Scientific Report: Occurrence of Residues of Fipronil and Other Acaricides in Chicken Eggs and Poultry Muscle/fat

SCIENTIFIC REPORT
APPROVED: 18 April 2018

doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5164
Occurrence of residues of fipronil and other acaricides in

chicken eggs and poultry muscle/fat
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
Hermine Reich and Giuseppe Antonio Triacchini
Abstract
Following the detection of fipronil residues in eggs resulting from a misuse of non-approved veterinary
medicinal products in poultry farms against red mites, an ad-hoc monitoring programme was set up in
the EU. Member States have provided results for 5,439 samples of eggs and chicken muscle/fat which
were analysed for fipronil and a number of additional active substances which were proposed by the
European Commission to be monitored in view of potential misuse in poultry farms against red mites.
The report summarises the data sampled during the period 1 September 2017 to 30 November 2017
and reported to EFSA. It provides an overview on the results with regard to frequency of occurrence
and compliance with the legal limits. The results are presented by country of origin, by type of food
product, and by the active substances analysed.
© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
Keywords: fipronil, chicken eggs, poultry, acaricides, monitoring data, compliance with legal limit
Requestor: European Commission

Question number: EFSA-Q-2017-00350
Correspondence: data.admin@efsa.europa.eu
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Occurrence of residues of fipronil and other acaricides in chicken eggs and poultry muscle/fat
Acknowledgements: EFSA acknowledges the Reporting Authorities of all the EU Member States and
Iceland that contributed to the fipronil ad hoc data collection.
Suggested citation: EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), Reich H and Triacchini GA, 2018.
Scientific report on the occurrence of residues of fipronil and other acaricides in chicken eggs and
poultry muscle/fat. EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164, 30 pp. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5164
ISSN: 1831-4732
© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf
of European Food Safety Authority.
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License,
which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no
modifications or adaptations are made.
The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

Safety Authority, an agency of the European Union.
www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Summary
As a consequence of the identified misuse of fipronil in chicken farms, Member States and the
European Commission agreed in the PAFF Committee (European Commission Standing Committee on
Plants, Animals, Food and Feed) meeting held on 30 August 2017 in Brussels to organise a specific
monitoring programme.
The European Commission requested the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for technical
assistance in the framework of Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to set up the ad-hoc data
collection and to summarise the results of the ad-hoc monitoring programme in a scientific report.
The major purpose of the ad-hoc monitoring programme was to get a comprehensive view on the
contamination of eggs and poultry products related to illegal uses of acaricides. Member States were
requested to take samples of chicken eggs, chicken fat and muscle between 1 September and
30 November 2017, to analyse them for fipronil and additional acaricides and to report the results to EFSA.
The information provided by Member States and Iceland was analysed as requested by the
European Commission with regard to the number and percentage of samples with residues below/at or
above the Limit of Quantification (LOQ) and the number and percentage of samples with residues
below or at the European Union Maximum Residue Level (EU MRL)/above the EU MRL.
Overall, results for 5,439 samples were submitted to EFSA from the sampling period 1 September
2017 to 30 November 2017, covering in total 53,655 individual determinations. Among these samples,
742 samples contained residues exceeding the legal limit (i.e. above the MRL). MRL exceedances were
almost exclusively related to fipronil and were associated with unprocessed chicken eggs (601
samples), fat of laying hens (134 samples), muscle of laying hens (5 samples) as well as dried egg
powder (2 samples).
Samples that exceeded the legal limit originated from the Netherlands (664 samples), Italy (40
samples), Germany (13 samples), Poland (11 samples), Hungary (6 samples), France (5 samples),
Slovenia (2 samples) and Greece (1 sample).
Among the 66 substances that were recommended to be analysed in the framework of the ad-hoc
monitoring programme, the only substances found in quantifiable concentrations were fipronil (915
determinations) and amitraz (2 determinations).
The sampling strategy applied had a major influence on the MRL exceedances.

Table of contents
Abstract................................................................................................................................................... 1
Summary................................................................................................................................................. 3
1. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 5
1.1. Background (provided by the requestor) .......................................................................................... 5
1.2. Terms of Reference (provided by the requestor) ............................................................................... 5
1.3. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference.......................................................................................... 6
2. Data and methodologies ................................................................................................................. 6
2.1. Data.............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.2. Methodologies................................................................................................................................ 13
2.2.1. Colour codes in the figures.............................................................................................................. 13
3. Results .......................................................................................................................................... 13
3.1. Results by food product .................................................................................................................. 13
3.1.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by food product.................................................... 13
3.1.2. Residues below or at and residues above the MRL by food product.................................................... 15
3.2. Results by sample origin ................................................................................................................. 16
3.2.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by country of origin .............................................. 17
3.2.2. Residues below or at the MRL and residues above the MRL by country of origin ................................. 19
3.3. Results by pesticide ........................................................................................................................ 22
3.3.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by pesticide.......................................................... 22
3.3.2. Residues below or at and residues above the MRL by pesticide.......................................................... 24
4. Conclusions.................................................................................................................................... 25
References............................................................................................................................................... 26
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................................... 26
Appendix A – Scope of the ad-hoc monitoring programme .......................................................................... 27
Appendix B – MRLs for fipronil residues in unprocessed and processed products ........................................... 30

1. Introduction
1.1. Background (provided by the requestor)
On 20 July 2017, Belgium informed the European Commission on the identification of eggs
contaminated with fipronil. Since then, in many European Union (EU) countries and also in certain
Third Countries a similar contamination of eggs was identified.
Fipronil is an acaricide, which is not classified as an ‘allowed substance’ for use as a veterinary
medicinal product on food-producing animals. Fipronil is authorised as an active substance (insecticide)
in plant protection products according to Regulation (EC) No 1107/20091; however, residues of fipronil
are not expected in eggs and poultry muscle/fat due to the fact that the authorisations exist only in a
limited number of crops. Furthermore, there is no biocidal product containing fipronil, which is allowed
for use against red mites in poultry stables in any EU Member State.
The fipronil contamination thus results from the illegal use of fipronil on laying hens and their farms.
In order to get a comprehensive view on the contamination of eggs and poultry muscle/fat due to
possible illegal uses of acaricides, an ad-hoc data collection by the EU Member States was agreed in
the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed (SC PAFF) Section Novel Food and
Toxicological Safety of the Food Chain of 30 August 2017. Residues of fipronil and other acaricides, for
which misuse could be expected, shall be monitored in order to get a comprehensive view on the
contamination of eggs and poultry muscle/fat due to illegal use of acaricides. The Member States
agreed to focus the data collection on domestically produced fresh products, in order to facilitate the
follow up in case of the identification of non-compliances. The Commission in collaboration with the
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) circulated the scope and reporting requirements of this data
collection to the Member States in the document ‘Ad hoc data collection as a follow up to the identified
illegal use of fipronil in poultry farms’.
For fipronil and most substances within the scope of the monitoring exercise, maximum residue
levels (MRLs) are established under Regulation (EC) No 396/20052 on maximum residue levels of
pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. Therefore the compliance or non-
compliance of the residues of these substances in eggs and poultry muscle/fat needs to be evaluated
according to the residue definitions and MRLs laid down in this legislation.
1.2. Terms of Reference (provided by the requestor)

EFSA is requested to perform the following tasks:
1) Identifying/liaising with the single national data providers in the national organisations;
2) Preparing technical documents/guidelines for the Standard Sample Description (SSD) coding
of the fipronil and other substances residues results;
3) To set-up and run the data collection using the EFSA Data collection framework (DCF);
4) To provide support to the national data providers during the data collection;
5) To prepare a scientific report, which summarises for the samples taken between 1
September 2017 and 30 November 2017 the main findings in terms of
a) number and percentage of samples with residues below, at or above the Limit of
Quantification (LOQ) and
b) residues below, at or above the EU Maximum Residue level (MRL) set in Regulation (EC)
No 396/2005.
The above summary statistics (point 5.a and 5.b) should be performed by food item, by substance
and by country of origin of the samples tested. The deadline for the publication of the scientific report
was agreed to be 31 January 2018.
No Member State consultation is required on the scientific report as it will be a summary of
occurrence data.
1
Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 concerning the placing of
plant protection products on the market and repealing Council Directives 79/117/EEC and 91/414/EEC. OJ L 309, 24.11.2009,
p. 1–50.
2
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the 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 and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC. OJ L 70, 16.3.2005,
p. 1–16.

