EFSA Releases 2024 Pesticide Residues Report: Numbers, Categories, and What Ukrainian Exporters Should Do

On May 5, 2026, EFSA released its 2024 report: across 125,000+ samples, 98.8% of EU-coordinated samples meet MRLs, 43.1% show no measurable residues, and overall risk is low. Top exceedance categories are sweet peppers (4.7%), table grapes (4.3%), and grapefruit (3.7%).

For Ukrainian companies that supply fruit, vegetables, grain, or oil to the EU, this publication is the year's main pesticide benchmark. The figures feed into the EU MRL review, lists of countries subject to increased import controls, and RASFF notifications over the next 12 months. Instead of abstract "trends," you get concrete categories and concrete percentages against which you can test your own pesticide-management programme.

Below we break down the figures, the high-risk categories, and provide a clear 5-step plan for integrating EFSA data into HACCP, GlobalG.A.P., or FSSC 22000.

EFSA structures the data across three independent monitoring programmes. Each has its own logic, scope, and interpretation — do not mix them up. Combined, the three programmes cover more than 135,000 samples from the EU, Norway, and Iceland, plus third-country shipments at the border.

The key distinction: the EU-coordinated programme (9,842 samples) is the basis for cross-regional benchmarking and MRL review, since the 12 product categories and the active-substance list are synchronised across all member states. National programmes (86,449 samples) provide broader but heterogeneous monitoring that each country shapes around its own risk profile. Increased import controls (39,433 samples) are targeted checks on consignments from third countries with a history of non-compliance — naturally, the share of exceedances here is the highest.

At first glance, 98.8% and 94.5% look close, but the gap between them — 4.3 percentage points — is what matters most for a UA exporter. Import controls are designed around risks already identified at the border: if your product enters the increased-imports list, the number of checks per consignment goes up and tolerance for error drops. In RASFF logic, every new MRL exceedance increases the statistical weight of the country of origin, and a steady run of interceptions can trigger an automatic update of the heightened-control list.

A second important detail: the 43.1% "no measurable residues" in the EU-coordinated programme (versus 58.4% in national programmes) reflects the fact that EU-coordinated screening deliberately focuses on problem categories and active substances. This does not mean EU food is "worse" — it means monitoring is concentrated where risk is highest. For a Ukrainian company, the practical takeaway is to build your own sampling along the same principle: focus pre-export testing not "evenly across all products," but on categories and active substances where EFSA records systemic failures.

The EU-coordinated programme for 2024 covered 12 categories: aubergines, bananas, broccoli, cultivated fungi, grapefruits, melons, sweet peppers, table grapes, virgin olive oil, wheat grain, bovine fat, and chicken eggs. Almost every plant-based item is relevant for UA exporters — from table grapes to wheat grain and sunflower oil (with olive oil acting as a proxy for vegetable oils).

The three categories with the highest share of MRL exceedances in the EU-coordinated dataset are:

These three categories align with historical EFSA reports: sweet peppers, grapes, oranges, strawberries, and apples have stayed on the high-watch list for the past five years. If you export peppers or grapes, the 4-5% exceedance threshold is not "your" benchmark but the EU average; a realistic target for an in-house programme sits in the 1-2% range.

For laboratories accredited to ISO/IEC 17025, the implication is straightforward: the scope of multi-residue methods (LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS) must cover the active substances most frequently detected in the relevant categories. If your lab is limited to 200-300 pesticides while the EU MRL database covers 800+, you will miss part of the exceedances before a CB picks them up at the border.

The EFSA report is not a Ukrainian document, but it directly affects four groups of companies.

Fruit and vegetable exporters. If you supply peppers, grapes, berries, apples, or processed products based on them, benchmark your own MRL results against the 4.3-4.7% reference. Review spray records for the past 24 months and check your plant-protection-product supplier lists against EU MRL updates in the EU database. If your range includes sweet peppers or table grapes, schedule a separate internal review of pre-harvest interval (PHI) and withholding period for every active substance used in the previous season.

Grain and oils. Wheat grain and virgin olive oil were among the 12 categories in the 2024 EU-coordinated screening. Ukrainian grain exporters should revisit their residue-testing scope — particularly for glyphosate, chlormequat, and pirimiphos-methyl, which consistently appear in EU monitoring. Sunflower oil deserves separate attention: formally it was not part of EU-coordinated 2024, but oilseed matrices are tested with the same methodological stack as olive oil, and buyer audits often apply the same LOQ requirements.

Tea, herbs, and imported spices. Increased import controls (39,433 samples, 5.5% exceedances) are the highest-risk cluster. If your company imports raw materials from third countries and re-exports finished goods to the EU, you inherit that risk. The answer is an incoming-inspection scope with a broad multi-residue panel and narrow LOQs for the pesticides most frequently found in herbal and spice raw materials.

Testing laboratories. Food-profile laboratories need to revisit their ISO/IEC 17025 accreditation scope: matrices for the relevant categories (peppers, grapes, grain, olive oil), the list of active substances, and LOQ parameters set to the lowest EU MRL — typically the default value of 0.01 mg/kg. For labs serving UA exporters, updating the scope ahead of the next EU MRL revision is a 12-18 month service window; missing it means losing pre-export testing share to European labs.

