Next Article in Journal
From Crude to Green: The Environmental Benefits of Bio-Oil in Flexible Polyurethane Foams
Previous Article in Journal
Study on RSEI Changes Using Remote Sensing and Markov-FLUS Modeling Approach
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 17
Issue 22
10.3390/su172210269
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Pesticide Residues in Organic and Conventional Apples and Potatoes Served in Tartu (Estonia) School Meals

by
Ave Kutman
1,2,*,
Ülle Parm
2,
Anna-Liisa Tamm
2 and
Helena Andreson
1
1
Institute of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Sciences, Estonian University of Life Sciences, 1a Friedrich Reinhold Kreutzwald St, 51006 Tartu, Estonia
2
Physiotherapy and Environmental Health Department, Tartu Applied Health Sciences University, 5 Nooruse St, 50411 Tartu, Estonia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2025, 17(22), 10269; https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210269
Submission received: 5 October 2025 / Revised: 10 November 2025 / Accepted: 15 November 2025 / Published: 17 November 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Sustainable Food)
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Public concern about pesticide residues in food has fuelled increasing demand for organic produce, yet the actual differences in residue levels between organic and conventional foods remain debated. The aim of this study was to compare pesticide residues in organic and conventional apples and potatoes served in school meals in Tartu, Estonia. A total of 36 samples were collected from 18 school canteens and analysed for 791 pesticide residues using accredited chromatographic methods at Eurofins LZV (Laboratorium Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, The Netherlands). No residues were detected in either organic or conventional potatoes, nor in organic apples. In contrast, residues of multiple pesticides were identified in 94.4% of conventional apple samples, all at concentrations below EU maximum residue limits. Captan was the most frequently detected residue (83%), and a few apple samples also contained carbendazim and spirodiclofen, both of which are banned in the EU. The findings indicate that both organic and conventional apples and potatoes largely comply with EU food safety standards. Nevertheless, the occasional detection of banned substances highlights the importance of continuous monitoring, as residue patterns may vary across the EU despite harmonised regulations.

1. Introduction

Organic farming is defined by strict regulations that restrict the use of synthetic pesticides, fertilisers, antibiotics, and GMOs, promoting reliance on natural pest control methods and organic fertilisers [1]. In the European Union (EU), organic food production is governed by Regulation (EU) 2018/848 [2], which aims to minimise agriculture’s ecological footprint and reduce dietary exposure to harmful residues. Organic farms typically apply pesticides only when they are strictly necessary, and use only those substances approved for organic farming, which are generally considered less hazardous than their conventional counterparts [3,4]. Organic agriculture is perceived as more sustainable due to its focus on environmental health [5]. Nevertheless, sustainability in food systems extends beyond production methods to encompass economic accessibility, social equity, and public health, aiming to balance health, ecological integrity, and social justice [6].
The demand for organic food has seen remarkable growth over recent years [7]. Recent estimates indicate that the global organic food market exceeded USD 230 billion in 2023–2024 and is projected to reach between USD 500–660 billion by the early 2030 [8]. This surge in demand for organic food reflects a shift in consumer preferences toward healthier and more sustainable choices, as consumers increasingly perceive organic products as safer than conventional foods and are motivated by health concerns as well as ethical considerations related to environmental protection and animal welfare [9,10,11].
The broader EU pesticide policy is framed by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 [12], which obliges Member States to adopt national action plans to mitigate risks for human health and the environment. Pesticides are categorised according to their target organisms, including fungicides, insecticides, herbicides, and rodenticides [13]. Their toxicological risks are well documented [14,15], whereas their agronomic and economic benefits are less frequently acknowledged [16]. While inappropriate or excessive use can cause serious health and environmental problems [17], rational and integrated application remains essential for safeguarding crop yields [18], enhancing produce quality, and extending storage life [19,20].
While sustainable agriculture calls for reduced synthetic pesticide use and enhanced biodiversity, empirical reviews show that low-input or organic systems may face increased pest and disease pressures when protective chemicals are withheld [21,22]. The concept of integrated pest management (IPM) emphasises the need for a mix of cultural, biological and chemical tactics precisely because ‘good intentions’ of chemical-reduction sometimes clash with yield- and pest-control realities [23]. Moreover, research finds that organic systems are not uniformly superior, for example, they often require more land or may be more vulnerable to pests, illustrating the need to weigh trade-offs rather than assume inherent advantage [24].
Additionally, there is no consensus on the overall benefits of organic foods [25,26]; one frequently cited advantage is reduced pesticide exposure, often described as a key public health benefit of organic consumption [27]. Pesticide exposure is associated with a wide range of adverse health effects, from acute symptoms such as nausea and headaches [28] to chronic outcomes including cancer, reproductive toxicity, and endocrine disruption [29]. For instance, organophosphate insecticides such as malathion and diazinon have been linked to elevated risks of breast and ovarian cancers [30], immune and nervous system disorders [31] and other long-term effects [32]. A significant potential public health risk is the consumption of food contaminated with residues of pesticide active ingredients, which, according to recent literature, may cause liver damage [33] as well as adverse effects on the endocrine and reproductive systems [34,35,36].
Although organic foods generally contain lower pesticide residue levels than conventional foods [30], they are not entirely residue-free. Between 7% and 12% of organic samples have tested positive for pesticide residues [37,38], raising concerns about potential fraud or non-compliance with organic production principles. Such findings may also reflect the use of natural pesticides permitted in organic farming [39]. In Estonia, however, results from the national pesticide residue monitoring programme (n = 456 samples, including 80 organic) indicated that only seven conventional products exceeded the maximum residue limits (MRLs), while all organic samples complied fully with regulatory requirements [40].
According to the Estonian Organic Farming Promotion Action Plan 2023–2030 [41], one key objective is to ensure that at least 50% of children in kindergartens and general education schools have access to organic meals by 2030. According to this document [41], the Tartu city government has been among the most active in Estonia in promoting the use of organic food in school catering—through its public procurement requirements, all municipal schools in Tartu are obliged to ensure that at least 51% of the ingredients used in school meals are organic. As organic products are generally more expensive [8] and the municipal budget does not fully compensate for the higher costs, parents contribute to covering the price difference. However, high costs remain a significant barrier to widespread adoption. As the absence or reduced level of pesticide residues is a major rationale for preferring organic food, it is important to assess whether significant differences exist between organic and conventional products used in educational catering.
Previous reviews highlight the scarcity of comparative studies on nutrient and contaminant levels in organic versus conventional produce [42]. Against this background, the present study aimed to evaluate pesticide residues in apples and potatoes—two staple ingredients in Estonian school meals—sourced from both organic and conventional production systems.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Samples Collection