The European Commission should be provided with an Excel table containing per commodity/
substance combination the percentage of samples with residues below the LOQ, the percentage of
samples with residues between the LOQ and the MRLs, the percentage of samples with residues above
the MRL and the minimum and maximum reported LOQ. A table should be provided for the samples
taken between 1 January 2017 and 31 August 2017 and another table for the samples taken between
1 September 2017 and 30 November 2017.
1.3. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

In order to address bullet points 1–4 of the Terms of Reference, EFSA has set up the ad-hoc data
collection inviting the competent national authorities to share their data via the EFSA DCF. A guidance
document specifically focussing on the types of samples and active substances covered by the specific
monitoring programme was prepared to ensure high data quality with regard to consistent coding of the
data which is a prerequisite to perform meaningful data analysis. During the data submission phase,
EFSA provided support to the data providers. Details on these activities however are not subject of this
report.
The current report was prepared to address point 5.a and 5.b of the Terms of Reference,
summarising the results of the specific monitoring programme established as a consequence of the
recent findings of fipronil residues in chicken eggs resulting from illegal use of this acaricide.
Upon request of some Member States, the data collection was kept open until end of December
2017. In the current report, all results submitted until the 23 December 2017 were considered.
In the course of the detailed data analysis, it was noted that for a substantial number of samples the
conventions on coding of the data were not fully respected.3 Since these mistakes would have an
influence on the validity of the data analysis, in agreement with the European Commission, EFSA
contacted the reporting countries, asking for the correction of the data. On 26 March 2018 the last
corrections have been submitted to EFSA.
When performing the data exploration, it became evident that Member States took different
approaches for selecting samples; while some countries applied a risk based approach, focussing on
producers that were under suspicion of misuse of fipronil, other countries selected random samples,
without targeting products/producers that were expected to have violated legal provisions as regards
the use of certain substances in animal production. Hence, without taking into account the sampling
strategy, a comparison of the results provided by the different Member States would be misleading,
since the sampling strategy is a parameter that has a major impact on the findings as regards MRL
exceedance rate. EFSA therefore decided to include the sampling strategy as an additional parameter
in the data analysis and to present the results separately for samples taken by random sampling and
for suspect/targeted samples.
Taking into account the delays resulting from corrections of wrongly coded data and the additional
data analysis, it was agreed with the European Commission to extend the deadline until 20 April 2018.
2. Data and methodologies

2.1. Data
Since the major purpose of the ad-hoc monitoring programme was to get a comprehensive view on
the contamination of eggs and poultry products related to illegal uses of acaricides in chicken farms,
the programme should focus on eggs, muscle and fat derived from laying hens. However, it was
agreed with the European Commission that data on chicken broilers could be submitted as well. The
complete list of food products covered by the specific monitoring programme is summarised in Table 1.
The table also comprises the codes that should be used to describe the samples in the SSD format
(EFSA, 2015, 2016, 2017).
3
In a number of cases, Member States did not code the results with the appropriate parameter code for the legal residue
definitions for fipronil or amitraz, but used a sub-code that was created to report individual components of the legal residue
definitions. Without re-coding of these data by EFSA, the information would have been excluded from the data analysis,
biasing the results. In addition, comparing the information provided via the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed, it was noted
that in certain cases the sample origin was not reported correctly. The data provider confirmed that the recoding of the
information was appropriate. Moreover, the sample strategy was not reported correctly for a number of samples; hence these
errors were also corrected.

Table 1: Food products to be analysed under the ad-hoc monitoring programme

Description of the Details on the Code describing the Description of type
MATRIX code
product product analysed type of processing of processing
P1030010A Eggs (chicken) Whole egg or whole T999A Fresh/unprocessed
egg liquid T998A Frozen
T151A Pasteurised
P1030010.1A Eggs yolk (chicken) Liquid egg yolk T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
T151A Pasteurised
P1030010.2A Eggs white (chicken) Liquid egg white T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
T151A Pasteurised
P1030010A Eggs (chicken) Whole egg powder T131A Dehydrated
P1030010.1A Eggs yolk (chicken) Egg yolk powder T131A Dehydrated
P1030010.2A Eggs white (chicken) Egg white powder T131A Dehydrated
P1016010_002.1B Muscle (poultry) Chicken (laying hens) T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
P1016010_002.2B Muscle (poultry) Chicken (broilers)(a) T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
P1016020_002.1A Fat (poultry) Chicken (laying hens) T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
P1016020_002.2A Fat (poultry) Chicken (broilers)(a) T999A Fresh/unprocessed
T998A Frozen
(a): Supplementary results.
Under the specific monitoring programme, primarily fipronil and its related metabolites should be
investigated, but eleven additional acaricides were included in the scope of the monitoring programme
to ensure a comprehensive approach, i.e. amitraz, bifenthrin, cypermethrin, diazinon, etoxazole,
flufenoxuron, ivermectin, pyridaben, pyriproxyfen, thiamethoxam and trichlorfon. The respective
residue definitions and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the target substances established under
Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 and Regulation (EU) No 37/20104 are listed in Appendix A.1.
An extended list of an additional 54 substances was suggested by the European Commission to be
taken into account for possible inclusion in the analytical methods used to analyse the samples
(voluntary substances, see Appendix A.2). Member States were asked to submit results also for these
active substances as far as analysed.
The sampling period was restricted to the time period from 1 September 2017 to 30 November
2017 (sampling window)5; all data submitted to EFSA until 23 December 2017 were taken into account
in this report.
Member States were asked to take a sufficient number of samples to get a representative view on
the situation as regards the chicken farms. A minimum number of samples per Member State and/or
food product was not defined.
Competent authorities of 25 Member States and Iceland submitted monitoring data on samples
analysed under the specific monitoring programme to EFSA. Malta, Lithuania6 and Sweden7 did not
provide any data.
4
Commission Regulation (EU) No 37/2010 of 22 December 2009 on pharmacologically active substances and their classification
regarding maximum residue limits in foodstuffs of animal origin. OJ L 15, 20.1.2010, p. 1–72.
5
The assessment of samples taken earlier in 2017 was not within the remit of the current report. (Results for 2,910 samples were
submitted to EFSA related to the sampling period 1 January 2017 to 31 August 2017, covering in total 13,363 individual
determinations. Among these samples, 123 samples contained residues exceeding the MRL; these exceedances were exclusively
related to fipronil). This information was shared with the European Commission (see ToR) and will be reported in the framework
of the annual report on pesticide residues prepared under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.
6
Lithuania provided results for 19 samples, which were taken in August 2017, but no data were reported for samples taken
between 1 September and 30 November 2017. The results of the samples taken in August 2017 are not presented in this report.
7
Sweden informed EFSA that about 80 samples of Swedish produced fresh eggs were analysed within the national control
programme of 2017, with no findings of fipronil. The results will be reported in the framework of the data submission under
Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.

