The 2019 California Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Report

Back to Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Menu

The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) runs one of the oldest and most extensive state pesticide residue-monitoring programs in the nation. The California Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program (CPRMP) samples and tests for pesticide residues in individual lots of domestically grown and imported fresh produce. The CPRMP enforces pesticide residue tolerances set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). A tolerance is the maximum residue level of a specific pesticide allowed on human or animal food in the United States. The Code of Federal Regulations, Chapter 40, Part 180, lists tolerances and dictates how to analyze raw agricultural commodities for pesticide residue testing.

U.S. EPA establishes tolerances based on the pesticide toxicity, how much and how often the pesticide is applied, and how much of the pesticide remains in or on the commodity.

CPRMP staff sample a wide range of fruits and vegetables collected at sites where produce is sold, packed, or distributed. Produce sampling is not designed to be statistically representative of the overall rate of residue levels for a particular pesticide, commodity, or place of origin. Instead, sampled commodities selected are based on multiple factors including:

• Produce highly consumed by infants and children.
• Produce treated with pesticides listed as carcinogens or reproductive toxins.
• Produce reflective of consumption patterns among different ethnic and socioeconomic groups.
• Produce which has a history of detected illegal pesticide residues.

Therefore, sampling results may be biased towards finding produce more likely to have pesticide residues than if samples were collected in a random statistical fashion. The number of samples of a given commodity may not be large enough to make generalizations about the pesticide residue levels for the entire volume of a commodity in trade.

DPR contracts with the California Department of Food and Agriculture’s (CDFA) Center for Analytical Chemistry. Their ISO 17025 accredited laboratories analyze samples for nearly 500 different pesticides and pesticide breakdown products. ISO/IEC 17025 is the standard for laboratory competence worldwide.

If illegal residues are found DPR immediately removes the illegal produce from the channels of trade. In addition, if the owner of the commodity has similar produce from the same source, DPR quarantines those lots unless subsequent laboratory testing determines they are free from illegal residues. Further, DPR traces the distribution of the illegal produce by contacting distributors throughout California, imposing quarantines and conducting extra sampling and testing. In 2019, 96% of produce samples collected by DPR were legal and either had no detectable pesticide residues or residue levels below the applicable U.S. EPA tolerance. Of the 3,274 produce samples DPR collected in 2019, illegal pesticide residues were found in 4% of samples (137 samples).

2019 Pesticide Residue Monitoring Sampling Results

CPRMP staff collected 3,274 produce samples from approximately 500 different businesses in 2019. These include wholesale and retail outlets, distribution centers, and roadside and farmers markets (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Map of sampling sites in 2019

Sample Results

In 2019, DPR collected 3,274 produce samples, from 28 different countries representing 124 different types of fruits and vegetables. The majority of samples, 3,137 (96%), were legal and either had no detectable pesticide residues or residue levels below the applicable U.S. EPA tolerance (Figure 2). Illegal pesticide residues were found in 137 samples (4%, see Appendix 1a identifying all produce samples found to contain illegal pesticide residue with corresponding sampling information, including the county in which the illegal residue was discovered). The majority of illegal samples (83%) involved detection of pesticide residues with no established federal tolerance, meaning any detected level is considered illegal.

Figure 2. Percentage of produce samples with no residues, only legal residues, or illegal residues detected in 2019.

Country of Origin

Half of the samples collected in 2019, were grown domestically (1,641 samples, 50%), while 1,607 samples (49%) were imported (Figure 3). The remaining 26 samples (1%) were of undetermined origin due to a lack of information on the containers.

Figure 3. Map of origins of sampled produce in 2019

Most illegal residues were on imported produce, accounting for 113 (82%) of the 137 produce samples with illegal residues (Figure 4). The violation rate for imported produce samples was five times higher than domestic samples (7.0% of imported samples had illegal residues versus 1.4% of domestically grown samples). In 2019, illegal residues were found on commodities originating from 10 different countries (Table 1).

Table 1. Numbers of illegal produce samples collected in 2019 by country of origin

Figure 4. Sample result comparison between domestic and imported produce samples

Commodity Results

In 2019, the program sampled 124 different types of fresh fruits and vegetables (see Appendix 1b for the list of all sampled commodities). Illegal residues were found in 48 different commodities (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Commodities with illegal residue in 2019

Dietary Risk Assessments

DPR’s Human Health Assessment Branch (HHA) reviews the toxicity for each illegal pesticide residue. A dietary risk assessment is conducted to determine whether the residues pose a potential acute health risk to consumers. Assessments are based on consumption rates for the produce and acute reference doses for that pesticide or combination of pesticides. If HHA determines the produce may pose a potential health risk to consumers, DPR makes a concerted effort to remove it entirely from the channels of trade. DPR notifies and collaborates with the California Department of Public Health and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on these cases.

In 2019, HHA determined 18 samples (11 different commodities from 4 countries), were potential health risks to consumers (Figure 6). In all 18 samples, the potential health risks were due to illegal residues of organophosphates or carbamates (Table 2).

