We’re eating the very chemicals that are considered too dangerous to be sprayed here in our farms.
Millions of shoppers in the UK pick up everyday staples, including bread, fruit, vegetables, every week trusting that they are safe to eat.
But recent analysis and studies suggest that many of these products carry multiple pesticide residues whose long-term effects on human health remain poorly understood.
READ: THE DIRTY DOZEN REPORT.
According to a new analysis by Pesticide Action Network UK (PAN UK), three-quarters of fruit and a quarter of vegetables tested by the UK government contain a cocktail of pesticides.
Chemicals
Scientists detected 123 different pesticides on just 17 different types of produce examined. Among them are chemicals linked to cancer, and others known to disrupt human hormones, the systems that shape fertility and healthy development.
Grapes emerged as one of the most contaminated foods, with one single sample containing residues from 16 different pesticides.
Shoppers often hear that chemical residues remain “within safe limits”. Regulators state that staying under MRLs (maximum residue levels) is considered safe.
The rules were designed around single chemicals, assuming that each is unlikely to cause harm if applied correctly - even though we rarely just eat one.
Many scientists and campaigners argue that this system does not account for combined effects of multiple toxic chemicals consumed over the years, or even decades.
Cocktail
Nick Mole, who led the analysis for PAN UK, warns that this blind spot in regulation leaves us dangerously exposed.
“Safety limits are set for one pesticide at a time, completely ignoring the fact that it’s all too common for food to contain multiple chemicals.
"The truth is we know very little about how these chemicals interact with each other, or what this exposure to hundreds of different pesticides is doing to our health in the long term.
“We do know that pesticides can become more toxic when combined, a phenomenon known as ‘the cocktail effect’."
He concluded: "Given how high the stakes are, the government should be doing everything it can to get pesticides out of our food.”
Toxin
A new 'dirty dozen' list reveals the produce most likely to carry multiple chemicals. Grapefruit comes first, followed by grapes and limes. Each of them appears regularly in supermarket promotions celebrating freshness and wellness – yet behind the marketing, contamination is widespread.
PAN UK looked at the test results to figure out which Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) showed up the most in our fruit and vegetables.
We’re eating the very chemicals that are considered too dangerous to be sprayed here in our farms.
Two fungicides topped the list: imazalil and thiabendazole. They were found in about nine per cent of samples, mostly on fruits like bananas, grapefruit and melons.
They’re used to stop mould from growing during storage and transport, but there are serious worries about their safety. Both are suspected of disrupting hormones and may even be linked to cancer.
Even the food we rely on more than any other, our daily bread, is affected. The government’s tests found that almost every loaf contained chlormequat, a developmental toxin that scientists warn may harm our babies and children.
Farms
More than one in four bread samples contained glyphosate, the UK’s most used herbicide, repeatedly associated with cancers and other chronic diseases.
Almost half the bread tested contained multiple chemicals. Even the nation’s toast has become a source of chemical exposure.
While regulatory bodies argue that exposure levels detected in bread are well below thresholds considered dangerous, the absence of comprehensive studies on mixture toxicity means uncertainty remains.
Low-dose, chronic exposure over decades, essentially a lifetime of daily consumption, has not been studied thoroughly.
A particularly troubling detail hides deeper in the data: nearly one-third of pesticides detected aren’t approved to be used on British farms.
Trading
Crops grown overseas using chemicals banned in the UK can still be imported and sold on British shelves. The government’s own advisory bodies have warned that this unfairly hurts local farmers who work under stricter rules and, far worse, exposes consumers to risks regulators have already acknowledged are too great.
We’re eating the very chemicals that are considered too dangerous to be sprayed here in our farms.
Britain risks importing produce containing high levels of pesticides, including Highly Hazardous Pesticides (HHPs) already banned in the country. For instance, Brazil is the largest consumer of pesticides in the world, and half of them are HHPs.
Still, British trade minister, Sir Chris Bryant, who describes himself a “passionate Latinophile”, said to Politico that the UK-Mercosur (South American trading bloc including Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Bolivia) agreement is a ‘no brainer’.
Bryant commented: “I’ve had very positive conversations in Argentina and with Brazil, but I haven’t had any conversations with Uruguay and Paraguay yet.”
Arable
PAN UK is calling on the British Government to rethink its new pesticide-reduction strategy, which now only covers crops like grains.
It argues that fruit and vegetables - the foods we and our children eat the most of, and where chemical residues are often highest - must be included if the plan is going to truly protect people and the environment.
The organisation is also calling for support to help farmers transition to safer methods, and for phasing out and banning HHPs known to harm human health.
Mole emphasises that the current system can’t realistically shield us from exposure.
He said: “Pesticides appear in millions of different combinations and varying concentrations in our food so it’s simply impossible to design a system sophisticated enough to protect us from these chemical cocktails. The only way forward is to cut our overall pesticide use significantly.
“This year, the government introduced a target to reduce pesticides in the arable sector. But this latest testing data reveals that – for the sake of our health – we urgently need to expand the target to also cover fruit and vegetables.”
Radical
This isn’t a distant environmental concern; it’s a public health issue on our plates.
Most families don’t have the luxury of filling their baskets with organic alternatives. Parents shouldn’t have to scrutinise spreadsheets of chemical substances when doing their weekly shop.
And farmers often say they don’t really have a choice - the system pushes them to use chemicals, while also making it harder for them to earn a fair living and stay competitive.
Food should nourish, not damage our bodies. Wanting food that doesn’t come with a side-order of chemicals shouldn’t be seen as radical, it’s a basic expectation that what we feed our families won’t harm them, and that the people growing it aren’t put at risk either.
This Author
Monica Piccinini is a regular contributor to The Ecologist and a freelance writer focused on environmental, health and human rights issues.