Overall, the reporting countries submitted valid results for 5,439 samples: 2,540 of these samples were
classified by the reporting countries as suspect samples or samples that were targeted towards products/
producers where a violation of the legal limits was presumed. The remaining 2,899 samples were taken
randomly without specific targeting towards products that would be likely to be non-compliant.
Only a small amount of the samples was related to production according to the principles of organic
farming (374 of the 5,439 samples, 6.9%); the remaining samples were related to conventional
production.
Figure 1 summarises the number of samples taken by Member States in the framework of the
specific monitoring programme. Figure 2 provides the breakdown of random versus suspect/targeted
samples by Member State. From this presentation, it is evident that Member States reported different
sampling strategies. However, the results are not directly comparable between Member States and
between sampling strategy because no specific criteria were defined concerning the sampling strategy.
Number of samples by reporting country

Czech Republic; 15
Finland; 27 Estonia; 22 Iceland; 10
Ireland; 35 Cyprus; 23 Luxembourg; 7
Portugal; 40
Greece; 53 Croatia; 25 Latvia; 4
Slovenia; 57
Austria; 59
United Kingdom; 67
Denmark; 80
Spain; 92
Slovakia; 147
Belgium; 166 Netherlands; 2,111
Hungary; 196
Bulgaria; 253
Germany; 258
Romania; 283
France; 357
Poland; 374 Italy; 678
Figure 1: Number of samples analysed by Member States and Iceland

Sampling strategy: proporon of the overall samples: suspect vs random samples

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Austria (0/59) 100%

Belgium (0/166) 100%
Bulgaria (253/0) 100%
Croatia (0/25) 100%
Cyprus (23/0) 100%
Czech Republic (0/15) 100%
Denmark (80/0) 100%
Estonia (22/0) 100%
Finland (0/27) 100%
France (67/290) 19% 81%
Germany (92/166) 36% 64%
Reporting country *)
Greece (53/0) 100%

Hungary (196/0) 100%
Iceland (0/10) 100%
Ireland (0/35) 100%
Italy (21/657) 3% 97%
Latvia (4/0) 100%
Luxembourg (7/0) 100%
Netherlands (1,106/1,005) 52% 48%
Poland (20/354) 5% 95%
Portugal (40/0) 100%
Romania (283/0) 100%
Slovakia (147/0) 100%
Slovenia (57/0) 100%
Spain (2/90) 2% 98%
United Kingdom (67/0) 100%
*) The numbers in brackets refer to the number % samples taken as suspect samples
of samples taken as suspect samples (ST20A and
ST30A)/random samples (ST10A). % samples taken by random sampling
Figure 2: Proportion of the overall samples that were reported as suspect vs random samples per
country
In most cases, the reporting countries analysed samples that were produced within their own
territory. However, nine samples produced in third countries and 350 products produced in one EU
Member State but analysed by another Member State were reported. Figure 3 provides the information
on the number of samples analysed, broken down by country of origin.

Number of samples by country of origin

Latvia; 19 Iceland; 10
Estonia; 22 Luxembourg; 7
Cyprus; 23 Ukraine; 6
Croatia; 25 Lithuania; 2
Finland; 27 Unknown origin; 1
Slovakia; 30 United States; 1
Ireland; 35
Brazil; 1
Portugal; 40
Czech Republic; 52
Greece; 53
Slovenia; 57
Austria; 62
United Kingdom; 68
Denmark; 85 Netherlands; 2,001
Spain; 100
Hungary; 188
Belgium; 217
Romania; 233
Bulgaria; 260
Germany; 293
France; 360
Italy; 659
Poland; 502
Figure 3: Number of samples by country of origin of the samples analysed

To get a better understanding of the type of products analysed, Figure 4 gives a breakdown of the
number of samples by food product. The majority of the samples analysed were chicken eggs and egg
products (76.7% of the samples), followed by muscle of laying hens (9.6%) and fat of laying hens
(6.0%). The specific monitoring programme was primarily targeted towards products from laying hens
and not from broiler chickens; thus, the results for muscle and fat of broilers, which accounted for
7.2% and 0.5% of the total number of samples analysed, are considered as supplementary
information only.

Number of samples analysed by product type

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Unprocessed 4,032
Eggs (chicken)
Pasteurisation 55
Freezing 4
Dehydration 28
Unprocessed 1
Eggs white
(chicken)
Pasteurisation 4
Product types
Dehydration 9
Unprocessed 14
Eggs yolk
(chicken)
Pasteurisation 17
Dehydration 7
Muscle Fat (laying (broi-
hens) lers)
Fat
Unprocessed 28
Unprocessed 328
Freezing 1
(broilers)
Unprocessed 373
Freezing 16
Unprocessed 495
Muscle
(laying
hens)
Freezing 27
Figure 4: Number of samples by product category

Overall, 53,655 individual results (analytical measurements) for the 66 different substances listed in
Appendix A.1 and A.2 that were subject of this specific monitoring programme were provided.
In addition, 15.964 additional results on individual metabolites were reported as far as they could
be quantified separately, e.g. fipronil sulfone. However, the current mandate did not require a specific
analysis of the pattern of metabolites in the samples taken under this ad-hoc monitoring programme
and therefore these results are not included in this report.
Almost all samples were analysed for fipronil residues (5,351 out of 5,439 samples). A high number of
samples was analysed for amitraz residues (2,206 samples), cypermethrin (2,182 samples), diazinon
(2,169 samples), bifenthrin (2,124 samples), thiamethoxam (2,089 samples), pyriproxyfen (1,962
samples), pyridaben (1,893 samples), flufenoxuron (1,856 samples), trichlorfon (1,820 samples),
etoxazole (1,764 samples) and ivermectin (1,345 samples). For the additional substances recommended
for analysis (Appendix A.2), the available database is less robust: with the exception of carbaryl, for all of
these substances less than 1,000 results are available (Figure 5).
The number of substances analysed by the different reporting countries differed considerably
(analytical scope): while some reporting countries focussed exclusively on fipronil (e.g. Bulgaria, Latvia
and the United Kingdom), other Member States covered a wide range of substances (e.g. 58
substances covered by Germany and Hungary); a wide range of substances (equal to or more than 50
substances) was also analysed by Denmark, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Ireland and Portugal.

