    • International Activities
  • Incidence/Level Monitoring
  • Total Diet Study
    
    
• Results and Discussion
  • Regulatory Monitoring
    • Geographic Coverage
    • Domestic/Import Violation Rate Comparison
    • Pesticide Coverage
    • Animal Feeds
    • Summary: Regulatory Monitoring
  • Incidence/Level Monitoring
    • Special Surveys
    • Summary: Incidence/Level Monitoring
  • Total Diet Study
    • Summary: Total Diet Study
      
      
• Summary
• References
  • Appendix A. Analysis of Domestic Samples by Commodity Group in 2000
  • Appendix B. Analysis of Import Samples by Commodity Group in 2000

  Figures

  1. Summary of Results of Domestic Samples by Commodity
  2. Summary of Results of Import Samples by Commodity
  3. Summary of Results of Domestic vs. Import Samples

  Tables

  1. Domestic Samples Collected and Analyzed, by State, in 2000
  2. Foreign Countries and Number of Samples Collected and Analyzed in 2000
  3. Pesticides Detectable and Found (*) by Methods Used in 2000 Regulatory Monitoring
  4. Summary of 2000 Domestic Feed Samples
  5. Residues Found in Feeds in 2000
  6. Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Total Diet Study Foods in 2000
  7. Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Selected Baby Foods in 2000

This document is the fourteenth annual report summarizing the results of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) pesticide residue monitoring program. Eight of the thirteen previous reports were published in the Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists/Journal of AOAC International; these presented results from Fiscal Years (FY) 1987 through 1994. Results from FY 1995 through FY 1999 were published on FDA's World Wide Web site. This report, also published on FDA's website, includes findings obtained during FY 2000 (October 1, 1999 through September 30, 2000) under regulatory and incidence/level monitoring. Selected Total Diet Study findings for 2000 are also presented. Results in this and earlier reports continue to demonstrate that levels of pesticide residues in the U.S. food supply are well below established safety standards.

FDA Monitoring Program

Three federal government agencies share responsibility for the regulation of pesticides. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registers (i.e.,approves) the use of pesticides and sets tolerances (the maximum amounts of residues that are permitted in or on a food) if use of a particular pesticide may result in residues in or on food (1). Except for meat, poultry, and certain egg products, for which the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible, FDA is charged with enforcing tolerances in imported foods and in domestic foods shipped in interstate commerce. FDA also acquires incidence/level data on particular commodity/pesticide combinations and carries out its market basket survey, the Total Diet Study. Since 1991, USDA's Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), through contracts with participating states, has carried out a residue testing program directed at raw agricultural products and various processed foods. FSIS and AMS report their pesticide residue data independently.

Regulatory Monitoring

FDA samples individual lots of domestically produced and imported foods and analyzes them for pesticide residues to enforce the tolerances set by EPA. Domestic samples are collected as close as possible to the point of production in the distribution system; import samples are collected at the point of entry into U.S. commerce. Emphasis is on the raw agricultural product, which is analyzed unwashed and whole (unpeeled). Processed foods are also included. If illegal residues (above EPA tolerance or no tolerance for a given food/pesticide combination) are found in domestic samples, FDA can invoke various sanctions, such as a seizure or injunction. For imports, shipments may be stopped at the port of entry when illegal residues are found. "Detention without physical examination" (previously called "automatic detention") may be invoked for imports based on the finding of one violative shipment if there is reason to believe that the same situation will exist in future lots during the same shipping season for a specific shipper, grower, geographic area, or country.

Factors considered by FDA in planning the types and numbers of samples to collect include review of recently generated state and FDA residue data, regional intelligence on pesticide use, dietary importance of the food, information on the amount of domestic food that enters interstate commerce and of imported food, chemical characteristics and toxicity of the pesticide, and production volume/pesticide usage patterns.

Analytical Methods

To analyze the large numbers of samples whose pesticide treatment history is usually unknown, FDA uses analytical methods capable of simultaneously determining a number of pesticide residues. These multiresidue methods (MRMs) can determine about half of the approximately 400 pesticides with EPA tolerances, and many others that have no tolerances. The most commonly used MRMs can also detect many metabolites, impurities, and alteration products of pesticides (2).

Single residue methods (SRMs) or selective MRMs are used to determine some pesticide residues in foods (2). An SRM usually determines one pesticide; a selective MRM measures a relatively small number of chemically related pesticides. This type of methods is usually more resource-intensive per residue. Therefore, SRMs are much less cost effective than MRMs.

The lower limit of residue measurement in FDA's determination of a specific pesticide is usually well below tolerance levels, which generally range from 0.1 to 50 parts per million (ppm). Residues present at 0.01 ppm and above are usually measurable; however, for individual pesticides, this limit may range from 0.005 to 1 ppm. In this report, the term "trace" is used to indicate residues detected, but at levels below the limit of quantitation (LOQ).