The study included all municipal schools in Tartu (n = 19), which are required to use a minimum of 51% organic ingredients in their school meals. Samples of apples (1500 g) and potatoes (5000 g) were collected from each school on two occasions: organically grown products on 10 October 2024 and conventionally grown products on 6 November 2024, in coordination with the supplier. The conventional apples originated from the EU but not from Estonia. Both organic and non-organic potatoes were peeled and vacuum-packed under hermetically sealed conditions by producers, while apples were weighed and then packed into plastic bags. Sampling was conducted in cooperation with Eurofins Labtarna Lietuva (Lithuania), which provided the equipment required for collection. Each school canteen’s samples were placed in individual insulated boxes with pre-frozen cooling elements. Since two schools share one canteen, the total number of sample sets was 18 per collection, yielding 36 food samples for pesticide residue analysis. The samples were transported within 24 h to Eurofins Labtarna Lietuva (Lithuania). Upon arrival, they were repackaged and forwarded to Eurofins LZV (Laboratorium Zeeuws-Vlaanderen, The Netherlands), where pesticide residue analysis was performed.

2.2. Sample Analysis

Analyses were performed at Eurofins LZV, an EN ISO/IEC 17025:2017 accredited laboratory (accreditation body: Dutch Accreditation Council, Raad voor Accreditatie, RvA). A total of 791 pesticide residues (Appendix A), in addition to glyphosate and glufosinate, were screened using quantitative multi-residue methods. The limit of quantification (LOQ) was 0.01 mg/kg for most substances. Detected residue concentrations were compared with MRLs established in the EU pesticide database. Analytical methods are summarised in Table 1. LC-MS/MS and GC-MS/MS are transformative analytical approaches that drive progress across various research areas by providing highly sensitive and specific quantification capabilities. Their development and application in fields like pharmacology, (food) toxicology, and environmental science underscore their critical role in contemporary analytical chemistry [43,44].
The sample was ground using a grinder appropriate for the specific matrix. Following homogenization, 10 g of the ground material was weighed into a 50 mL centrifuge tube. The homogenised subsample was extracted using a solvent mixture consisting of acetone, dichloromethane, and petroleum ether. A portion of the resulting extract was subsequently evaporated and redissolved. For analyses conducted by GC–MS, the residue was redissolved in iso-octane/toluene (9:1, v/v). For analyses conducted by LC–MS/MS, the residue was redissolved in methanol acidified with 0.02% acetic acid. The determination was performed using either GC–MS or LC–MS/MS, depending on the physicochemical characteristics of the pesticide. Volatile and thermally stable compounds were analysed by GC–MS, whereas polar or thermally labile compounds were analysed by LC–MS/MS.

2.3. Data Analysis

Statistical analyses were performed using SigmaPlot for Windows, version 11.0 (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). Results are expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD).

3. Results and Discussion

In total, 791 pesticide residues were screened in apples and potatoes, yet none were detected in organic apples or potatoes, or in conventional potatoes. By contrast, conventional apples contained low concentrations of 11 different pesticide residues.

3.1. Potatoes

No pesticide residues were detected in either organic or conventional potato samples, indicating an absence of residues in both groups. Previous studies have reported chlorpropham and chlorothalonil as common contaminants in potatoes [45,46,47]. Both substances were banned in the EU in 2019 due to concerns about human and environmental safety [48].
A review of 74 studies, including 35 specifically focused on pesticide residues, reported higher residue levels in conventional compared with organic potatoes [42]. Chlorpropham concentrations were significantly higher in conventional potatoes, whereas chlorothalonil was reported more frequently in organic potatoes. Although our results differ, it is important to note that the absence of residues cannot be automatically assumed for organically produced foods. For example, a French study published in 2025 identified chlorothalonil as one of the most frequently quantified compounds in drinking water, exceeding regulatory standards in more than 30% of samples [49]. Eurofins LZV, which conducted the present analyses, included both chlorpropham and chlorothalonil in the screening but did not detect them in any of the samples. Nevertheless, it remains possible that traces may occur in some foods, particularly imported products, or that, despite regulatory bans, these pesticides are still used because of their availability or efficacy. This underscores the need for continued monitoring, including for banned contaminants. In Estonia, the Agricultural and Food Board systematically monitors pesticide residues in food products to ensure compliance with EU regulations and national standards. This monitoring covers both conventional and organic items, providing essential data for risk assessment and supporting food safety assurance [50]. However, inspections are conducted on a spot-check basis and do not extend to the raw materials supplied to individual schools.
In our study, the potatoes collected from schools were vacuum-packed and peeled prior to analysis. Peeling is widely regarded as the most effective method for reducing pesticide residues before consumption [51,52]. Soliman et al. [53] reported that peeling reduced organochlorine and organophosphate residues, including malathion and lindane, by 71–75%. Similarly, Lentza-Rizos & Balokas [54] found that peeling removed 91-98% of total residues, whereas washing reduced chlorpropham (CIPC) by only 33–47%. These findings may partly explain the absence of detectable residues in our samples, since peeled potatoes were analysed. Nevertheless, our primary objective was to assess the foods exactly as they are supplied to, and prepared in educational institutions, thereby ensuring the relevance of the results for school catering practices.

