UK manufacturers face being dogged by overly rigorous EU pesticide regulations, resulting in numerous "technical breaches" by produce presenting no threat to human health, according to one expert.
Problems would arise where maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set at a default 'limit of detection' rather than based on toxicological data and good agricultural practice, warned Bodycote Law Labs pesticide services manager Don Brown.
The Europe-Africa-Caribbean-Pacific Liaison Committee (Coleacp), which represents producers and importers into the EU from these countries, successfully pressed for the MRL for papaya to be raised from 0.05 microgrammes per kg to 5.0µg/kg. It did so by showing the higher level was safe. But Brown fears other products will breach MRL rules if there are no toxicological studies to support higher MRLs.
"The problem still outstanding is what we do about MRLs that are not set on a toxicological or technological basis, but are purely set at a default level," he said. "That does seem slightly ridiculous when it could lead to a vast number of breaches of MRLs which are really just technical breaches and don't have any toxological significance."
The pesticides legislation is already taking longer than planned because of confusion over levels, said Brown. He doubted the issues would be resolved for another year. "For industry, it is very difficult to keep track of the legal limit, but hopefully there will be harmonised limits that make things a lot clearer." But he conceded: "Harmonisation will lead to far lower levels being set."
The list of commodity products covered by the legislation has been extended to include coffee, different types of tea, and sugar, said Brown. But the pesticides and MRLs set for each commodity were not finalised.
"There is going to be a temporary MRL listing, a definitive MRL listing and a listing of things that don't require MRLs," he said.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has evaluated 240 compounds in the temporary list, but Brown said about 140 needed re-evaluating because "acute reference doses" originally determining MRLs might "not be as rigorous as EFSA would like". He added: "That effectively is going to delay the whole process. There is still a lot of work to do."
Another complication, said Brown, was that in the past, MRLs had not accounted for varying intake levels now being modelled for at-risk groups, such as toddlers, the elderly or people on special diets. "All those things are now being taken into account far more rigorously than they used to be," he said.