Figure 6. Potential Health Risk Residue Samples by Commodity Type and Origin

Table 2. Illegal pesticide residues determined to be potential health risks in 2019

California Produce Sample Results

California grown produce accounted for more than 48% (787 samples) of all domestic samples tested. This value likely under represents the true number of California grown produce collected, as sampled commodities labeled as "product of USA" are potentially grown in California. For illegal residue samples, DPR does a trace back investigation to determine the source of the produce. However, for legal residue samples, DPR does not do a trace back investigation and is unable to determine, based on labeling alone, the state of origin for produce labeled "product of USA".

Over 98% of the samples labeled as grown in California had legal or no residues detected on them. Of the 787 California samples tested, only 2% of the samples had illegal residues (17 samples). One strawberry sample was determined to pose a potential acute health risk to consumers. Of the 88 different types of California grown commodities tested, eleven types of commodities had at least one sample with illegal pesticide residues (Table 3).

Table 3. Commodities grown in California with illegal pesticide residues detected in 2019.

Organic Sample Results

Produce labeled as "organic" does not mean "not treated with pesticides." The U.S. Department of Agriculture allows certain pesticides for use in organic farming. In addition, certified organic produce may have residues of other pesticides at less than 5% of the U.S. EPA tolerance for conventionally grown commodities (Code of Federal Regulations, Title 7, Part 205.671).

The CPRMP collects organic produce as encountered during routine sampling and shares these testing results with CDFA. CDFA is responsible for administering the State Organic Program and regulates organic operations in the state. All organic samples with detected pesticides are referred to CDFA for follow up investigation and potential enforcement under the State Organic Program. In cases where an organic sample has pesticide residue levels above the U.S. EPA tolerance for conventionally grown commodities, in addition to referral to CDFA, DPR will also pursue actions.

In 2019, the CPRMP collected 262 organic samples. These samples represented 59 different commodities from nine different countries. Sixty-nine percent of the organics tested (180), were of domestic origins; 31% of the samples (82) were imported. Of the 262 organic samples collected, 37 different pesticides were found on 38 samples (Table 4). Three samples, mustard greens and spinach grown in California, and tomato imported from Mexico, had illegal residues of a pesticide that did not have an established tolerance. More detailed information about the State Organic Program.

Table 4. Pesticides detected on organic commodities sampled in 2019

DPR Enforcement on Illegal Pesticide Residues

When illegal pesticide residues are detected, DPR quarantines the produce containing the illegal residues. The owner of the quarantined produce has the option to either securely dispose of it on site, or with prior DPR approval "recondition" the produce or convert it into byproducts. Reconditioning can include, washing, peeling or simply waiting for the pesticide residue to breakdown to acceptable tolerance levels or be eliminated entirely if the illegal residue(s) has no established tolerance. After reconditioning, the owner must pay for the sample to be reanalyzed. If test results show the pesticide residue below the legal tolerance, DPR may allow sale of the produce. If not, disposal of the produce is required.

DPR investigators trace the movement of the produce with illegal residues by contacting distributors, retailers, and wholesalers throughout California. DPR quarantines and collects additional samples if suspected of carrying illegal residues. If it is determined that the produce with illegal pesticide residues was grown in California, the County Agricultural Commissioner (CAC) in the county where the produce was grown will investigate to determine the source of contamination. Frequently, DPR scientists assist CAC staff with this investigation. CACs have authority to levy civil penalties for illegal use of pesticides.

To stem the flow of produce with illegal residues into California, DPR conducts compliance interviews with companies repeatedly identified as the first point of sale in California of produce with illegal residues. These companies are typically produce importers, brokers, or distributors. During these compliance assistance interviews, DPR staff reviews the illegal residue cases with company representatives, and discusses steps the company may take to prevent future sale of produce with illegal pesticide residues. DPR has the authority to levy civil penalties against anyone who packs, ships, or sells produce with illegal pesticide residues.

In 2019, DPR took enforcement action against two strawberry growers in Santa Maria, California. Strawberries from these growers had illegal methomyl residues, a restricted material pesticide not registered for use on strawberries in the U.S. DPR levied a $20,000 civil penalty against the growers and seized four tons of the contaminated strawberries destined for sale. The Santa Barbara CAC issued a cease harvest order on eleven acres of the contaminated strawberries remaining in the field.

Also, in 2019, DPR imposed $175,435 in civil penalties against one produce company with a history of importing and selling produce with illegal pesticide residues.

Information on these penalties can be found at Produce with Illegal Pesticide Residue Fines and Settlements.

All 2019 CPRMP produce sampling results are available for downloading on DPR’s website. Click on "A-Z Index" and then go to "Residue Monitoring Program".

Appendix 1 a. 2019 CRMP commodity samples containing illegal pesticide residues.

* samples with multiple illegal pesticide residues are reported as separate rows

** NTE – no U.S. EPA tolerance established

Appendix 1 b. 2019 CPRMP sample test results by commodity type, number of samples collected, and number with illegal pesticide residues

Appendix 1 c. Commodities Sampled With Illegal Pesticide Residues By Origin In 2019.

Appendix 1 d. Origins of illegal pesticide residues detected in 2019