3.2. Apples

Pesticide residues were detected in 17 (94.4%) of the 18 conventional apple samples (Table 2), but the mean concentrations remained significantly below EU requirements. The average number of distinct residues per sample was 3.056 ± 1.984 (min 0; max 7), with the most contaminated sample containing seven different compounds. By contrast, none of the organic apple samples contained detectable residues. These findings are consistent with the results of the Estonian Agricultural and Food Board’s monitoring programme in 2023, which reported no residues in any of the 80 organic food samples tested [55]. This supports the effectiveness of organic farming practices in minimising pesticide use and aligns with consumer expectations regarding organic products.
Although the conventional apples analysed did not originate from Estonia, most of the detected residues were fungicides, including captan, cyprodinil, and fludioxonil. EU regulations establish MRLs for pesticides in plant-based foods [56], and none of the results in this study exceeded those limits. Previous studies have shown that post-harvest washing can effectively reduce pesticide residues on apples, although efficacy varies by compound and method [57,58]. Since the apples in our study were analysed unwashed, it can be reasonably assumed that their safety would further improve following standard washing before being served in schools.
Nearly 800 pesticide residues were screened, yet only a few were detected in 17 samples (Table 2), and most concentrations remained well below the respective MRLs. However, acetamiprid levels were borderline in two samples, both at the MRL of 0.07 mg/kg. While residue levels below MRLs demonstrate regulatory compliance, consumer perception must also be considered, as some individuals remain concerned about any pesticide exposure, regardless of dose [59]. This highlights the importance of transparent communication about food safety and the role of MRLs in protecting public health [60].
According to Simoglou et al. [61], Greek consumers express significant concern about pesticide residues due to potential health implications for themselves and their families. At the same time, they acknowledge the crucial role of pesticides in food security and agricultural productivity, reflecting a complex balance between risk awareness and acceptance of pesticide use in agriculture [62]. Similarly, our previous study on parents’ attitudes towards organic school meals [63] showed that parents prioritised variety, nutritional value, and taste over the organic status of the food. In the present study, the overall situation was favourable, especially with the imported apples. Nonetheless, the presence of residues raises questions about the justification for relying on imports, even though the local climate does not allow long-term storage of domestic apples over winter.
Consistent with our findings, captan was also among the most frequently detected fungicide residues in apples in analogous studies conducted in Poland [64] and Serbia [65]. Although there are no reliable data on the effects of low-dose dietary exposure to captan, acute dermal contact can cause irritation of the skin and respiratory tract [66], and ingestion of large amounts may lead to vomiting and diarrhoea [67]. Captan is classified by the European Chemicals Agency as carcinogenic and toxic for reproduction [68]. Potential neurotoxic effects have not been comprehensively studied, but some evidence suggests a possible association with Parkinson’s disease [69]. Importantly, peeling and washing have been shown to be especially effective in reducing captan residues: apples rinsed before extraction contained significantly lower residue levels than unprocessed fruit, and apples that were both rinsed and peeled contained markedly less captan than those only rinsed [70].
Similarly to our study, acetamiprid was among the most commonly detected insecticides in apples in other European investigations [64,65,71]. Chlorantraniliprole was also frequently reported [65,71] along with fludioxonil and carbendazim [65]. Although acetamiprid is considered to have relatively low toxicity in mammals, ingestion of large quantities can cause significant adverse effects [72]. Furthermore, prolonged or repeated exposure has been shown to enhance oxidative stress, inflammation, and apoptosis, potentially leading to organ damage [73].
Of particular concern in our study was the detection of carbendazim and spirodiclofen in three conventional apple samples. Both substances have been banned in the EU since 2014 and 2018, respectively [74]. Carbendazim is classified as mutagenic and toxic to reproduction, while spirodiclofen is classified as a carcinogen that may impair reproduction, cause organ damage with repeated exposure, and trigger skin sensitisation [75]. These findings underscore the importance of continuous monitoring, including for banned pesticides, since their occurrence—even at low levels—raises serious concerns about food safety and compliance with regulatory frameworks.
Chlorantraniliprole, also detected in several samples, is regarded as having low acute toxicity via oral, dermal, or inhalation exposure routes, and no significant health effects have been reported at typical exposure levels. Available data suggest that long-term exposure is unlikely to result in severe adverse effects when safety measures are observed [76]. Nevertheless, its recurring detection across different studies highlights the importance of continued surveillance.
As all the organic apples analysed in our study were free from pesticide residues, these findings are consistent with research over the last two decades showing that reducing dietary pesticide exposure is one of the main reasons consumers choose organic foods [77]. Brantsæter et al. [78] likewise reported that organic products are associated with lower residue levels, reinforcing the perception that they are preferable for health-conscious consumers. However, several studies have also demonstrated that organic products are not invariably residue-free [37,42,79]. Given that organic products may occasionally contain residues and that some conventional products, as shown in our study, contain only very low levels, the value of consuming exclusively more expensive organic foods can be questioned.
Our results further demonstrated that conventional apples exhibited relatively low levels of pesticide residues. Although the samples analysed were not locally grown, similar findings [37,64] from other studies suggest that the situation with Polish origin conventional apples available in Estonia is likely to be comparable. Organic products are generally more expensive than conventional options, mainly due to labour-intensive production methods [80], certification costs [81] and lower yields [82], which together contribute to higher consumer prices [83,84]. Nevertheless, conventionally produced foods can also be considered safe for consumption, particularly given the effectiveness of regulatory monitoring programmes [85].
From an economic sustainability perspective, the affordability of school meals has become an important issue [86]. Tartu is currently one of the few municipalities in Estonia where parents contribute to school meals cost, most likely due to the high share of organic ingredients used in school catering. Organic food is considerably more expensive than conventional food, and its inclusion in school menus substantially increases overall meal costs [87]. For example, according to the Estonian Institute of Economic Research, organic milk is on average about 25–30% more expensive than conventional milk, while organic potatoes can cost up to 400% more expensive than conventional ones, depending on the season and packaging type [88]. In the context of rising food prices [89] and growing economic hardship in Estonia, where absolute poverty increased in 2024 [90], such cost pressures may reduce the inclusiveness and long-term sustainability of the system. The present findings of our study—showing that conventional products also met all food safety standards—suggest that a balanced approach combining safety, affordability, and environmental responsibility may offer a more sustainable model for public catering.
Our findings align with the broader EU control picture, where compliance with MRLs is consistently high and exceedances are rare. In EFSA’s most recent [91] EU-wide report (2023 controls), most samples complied with legislation; the interactive summary and full EFSA Journal paper both emphasise very low non-compliance rates and provide commodity-specific breakdowns, including apples as a priority matrix in the EU coordinated programme. These results continue the pattern observed in earlier cycles (2022 and 2021), where 96.3% and 96.1% of samples, respectively, were below MRLs, with only a small fraction exceeding legal limits [92,93]. Nordic national reports show similar or even more favourable compliance. Finland’s official control reported no MRL exceedances in Finnish products in 2023 (17 samples with residues below MRLs), and—looking more broadly at all controls—about 5% non-compliance across 1828 samples in 2024, which is consistent with the EU average [94]. Denmark’s annual reporting [95] (DTU Food Institute with the Danish Veterinary and Food Administration) found pesticide residues in a high share of conventionally grown fruit (80%) yet 98% compliance overall illustrating that detection of residues is common in fruit, but legally relevant exceedances remain uncommon. This mirrors our observation that conventional apples frequently carry multiple residues, while still meeting EU requirements. For Sweden [96], public summaries likewise underline that only a very small proportion of foods exceed MRLs in recent controls, consistent with the EU-level pattern; the Swedish Food Agency is the competent authority for this surveillance.
Within this EU/Nordic backdrop, two aspects of our dataset are noteworthy. First, zero detections in organic apples and potatoes are fully compatible with national findings from the region showing very high compliance for organic produce—at the EU level organic items occasionally contain residues, but the prevalence is clearly lower than in conventional analogues—again consistent with our results. Second, the frequent detection of captan and other fungicides in conventional apples parallels commodity-specific patterns highlighted in EU [91,92,93] and national reports [94,95,96], where pome fruits often show multiple fungicide residues arising from pre- and post-harvest protection. Finally, the sporadic detection of EU-banned active substances (e.g., carbendazim, spirodiclofen) at trace levels in our imported apples is not unique, EFSA and national authorities stress the need for continued surveillance of non-approved substances and imports, even where average compliance is high. This supports our recommendation for ongoing monitoring in public procurement chains serving children, coupled with transparent reporting to sustain trust.
This study has certain limitations. First, the conventional apples analysed were imported rather than locally sourced. While this provides useful information about the food actually served in schools, it does not fully reflect the situation of conventionally produced apples in Estonia. Second, the potatoes were analysed after peeling, which previous studies [45,46,48] have shown can markedly reduce residue levels and may therefore underestimate the true residue burden. Nonetheless, the decision to analyse peeled potatoes was deliberate, as it reflects the actual form in which the food is supplied to schools and consumed by children. While the results of this study did not indicate any health risks associated with the detected pesticide residue levels, they should be interpreted with caution given the number of samples and the geographically specific focus on Tartu. Consequently, the findings may not be directly generalisable to the national level. Future investigations should therefore adopt a longitudinal design and incorporate detailed monitoring of local and regional supply chains to better identify temporal dynamics and potential sources of pesticide residues within school catering systems. Nevertheless, given the extensive analytical scope of this study—covering 791 different pesticide residues—the limitations are not expected to compromise the overall reliability and validity of the conclusions.
The study also has notable strengths. The exceptionally broad analytical coverage, including both apples and potatoes, enhances the robustness of the findings. Furthermore, by analysing the entire apple and potato supply from all municipal schools within a single city, this work provides unique insights into local catering practices. To our knowledge, such a comprehensive and practice-oriented approach has not previously been undertaken in this region, representing an important strength of the study.