Number of analysis per substance

0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000
Fipronil (RD) 5,351
Amitraz (RD) 2,206
Cypermethrin 2,182
Diazinon 2,169
Bifenthrin 2,124
Thiamethoxam 2,089
A1
Pyriproxyfen 1,962
Pyridaben 1,893
Flufenoxuron 1,856
Trichlorfon 1,820
Etoxazole 1,764
Ivermectin 1,345
Carbaryl 1,006
Deltamethrin 823
Permethrin 817
Dichlorvos 770
Propoxur 766
Cyfluthrin 742
Triazophos 737
Malathion (RD) 727
Fenvalerate 701
Parathion-methyl (RD) 691
Chlorpyrifos 689
Chlorpyrifos-methyl 684
Methidathion 682
Parathion 635
Substances analysed*), **)
Dimethoate (RD) 629

Azinphos-ethyl 618
Endosulfan (RD) 608
Ethion 605
Abamectin 593
Lufenuron 581
Fenthion (RD) 576
Tetrachlorvinphos 575
Coumaphos 569
Teflubenzuron 558
Chlorobenzilate 541
Bendiocarb 534
Fenpropathrin 527
A2
Azinphos-methyl 526
Bromopropylate 513
Phosphamidon 508
Fenitrothion 482
Tetradifon 478
Sulfotep 457
Etrimfos 451
Azamethiphos 442
Carbofuran (RD) 431
Mevinphos (RD) 416
Moxidectin 415
Diflubenzuron (RD) 409
Doramectin 409
Cyhalothrin 405
Chlorfenapyr 403
Methamidophos 395
Chlorfenson 332
Formothion 331
Emamectin 278
Eprinomectin 242
Hexaflumuron 242
Cyromazine 209
Flumethrin 65
Nicotine 37
Fluazuron 20
Sisapronil 7
Dicyclanil 7
*) Results in accordance with the legal residue definition **) A1: Substances of Appendix A.1.
established for the substance concerned. (RD) after the A2: Substances of Appendix A.2.
name of the substance refers to cases where the legal
residue definition covers not only the parent compound,
but also metabolites.
Figure 5: Number of analytical determinations by substance

2.2. Methodologies
The information provided by Member States and Iceland was analysed as requested in the Terms of
Reference by food product type, by country of origin and by pesticide. The following categories were
used to classify results as ‘residues below, at or above the Limit of Quantification’ and as ‘residues
below, at or above the EU Maximum Residue Level’:
• Residues below the LOQ: samples without any detectable residues and samples with detectable
residues, but all below the LOQ were classified as samples without quantifiable residues.
• Residues at or above the LOQ: samples with residue concentrations for at least one substance
at or above the LOQ were classified as samples with quantifiable residues.
• Residues below or at the MRL: samples without any detectable/quantifiable residues and
samples with detectable/quantifiable residues all below or at the legal limit were described as
samples compliant with the MRL.
• Residues above the MRL: samples with residues for at least one substance above the legal
limit were considered as samples exceeding the MRL. The evaluation of whether a substance
exceeded the MRL was performed by the reporting countries. The measurement uncertainty is
not taken into account when deciding whether a result is exceeding the MRL.8
The MRL exceedance was assessed only for the 58 substances for which legal limits are established
in Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (see Appendix A); it was restricted to unprocessed products and to
fipronil in dehydrated chicken eggs, egg yolk powder and egg white powder.
When data were presented separately for processed and unprocessed products, frozen and
pasteurised products were considered as unprocessed since these processing techniques are not
expected to have an influence on the magnitude or nature of residues compared to unprocessed
products. Egg powder of whole eggs, powder of egg yolk and egg white were classified as processed
products.
Since the sampling strategy was considered to be a major factor having an influence on the
quantification rate of fipronil or the MRL exceedance rate, the results are presented separately for
samples taken randomly and suspect samples, i.e. samples that were targeted towards products/
producers where a violation of the legal limits was presumed.
2.2.1. Colour codes in the figures

The data are mainly presented in figures which provide a better overview of the results. The
following colour codes were used to visualise the type of information:
• Dark blue/dark orange refers to suspect samples;
• Light blue/light orange is used for presenting data on samples taken randomly without
targeting towards suspicious producers/products;
• Dark orange/light orange is used to highlight results which exceeded the MRL or where
residues occurred at or above the LOQ (quantifiable residues);
• Dark blue/light blue is used to describe results within the legal limit or below the LOQ.
3. Results
3.1. Results by food product
3.1.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by food product
As requested in the Terms of Reference, EFSA assessed the frequency of samples with residues
below and residues at or above the LOQ. It is noted that the presence of residues in eggs and poultry
products as such is not giving any indications of illegal practices. In general, residues in animal
8
In order to decide whether a sample exceeds the legal limit the measured residue concentration is compared with the MRL
applicable for a certain substance in or on a food product. In regulatory enforcement practice, the measurement uncertainty is
taken into account to decide whether a sample containing measurable residues is compliant with the legal limit. Thus, even if the
numerical residue concentration measured exceeds the MRL, a sample can be still considered compliant with the legal limit.
Usually, a measurement uncertainty of 50% is used, unless the analysing laboratory provides specific information on the analytical
measurement uncertainty related to the analyte measured. The decision on the MRL compliance is at the discretion of the national
competent authority. Thus, not all results which exceed the MRL numerically triggered follow-up enforcement actions at national
level.

products may occur due to the use of veterinary medicinal products or via carry-over of residues of
pesticides in feed. As long as the residues are within the legal limits, the products are considered as
compliant with the EU food safety standards. However, the presence of certain substances in food,
even if within the legally permitted limits, may give an indication of a possible misuse and should be
taken as an indication to further investigate the source of the substance.
In total, 917 samples of the 5,439 samples taken between 1 September and 30 November 2017
(16.9%) contained residues in concentrations at or above the LOQ. Overall, the quantification was
higher in the subset of suspect samples (736 samples) compared with the samples taken randomly
(181 samples).
Figure 6 visualises the frequency of quantifiable residues in the 2,540 suspect samples for the
different food product types (residues below the LOQ vs residues at or above the LOQ). The highest
frequency of quantifiable residues were identified for unprocessed fat of laying hens (67.4% of the 273
samples analysed), followed by unprocessed chicken eggs (including frozen and pasteurised eggs)
(30.8% of the 1,678 samples), egg powder (dehydrated chicken eggs) (22.2%), unprocessed egg
yolks (17.4%), fat of broilers (11.1%), muscle of broilers (5.4%) and unprocessed muscle of laying
hens (4.3%). No quantifiable residues were identified in samples of unprocessed egg white, egg white
powder and egg yolk powder.
In Figure 6, the number of samples without and with quantifiable residues is reported in brackets
next to the name of the product type. The products with the highest number of samples with residues
at or above the LOQ were unprocessed chicken eggs (517 samples) followed by unprocessed fat of
laying hens (184 samples) and muscle of laying hens (18 samples). For the remaining food products
the number of samples with quantifiable residues was below 10. Among the suspect samples, the
results above the LOQ were related to fipronil residues only.
Quantifiable residues in suspect samples
% of samples analysed without quantifiable/with quantifiable residues

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Unprocessed, eggs (chicken) (1,161/517) 69.2 30.8
Unprocessed, eggs white (chicken) (3/0) 100.0
Unprocessed, eggs yolk (chicken) (19/4) 82.6 17.4
Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (21/6) 77.8 22.2

Product type *)
Dehydrated, eggs white (chicken) (8/0) 100.0
Dehydrated, eggs yolk (chicken) (7/0) 100.0
Unprocessed, fat (laying hens) (89/184) 32.6 67.4
Unprocessed, muscle (laying hens) (402/18) 95.7 4.3
Unprocessed, fat (broilers) (24/3) 88.9 11.1
Unprocessed, muscle (broilers) (70/4) 94.6 5.4
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of the Residues below the LOQ Residues at or above the LOQ
product refer to the number of samples without and with
quantifiable residues per food product type.
Figure 6: Number and percentage of samples with residues below the LOQ and residues at or above
the LOQ by product type – suspect samples only
In Figure 7, the same type of information as in Figure 6 is reported for the 2,899 samples taken as
random samples. Quantifiable residues were only found in unprocessed chicken eggs (7.5%, 180
samples of the total of 2,413 chicken egg samples taken randomly) and fat of laying hens (1.5%, one
sample out of 56 samples analysed). While in two samples of chicken eggs, amitraz was found, all
other cases of quantifiable residues were related to fipronil.