FDA/State Cooperation

FDA field offices interact with their counterparts in many states to increase FDA's effectiveness in pesticide residue monitoring. Memoranda of Understanding or more formal Partnership Agreements have been established between FDA and various state agencies. These agreements provide for more efficient monitoring by broadening coverage and eliminating duplication of effort, thereby maximizing federal and state resources allocated for pesticide activities. These arrangements vary from data sharing, joint planning, and state collection of samples for FDA examination, to FDA/State division of collection, analytical, and enforcement follow-up responsibilities for individual commodities or products of particular origin (i.e.,importedvs.domestic products).

Animal Feeds

In addition to monitoring foods for human consumption, FDA also samples and analyzes domestic and imported feeds for pesticide residues. FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) directs this portion of the Agency's monitoring via its Feed Contaminants Compliance Program. Although animal feeds containing violative pesticide residues may present a potential hazard to a number of different categories of animals (e.g.,laboratory animals, pets, wildlife, etc.), CVM's monitoring focuses on feeds for livestock and poultry, animals that ultimately become, or produce, foods for human consumption.

International Activities

FDA participates in several international agreements in an effort to minimize incidents of violative residues and remove trade barriers. A standing request for information from foreign governments on pesticides used on their food exported to the U.S. exists, a provision of the Pesticide Monitoring Improvements Act.

Under the auspices of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the U.S., Mexico, and Canada have established a NAFTA Technical Working Group on Pesticides (TWG). The NAFTA Pesticide TWG now serves as the focal point for all pesticide issues that arise among the three NAFTA countries. The TWG reports directly to the NAFTA Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee.

One of the major goals of the TWG is to ensure that pesticide registrations and tolerances/maximum residue limits in the three countries are harmonized to the extent practical, while strengthening protection of public health and the environment. A number of projects has been undertaken by the TWG to identify differing residue limits in the NAFTA countries and to determine what steps might be taken to harmonize the limits. While this process is difficult, the TWG envisions eventual movement toward a "North America" pesticide registration and tolerance system so that citizens of all three countries can be assured of the safety and legality of foods produced in any one of the NAFTA countries. FDA's activities on the TWG complement its ongoing trilateral cooperation with its counterparts in Mexico and Canada.

Beyond the North American agreements, FDA continues to collaborate with New Zealand to implement a "residue compliance assurance program." New Zealand, historically having excellent compliance with U.S. pesticide tolerances, is implementing a plan whereby its government would provide assurances that selected commodities exported to the U.S. would be in full compliance with U.S. tolerances.

Incidence/Level Monitoring

FDA's pesticide program includes incidence/level monitoring to complement regulatory monitoring. Incidence/level monitoring increases FDA's knowledge about particular pesticide/commodity combinations. Information is acquired by analyses of randomly selected samples to determine the presence and levels of selected pesticides. In 2000, FDA issued one special assignment, to determine incidences and levels of certain pesticides in canola entering the U.S. from Canada.

Total Diet Study

The Total Diet Study is the other major element of FDA's pesticide residue monitoring program (3). In its previous annual pesticide reports, FDA provided Total Diet Study findings for 1987-1999 (4a, 4b). More detailed information, including estimated dietary intakes of pesticide residues covering June 1984-April 1986 (5) and July 1986-April 1991 (6), has been published. In September 1991, FDA implemented revisions to the Total Diet Study that were formulated in 1990 (7). These revisions primarily consisted of collection and analysis of an updated and expanded number of food items, addition of six age/sex groups (for a total of 14), and revised analytical coverage. Details of that revision are published (8, 9).

In conducting the Total Diet Study, FDA personnel purchase foods from supermarkets or grocery stores four times per year, once from each of four geographic regions of the country. The 261 foods that comprise each of the 4 market baskets represent over 3,500 different foods reported in USDA food consumption surveys; for example, apple pie represents all fruit pies and fruit pastries. Each market basket is a composite of like foods purchased in three cities in a given region. The foods are prepared table-ready and then analyzed for pesticide residues (as well as radionuclides, industrial chemicals, toxic elements, trace and macro elements, and folic acid). The levels of pesticides found are used in conjunction with USDA food consumption data to estimate the dietary intakes of the pesticide residues.

Results and Discussion

Regulatory Monitoring

Under regulatory monitoring, 6,523 samples were analyzed. Of these 2,525 were domestic and 3,998 were imports.

Figure 1 shows the percentage of the 2,525 domestic samples by commodity group with no residues found, nonviolative residues found, and violative residues found. (A violative residue is defined in this report as a residue which exceeds a tolerance or a residue at a level of regulatory significance for which no tolerance has been established in the sampled food.)

As in earlier years, fruits and vegetables accounted for the largest proportion of the commodities analyzed in 2000; those two commodity groups comprised 77.8% of the total number of domestic samples. In 2000, no violative residues were found in 99.3% of all domestic samples (99.1% in 1996, 98.8% in 1997, 99.2% in 1998, 99.2% in 1999).