4. Conclusions

The comprehensive overview of pesticide residues in apples and potatoes used in school meals in Tartu, Estonia, offering empirical insight into the intersection of food safety, sustainability, and public procurement. The analyses revealed that both organic and conventional products largely comply with EU food safety requirements, confirming that children’s exposure to pesticide residues through school meals is minimal. While organic apples and potatoes were entirely free from residues, conventional apples contained trace amounts of several pesticides, all below maximum residue limits.
Beyond food safety, these findings raise broader questions about the sustainability and affordability of organic food procurement in public institutions. The results suggest that food safety alone may not justify the higher cost burden associated with exclusively organic sourcing, particularly when conventional produce also meets regulatory and health standards. Sustainable school catering systems should therefore strive for a balanced approach that integrates environmental responsibility, economic feasibility, and social inclusiveness. Continuous monitoring, transparent reporting, and investment in local supply chains could further enhance both trust and sustainability.
Future research should assess additional environmental indicators, such as carbon and water footprints, and evaluate long-term dietary exposure risks to provide a more holistic understanding of sustainability in public catering. Ultimately, ensuring both safe and equitable access to nutritious meals remains a key pillar of sustainable food systems.

Author Contributions

A.K.: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Project administration, Investigation, Validation, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing. Ü.P.: Writing—review & editing, Data curation, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization. A.-L.T.: Writing—review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization. H.A.: Writing—review & editing, Validation, Methodology, Conceptualization, Supervision. All authors have approved the final article. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research is supported by the project “Applied research on the healthiness of organic food” co-founded by the European Union (grant number 2021-2027.1.01.23-0180).

