Pesticide residues in food:

The new EFSA report confirms a trend in the agricultural sector we cannot ignore

1 in 3 food samples in Europe contain multiple pesticides. We break down the key data and the role of biological control as an alternative.

Every year, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) publishes its report on pesticide residues in food. This report is the most reliable barometer Europe has for assessing the state of food safety. Based on 2024 data and published in March 2026, it analyses over 125,000 food samples collected across all EU Member States, Iceland and Norway, providing a detailed picture of which substances are detected, in which food products they are found, and how often legal limits are exceeded.

Before diving into the data, it is worth asking a question that consumers rarely consider: if a food item contains residues of four, five or even ten different pesticides, all below their individual maximum limits, does that mean it is safe?

European legislation assesses each residue in isolation. However, the reality on the plate is very different: foods do not typically contain a single residue — it is very common for them to contain mixtures. This paradox between what the regulation measures and what the consumer ingests is one of the warning signs this report puts back on the table.

The report's findings: multiple residues on the rise

The EU-coordinated multiannual control programme (EU MACP) analyzed a total of 9,842 samples in 2024, covering 12 of the most widely consumed products by European citizens, including aubergines, grapefruits, sweet peppers, table grapes, among others. The results confirm a trend already observed in previous cycles — one that should prompt serious reflection across the entire agri-food sector.

Of the total samples analyzed under the EU MACP, 56.9% contained quantifiable residues, a 15% increase compared to 2021, when the figure stood at 41.9%. But the most significant finding concerns multiple residues: 34.9% of samples from the coordinated programme contained more than one quantified pesticide, compared to 27% recorded in 2021. This represents an increase of nearly 8 percentage points in a single three-year cycle. The crops with the highest frequency of multiple residues were table grapes, with 78% of samples affected, grapefruits at 73.5%, and bananas at 66.1%.

The most extreme case was a sweet pepper sample of Turkish origin in which 17 different pesticides were quantified. Although all active substances were below their respective Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs), they were all simultaneously present in a single product.

Within the scope of national monitoring programmes (MANCP), oranges, strawberries and apples are also ranked among the foods with the highest frequency of multiple active substance residues.

These figures are not statistical abstractions. They illustrate that the problem does not lie in the use of any single pesticide, but in the accumulation of substances on a single food item. The trend is upward and consistent through the latest monitoring cycles.

Legal limits are increasingly exceeded in key crops

The MRL is the maximum concentration level of a pesticide residue legally permitted in a food product, established under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and based on good agricultural practices. Health-based guidance values (HBGVs), including the acute reference dose (ARfD) and acceptable daily intake (ADI), are used to assess whether detected levels pose a real risk to consumers.

LMR exceedance rate in 2018

0 %

MRL exceedance rate in 2024

0 %

Beyond the issue of multiple pesticide residues, the EFSA report reveals a finding that creates a technical and commercial urgency that is hard to ignore: the overall MRL exceedance rate in the coordinated programme has risen from 1.4% in 2018 to 2.1% in 2021 and 2.4% in 2024.

When the data is broken down by individual products, the negative trend becomes more apparent. The majority of monitored horticultural and fruit crops show MRL exceedance rates higher than in 2018, with sweet peppers and table grapes leading the sharpest increases. Only melons and bananas show slightly lower rates, although melons rebounded in 2024 compared to 2021.

Product

MRL exceedance
2018

MRL exceedance
2021

MRL exceedance
2024

Change 2018-2024

Sweet pepper

2.4%

3.4%

4.7%

↑ +2.3 pp

Table grapes

2.6%

2.1%

4.3%

↑ +1.7 pp

Melon

2.2%

1.3%

1.8%

↓ −0.4 pp vs 2018

Aubergine

1.6%

2.1%

2.2%

↑ +0.6 pp

Broccoli

1.7%

2.2%

↑ +0.2 pp

Bananas

1.7%

2.3%

1.6%

↓ −0.1 pp vs 2018

Evolution of MRL exceedance rates in selected crops (2018-2024) – EU MACP data

These sustained increases across three consecutive monitoring cycles point to a production model that, at least for certain crops, is not improving in terms of residue management. The issue is not merely regulatory — it is agronomic. And it should form part of the strategic reflection of every stakeholder: consumers, growers and marketers operating in the European market.

The Farm to Fork Strategy, embedded within the European Green Deal, set a target of reducing chemical pesticide use by 50% by 2030. The Regulation on the Sustainable Use of Plant Protection Products (SUR) seeks to reinforce this commitment through mandatory Integrated Pest Management practices and the promotion of biological alternatives to chemical pesticides. In this context, the EFSA report’s findings do not merely describe a negative situation; they also foreshadow conditions that will transform intensive production and, moreover, access to European markets.

Imports: an asymmetry that raises concern

One of the report’s most significant findings relates to the gap between food produced within the European Union and food from third countries. Of the 86,449 samples analyzed under national programmes (MANCP), 21% corresponded to products imported from outside the EU. The non-compliance rate for these third-country products reached 5.2%, compared to 1% for food produced within the European market. This represents a fivefold difference between the two origins; a gap that has widened compared to the previous year, when the non-compliance rate for imports was 3.4%.