Figure 1. Summary of Results of Domestic Samples by Commodity

Appendix A contains more detailed data on domestic monitoring findings by commodity, including the total number of samples analyzed, the percent samples with no residues found, and the percent violative samples. Of the 2,525 domestic samples, 59.6% had no detectable residues and 0.7% had violative residues. In the largest commodity groups, fruits and vegetables, 41.7% and 73.5% of the samples, respectively, had no residues detected; 0.5% of the fruit samples and 1.1% of the vegetable samples contained violative residues (Figure 1). In the grains and grain products group, 56.7% of the samples had no residues detected, and none had violative residues. In the fish/shellfish/other aquatic products group, 75.4% had no detectable residues, and no violative residues were found. In the milk/dairy products/eggs group, 92.3% of the samples had no residues detected, and no violative residues were found. A total of 26 samples of baby foods or formula was analyzed (see category Other). This total included 4 fruit (no vegetable), 2 cereal, and 8 fruit juice samples. None of the samples had violative residues.

Findings by commodity group for the 3,998 import samples are shown in Figure 2. Fruits and vegetables accounted for 86.5% of these samples. Overall, no violative residues were found in 96.2% of the import samples (97.4% in 1996, 98.4% in 1997, 97.0% in 1998, 96.9% in 1999).

Figure 2. Summary of Results of Import Samples by Commodity

Appendix B contains detailed data on the import samples. Of the 3,998 samples analyzed, 57.5% had no residues detected, and 3.8% had violative residues. Fruits and vegetables had 45.9% and 59.2%, respectively, with no residues detected. The fruit group and the vegetable group had 2.1% and 6.1%, respectively, with violative residues. No residues were found in 85.7% of the milk/dairy products/eggs group and in 88.0% of the fish/shellfish group, and no violative residues were found in either of those groups. In the grains and grain products group, 79.2% had no detectable residues, and 2.0% had violative residues.

Pesticide monitoring data collected under FDA's regulatory monitoring in 2000 are available to the public as a computer database. This database summarizes FDA 2000 regulatory monitoring coverage and findings by country/commodity/pesticide combination. The database also includes the monitoring data by individual sample from which the summary information was compiled. Information on how to obtain this database as well as those for 1992-1999 is provided at the end of this report.

Geographic Coverage

Domestic.A total of 2,525 domestic samples was collected in 2000 from 43 states and Puerto Rico. (No samples were collected from Arkansas, Connecticut, Maine, Nevada, Oklahoma, Vermont, and West Virginia.) The largest numbers of samples were collected from those states that are the largest producers of fruits and vegetables. Table 1 lists numbers of domestic samples from each location, in order of descending numbers of samples.

Import. A total of 3,998 samples representing food shipments from 82 countries was collected. (The origin of some additional samples was unspecified.) Table 2 lists numbers of samples collected from each country. Mexico, as usual, was the source of the largest number of samples, reflecting the volume and diversity of commodities imported from that country, especially during the winter months.

Table 2. Foreign Countries and Number of Samples Collected and Analyzed in 2000

Mexico	1,719		Honduras	42
Chile	483		South Africa	36
Ecuador	206		Poland	35
Netherlands	115		Taiwan, Republic of	31
China (Mainland)	103		Brazil	27
Guatemala	99		Israel	27
India	92		Italy	26
Spain	89		Belgium	25
Canada	69		Greece	21
Costa Rica	69		Jamaica	21
Dominican Republic	68		Korea, Republic of (South)	20
Colombia	53		Pakistan	17
New Zealand	51		Egypt	16
Vietnam	51		Unspecified	15
Turkey	46		France	12
Peru	45		Philippines	12
Thailand	45		Australia	11
Argentina	42		Trinidad & Tobago	11

Ten or fewer samples collected from the following:

Austria	Haiti	Panama
Belize	Hong Kong	Papua New Guinea
Bolivia	Hungary	Russia
Bosnia-Hercegovina	Indonesia	Saudi Arabia
Bulgaria	Iran	Sweden
Croatia	Ireland	Syrian Arab Republic
Cyprus	Japan	Tanzania, United Rep.
Czech Republic	Lebanon	Tokelau Islands
Denmark	Macedonia	Ukraine
El Salvador	Malaysia	United Arab Emirates
Estonia	Mauritius	United Kingdom
Fiji	Morocco	Uruguay
Finland	Mozambique	Venezuela
Germany, Federal Rep.	Nicaragua	Western Samoa
Ghana	Nigeria	Zimbabwe
Grenada	Norway

Domestic/Import Violation Rate Comparison

In 2000, a total of 2,525 domestic and 3,998 import samples was collected and analyzed. Pesticide residues were detected in 40.4% of the domestic samples and in 42.5% of the import samples. Only 0.7% of the domestic samples and only 3.8% of the import samples were violative. Among grains and grain products, the violation rate was 0.0% domesticvs.2.0% import. No violations were found in the milk/dairy products/eggs group or the fish/shellfish/other aquatic products group among either domestic or import samples. Of domestic fruits, 0.5% were violative; of import fruits, the violation rate was 2.1%. Of vegetables, 1.1% of domestic samples and 6.1% of import samples were violative. In the category "Other" the rates for domestic and import samples were, respectively, 1.1% and 2.3%. Of the violative samples, two of the domestic ones and seven of the import ones contained pesticide residues at levels which exceeded the tolerance for the given chemical in the given commodity. The remainder of the violative samples contained pesticide residues which were not registered in the U.S. for use in the commodities in which they were found; 15 domestic samples and 146 import samples fell into this category.