Data Availability Statement

Data will be made available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We would like to express appreciation to Baltic Restaurants Estonia, which manages the school catering, for their collaboration, and to the kitchen personnel for providing access and helping with sample collection. We also thank Jaan Looga, the research coordinator at Tartu University of Applied Health Sciences, for obtaining funding for the project, as well as the laboratory teams for their assistance during the analysis phase.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A. List on Analysed Pesticides

1-Naphthylacetamide, 1-Naphthylacetic acid, 1-Naphthylacetic acid, 2,4,5-T, 2,4,6-Trichlorophenoxyacetic Acid, 2,4-D, 2,4-DB, 2-Hydroxybenzothiazol, 2-Naphthyloxyacetic acid, 3-Hydroxycarbofuran, 3-ketocarbofuran, 4-Bromophenylurea, 4-CPA, 6-Benzyladenine, 6-Chlor-3-phenylpyridazin-4-ol, Abamectin, Acephate, Acequinocyl, Acetamiprid, Alanycarb, Aldicarb, Aldicarb (sum), Aldicarb-sulfone, Aldicarb-sulfoxide, Ametoctradin, Amisulbrom, Anilazine, Asulam, Atrazin, desisopropyl-, Atrazine, Atrazine-desethyl, Avermectin B1a, Avermectin B1b, Azaconazole, Azadirachtin, Azamethiphos, Azimsulfuron, Azinphos-methyl, Aziprotryn, Azoxystrobin, Barban, Beflubutamid, Benfuracarb, Benomyl, Benoxacor, Bentazone, Benthiavalicarb, isopropyl-, Benzalkoniumchlorid (BAC) Sum, Benzovindiflupyr, Benzoximate, Benzyldimethyldodecylammonium chloride (BAC C12), Benzyldimethyltetradecylammonium chloride (BAC C14), Bitertanol, Bixafen, Boscalid, Bromoxynil, Bromuconazole, BTS 44595, BTS 44596, Bupirimate, Buprofezin, Butafenacil, Butocarboxim, Butocarboxim-sulfoxide, Butoxycarboxim, Buturon, Carbaryl, Carbendazim, Carbendazim/Benomyl (sum), Carbetamide, Carbofuran, Carbofuran (sum), Carbosulfan, Carboxin, Carboxin (carboxin plus its metabolites), Carfentrazone-ethyl, Carpropamid, Chloramben, Chlorantraniliprole, Chlorbromuron, Chlordecon, Chlordimeform, Chlorfluazuron, Chlorothalonil-4-hydroxy, Chlorotoluron, Chloroxuron, Chlorthion, Chlorthiophos, Chlorthiophos-sulfone, Cinerin I, Cinerin II, Clefoxydim, Clethodim, Clethodim/Sethoxydim (Sum), Climbazole, Clodinafop, Clofentezine, Clopyralid, Clothianidin, Crimidine, Cyantraniliprole, Cyazofamid, Cyclanilide, Cycloxydim, Cyenopyrafen, Cyflufenamid, Cyflumetofen, Cymoxanil, Cyproconazole, Cyprodinil, Cythioate, Demeton-S-methyl-sulfone, Desmedipham, Dicamba, Dichlofluanid, Dichlorophen, Dichlorprop, Dichlorvos, Diclobutrazol, Diclofop-methyl, Dicrotophos, Diethofencarb, Diethyltoluamide, Difenoconazole, Diflubenzuron, Dimethenamid including other mixtures of constituents, Dimethirimol, Dimethoate, Dimethomorph, Dimethylaminosulphotoluidide (DMST), Dimethylphenylsulfamide (DMSA), Dimoxystrobin, Diniconazole, Dinocap, Dinotefuran, Dipropetryn, Dithianon, Diuron, DNOC, Dodemorf, Dodine, Emamectin, Epoxiconazole, Ethiofencarb, Ethiofencarb-sulfone, Ethiofencarb-sulfoxide, Ethiprole, Ethirimol, Ethoxysulfuron, Etofenprox, Etoxazole, Famophos, Famoxadone, Fenamidone, Fenamiphos, Fenamiphos (sum), Fenamiphos-sulfone, Fenamiphos-sulfoxide, Fenarimol, Fenazaquin, Fenbuconazole (sum of constituent enantiomers), Fenhexamid, Fenoprop, Fenoxycarb, Fenpropidin, Fenpropimorph, Fenpyrazamine, Fenpyroximate, Fenthion, Fenthion (sum), Fenthion-oxon, Fenthion-oxon-sulfone, Fenthion-oxon-sulfoxide, Fenthion-sulfone, Fenthion-sulfoxide, Fenuron, Fipronil, Fipronil (sum), Fipronil-sulfone, Flazasulfuron, Flonicamid, Flonicamid (Sum), Flonicamid-TFNA-AM, Florasulam, Fluazifop, Fluazifop-P-butyl, Fluazinam, Flubendiamide, Flucycloxuron, Flufenacet, Flufenoxuron, Flumioxazin, Fluometuron, Fluopicolid, Fluopyram, Fluotrimazole, Fluoxastrobin, Flupyradifurone, Flupyrsulfuron-Methyl, Fluquinconazole, Flurochloridone, Fluroxypyr, Fluroxypyr (Sum), Fluroxypyr-Methylheptyl, Flusilazole, Fluthiacet-methyl, Flutolanil, Flutriafol, Fluxapyroxad, FM-6-1 (metabolite triflumizole), Foramsulfuron, Forchlorfenuron, Fosthiazate, Furalaxyl, Furathiocarb, Gibberellic Acid, Halofenozide, Haloxyfop, Hexaconazole, Hexaflumuron, Hexythiazox, Hymexazol, Imazalil (any ratio of constituent isomers), Imazamethabenz-methyl, Imazamox, Imazaquin, Imibenconazole, Imidacloprid, Indoxacarb (sum, R+S isomers), Iodosulfuron methyl, Ioxynil, Iprodione, Iprovalicarb, Isocarbofos, Isofetamid, Isoprothiolane, Isopyrazam, Isouron, Isoxaben, Isoxaflutole, Isoxathion, Jasmolin I, Jasmolin II, Kresoxim-methyl, Lenacil, Linuron, Lufenuron, Malathion, Malathion/Malaoxon (sum), Maleic hydrazide (MH-30), Mandipropamid (any ratio of constituent isomers), Matrine, MCPA, MCPA/MCPB (sum), MCPB, Mecoprop, Mefenacet, Mefenpyr-diethyl, Mepanipyrim, Mephosfolan, Mepronil, Meptyldinocap, Mesosulfuron-methyl, Mesotrione, Metaflumizone (sum of E- and Z- isomers), Metalaxyl, Metaldehyde, Metamitron, Metconazole, Methamidophos, Methidathion, Methiocarb, Methiocarb (sum), Methiocarb-sulfone, Methiocarb-sulfoxide, Methomyl, Methoxyfenozide, Metobromuron, Metosulam, Metoxuron, Metsulfuron-methyl, Milbemectin (sum), Milbemectin A3, Milbemectin A4, Monocrotophos, Monolinuron, Monuron, Myclobutanil (sum of constituent isomers), Naled, Neburon, Nicosulfuron, Nitenpyram, Nitralin, Novaluron, Nuarimol, Omethoate, Other screened pesticides, Oxadixyl, Oxamyl, Oxasulfuron, Oxathiapiprolin, Oxycarboxin, Oxydemeton-methyl, Oxydemeton-methyl (sum), Oxymatrine, Paclobutrazol, Paraoxon-ethyl, Paraoxon-methyl, Parathion-methyl (Sum), Pebulate, Penconazole (sum of constituent isomers), Pencycuron, Penflufen, Penthiopyrad, Phenisopham, Phenmedipham, Phorate, Phorate (sum), Phorate-O-analogue, Phorate-oxon-sulfone, Phorate-sulfone, Phorate-sulfoxide, Phosalone, Phosmet, Phosmet (Sum), Phosmet-oxon, Phosphamidon, Phoxim, Picaridin, Picloram, Picolinafen, Picoxystrobin, Pinoxaden, Piperonyl butoxide, Pirimicarb, Pirimicarb, desmethyl-, Prochloraz, Prochloraz (sum), Profenofos, Prohexadione Calcium, Prometon, Propamocarb (Sum of propamocarb and its salts, Propamocarb Hydrochloride, Propaquizafop, Propiconazole (sum of isomers), Propoxur, Propyzamide, Proquinazid, Prosulfocarb, Prosulfuron, Prothioconazole-desthio, Pyracarbolid, Pyraclofos, Pyraclostrobin, Pyrazophos, Pyrethrin I, Pyrethrin II, Pyrethrins, Pyridaben, Pyridalyl, Pyridaphenthion, Pyridate, Pyridate (Sum), Pyrifenox, Pyrimethanil, Pyrimidifen, Pyriproxyfen, Pyroxsulam, Quinclorac, Quinmerac, Quizalofop, Rimsulfuron, Rotenone, Saflufenacil, Screened pesticides, Sedaxane, Sethoxydim, Silafluofen, Simazine, Spinetoram, Spinetoram A, Spinetoram B, Spinosad (sum), Spinosad A, Spinosad D, Spirodiclofen, Spirotetramat, Spirotetramate (Sum), Spirotetramat-enol, Spirotetramat-enolglucoside, Spirotetramat-ketohydroxy, Spirotetramat-monohydroxy, Spiroxamine, Sulcotrione, Sulfentrazone, Sulfoxaflor, Tebuconazole, Tebufenozide, Tebufenpyrad, Teflubenzuron, Tembotrione, Temephos, Tepraloxydim, Terbufos, Terbufos-sulfone, Terbufos-sulfoxide, Terbuthylazine, Terbuthylazine, desethyl-, Tetraconazole, TFNA, TFNG, Thiabendazole, Thiacloprid, Thiamethoxam, Thidiazuron, Thiencarbazone-methyl, Thifensulfuron methyl, Thiobencarb, Thiodicarb, Thiofanox, Thiofanox-sulfone, Thiofanox-sulfoxide, Thiometon, Thiophanate-methyl, Tolclofos-methyl, Tolfenpyrad, Tolylfluanid, Tolylfluanid (Sum), Tralkoxydim, Triadimefon, Triadimenol, Triapenthenol, Triazophos, Triazoxide, Trichlorfon, Triclopyr, Tricyclazole, Tridemorph, Trifloxystrobin, Triflumizole, Triflumizole (sum), Triflumuron, Triflusulfuron-methyl, Triforine, Trimethacarb, 3,4,5-, Triticonazole, Tritosulfuron, Uniconazole, Valifenalate, Vamidothion, Warfarin, XMC, Zoxamide. 