The reinforced import control programme processed 39,433 samples in 2024, a 39% increase compared to 2023, clearly demonstrating an intensification of border surveillance.

For growers and distributors operating outside the European Union who market or aspire to market within the EU, these figures have direct implications. Analytical pressure on imports is increasing, and accessing the European market will become progressively harder.

Anticipating an increasingly demanding market, where low-residue or zero-residue profiles can make a competitive difference, is essential for agricultural producers: not only are analytical residue controls gaining prominence, but the level of scrutiny from distribution chains and consumer perception is also shifting. Having crop protection tools that generate no residues is not just a technical advantage; it is an increasingly necessary condition for competing.

What is legal is not always enough: the cocktail effect

Más allá de los datos de conformidad y superación de LMR, existe una cuestión de fondo que el informe de la EFSA vuelve a poner de manifiesto de forma indirecta: el marco regulatorio europeo evalúa cada residuo de pesticida de manera individual. La legislación vigente considera que una muestra cumple la normativa siempre y cuando cada residuo individual no supere su LMR correspondiente. Sin embargo, la ciencia sobre el efecto combinado de múltiples residuos, conocido como efecto cóctel, sigue avanzando.

The cocktail effect refers to the potential impact of simultaneous exposure to multiple pesticide residues present in a single food item, whose combined interaction could produce harmful health effects that are different from — and according to recent studies, even greater than — those of each substance assessed individually.

Organizations such as Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe) have been raising the alarm about this gap for years. Their recent report on pesticide cocktails in European apples concluded that 85% of samples contained multiple residues and that 64% contained at least one pesticide classified as a PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance). Regulation (EC) 396/2005 itself has envisaged for two decades that EFSA should develop a methodology to assess the risk of combined exposure. Yet that methodology has still not been implemented.

Chronic inflammation

Gut microbiota alterations linked to obesity and type 2 diabetes

(Giambò et al., 2021; Djekkoun et al., 2021)

Factor

0 x

Azole fungicides may enhance the toxic effects of other pesticides by disrupting detoxification enzyme activity.

(Cedergreen, 2014; Gottardi & Cedergreen, 2019)

Effects on children’s health

Prenatal exposure to chemical mixtures has been linked to poorer fine motor development in children.

(Brennan Kearns et al., 2024)

The takeaway is clear: meeting the MRL for each individual substance is a necessary condition, but not necessarily sufficient to guarantee the safety perceived by consumers or to stay ahead of a regulatory framework that will become more demanding. Producing with the fewest possible active substances, or better still, with natural tools that generate no residues, is no longer an ideological choice but a risk management strategy.

Protection without residues, access without barriers

T34 Biocontrol® is listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 396/2005: it requires no MRL because it leaves no residues in the food. Discover the biofungicide that simplifies your access to the most demanding markets.

Descubre por qué T34 Biocontrol® está exento de residuos

PFAS and TFA: a connection that reinforces the need for biological alternatives in crop disease control

The EFSA report also addresses an issue directly connected to the problem of PFAS contamination in agriculture, a topic we explored in depth in a previous blog article.

Trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) is a degradation product of pesticides containing fluorine in their molecular structure. The report highlights that virtually no European laboratory analyzed TFA in 2024 samples, despite it being a persistent, mobile and potentially toxic compound.

EFSA explicitly recommends that countries incorporate TFA into their analytical scope and submit results to the European monitoring system. Furthermore, the European Commission has commissioned a proficiency test (EUPT) for European reference laboratories to assess their analytical capacity for this substance. This regulatory move indicates that the net around PFAS pesticides will tighten in upcoming monitoring cycles.

For the agricultural sector, the message is clear: crop protection tools whose degradation generates persistent substances are entering increasingly demanding regulatory territory.

The pesticides that don't disappear

Some plant protection products leave traces that neither soil nor water can eliminate. Discover what PFAS are, how they reach agriculture, and what alternatives exist.

Read our analysis on PFAS pesticides in agriculture

La pregunta que todo el sector agrícola y alimentario debería hacerse

What EFSA documents year after year is a snapshot of the current production system. The data does not lie; multiple residues are increasing, MRL exceedance rates are growing in key crops, imports from third countries show non-compliance levels five times higher than European products, and scrutiny of PFAS substances is intensifying. The question growers should be asking is not just “Am I meeting the limits?” but “Am I building the agriculture I want for the next ten years?”

At Biocontrol Technologies, we share the conviction that moving towards safer, more resilient and more competitive production means integrating biological tools into crop protection strategies. T34 Biocontrol®, our biological fungicide based on Trichoderma asperellum strain T34, is listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which means it is exempt from residue limits. With phytosanitary registration in over 20 countries and authorization for more than 200 high-value crops, including horticultural, fruit and ornamental crops, T34 Biocontrol® is a tool that protects crops against soil-borne and aerial diseases naturally, without adding residues to the final product.