Pesticide Coverage

Table 3 lists the396 pesticides that were detectable by the methods used; each of the 117 pesticides that were actually found is indicated by an asterisk.

FDA conducts ongoing research to expand the pesticide coverage of its monitoring program. This research includes testing the behavior of new or previously untested pesticides through existing analytical methods, and development of new methods to cover pesticides that cannot be determined by methods currently used by FDA. The research encompasses both U.S.-registered pesticides and foreign-use pesticides that are not registered in the U.S. The list of pesticides detectable for 2000 (Table 3) reflects the addition of a number of pesticides whose recovery through the analytical methods used was demonstrated as a result of ongoing research.

Table 3. Pesticides Detectable and Found (*) by Methods Used in 2000 Regulatory Monitoring^a,b

acephate*	DDT*	hexachlorobenzene*	piperonyl butoxide*
acetochlor	DEF	hexaconazole*	piperophos
acibenzolar-S-methyl	deltamethrin	hexazinone	pirimicarb*
acrinathrin	deltamethrin, trans-	hexythiazox	pirimiphos-ethyl
alachlor	demeton*	imazalil*	pirimiphos-methyl*
aldicarb*	desmetryn	imazamethabenz methyl ester	pretilachlor
aldrin	dialifor	iprobenfos	primisulfuron-methyl
allethrin	di-allate	iprodione*	probenazole
allidochlor	N,N-diallyl-dichloroacetamide	iprodione metabolite isomer*	prochloraz*
alpha-cypermethrin*	diazinon*	isazofos	procyazine
ametryn	dibutyl phthalate	isocarbamid	procymidone*
aminocarb	dichlobenil*	isofenphos	prodiamine
amitraz*	dichlofenthion	isoprocarb	profenofos*
anilazine	dichlofluanid*	isopropalin	profluralin
Aramite	dichlone	isoprothiolane	Prolan
atrazine*	4-(dichloroacetyl)-1-oxa-4-azaspiro[4.5]decane	isoxaben	promecarb
azinphos-ethyl	2,6-dichlorobenzamide*	isoxaflutole	prometryn
azinphos-methyl*	2,4-dichloro-6-nitrobenzenamine	kresoxim-methyl	pronamide*
benalaxyl*	dichlorvos	lactofen	propachlor
bendiocarb	diclobutrazol	lambda-cyhalothrin	propanil
benfluralin	diclofop-methyl	lenacil	propargite*
benodanil	dicloran*	leptophos	propazine
benomyl/carbendazimc	dicofol*	lindane*	propetamphos
benoxacor	dicrotophos*	linuron*	propham
bensulide	dieldrin*	malathion*	propiconazole*
benzoylprop-ethyl	diethatyl-ethyl	mecarbam	propoxur
6-benzyladenine	Dilan	mephosfolan	prothiofos
BHC*	dimethachlor	merphos	prothoate
bifenox	dimethametryn	metalaxyl*	pyracarbolid
bifenthrin*	dimethipin	metaldehyde*	pyrazon
binapacryl	dimethoate*	metasystox thiol	pyrazophos
biphenyl*	dinitramine	metazachlor	pyrethrins
bitertanol	dinobuton	methabenzthiazuron	pyridaphenthion
bromacil	dinocap	methaldehyde	pyrimethanil
bromophos	dioxabenzofos	methamidophos*	pyriproxyfen
bromophos-ethyl	dioxacarb	methidathion*	quinalphos*
bromopropylate*	dioxathion	methiocarb*	quintozene*
bromoxynil	diphenamid	methomyl*	quizalofop ethyl ester
bromuconazole	diphenylamine*	methoprotryne	resmethrin*
bufencarb	dipropetryn	methoxychlor*	ronnel
Bulan	disulfoton	2-methoxy-5,6-trichloropyridine	S-bioallethrin
bupirimate*	diuron	methyl chloride	salithion
buprofezin	DPX-MP062	3-methyl-4-nitrophenol	schradan
butachlor	edifenphos	metobromuron	secbumeton
butralin	endosulfan*	metolachlor	simazine
butyl benzyl phthalate	endrin*	metolcarb	simetryn
butylate	EPN*	metribuzin	Strobane
cadusafos	epoxiconazole	mevinphos*	sulfallate
captafol	EPTC*	MGK 264*	sulfotepp
captan*	esfenvalerate*	mirex	Sulphenone
carbaryl*	etaconazole	molinate	sulprofos
carbofuran*	ethalfluralin	monocrotophos*	TCMTB
carbophenothion	ethephon	monolinuron	tebuconazole*
carbosulfan	ethiofencarb	monuron	tebupirimfos
carboxin	ethiolate	myclobutanil*	tecnazene*
carfentrazone ethyl ester	ethion*	naled	tefluthrin
chlorbenside	ethion oxygen analog*	napropamide	TEPP
chlorbromuron	ethofumesate	naptalam*	terbacil
chlorbufam	ethoprop	neburon	terbufos
chlordane*	ethoxyquin*	nitralin	terbumeton
chlordecone	ethylenebisdithiocarbamatesd	nitrapyrin	terbuthylazine
chlordimeform*	ethylene glycol*	nitrofen	terbutryn
chlorethoxyfos	etridiazole	nitrofluorfen	tetradifon*
chlorfenapyr	etrimfos	nitrothal-isopropyl	2,3,5,6-tetrachloroaniline*
chlorfenvinphos	famphur	norea	tetraiodoethylene
chlorflurecol methyl ester	fenamiphos	norflurazon*	tetrasul
chlorimuron ethyl ester	fenarimol*	nuarimol	thiabendazole*
chlornitrofen	fenbuconazole*	octhilinone	thiamethoxam
chlorobenzilate	fenfuram	ofurace	thiazopyr
3-chloro-5-methyl-4-nitro-1H-pyrazole	fenhexamid*	omethoate*	thiobencarb
5-chloro-3-methyl-4-nitro-1H-pyrazole	fenitrothion*	ovex	thiodicarb
chloroneb*	fenoxaprop ethyl ester	oxadiazon	thiometon
chloropicrin	fenoxycarb	oxadixyl*	thionazin
chloropropylate	fenpropathrin*	oxamyl*	thiophanate-methyl
chlorothalonil*	fenpropimorph	oxydemeton-methyl*	THPI
chloroxuron	fenson	oxyfluorfen	tolylfluanid*
chlorpropham*	fensulfothion	oxythioquinox	toxaphene*
chlorpyrifos*	fenthion	paclobutrazol	tralomethrin
chlorpyrifos-methyl*	fenvalerate*	paraquat	traloxydim
chlorthiophos	fipronil	parathion*	triadimefon*
clodinafop-propargyl	flamprop-M-isopropyl	parathion-methyl*	triadimenol*
clomazone	flamprop-methyl	pebulate*	tri-allate
cloquintocet-mexyl	fluazifop butyl ester	penconazole	triazamate
coumaphos	fluazinam	pendimethalin	1,2,4-triazole
crotoxyphos	fluchloralin	pentachlorobenzene*	triazophos
crufomate	flucythrinate	pentachlorobenzonitrile*	tribufos
cyanazine	fludioxinil*	pentachlorophenyl methyl ether	trichlorfon
cyanofenphos	flufenacet	permethrin*	tricyclazole
cyanophos	flusilazole	Perthane	tridiphane
cycloate	fluvalinate*	phenmedipham*	trietazine
4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicarboximide, cis-*	folpet*	phenothrin	triflumizole
cycluron	fonofos	phenthoate	trifluralin*
cyfluthrin	formothion	4-(phenylamino)phenol*	triflusulfuron methyl ester
cymoxanil	fosthiazate	phenylphenol, ortho-*	trimethacarb
cypermethrin*	fuberidazole	phorate*	vamidothion sulfone
cyprazine	furilazole	phosalone*	vernolate
cyproconazole	Gardona	phosmet*	vinclozolin*
cyprodinil*	heptachlor*	phosphamidon	XMC
DCPA*	heptenophos	phoxim oxygen analog	zoxamide
a The list of pesticides detectable is expressed in terms of the parent pesticide. However, monitoring coverage and findings may have included metabolites, impurities, and alteration products.
b Some of these pesticides are no longer manufactured or registered for use in the United States.
c The analytical methodology determines carbendazim, which may result from use of benomyl or carbendazim.
d Such as maneb.