Quantifiable residues in random samples

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Unprocessed, eggs yolk (chicken) (8/0) 100.0
Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (1/0) 100.0

*)
Product type
Unprocessed, fat (broilers) (1/0) 100.0
Unprocessed, muscle (laying hens) (102/0) 100.0
Unprocessed, muscle (broilers) (315/0) 100.0
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of the

Residues below the LOQ Residues at or above the LOQ
product refer to the number of samples without and with
quantifiable residues per food product type.
Figure 7: Number and percentage of samples with residues below the LOQ and residues at or above
the LOQ by product type – samples taken by random sampling
3.1.2. Residues below or at and residues above the MRL by food product
In this section, the results are reported as regards the MRL exceedance based on the evaluation of
the reporting country. Overall, 742 samples of the total 5,439 samples taken (13.6%) contained
residues in concentrations exceeding a legal limit (i.e. 603 samples of chicken eggs, 134 samples of fat
of laying hens and 5 samples of muscle of laying hens). Among the 2,540 suspect samples, 574
contained residues above the legal limit. Considering the 2,899 random samples, 168 contained
residues above the legal limit.
Taking the subset of suspect samples, MRL exceedances were related to fat of laying hens (133
samples, 48.7%), unprocessed chicken eggs (434 samples, 25.9%), whole egg powder (2 samples,
7.4%) as well as muscle of laying hens (5 samples, 1%). No MRL exceedances were noted for
unprocessed egg white, egg yolk, egg white powder, egg yolk powder, fat and muscle of broiler. In
Figure 8, the frequency of MRL exceedances is presented for the different food products analysed.
MRL exceedances are visualised in orange while samples without quantifiable residues or residues
below or at the legal limit are presented in blue.
For samples taken by random sampling, the highest frequency of MRL exceedances was identified
for unprocessed chicken eggs with 6.9% MRL exceedances (167 samples) followed by fat of laying
hens (1.8% of the 56 samples analysed). The results for random samples are presented in Figure 9.
Comparing the results presented in Figures 8 and 9 shows that the frequency of MRL exceedances
was considerably lower in the samples taken randomly, compared with the suspect samples.
All MRL exceedances except one were related to fipronil residues. In one sample of chicken eggs
(random sampling) an MRL exceedance was noted for amitraz residues.

MRL exceedance for suspect samples

% of samples analysed with residues below or at the MRL/above the MRL
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (25/2) 92.6 7.4

*)
Product type
Dehydrated, eggs yolk (chicken) (7/0) 100.0
Unprocessed, muscle (laying hens) (415/5) 98.8 1.0

product refer to the number of samples with residues Residues below or at the MRL Residues above the MRL
below or at the MRL and above the MRL.
Figure 8: Number and percentage of samples with residues below or at the EU MRL and residues
above the EU MRL by product type – suspect samples only
MRL exceedance for random samples

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (1/0) 100.0

*)
Product type
Unprocessed, muscle (laying hens) (102/0) 100.0
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of the Residues below or at the MRL Residues above the MRL
product refer to the number of samples with residues
below or at the MRL and above the MRL.
Figure 9: Number and percentage of samples with residues below or at the EU MRL and residues
above the EU MRL by product type – samples taken by random sampling
3.2. Results by sample origin

This section is dedicated to the analysis of the results by country of origin of the sample. As
reported before, in most cases, the reporting countries analysed samples that were produced within
their own territory. Only nine samples produced in third countries (the United States, Ukraine and
Brazil) and 350 products produced in one EU Member State but analysed by another Member State
were reported.

3.2.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by country of origin
Taking into account all samples (suspect and random samples), quantifiable residues were found in
products produced in 10 countries, i.e. the Netherlands (803 samples), Italy (47 samples), Germany
(30 samples), Poland (14 samples), Hungary (9 samples), France (5 samples), Greece (4 samples),
Slovenia and Belgium (2 samples, respectively) and the Czech Republic (1 sample).
Focussing on suspect samples, the highest number of quantifiable residues was reported in samples
produced in the Netherlands (667 of the 1,111 samples analysed), followed by Italy (13 of the 27
samples analysed), Germany (29 of the 99 samples analysed), Greece (4 of the 53 samples), France (5
of the 68 samples) and Poland (6 of the 114 samples).
Figure 11 shows the results for the random samples, where samples from five countries showed
quantifiable residues (i.e. the Netherlands (136 samples), Italy (34 samples), Poland (8 samples),
Belgium (2 samples) and Germany (1 sample).
Comparing the results of Figures 10 and 11 confirms the previous observation that the sampling
strategy was a factor that had a major impact on the quantification rate.
Quantifiable residues in suspect samples

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Austria (3/0) 100.0

Brazil (1/0) 100.0
Bulgaria (254/0) 100.0
Cyprus (23/0) 100.0
Czech Republic (35/1) 97.2 2.8
Denmark (80/0) 100.0
Estonia (22/0) 100.0
France (63/5) 92.6 7.4
Country of origin *)
Germany (70/29) 70.7 29.3

Greece (49/4) 92.5 7.5
Hungary (179/9) 95.2 4.8
Italy (14/13) 51.9 48.1
Latvia (19/0) 100.0
Lithuania (1/0) 100.0
Luxembourg (7/0) 100.0
Netherlands (444/667) 40.0 60.0
Poland (108/6) 94.7 5.3
Portugal (40/0) 100.0
Romania (230/0) 100.0
Slovakia (30/0) 100.0
Slovenia (55/2) 96.5 3.5
Spain (3/0) 100.0
Ukraine (6/0) 100.0
United Kingdom (67/0) 100.0
United States (1/0) 100.0
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of country
of origin refer to the number of samples with residues
below the LOQ and residues at or above the LOQ. Residues below the LOQ Residues at or above the LOQ
Figure 10: Number and percentage of samples with residues below the LOQ and residues at or
above the LOQ by country of origin – suspect samples

Quantifiable residues in random samples

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Austria (59/0) 100.0
Belgium (215/2) 99.1 0.9
Bulgaria (6/0) 100.0
Croatia (25/0) 100.0
Czech Republic (16/0) 100.0
Denmark (5/0) 100.0

