89 samples, standard-grown
2016 · United Kingdom · UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring · Annual
Pesticide residues found on processed pork
13.5% 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: 1
Parser-based MRL comparison
Withheld: only 1 sample
Residue detail
What was found on processed pork?
The most frequently detected residues across all 90 samples. This is the complete available table for this monitoring entry.
90samples 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BAC (sum) | Other / mixed | 8 (8.9%) | 0.075 mg/kg | 0.3 mg/kg | 0.1 mg/kg |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| pirimiphos-methyl | Insecticide | 3 (3.3%) | 0.019 mg/kg | 0.023 mg/kg | Not published |
Health summary pending No reviewed substance-specific summary is available, so no health effect is inferred. Search WHO/FAO JMPR ↗ | |||||
| DDAC (sum) | Other / mixed | 1 (1.1%) | 0.3 mg/kg | 0.3 mg/kg | 0.1 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 processed pork product sold in United Kingdom. This entry’s latest included annual release is from 2016.
Published MRLs or tolerances are regulatory limits associated with pesticide use. Consumer-risk assessment is a separate process.
Broader sample coverage. At least 50 samples: broader monitoring coverage, but still targeted rather than random.
Compare organic and standard-grown results →Common questions
How to read these processed pork results
Were pesticide residues detected on processed pork?
13.5% of 89 standard-grown samples in the 2016 UK Pesticide Residues in Food monitoring dataset had at least one quantified residue.
Does that mean processed pork were unsafe?
No. A laboratory detection is not, by itself, a consumer-risk finding. Regulators assess dietary risk separately.
Should I buy organic processed pork?
There were only 1 organic samples, so Residue Lens withholds the comparison.