Animal Feeds

In 2000, a total of 455 domestic and 58 import feed samples was collected and analyzed for residues. Of the 455 domestic samples, 260 (56.1%) contained no detectable pesticide residues, and 9 (2.0%) contained residues which exceeded regulatory guidance (Table 4). Of the 58 import samples, 35 (60.3%) contained no detectable pesticide residues, and 5 (8.6%) contained residues which exceeded regulatory guidance.

Table 4. Summary of 2000 Domestic Feed Samples

Type of Feed	Total # Samples	Without Residues		Exceeding Guidance
		#	%	#	%
Whole/Ground Grains	217	139	64.1	4	1.8
Plant By-products	105	63	60.0	5	4.8
Mixed Feed Rations	94	33	35.1	0	0.0
Animal by-products	31	20	64.5	0	0.0
Supplements	6	4	66.7	0	00
Hay & Hay Products	2	1	50.0	0	0.0
Total	455	260	56.1	9	2.0

The following 6 residues in domestic samples were considered to have exceeded regulatory guidance because there is no tolerance or action level established for the pesticide-commodity combination: 0.039 ppm of vinclozolin on a sample of canola meal from Canada (collected in South Dakota by the Minneapolis district); 0.085 ppm of methamidophos on a citrus pulp sample from Georgia (collected by the Atlanta district); 0.169 ppm of chlorpyrifos-methyl on a corn sample from Missouri (collected by the Kansas City district); 0.030 ppm of chlorpyrifos-methyl on a corn sample from North Dakota (collected by the Minneapolis district); 0.052 ppm chlorpyrifos-methyl on a corn sample from North Carolina (collected by the Atlanta district); 0.092 ppm of pirimiphos-methyl on a cottonseed meal sample from Texas (collected by the Dallas district); 0.050 ppm of chlorpyrifos on one sample of grass seed screenings and 0.171 ppm of chlorothalonil on another sample of grass seed screenings, both from Oregon (collected by the Seattle district).