**) EEA (1/0) 100.0
Finland (27/0) 100.0
France (292/0) 100.0
Germany (193/1) 99.5 0.5
Iceland (10/0) 100.0
Ireland (35/0) 100.0
Italy (598/34) 94.6 5.4
Netherlands (754/136) 84.7 15.3
Poland (380/8) 97.9 2.1
Romania (3/0) 100.0
Spain (97/0) 100.0
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of the country

of origin refer to the number of samples with residues Residues below the LOQ Residues at or above the LOQ
below the LOQ and residues at or above the LOQ.
**) Sample reported with a not better specified origin than
the European Economic Area.
Figure 11: Number and percentage of samples with residues below the LOQ and residues at or
above the LOQ by country of origin – samples taken by random sampling
In Figures 12 and 13, the number of samples with quantifiable residues is split by country of origin
and product type. Considering the suspect samples only (Figure 12), quantifiable residues were found
most frequently in samples of chicken eggs (467 samples) produced in the Netherlands, followed by fat
of laying hens (184 samples) also originating from the Netherlands. In addition, samples of eggs and
egg yolk from Germany (25 samples), Italy (13 samples), Hungary (7 samples), Poland (6 samples),
France (5 samples), Slovenia (2 samples), Greece and the Czech Republic (1 sample, respectively) were
found to contain quantifiable residues. Samples of muscle of laying hens produced in the Netherlands
(16 samples) and Hungary (2 samples), as well as muscle of broilers from Germany (4 samples) and fat
of broilers produced in Greece (3 samples) also contained residues in quantifiable amounts.
Among the random samples (Figure 13), quantifiable residues were found in products originating
from the Netherlands (135 samples of chicken eggs and 1 sample of fat of laying hens), Italy (34
samples of chicken eggs), Poland (8 samples of chicken eggs), Belgium (2 samples of chicken eggs)
and Germany (1 sample of chicken eggs).

Samples of chicken eggs, muscle and fat with quantifiable residues,

suspect samples
Number of samples
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Eggs (chicken) 467

NL
Fat (laying hens) 184
Muscle (laying hens) 16
Eggs (chicken) 23
Country of origin/food product
DE
Muscle (broilers) 4
Eggs yolk (chicken) 2
Eggs (chicken) 11
IT
Eggs yolk (chicken) 2
Eggs (chicken) 7
HU

PL
Eggs (chicken) 6
FR
Eggs (chicken) 5
Fat (broilers) 3
GR
Eggs (chicken) 1
SI
Eggs (chicken) 2
CZ
Eggs (chicken) 1
Figure 12: Number of samples with residues at or above the LOQ by country of origin and food
product – suspect samples
Samples of chicken eggs, muscle and fat with quantifiable residues,

random samples
Number of samples
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Eggs (chicken) 135

NL
Fat (laying hens) 1

IT
Eggs (chicken) 34
PL
Eggs (chicken) 8
BE
Eggs (chicken) 2
DE
Eggs (chicken) 1
Figure 13: Number of samples with residues at or above the LOQ by country of origin and food
product – samples taken by random sampling
3.2.2. Residues below or at the MRL and residues above the MRL by country of
origin
Considering all samples (reported as suspect and random samples), MRL exceedances were
reported for products originating from eight Member States, i.e. the Netherlands (664 samples), Italy
(40 samples), Germany (13 samples), Poland (11 samples), Hungary (6 samples), France (5 samples),
Slovenia (2 samples) and Greece (1 sample).

Among the samples reported as suspect/targeted samples, the highest number of MRL
exceedances was reported in samples originating from the Netherlands (532 samples), followed by
Germany (13 samples), Italy (11 samples), Hungary (6 samples), Poland (4 samples), Slovenia (2
samples) and Greece (1 sample) (Figure 14).
MRL exceedance for suspect samples

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0
Austria (3/0) 100.0
Brazil (1/0) 100.0
Bulgaria (254/0) 100.0
Cyprus (23/0) 100.0
Denmark (80/0) 100.0
Estonia (22/0) 100.0
France (63/5) 92.6 7.4

Germany (86/13) 86.9 13.1
Greece (52/1) 98.1 1.9
Hungary (182/6) 96.8 3.2
Italy (16/11) 59.3 40.7
Latvia (19/0) 100.0
Luxembourg (7/0) 100.0
Netherlands (579/532) 52.1 47.9
Poland (110/4) 96.5 3.5
Portugal (40/0) 100.0
Romania (230/0) 100.0
Slovakia (30/0) 100.0
Slovenia (55/2) 96.5 3.5
Spain (3/0) 100.0
Ukraine (6/0) 100.0
United States (1/0) 100.0
*) The numbers in brackets after the name of country

of origin refer to the number of samples with residues
below or at the MRL and residues above the MRL. Residues below or at the MRL Residues above the MRL
Figure 14: Number and percentage of samples with residues below or at the EU MRL and above the
EU MRL by country of origin – suspect samples only
In Figure 15, the MRL exceedances for random samples are reported. While in random samples
produced in three countries MRL exceedances were noted (i.e. 132 of randomly sampled products
produced in the Netherlands, 29 of the random samples produced in Italy and 7 of the random
samples produced in Poland), none of the samples produced in other countries was found to exceed
the legal limits.

MRL exceedance for random samples

% of samples analysed with reisudes below or at the MRL/above the MRL
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Austria (59/0) 100.0
Belgium (217/0) 100.0
Bulgaria (6/0) 100.0
Croatia (25/0) 100.0
Denmark (5/0) 100.0
Unknown (1/0) 100.0

Finland (27/0) 100.0
France (292/0) 100.0
Germany (194/0) 100.0
Iceland (10/0) 100.0
Ireland (35/0) 100.0
Italy (603/29) 95.4 4.6
Netherlands (758/132) 85.2 14.8
Poland (381/7) 98.2 1.8
Romania (3/0) 100.0
Spain (97/0) 100.0

Residues below or at the MRL Residues above the MRL
country of origin refer to the number of samples with
residues below or at the MRL and residues above the
MRL.
Figure 15: Number and percentage of samples with residues below or at the EU MRL and above the
EU MRL by country of origin – samples taken by random sampling
In Figures 16 and 17, the number of samples with residues above the MRL split by country of origin
and product type is shown.
Among the 574 suspect samples with MRL exceedances, chicken eggs produced in the Netherlands
were the product with the highest number of MRL exceedances (395 samples), followed by Dutch
chicken fat (laying hens) with 133 samples, German eggs (13 samples), Italian eggs (11 samples),
Hungarian and French eggs (5 samples each), Polish eggs (4 samples), Slovenian eggs (2 samples),
and one Greek egg sample. In addition, four Dutch and one Hungarian sample of chicken muscle of
laying hens exceeded the applicable MRL for this product.
The 168 MRL exceedances noted for samples taken as random samples were mainly attributed to
Dutch chicken eggs (131 samples) and Italian eggs (29 samples); in addition, 7 samples of Polish eggs
and 1 sample of chicken fat from the Netherlands exceeded the legal limit.

Number of samples with MRL exceedances,

suspect samples
Number of samples
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Eggs (chicken) 395

NL
Fat (laying hens) 133


DE
Eggs (chicken) 13
IT
Eggs (chicken) 11
Eggs (chicken) 5
HU

FR
Eggs (chicken) 5
PL
Eggs (chicken) 4
SI
Eggs (chicken) 2
GR
Eggs (chicken) 1
Figure 16: Number of samples with residues above the EU MRL by country of origin and food
product – suspect samples
Number of samples with MRL exceedances,

random samples
Number of samples
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Eggs (chicken) 131

NL
Fat (laying hens) 1

IT
Eggs (chicken) 29
PL
Eggs (chicken) 7
Figure 17: Number of samples with residues above the EU MRL by country of origin and food
product – samples taken by random sampling
3.3. Results by pesticide
3.3.1. Residues below and residues at or above the LOQ by pesticide

Among all 53,655 results reported for the 5,439 samples taken (random and suspect samples
together), in 917 cases, a substance was measured in concentrations greater than or equal to the limit
of quantification. The majority of the positive results (results ≥ LOQ) were related to fipronil (915
results). In addition, amitraz was quantified in two samples. None of the other substances listed in
Appendix A.1 or A.2 was found in any of the products analysed. It was also noted that none of the
samples analysed contained multiple residues. The results are presented in Figure 18 split by sampling
strategy.