1,4-dimethylnaphthalene, 1-naphthylacetamide, 1-naphthylacetic acid, 2,6-dichlorobenzamide, 2-phenylphenol, 4,4-ddd, 2,4-ddt, 4,4-dde, acetochlor, acibenzolar-s-methyl, aclonifen, acrinathrin, alachlor, aldrin, allethrin, ametryn, anthraquinone, azinphos-ethyl, azoxystrobin, barban, chlorbufam, chlorpropham, benalaxyl, benfluralin, benfuracarb, bifenazate, bifenazate-diazene, bifenox, bifenthrin, biphenyl, bitertanol, bromacil, bromocyclen, bromophos-ethyl, bromophos-methyl, bromopropylate, bromuconazole, bupirimate, buprofezin, butralin, cadusafos, captafol, captan, carbaryl, carbofuran, carbofuranphenol, carbophenothion, carbophenothion-methyl, chinomethionate, chlorbufam, chlordane, chlordane, cis-, chlordane, oxy-, chlordane, trans-, chlorfenapyr, chlorfenson, chlorfenvinphos, chlorfenvinphos, cis, chlorfenvinphos, trans, chloridazone, chlorobenzilate, chloroneb, chlorothalonil, chlorpropham, chlorpyrifos, chlorpyrifos-methyl, chlorthal-dimethyl, chlorthiamid, chlozolinate, cis-permethrin, clefoxydim, clodinafop-propargyl, clomazone, cloquintocet-mexyl, coumaphos, cyanazine, cyanofenphos, cyanophos, cycloate, cyfluthrin, cyhalothrin, cypermethrin, cyphenothrin, cyproconazole, cyprodinil, ddd, o,p-, dde, o,p-, ddt, ddt, p,p′-, deltamethrin, demeton-o, demeton-s, demeton-s-methyl, desmetryn, diazinon, dichlobenil, dichlofenthion, dicloran, dicofol, p,p-, dieldrin, dieldrin, diethofencarb, difenoconazole, diflufenican, dimethipin, dimethoate, dimethylaminosulphotoluidide, diniconazole, dioxabenzofos, diphenamid, diphenylamine, disulfoton, disulfoton, disulfoton-sulfon, disulfoton-sulfoxide, ditalimfos, diuron, endosulfan, endosulfan, sulphate, endosulfan, alpha-, endosulfan, beta-, endrin, epn, epoxiconazole, eptc, esfenvalerate, etaconazole, ethion, ethofumesate, ethoprophos, ethoxyquin, etofenprox, etridiazole, etrimfos, famoxadone, fenarimol, fenazaquin, fenchlorphos, fenfluthrin, fenitrothion, fenobucarb, fenoxycarb, fenpiclonil, fenpropathrin, fenpropidin, fenpropimorph, fenpyroximate, fenson, fensulfothion, fenthion, fenthion, fipronil, fipronil, fipronil, fipronil, fluazifop-butyl, flubenzimine, fluchloralin, flucythrinate, fludioxonil, fluquinconazole, flurprimidol, flusilazole, flutolanil, fluvalinate, folpet, folpet, fonofos, formothion, fosthietan, fuberidazole, furalaxyl, halfenprox, haloxyfop-2-ethoxyethyl, hch, alpha-, hch, beta-, hch, delta-, heptachlor, heptachlor, heptachlor, epoxide, cis-, heptachlor, epoxide, trans-, heptenophos, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorobutadiene, hexaconazole, hexazinone, imazethapyr, iodofenphos, iprobenfos, iprodione, isazophos, isocarbofos, isodrin, isofenphos, isofenphos-methyl, isofenphos-oxon, isoprocarb, isoproturon, isoxadifen-ethyl, kresoxim-methyl, lenacil, leptophos, lindane, malaoxon, malathion, malathion, malaoxon, mecarbam, mepanipyrim, mephosfolan, mepronil, metalaxyl, metazachlor, methabenzthiazuron, methacrifos, methidathion, methoprotryne, methoxychlor, methyl parathion, metobromuron, metolcarb, metrafenone, metribuzin, mevinphos, mirex, molinate, myclobutanil, naphthalene acetamide, napropamide, nicotine, nitrapyrin, nitrofen, nitrothal-isopropyl, norflurazon, ofurace, other screened pesticides, oxadiazon, oxadixyl, oxyfluorfen, paraoxon-ethyl, paraoxon-methyl, parathion-ethyl, parathion-methyl, penconazole, pendimethalin, pentachloranisole, pentachloroaniline, pentachlorobenzene, pentachlorophenol, permethrin, perthane, phenkapton, phenothrin, phenthoate, phosalone, phosfolan, phosmet, phosmet, phthalimide, picoxystrobin, piperonyl butoxide, pirimicarb, pirimicarb, desmethyl-, pirimiphos-ethyl, pirimiphos-methyl, procymidone, profenofos, profluralin, promeatcarb, prometryn, propachlor, propanil, propargite, propazine, propetamphos, propiconazole, propoxur, propoxycarbazone, propyzamide, prosulfocarb, prothioconazole-desthio, prothiofos, pyraflufen-ethyl, pyrazophos, pyridaben, pyridaphenthion, pyrifenox, pyrimethanil, pyriproxyfen, quinalphos, quinoxyfen, quintozene, quintozene, quizalofop ethyl, s 421, screened pesticides, silthiofam, simazine, s-metolachlor, spiromesifen, spiroxamine, sulfotep, sulphur, sulprofos, tebuconazole, tebufenpyrad, tecnazene, tefluthrin, telodrin, terbacil, terbumeton, terbuthylazine, terbuthylazine, desethyl-, terbutryn, tetrachlorvinphos, tetraconazole, tetradifon, tetrahydrophthalimide, tetramethrin, tetrasul, tolclofos-methyl, tolylfluanid, transfluthrin, trans-permethrin, triadimefon, triallate, triazamate, triazophos, trichloronat, trifloxystrobin, triflumizole, triflumizole, trifluralin, trinexapac-ethyl, vinchlozoline, iprodione, procymidone, vinclozolin.