Two domestic samples had residues that exceeded an EPA tolerance or a FDA requested maximum level. One of the samples of grass seed screenings from Oregon and collected by the Seattle district also contained 1.282 ppm of DDT + DDE. A sample of soybeans from Oregon and collected by the Seattle district contained 1.700 ppm of DDT + DDE. These residues exceeded the 0.5 ppm action level for DDT + DDE in processed animal feed and most grains in the Federal Register; April 17, 1990; pages 14359-63.

The following 4 residues in 5 import samples were found to have exceeded regulatory guidance because there is no tolerance or action level established for the pesticide-commodity combination: 3.770 ppm of Gardona on a cane molasses sample from Mexico (collected by the Los Angeles district); 0.070 ppm and 0.030 ppm of chlorpyrifos on two samples of canola seed fines from Canada (collected by the Seattle district); 0.192 ppm of biphenyl on a sample of dried marigold pellets from Thailand (collected by the Dallas district); and 0.040 ppm of methamidophos on a Sudan grass hay sample from Mexico (collected by the Los Angeles district).

In the 195 domestic samples of feed in which one or more pesticides were detected, there were 317 residues (216 quantifiable and 101 trace). Malathion, chlorpyrifos-methyl, methoxychlor, and pirimiphos-methyl were the most frequently found and accounted for 75.4% of all residues detected (Table 5).

Table 5. Residues Found in Domestic Feeds in 2000

	# of Samples with
Pesticide	Trace Amounta	Quantifiable Levels	Rangeb (ppm)	Medianb (ppm)
malathion	29	91	0.006 - 5.230	0.090
chlorpyrifos-methyl	22	45	0.016 - 1.680	0.122
pirimiphos-methyl	12	14	0.024 - 6.410	0.512
chlorpyrifos	6	9	0.005 - 0.600	0.050
diazinon	1	10	0.010 - 0.158	0.031
methoxychlor (p,p' + o,p')	16	10	0.032 - 0.990	0.173
ethion	1	2	0.043 - 0.070	N/A
iprodione + metabolite	0	3	0.120 - 2.600	0.190
DDT + DDE + TDE (p,p' + o,p')	3	7	0.024 - 1.700	0.069
tribufos (DEF)	0	3	0.042 - 0.095	0.057
dicofol	0	5	0.190 - 1.000	0.360
benomyl	3	0	N/A	N/A
permethrin	0	3	0.070 - 0.400	0.150
all othersc	8	14	0.039 - 1.950	0.177
a Residue found is below that normally quantifiable, but its presence and identity are known. b In samples containing quantifiable levels. c n=2 for carbaryl, endosulfan (I + II + sulfate), Gardona, methamidophos, parathion or its methyl homolog, and vinclozolin; n=1 for Aroclor 1254, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, dieldrin, ethoxyquin, imazalil, phosmet, o-phenylphenol, propiconazole, and tebuconazole.

Summary: Regulatory Monitoring

No residues were found in 59.6% of domestic and in 57.5% of import samples (Figure 3) analyzed under FDA's regulatory monitoring in 2000. Only 0.7% of domestic and 3.8% of import samples had residue levels that were violative. The findings for 2000 demonstrate that pesticide residue levels in foods are generally well below EPA tolerances, corroborating results presented in earlier reports (4a, 4b). Animal feed samples (455 domestic, 58 import) were analyzed. No residues were found in 56.1% of the domestic samples and in 60.3% of the import samples.

Figure 3. Summary of Results of Domestic vs. Import Samples

Incidence/Level Monitoring

Special Surveys

Canola. In 2000, FDA issued a special assignment to determine incidences and levels of certain pesticides in domestic and Canadian canola. Specifically, a total of 25 samples of canola entering the U.S. from Canada (6 seed, 5 oil, and 14 meal) and 12 domestic canola samples (3 seed, 1 oil, and 8 meal) was analyzed. The seed and oil samples were analyzed for 21 pesticide chemicals; the meal samples were analyzed for 22 pesticide chemicals.

Canadian samples were collected from several consignee locations that represented as many different Provinces as possible. All samples collected from the various FDA districts were sent to the FDA's Southeast Regional Laboratory for the analysis for the 21 pesticides; all canola meal samples were additionally analyzed for the pesticide benomyl.