EFSA data does not exist in isolation — it feeds the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF) and Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/1793, which defines the list of countries and products subject to increased import controls. The logic is simple: if EFSA monitoring shows systematic MRL exceedances in a specific country-by-category corridor, the European Commission triggers or raises the frequency of mandatory border checks. The list is reviewed regularly and reacts to fresh data from EFSA annual reports — the same dataset published on May 5, 2026.

For Ukraine as a third country, this brings transparency but also exposure. Every intercepted consignment with an MRL exceedance enters RASFF, and several such cases in a row can lead to enhanced monitoring of an entire segment. In 2024, EU border controls recorded 5.5% exceedances — almost twice the 2.4% rate of the EU-coordinated programme. In other words, the risk of being sampled and failing an MRL test at the border is significantly higher than inside the EU market. For producers who have just entered the EU, this is especially sensitive: one or two early failures can lock a product into the enhanced-checks list for a long time.

The practical implication for Ukrainian export logistics: shipment-level testing against EU MRLs should be done before dispatch, not after the consignment is stuck in Rotterdam or Gdansk. Pre-export testing costs (EUR 200-500 per consignment) are ten to twenty times lower than the combined cost of delays and shipment returns — without even counting the reputational damage to the brand and distributor. The current list of active notifications is available at RASFF Window: notification history by category is a useful indicator of where you should expand your own sampling.

EFSA figures are useful only insofar as you can translate them into an internal procedure. Below is the 5-step roadmap we use in management-system implementation projects for the agri sector and food industry.

Step 1. Hazard analysis in HACCP. Pesticide residues are a chemical hazard under Codex Alimentarius and a fundamental requirement of the HACCP standard. Add them to HACCP plans with concrete linkage to each raw material: for peppers — the list of fungicides most often associated with exceedances; for grain — glyphosate and chlormequat; for imported spices — a broad multi-residue scan. Details on how to map chemical hazards onto the seven HACCP principles are covered in our 7 HACCP principles guide.

Step 2. GlobalG.A.P. control points for primary producers. The GlobalG.A.P. standard has a dedicated section on pesticide management: spray records, pre-harvest interval (PHI), tank-mixing rules, withdrawal periods. If you are a primary producer or operate with farmers under tolling arrangements, this is an integral part of the vendor programme. EFSA figures point to the specific categories where control points cannot be relaxed.

Step 3. Supplier verification under FSSC 22000 / ISO 22000. The FSSC 22000 and ISO 22000 standards require a structured supplier-approval procedure. In practice, this means: a certificate of analysis (COA) for every raw-material consignment, an annual vendor audit for high-risk suppliers, and periodic third-party residue testing for cross-verification. Details are in our practical ISO 22000 guide.

Step 4. Laboratory monitoring under ISO/IEC 17025. Whether in-house or outsourced, the accreditation scope must cover:

• Multi-residue methods LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS covering 500+ active substances;
• LOQ ≤ 0.01 mg/kg (the default EU MRL for non-registered substances);
• Relevant matrices: high-moisture vegetables, cereals, oils, spices;
• QuEChERS sample preparation with validation under ISO/IEC 17025.

The export team should run a quarterly lab-scope review against EU MRL database updates.

Step 5. MRL benchmarking and corrective actions. Internal trigger levels should be stricter than EU MRLs. A working scheme:

• MRL × 0.5 = warning level — enhanced monitoring for the next 3 consignments;
• MRL × 0.7 = action level — shipment hold, root-cause analysis;
• MRL × 1.0 = legal violation — internal recall, RCA, supplier review.

Quarterly review of all results, mapping against EFSA categories, and updating the supplier-approval list are mandatory parts of the system. For an annual-format view of how this looks, see our practical audit and compliance guide for 2026.

The usual starting point for this analysis is a diagnostic audit of the pesticide programme — a gap report delivered in 2-3 weeks with a prioritised list of nonconformities. For producers who run contaminant checks in parallel, our GMP+ aflatoxin B1 monitoring protocol for maize is worth a look — the structure is analogous, just on a different chemical hazard.

We support pesticide-management implementation projects for agriculture, food processing, and testing laboratories. Four engagement formats:

• Diagnostic audit — 2-3 weeks, gap report on the pesticide programme: HACCP plan, supplier list, lab scope, treatment records;
• Turnkey implementation — integration of pesticide monitoring into HACCP, GlobalG.A.P., ISO 22000, or FSSC 22000;
• Audit support — preparation for EU border controls and large-retailer buyer audits;
• Annual support — quarterly MRL benchmarking, lab-scope updates, vendor-audit programmes.

For companies entering the EU market for the first time, we recommend starting with a diagnostic audit: in 2-3 weeks, you get a clear answer on where your pesticide programme is weakest against the 4.7% pepper and 4.3% grape EFSA benchmarks.

• EFSA News, "Pesticide residues in food: latest data released" (May 5, 2026) — efsa.europa.eu
• "The 2024 European Union report on pesticide residues in food," EFSA Journal — efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal
• European Commission, MRL database — food.ec.europa.eu/plants/pesticides/maximum-residue-levels_en
• RASFF Window — webgate.ec.europa.eu/rasff-window
• Food Safety Magazine, "Monitoring Data Show EU Food Mostly Compliant with Pesticide Limits" — food-safety.com
• Agriland.ie, "EU food passes pesticide limits despite residues — watchdog" — agriland.ie

Need expert support implementing the changes covered above? Contact the Ekontrol team for a free consultation.