For companies operating both within and outside the European Union that must comply with European standards, incorporating biological control solutions such as T34 Biocontrol® allows them to replace and/or reduce the use of plant protection products with MRLs and facilitates access to the EU market by eliminating the risk of residue-based non-compliance, an increasingly decisive factor in the international agri-food value chain.

Choosing biological control means choosing the agriculture that consumers, regulators and markets demand. It is not about giving up crop protection, but about selecting the right tools to do it effectively and safely.

7. References

Primary source

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Medina Pastor, P., Carrasco Cabrera, L., Di Piazza, G. y González Ciria, C. (2026). The 2024 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal, 24(5), e10054. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2026.10054

EU legislation and regulatory framework

Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. Official Journal of the European Union, L 70, 1–16. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2005/396/oj/eng

Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/896 of 11 June 2015 amending Annex IV to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as regards maximum residue levels for Trichoderma asperellum strain T34 and other substances. Official Journal of the European Union, L 147, 3–5. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32015R0896

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793 on the temporary increase of official controls and emergency measures governing the entry into the Union of certain goods. Official Journal of the European Union, L 277, 89–129. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32019R1793

Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 governing the placing of plant protection products on the market. Official Journal of the European Union, L 309, 1–50. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2009/1107/oj

EU strategies and policy framework

European Commission. (2020). A Farm to Fork Strategy for a fair, healthy and environmentally friendly food system (COM(2020) 381 final). https://food.ec.europa.eu/horizontal-topics/farm-fork-strategy_en

European Commission. (2022). Proposal for a Regulation on the sustainable use of plant protection products (COM(2022) 305 final). https://food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/sustainable-use-pesticides_en

Reports and technical publications

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2026). National summary reports on pesticide residue analyses performed in 2024. EFSA Supporting Publications, 23(5), EN-10002. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2026.EN-10002

Pesticide Action Network Europe (PAN Europe). (2026). Pesticide cocktails, PFAS and neurotoxins in most European apples. https://www.pan-europe.info/resources/reports/2026/01/pesticide-cocktails-pfas-and-neurotoxins-most-european-apples

Ongoing mandates and assessments

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Chemicals Agency (ECHA). (2025). Mandate on the characterisation of TFA formation from PFAS active substances in plant protection products and biocides (EFSA-Q-2025-00693). https://open.efsa.europa.eu/question/EFSA-Q-2025-00693

Data and reporting tools

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2026). Pesticides report 2024: Data visualisation tool. https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/pesticides-report-2024/

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2026). Appendix B – Annexes II to VIII of the 2024 EU report on pesticide residues [Conjunto de datos]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18327006

Biocontrol Technologies internal sources

Biocontrol Technologies. (2025). The impact of PFAs on Agriculture. Blog Biocontrol Technologies. https://biocontroltechnologies.com/the-impact-of-pfas-on-agriculture/

Biocontrol Technologies. (s.f.). T34 Biocontrol® — Product data sheet. https://biocontroltechnologies.com/t34-biocontrol/

Relevant scientific literature

Djekkoun, N., Lalau, J. D., Bach, V., Depeint, F., & Khorsi-Cauet, H. (2021). Chronic oral exposure to pesticides and their consequences on metabolic regulation: Role of the microbiota. European Journal of Nutrition, 60, 4131–4149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00394-021-02548-6

Giambò, F., Teodoro, M., Costa, C., & Fenga, C. (2021).Toxicology and microbiota: How do pesticides influence gut microbiota? A review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(11), 5510. Toxicology and Microbiota: How Do Pesticides Influence Gut Microbiota? A Review

Brennan Kearns, P., van den Dries, M. A., Julvez, J., Kampouri, M., López-Vicente, M., Maitre, L., Philippat, C., Småstuen Haug, L., Vafeiadi, M., Thomsen, C., Yang, T. C., Vrijheid, M., Tiemeier, H., & Guxens, M. (2024). Association of exposure to mixture of chemicals during pregnancy with cognitive abilities and fine motor function of children. Environment International, 185, Article 108490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2024.108490

Cedergreen, N. (2014). Quantifying synergy: A systematic review of mixture toxicity studies within environmental toxicology. PLOS ONE, 9(5), e96580. Quantifying Synergy: A Systematic Review of Mixture Toxicity Studies within Environmental Toxicology

Gottardi, M., & Cedergreen, N. (2019). The synergistic potential of azole fungicides does not directly correlate to the inhibition of cytochrome P450 activity in aquatic invertebrates. Aquatic Toxicology, 207, 187–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.12.010

If you are a farmer, technician, or distributor:

The time to lead change is now.

At Biocontrol Technologies, we believe that the future of agriculture lies in solutions that respect the environment and ensure the viability of the land. We are committed to agriculture based on knowledge, science, and innovation.

Get in touch with us, discover our biocontrol solutions, and join the movement towards efficient, safe, and climate-responsible agriculture.

Biocontrol Technologies SL will process your personal data to manage your request and send you commercial communications. You may exercise your rights by contacting us at [info@biocontroltechnologies.com] or by consulting our Privacy Policy.