The use of plant protection products (PPP) and their residues in foods is supervised jointly by the authorities. The residue control programme is carried out in cooperation with municipal food control authorities (Finnish food products and import products after they end up on the Finnish market), Customs (the EU internal market and third-country import food products of non-animal origin) and the National Supervisory Authority for Welfare and Health Valvira (alcoholic beverages). The Finnish Food Authority monitors PPP residues also in Finnish organic products and food products of animal origin. PPP use is monitored by ELY centres under the supervision of the Finnish Food Authority.
Few non-compliant products found
A total of 2,089 samples were analysed in the control of PPP residues in 2020. Taking into account measurement uncertainty, a total of 48 samples (2.3%) exceeded the regulatory maximum residue level (MRL) permitted. Five of these samples were in non-compliance with regulations on organic farming and were found to contain residues not authorised in organic products. All the products in non-compliance with regulations on organic farming were fit for ordinary food.
Residue levels below the MRLs permitted were found in a total of 33 samples (6.3%) of the 525 Finnish samples analysed. Since residue levels were below the MRLs, none of the samples of ordinary foodstuffs were in non-compliance with food legislation. The residue of a PPP not authorised in organic farming found in one sample of organic rye turned out to have been windborne.
Of products imported (both from EU countries and from outside of the EU), 787 samples (51%) contained PPP residues. Of the goods, 47 batches were rejected as being non-compliant because of the amounts of PPP residues. Four of these batches were organic products which contained residues not authorised in organic products. In addition, a warning was given in respect of 52 batches of imported foods due to PPP residue levels. The residues in these batches were at or slightly above the MRL but because of the measurement uncertainty of the examinations they could not be found to be non-compliant.
Of the non-compliant batches, 23 were foods imported directly into Finland from outside of the EU and 20 were internal market foods, some of which originated outside of the EU. Product batches from third countries arriving through the EU are recorded in EU intra-Community trade import statistics, which is why in reality non-compliances are more pronounced for third countries than these figures indicate.
Control measures
For all non-compliant products, the competent food control authorities carried out the measures specified in the regulations. The distribution of all non-compliant imported products to the food chain was halted and follow-up samples of the following batches were taken before allowing the products to be placed on the market. The batches of non-compliant products were as a rule destroyed. Recall measures from consumers were initiated in respect of those batches that had reached the market and which on the basis of risk assessment were found to pose a potential risk to consumers.
In 2020, recalls under legislation on PPP residues were highlighted by recalls of Indian sesame seeds because of ethylene oxide residues. These recalls from the market and from consumers were made in respect of 45 products from numerous different product batches. In addition to these, 14 batches of other products that potentially posed an immediate health risk to consumers were found in control examinations or notification of them was received through the EU’s Rapid Alert System (RASFF). On the basis of risk assessment, notification of 12 non-compliant batches with regard to PPP residues were sent through the RASFF to other member states.
Oiva results
Municipal food control authorities carried out a total of 21 inspections of the adequacy and functioning of own-checks relating to PPP residues within the framework of the OIVA system (line 17.12). Control sites for PPP residues have been selected in the OIVA system on a risk basis based on effectiveness and extent. In OIVA inspections in 2020, mostly A grades were given, i.e. no shortcomings were found in PPP management. One site was graded C (to be corrected) and rectification of the shortcomings was ensured with a re-inspection. Judging from the results, it can be concluded that there were probably very few inspections of PPP residues carried out in relation to the number of assumed sites for inspection. Training and guidance are still needed to improve the effectiveness and consistency of control. Development of the VATI system will also aim to more accurately assess the number of sites to be inspected.