27 samples, standard-grown
2025 · United Kingdom · UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring · Quarterly Q1–Q4
Pesticide residues found on tomatoes
44.4% 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.
All reported results below quantification
Two or more residues detected
Highest observed count: 4
Parser-based MRL comparison
9 samples, interpret cautiously
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.
Residue detail
What was found on tomatoes?
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.
| Residue | Type | Samples | Median | Higher result | Typical published limit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| difenoconazole | Fungicide | 5 (13.9%) | 0.033 mg/kg | 0.092 mg/kg | 2 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| boscalid | Fungicide | 3 (8.3%) | 0.036 mg/kg | 0.04 mg/kg | 3 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| cyprodinil | Fungicide | 3 (8.3%) | 0.029 mg/kg | 0.071 mg/kg | 1.5 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| mandipropamid | Other / mixed | 3 (8.3%) | 0.02 mg/kg | 0.033 mg/kg | 3 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| fludioxonil | Fungicide | 2 (5.6%) | 0.026 mg/kg | 0.037 mg/kg | 3 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| fluopyram | Fungicide | 2 (5.6%) | 0.03 mg/kg | 0.033 mg/kg | 0.5 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| spinosad (sum) | Other / mixed | 2 (5.6%) | 0.01 mg/kg | 0.01 mg/kg | 0.7 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| azoxystrobin | Fungicide | 1 (2.8%) | 0.03 mg/kg | 0.03 mg/kg | 3 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| cyazofamid | Other / mixed | 1 (2.8%) | 0.029 mg/kg | 0.029 mg/kg | 0.6 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| chlorantraniliprole | Insecticide | 1 (2.8%) | 0.013 mg/kg | 0.013 mg/kg | 0.6 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| flonicamid (sum) | Insecticide | 1 (2.8%) | 0.049 mg/kg | 0.049 mg/kg | 0.5 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| pyriproxifen | Insecticide | 1 (2.8%) | 0.038 mg/kg | 0.038 mg/kg | 0.7 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 tomatoes 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 tomatoes results
Were pesticide residues detected on tomatoes?
44.4% of 27 standard-grown samples in the 2025 UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring dataset had at least one quantified residue.
Does that mean tomatoes were unsafe?
No. A laboratory detection is not, by itself, a consumer-risk finding. Regulators assess dietary risk separately.
Should I buy organic tomatoes?
The monitored organic samples had a 0% detection rate, compared with 44.4% for standard-grown samples. This is a shopping-priority comparison, not a health-risk score.