All foods/Cabbage

2025 · United Kingdom · UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring · Quarterly Q1–Q4

Pesticide residues found on cabbage

28.1% of standard-grown samples had at least one detected residue. Standard-grown means samples not identified as organic (called conventional in the source data). Detection does not, by itself, mean the food was unsafe.

Compare with other foods →
Any residue28.1%Lower organic-buying priority

32 samples, standard-grown

No quantified residue71.9%Lower organic-buying priority

All reported results below quantification

Multiple residues6.2%Moderate organic-buying priority

Two or more residues detected

Median residue count0Lower organic-buying priority

Highest observed count: 5

Above published limit0%Moderate organic-buying priority

Parser-based MRL comparison

Organic comparisonNot availableNot enough published data

Withheld: only 4 samples

Annual context

How monitored results changed

Each row is a separate targeted survey. Samples can differ by retailer, origin and season, so this is context rather than a trend claim.

YearStandard-grown samplesAny residueMultiple residuesOrganic samplesOrganic any residue
2025Quarterly Q1–Q43228.1%6.2%4Withheld
2022Annual2458.3%12.5%2Withheld

Residue detail

What was found on cabbage?

The most frequently detected residues across all 36 samples. This is the complete available table for this monitoring entry.

36samples checked

Detection does not establish harm. Health risk depends on both toxicity and the amount a person is exposed to.

What do these types mean?
  • FungicideControls fungal diseases such as moulds and mildews.
  • InsecticideControls insects that damage crops or stored food.
  • HerbicideControls weeds competing with a crop.
  • Growth regulatorChanges plant growth, development or ripening.
  • Other / mixedCovers multiple substances or a role that cannot be reliably assigned from the published name.

These labels describe agricultural function, not a toxicity ranking.

ResidueTypeSamplesMedianHigher resultTypical published limit
boscalidFungicide4 (11.1%)0.035 mg/kg0.15 mg/kg5 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
lambda-cyhalothrinInsecticide3 (8.3%)0.013 mg/kg0.04 mg/kg0.15 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
tebuconazoleFungicide2 (5.6%)0.093 mg/kg0.12 mg/kg0.7 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
azoxystrobinFungicide1 (2.8%)0.055 mg/kg0.055 mg/kg5 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
metalaxyl (sum)Other / mixed1 (2.8%)0.052 mg/kg0.052 mg/kg0.06 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
PirimicarbOther / mixed1 (2.8%)0.015 mg/kg0.015 mg/kg0.5 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
chlorantraniliproleInsecticide1 (2.8%)0.016 mg/kg0.016 mg/kg2 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
fluopicolideOther / mixed1 (2.8%)0.018 mg/kg0.018 mg/kg0.3 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
pyraclostrobinFungicide1 (2.8%)0.02 mg/kg0.02 mg/kg0.4 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗
prothioconazoleOther / mixed1 (2.8%)0.077 mg/kg0.077 mg/kg0.09 mg/kg
Health summary pending

No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred.

Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗

“Higher result” is an approximate 95th-percentile observed concentration, not a safety threshold. Amounts of different pesticides should not be added together or compared directly. Functional types describe their usual agricultural role; they are not hazard or toxicity rankings.

ADI and ARfD are intake reference values, not limits for one food sample. A personal assessment would also require consumption, body-weight and wider exposure data. Source programmes report legal Maximum Residue Level results separately.

What this tells you

A monitoring result, not a verdict.

The UK programme is risk-based and targets foods where residues may be expected. It is not a test of every cabbage product sold in United Kingdom. This entry’s latest included quarterly q1–q4 release is from 2025.

Comparable annual records are available for 2025, 2022.

Published MRLs or tolerances are regulatory limits associated with pesticide use. Consumer-risk assessment is a separate process.

Moderate sample coverage. 20–49 samples: a useful monitoring snapshot, though not a population estimate.

Compare organic and standard-grown results →

Common questions

How to read these cabbage results

Were pesticide residues detected on cabbage?

28.1% of 32 standard-grown samples in the 2025 UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring dataset had at least one quantified residue.

Does that mean cabbage were unsafe?

No. A laboratory detection is not, by itself, a consumer-risk finding. Regulators assess dietary risk separately.

Should I buy organic cabbage?

There were only 4 organic samples, so Residue Lens withholds the comparison.