Quantifiable residues
Number of quantifiable results at or above the LOQ

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
179
Fipronil (RD)
736
2
Amitraz (RD)
Samples taken by random sampling Suspect samples
Figure 18: Number of results with residues at or above the LOQ by substance and sampling strategy
For the substance-food product combinations with quantifiable residues, more details are given in
Figure 19, showing, for each country of origin, the number of random samples and suspect samples
analysed for the respective substance with quantifiable residues.

Samples with residues at or above the LOQ

Number of samples
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
136
Netherlands
466
32
Italy
11
2
Germany
22
9
Poland
5
7
Egg (chicken)
Hungary
Substances/food products/country of origin
5
France
2
Slovenia
2
Belgium
Fipronil (RD)
Czech Republic
1
1
Greece
Italy
Eggs yolk
(chicken)
2
Germany
(broilers) hens) (broilers)
3
Fat
Greece
Muscle (laying Muscle (laying
1
Fat
Netherlands
184
Germany
4
Netherlands
16
hens)
2
Hungary
(chicken
Amitraz
2
Egg
Italy
)
Figure 19: Number of samples with residues at or above the LOQ by substance, food product,
sample origin and sampling strategy
3.3.2. Residues below or at and residues above the MRL by pesticide
Residue concentrations exceeding the legal limit for the respective products were reported in 742 of
the overall samples (574 from suspect sampling and 168 from random sampling). The MRL
exceedances were almost exclusively related to fipronil residues (741 samples); in addition, one case
of an exceedance of the legal limit for amitraz was identified in a sample of chicken eggs produced in
Italy. Focussing on the food products with MRL exceedances, the number of samples by country of
origin of the product was further investigated (Figure 20).

From this presentation, it can be concluded that the contamination of chicken products leading to
exceedances of the MRLs was limited to fipronil and amitraz. The food products affected were mainly
chicken eggs and to a lower extent fat of laying hens. Sporadically, MRL exceedances were reported
for muscle of laying hens. MRL exceedances were reported by nine Member States and found in
samples originating from eight Member States (the Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Poland, France,
Hungary, Slovenia and Greece).
Samples exceeding the MRL

Number of samples
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
131
Netherlands
395
28
Italy
Substances/food products/country of origin
11
Germany
13
7
Egg (chicken)
Poland
4
France
5
Fipronil (RD)
Hungary
5
Slovenia
2
Greece
1
(laying
hens)
1
Fat
Netherlands
133
Muscle (laying
Netherlands
4
hens)
Hungary
1
(chicken)
Amitraz
1
Egg
Italy
Figure 20: Number of samples with residues above the MRL by substance, food product and country
of origin
4. Conclusions
The data sampled by Member States and Iceland in the framework of this ad-hoc monitoring
programme give a comprehensive overview on the occurrence of fipronil and other substances with
acaricidal activity in chicken eggs, egg products and chicken fat/muscle from the sampling period 1
September 2017 to 30 November 2017.
Based on the detailed analysis of the available data, it is concluded that the contamination of
chicken products leading to exceedance of the legal limits was almost exclusively related to fipronil.
Only one case of amitraz residues in chicken eggs exceeding the MRL was reported. The food products
affected were mainly chicken eggs (including products of egg yolk and egg white) and fat of laying
hens. Sporadically, MRL exceedances were reported for muscle of laying hens. Samples with MRL
exceedance were reported by nine Member States and originated from eight Member States (the
Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Poland, Hungary, France Slovenia and Greece).
It is recommended that fipronil and other acaricides be included in the future monitoring activities
of the Member States.

References
EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015. Guidance for reporting data on pesticide residues in food and feed
according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (2014 data collection). EFSA Journal 2015;13(7):4196, 61 pp.
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4195
Abbreviations
BE Belgium
CZ Czech Republic
DCF Data collection framework
DE Germany (Deutschland)
FR France
GR Greece
HU Hungary
IT Italy
LOQ Limit of Quantification
MRL Maximum Residue Level
MSDVet Merck Sharp & Dohm Corp Veterinary Manual
NL The Netherlands
PL Poland
RD Residue definition (active substances for which the legal residue definition comprises
not only the active substance, but also metabolites are usually labelled with the suffix (RD))
SC PAFF Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed
SI Slovenia
SSD Standard Sample Description

Appendix A – Scope of the ad-hoc monitoring programme
A.1. Substances to be analysed under the ad-hoc monitoring programme, including legal limits (MRLs) for the
relevant substance/commodity combinations
Legal framework Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 Regulation (EU) No 37/2010

Substances MRLs Residue definition MRLs Residue definition
Amitraz 0.05* mg/kg (poultry all tissues) Amitraz (amitraz including the metabolites No MRLs for Sum of amitraz and all metabolites containing
0.01* mg/kg (eggs) containing the 2,4-dimethylaniline moiety poultry or eggs the 2,4-DMA moiety, expressed as amitraz
expressed as amitraz)
Bifenthrin 0.05* mg/kg (poultry muscle and Bifenthrin (sum of isomers) (F) N/A(b) N/A
fat)
0.01* mg/kg (other poultry tissues
and eggs)
Cypermethrin 0.1 mg/kg (poultry muscle/fat) Cypermethrin (cypermethrin including other No MRLs for Cypermethrin (sum of isomers)
other poultry tissues and eggs mixtures of constituent isomers (sum of poultry or eggs
0.05* mg/kg isomers)) (F)
Diazinon 0.02 mg/kg (poultry muscle/edible Diazinon (F) No MRLs for Diazinon
offals) 0.01* mg/kg (poultry other poultry or eggs
tissues)
0.02* mg/kg (eggs)
Etoxazole 0.01* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Etoxazole N/A(b) N/A
and eggs)
Fipronil (RD) 0.006 mg/kg (poultry fat) Fipronil (sum fipronil + sulfone metabolite No MRLs. N/A
0.005* mg/kg (other poultry (MB46136) expressed as fipronil) (F) Authorised for
tissues and eggs) use in cats and
For processed products, see dogs
Appendix B, Table B.1)
Flufenoxuron 0.05* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Flufenoxuron (F) N/A(b) N/A
and eggs)
Ivermectin N/A(a) N/A No MRLs for 22, 23-dihydro-avermectin B1a
poultry or eggs
Pyridaben 0.02* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Pyridaben (F) N/A(b) N/A
and eggs)
Pyriproxyfen 0.05* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Pyriproxyfen (F) No MRLs for N/A
and eggs) poultry or eggs

Legal framework Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 Regulation (EU) No 37/2010

Substances MRLs Residue definition MRLs Residue definition
(b)
Thiamethoxam 0.01* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Thiamethoxam N/A N/A
and eggs)
Trichlorfon 0.01* mg/kg (all poultry tissues Trichlorfon N/A(b) N/A
(metrifonate) and eggs)
N/A: not applicable; MRL: maximum residue level.
(a): Since the active substance is not covered by Regulation (EC) No 396/2005; no MRLs are established for any food product.
(b): Active substance not covered by Regulation (EU) No 37/2010.
(F): Fat-soluble residue.