No pesticide residues were detected in any of the domestic samples. Trace amounts of the residues of vinclozolin, endosulfan and/or malathion were found in four Canadian samples of canola seed. U.S. tolerances for endosulfan and vinclozolin on canola seed are 0.2 ppm and 1.0 ppm, respectively; there is no U.S. tolerance for malathion on canola. Residues of chlorpyrifos were found in two samples of canola meal; the levels detected were 0.029 ppm and 0.061 ppm. The former sample also contained a trace amount of lindane. A third sample contained a trace amount of lindane only. No U.S. tolerances have been established for chlorpyrifos and lindane in canola. No residues were detected in Canadian samples of canola oil.

Summary: Incidence/Level Monitoring

Results of the survey of canola show that, as in FDA's regulatory monitoring, the levels of most pesticide residues found in this commodity are generally well below U.S. tolerances, and only three violative residues were found.

Total Diet Study

The Total Diet Study (TDS) is distinct from regulatory monitoring in that it determines pesticide residues in foods prepared for consumption (3). To measure the low levels of residues found in the TDS foods, the analytical methods used are modified to permit measurement at levels 5-10 times lower than those normally used in regulatory monitoring. In general, residues present at or above 1 part per billion can be measured. Of the almost 400 chemicals that can be determined for the analytical methods used, 107 individual residues were found in the foods analyzed in the four market baskets reported here (Market Baskets 99-3, 00-1, 00-2, and 00-3). Among these were 55 pesticides, including 14 which represent more than one related compound counted as a "total", 22 volatile organic compounds for which 70 TDS foods per basket are now being examined, and 9 other organic compounds.

Table 6 lists the 16 most frequently found residues (those found in >2% of the samples), the total number of findings, and the percent occurrence in the four market baskets analyzed in 2000 (1035 food items). The five most frequently observed chemicals, DDT, malathion, chlorpyrifos-methyl, endosulfan, and dieldrin, are the same as those observed for the past several years. The levels of these residues, as well as the others listed in Table 6, are well below regulatory limits.

Information obtained through the TDS is used to estimate dietary intakes of pesticides; these intakes are then compared with established standards. Dietary intakes based on TDS samples collected through mid-1991 have been published previously. (5, 6)

Table 6. Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Total Diet Study Foods in 2000^a

Pesticideb	Total No. of Findings	Occurrence, %	Range, ppm
DDT	220	21	0.0001-0.062
malathion	188	18	0.0003-0.078
chlorpyrifos-methyl	184	18	0.0002-0.086
endosulfan	154	15	0.0001-0.060
dieldrin	118	11	0.0001-0.014
chlorpyrifos	66	6	0.0003-0.106
permethrin	56	5	0.0008-2.450
chlorpropham	55	5	0.0009-1.393
iprodione	54	5	0.0008-5.103
carbarylc	43	4	0.001-1.190
lindane	30	3	0.0001-0.003
thiabendazoled	29	3	0.018-0.525
dicloran	27	3	0.0003-0.657
heptachlor	23	2	0.0001-0.001
dicofol	22	2	0.001-0.312
methoxychlor	21	2	0.0003-0.031
a Based on 4 market baskets analyzed in 2000 consisting of 1035 items total. b Isomers, metabolites, and related compounds are included with the "parent" pesticide from which they arise. c Reflects overall incidence; however, only 95-96 selected foods per market basket (i.e., 383 items total) were analyzed for N-methylcarbamates. d Reflects overall incidence; however, only 67 selected foods per market basket (i.e., 268 items total) were analyzed for the benzimidazole fungicides thiabendazole and benomyl.

For several years, FDA has collected and analyzed a number of baby foods in addition to those covered under TDS. This adjunct to the TDS included 20 different food items in three baskets (00-1, 00-2, and 00-3; 99-3 included 19 food items) represented here (7 fruit juices, 5 fruits, 4 fruit desserts, and 4 grain products). Table 7 lists the18 pesticide residues found in four collections of these foods (78 samples total) in 2000, the percentage occurrence, and ranges of levels found.

Table 7. Frequency of Occurrence of Pesticide Residues Found in Selected Baby Foods in 2000^a

Pesticideb	Total No. of Findings	Occurrence, %		Range, ppm
carbarylc	14	18		0.002-0.015
endosulfan	13	17		0.0002-0.0025
iprodione	9	12		0.0007-0.096
malathion	9	12		0.0008-0.024
chlorpyrifos-methyl	8	10		0.001-0.007
ethylenethiouread	7	9		0.004-0.011
chlorpyrifos	6	8		0.0006-0.002
thiabendazolee	6	8		0.018-0.94
permethrin	5	6		0.0012-0.025
benomyle	4	5		0.041-0.065
dimethoate	2	3		0.001-0.008
hexachlorobenzene	2	3		0.0002-0.0002
propiconazole	2	3		0.005-0.007
parathion-methyl	1	1		0.003
dicloran	1	1		0.008
omethoate	1	1		0.004
fenvalerate	1	1		0.003
phosmet	1	1		0.015
a Based on 4 collections consisting of 78 total items. b Isomers, metabolites, and related compounds are included with the "parent" pesticide from which they arise. c Reflects overall incidence; however, only 13-14 selected foods per collection (i.e., 54 items total) were analyzed for N-methylcarbamates. d Reflects overall incidence; however, only 11-12 selected foods per collection (i.e., 46 items total) were analyzed for ethylenethiourea. e Reflects overall incidence; however, only 13-14 selected foods per collection (i.e., 54 items total) were analyzed for the benzimidazole fungicides (thiabendazole and benomyl).

Summary: Total Diet Study

In 2000, the types of pesticide residues found and their frequency of occurrence in TDS were generally consistent with those given in previous FDA reports(4a, 4b). The pesticide residue levels found were well below regulatory standards. An adjunct survey of baby foods also provided evidence of only small amounts of pesticide residues in those foods.

Summary

A total of 6,523 samples of domestically produced food and imported food from 82 countries was analyzed for pesticide residues in 2000. FDA collected and analyzed animal feed samples (455 domestic, 58 import) for pesticides. No residues were found in 56.1% of the domestic samples and in 60.3% of the import samples. Total Diet Study findings for 2000 were generally similar to those found in earlier periods; details of findings will be published separately.

This report was compiled through the efforts of the following FDA personnel: Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, College Park, MD: Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages: Carolyn M. Makovi, Mark S. Wirtz, and Marion Clower, Jr., Division of Pesticides and Industrial Chemicals; Young H. Lee, Division of Programs and Enforcement Policy; S. Kathleen Egan, Division of Risk Assessment; Office of Management Systems: Sharon A. Macuci, Division of Information Resources Management; Center for Veterinary Medicine, Rockville, MD: Randall Lovell; Kansas City District, Lenexa, KS: Sheila K. Egan and Chris A. Sack.

The database containing the data from which this report was derived is also available from FDA's World Wide Web site, at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov. The 1996 through 1999 reports and databases are available at the same site. FDA pesticide monitoring data collected under the regulatory monitoring approach in 1992, 1993, 1994, and 1995 are available for purchase on personal computer diskettes from the National Technical Information Service (NTIS), 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (telephone 1-800-553-6847); or from NTIS's website at http://www.ntis.gov. Order numbers are: 1992, PB94-500899; 1993, PB94-501681; 1994, PB95-503132; and 1995, PB96-503156.

References

(1)Code of Federal Regulations (1999) Title 40, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, Parts 180, 185, 186.

(2)Pesticide Analytical Manual Volume I (3rd Ed., 1994 and subsequent revisions), available from FDA's World Wide Web site at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov, and Volume II (1971 and subsequent revisions), available from National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC.

(3)Pennington, J. A. T., Capar, S. G., Parfitt, C. H., & Edwards, C. W. (1996) History of the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study (Part II), 1987-1993.J. AOAC Int.79, 163-170.

(4a)Food and Drug Administration (1995) Food and Drug Administration pesticide program - residue monitoring - 1994.
J. AOAC Int.78, 117A-143A (and earlier reports in the series).

(4b)Food and Drug Administration (1996) Food and Drug Administration pesticide program - residue monitoring - 1995, 1998 (and earlier reports in the series). Available from FDA's World Wide Web site at http://www.cfsan.fda.gov.

(5)Gunderson, E. L. (1995) Dietary intakes of pesticides, selected elements, and other chemicals: FDA Total Diet Study, June 1984-April 1986.J. AOAC Int.78, 910-921.

(6)Gunderson, E. L. (1995) FDA Total Diet Study, July 1986-April 1991, dietary intakes of pesticides, selected elements, and other chemicals.J. AOAC Int.78, 1353- 1363.

(7)Pennington, J. A. T. (1992) Total Diet Studies: the identification of core foods in the United States food supply.Food Addit. Contam.9, 253-264.

(8)Pennington, J.A.T. (1992) The 1990 revision of the FDA Total Diet Study.J. Nutr. Educ.24, 173-178.

(9)Pennington, J. A. T. (1992) Appendices for the 1990 revision of the Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study. PB92-176239/AS, National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161.

Appendix A. Analysis of Domestic Samples by Commodity Group in 2000

Appendix B. Analysis of Import Samples by Commodity Group in 2000

Descriptions of Figures

Figure 1: Summary of Results of Domestic Samples by Commodity

Description: Pie charts for six commodity groups that depict the proportion of domestic samples with no detectable residues, with violative residues, or with non-violative residues. The following table gives the number of samples and percentages in each category for each commodity group.

Figure 2: Summary of Results of Import Samples by Commodity

Description: Pie charts for six commodity groups that depict the proportion of import samples with no detectable residues, with violative residues, or with non-violative residues. The following table gives the number of samples and percentages in each category for each commodity group.

Figure 3: Summary of Results of Domestic vs. Import Samples

Description: Pie charts for domestic and import samples that depict the proportion of samples with no detectable residues, with violative residues, or with non-violative residues. The following table gives the number of samples and the percentages in each category.