A.2. Additional substances to be analysed

As agreed in the PAFF meeting held on 30 August 2017, the substances listed in the table below
should be taken into account when analysing the samples covered by the ad-hoc monitoring
programme. The substances were selected according to the following selection criteria:
• Acaricides;
• Substances that can be analysed by multiresidue methods;
• Substances described in the MSDVet Manual for treatment of poultry against mites;
• Substances not specifically approved but in literature reported to be widely used against red
mites;
• Substances banned for use on red mites in the EU;
• Substances against ectoparasites for which MRLs have been established under the legislation
for veterinary medicinal products for different food species.
Substance Substance Substance

Abamectin (synonym Deltamethrin Lufenuron
avermectin) Dichlorvos Malathion
Azamethiphos(a) Dicyclanil(a) Methamidophos
Azinphos ethyl Diflubenzuron Methidathion
Azinphos-methyl Dimethoate Mevinphos
Bendiocarb Doramectin(a) Moxidectin(a)
Bromopropylate Emamectin Nicotine
Carbaryl Endosulfan Parathion
Carbofuran Eprinomectin(a) Parathion-methyl
Chlorfenapyr Ethion (synonym diethion) Permethrin
Chlorfenson (synonym Etrimfos Phosphamidon
chlorfenizon) Fenitrothion Propoxur
Chlorobenzilate Fenpropathrin Sisapronil(a)
Chlorpyrifos Fenthion Sulfotep
Chlorpyrifos-methyl Fenvalerate Teflubenzuron
Coumaphos Fluazuron (a)
Tetrachlorvinphos (stirofos)
Cyfluthrin Flumethrin Tetradifon
Cyhalothrin Formothion Triazophos
Cyromazine Hexaflumuron
(a): No MRLs are established for any food product covered by the specific monitoring programme, neither under Regulation (EC)
No 396/2005 nor under Regulation (EU) No 37/2010.

Appendix B – MRLs for fipronil residues in unprocessed and processed

products
For this specific monitoring programme, the MRLs for fipronil listed in Table B.1 below had to be
taken into account. The MRLs for processed products were agreed at the Meeting of the SC Committee
PAFF, Section Novel Food and Toxicological Safety of the Food Chain held on 30 August 2017.
In addition, the table below contains the fipronil MRLs for chicken fat and chicken muscle.
Table B.1: Legal limits for fipronil residues
MATRIX code prodTreat prodTreat
MATRIX code prodText MRL (mg/kg)
description code description
P1030010A Eggs (chicken) Whole egg or T999A or Fresh/unprocessed 0.005* (LOQ MRL)
whole egg liquid T998A or or Freezing or
T151A Pasteurisation
P1030010.1A Eggs yolk Liquid egg yolk T999A or Fresh/unprocessed 0.016
(chicken) T998A or or Freezing or
P1030010.2A Eggs white Liquid egg white T999A or Fresh/unprocessed 0.002*–0.005*
(chicken) T998A or or Freezing or (LOQ MRL)(a)
P1030010A Eggs (chicken) Whole egg T131A Dehydration 0.021
powder
P1030010.1A Eggs yolk Egg yolk powder T131A Dehydration 0.037
(chicken)
P1030010.2A Eggs white Egg white powder T131A Dehydration 7.17 9 LOQ
(chicken) achievable for liquid
egg white or
0.005(b),(c),(d)
P1016010_002.1B Muscle (poultry) Chicken (laying T999A or Fresh/unprocessed (LOQ MRL)
P1016010_002.2B hens and broilers) T998A or Freezing
P1016020_002.1A Fat (poultry) Chicken (laying T999A or Fresh/unprocessed 0.006
P1016020_002.2A hens and broilers) T998A or Freezing
LOQ: limit of quantification; MRL: maximum residue level.
(a): Taking into account that maximum 10% of fipronil residues in the whole egg are present in liquid egg white, the calculated
residue concentration is 0.00074 mg/kg. Thus, residues above the LOQ are not expected to occur in liquid egg white
produced from whole eggs compliant with the legal limit established for whole eggs.
(b): Residues above the LOQ are not expected to occur in liquid egg white produced from whole eggs compliant with the legal
limit established for whole eggs.
(c): An MRL of 0.005 mg/kg should be applied in case there is no information on/evidence of the compliance of the liquid egg
white used for the production of the egg white powder.
(d): Food business operators producing egg white powder must ensure that the liquid egg used for the production of egg white
powder is compliant with EU legislation, i.e. the level of fipronil in egg white liquid is below LOQ.

Scientific Report: Occurrence of Residues of Fipronil and Other Acaricides in Chicken Eggs and Poultry Muscle/fat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Scientific Report: Occurrence of Residues of Fipronil and Other Acaricides in Chicken Eggs and Poultry Muscle/fat

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Scientific Report: Occurrence of Residues of Fipronil and Other Acaricides in Chicken Eggs and Poultry Muscle/fat

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCIENTIFIC REPORT

APPROVED: 18 April 2018

Occurrence of residues of ﬁpronil and other acaricides in

Requestor: European Commission

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European Food

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 2 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 3 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 4 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

1.2. Terms of Reference (provided by the requestor)

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 5 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

1.3. Interpretation of the Terms of Reference

2. Data and methodologies

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 6 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Table 1: Food products to be analysed under the ad-hoc monitoring programme

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 7 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Number of samples by reporting country

Poland; 374 Italy; 678

Figure 1: Number of samples analysed by Member States and Iceland

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 8 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Sampling strategy: proporon of the overall samples: suspect vs random samples

Austria (0/59) 100%

Greece (53/0) 100%

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 9 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Number of samples by country of origin

Figure 3: Number of samples by country of origin of the samples analysed

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 10 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Number of samples analysed by product type

Figure 4: Number of samples by product category

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 11 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Number of analysis per substance

Dimethoate (RD) 629

Figure 5: Number of analytical determinations by substance

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 12 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

2.2.1. Colour codes in the ﬁgures

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 13 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Quantifiable residues in suspect samples

% of samples analysed without quantifiable/with quantifiable residues

Unprocessed, eggs (chicken) (1,161/517) 69.2 30.8

Unprocessed, eggs white (chicken) (3/0) 100.0

Unprocessed, eggs yolk (chicken) (19/4) 82.6 17.4

Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (21/6) 77.8 22.2

Dehydrated, eggs white (chicken) (8/0) 100.0

Dehydrated, eggs yolk (chicken) (7/0) 100.0

Unprocessed, fat (laying hens) (89/184) 32.6 67.4

Unprocessed, muscle (laying hens) (402/18) 95.7 4.3

Unprocessed, fat (broilers) (24/3) 88.9 11.1

Unprocessed, muscle (broilers) (70/4) 94.6 5.4

www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal 14 EFSA Journal 2018;16(5):5164

Quantifiable residues in random samples

% of samples analysed without quantifiable/with quantifiable residues

Unprocessed, eggs (chicken) (2,233/180) 92.5 7.5

Unprocessed, eggs white (chicken) (2/0) 100.0

Unprocessed, eggs yolk (chicken) (8/0) 100.0

Dehydrated, eggs (chicken) (1/0) 100.0

Dehydrated, eggs white (chicken) (1/0) 100.0

Unprocessed, fat (laying hens) (55/1) 98.2 1.8

Unprocessed, fat (broilers) (1/0) 100.0