References

  1. Carvalho, F. Agriculture, Pesticides, Food Security and Food Safety. Environ. Sci. Policy 2006, 9, 685–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. European Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/848 on Organic Production and Labelling of Organic Product. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 1–92.
  3. Benbrook, C.; Kegley, S.E.; Baker, B.P. Organic Farming Lessens Reliance on Pesticides and Promotes Public Health By Lowering Dietary Risks. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mie, A.; Andersen, H.R.; Gunnarsson, S.; Kahl, J.; Kesse-Guyot, E.; Rembiałkowska, E.; Quaglio, G.; Grandjean, P. Human Health Implications of Organic Food and Organic Agriculture: A Comprehensive Review. Environ. Health A Glob. Access Sci. Source 2017, 16, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lee, K.S.; Choe, Y.C.; Park, S.H. Measuring the Environmental Effects of Organic Farming: A Meta-Analysis of Structural Variables in Empirical Research. J. Environ. Manag. 2015, 162, 263–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. FAO. Sustainable Food Systems—Concept and Framework; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2018; Available online: https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2025).
  7. Pedersen, S.; Zhang, T.; Zhou, Y.; Aschemann-Witzel, J.; Thøgersen, J. Consumer Attitudes Towards Imported Organic Food in China and Germany: The Key Imortance of Trust. J. Macromark. 2022, 43, 233–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Grand View Research. Organic Food and Beverages Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report, 2024–2030; Grand View Research: San Francisco, CA, USA, 2024; Available online: https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/organic-foods-beverages-market (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  9. Wojciechowska-Solis, J.; Barska, A. Exploring the pPreferences of Consumers for Organic Products in Aspects of Sustainable Consumption: The Case of the Polish Consumer. Agriculture 2021, 11, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Rana, J.; Paul, J. Health Motive and the Purchase of Organic Food: A Meta-Analytic Review. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2020, 44, 162–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Serebrennikov, D.; Kallas, Z.; Thorne, F.; Herrera, S.I.O.; McCarthy, S.N. Determinants of Organic Food Purchase Behaviour in the European Union: A Cross-Country Analysis Guided by the Theory of Planned Behavior. Br. Food J. 2024, 126, 3017–3036. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/1865 of 28 November 2018 Concerning the Non-renewal of Approval of the Active Substance Propiconazole, in Accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning th. Off. J. Eur. Union 2018, 304, 6–9.
  13. Bernardes, M.F.F.; Pazin, M.; Pereira, L.C.; Dorta, D.J. Impact of Pesticides on Environmental and Human Health. In Toxicology Studies—Cells, Drugs and Environment; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2015; pp. 195–233. [Google Scholar]
  14. Fothergill, A.; Abdelghani, A.A. A Review of Pesticide Residue Levels and Their Related Health Exposure Risks. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2013, 170, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sarojmoni, S.; Mridusmita, D.; Himadree, P.; Gunjan, J.; Jain, M. Pesticide Impact on Human HealthInt. J. Zool. Investig. 2022, 8, 717–725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Jun, I.; Feng, Z.; Avanasi, R.; Brain, R.A.; Prosperi, M.; Bian, J. Evaluating the Perceptions of Pesticide Use, Safety, and Regulation and Identifying Common Pesticide-related Topics on Twitter. Integr. Environ. Assess. Manag. 2023, 19, 1581–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Cooper, J.; Dobson, H. The benefits of pesticides to mankind and the environment. Crop Prot. 2007, 26, 1337–1348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Tudi, M.; Ruan, H.D.; Wang, L.; Lyu, J.; Sadler, R.; Connell, D.; Chu, C.; Phung, D. Agriculture Development, Pesticide Application and Its Impact on the Environment. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Panhwar, A.A.; Sheikh, S.A.; Soomro, A.H.; Abro, G.H. Removal of Pesticide Residues from Tomato and Its Products. J. Basic Appl. Sci. 2014, 10, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Patil, S.R.; Patil, R.B. Global Scenario of Pesticides and Benefits from Pesticide Usage: A Review. J. Zool. Investig. 2022, 2, 805–813. [Google Scholar]
  21. Lim, H.J.; Gallardo, R.K.; Brady, M.P. Interactions Between Organic and Conventional Markets from Pest and Disease Outbreaks: The Case of the U.S. Apple Industry. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2023, 55, 256–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ratnadass, A.; Avelino, J.; Fernandes, P.; Letourmy, P.; Babin, R.; Deberdt, P.; Deguine, J.-P.; Grechi, I.; Naudin, K.; Rhino, B.; et al. Synergies and Tradeoffs in Natural Regulation of Crop Pests and Diseases Under Plant Species Diversification. Crop Prot. 2021, 146, 105658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Deguine, J.-P.; Aubertot, J.-N.; Flor, R.J.; Lescourret, F.; Wyckhuys, K.A.G.; Ratnadass, A. Integrated Pest Management: Good Intentions, Hard Realities. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2021, 41, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ritchie, H. Is Organic Really Better for the Environment Than Conventional Agriculture? Our World in Data. 2017. Available online: https://ourworldindata.org/is-organic-agriculture-better-for-the-environment (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  25. Dall’Asta, M.; Angelino, D.; Pellegrini, N.; Martini, D. The Nutritional Quality of Organic and Conventional Food Products Sold in Italy: Results from the Food Labelling of Italian Products (FLIP) study. Nutrients 2020, 12, 1273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Vigar, V.; Myers, S.; Oliver, C.; Arellano, J.; Robinson, S.; Leifert, C. A systematic Review of Organic Versus Conventional Food Consumption: Is There a Measurable Benefit on Human Health? Nutrients 2019, 12, 7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Smith-Spangler, C.; Brandeau, M.L.; Hunter, G.E.; Bavinger, J.C.; Pearson, M.; Eschbach, P.J.; Sundaram, V.; Liu, H.; Schirmer, P.; Stave, C. Are Organic Foods Safer or Healthier Than Conventional Alternatives? A Systematic Review. Ann. Intern. Med. 2012, 157, 348–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Rathee, V.; Dubey, A.K.; Kaur, M. Effect of Pesticides on Human Health. J. Forensic Sci. Res. 2023, 7, 34–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kim, K.-H.; Kabir, E.; Jahan, S.A. Exposure to Pesticides and the Associated Human Health Effects. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 575, 525–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Lerro, C.C.; Koutros, S.; Andreotti, G.; Friesen, M.C.; Alavanja, M.C.; Blair, A.; Hoppin, J.A.; Sandler, D.P.; Lubin, J.H.; Ma, X. Organophosphate Insecticide Use and Cancer Incidence Among Spouses of Pesticide Applicators in the Agricultural HealthStudy. Occup. Environ. Med. 2015, 72, 736–744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tarmure, S.; Alexescu, T.G.; Orasan, O.; Negrean, V.; Sitar-Taut, A.V.; Coste, S.C.; Todea, D.A. Influence of Pesticides on Repiratorypathology—A Literature Review. Ann. Agric. Environ. Med. 2020, 27, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gangemi, S.; Gofiţă, E.; Costa, C.; Teodoro, M.; Briguglio, G.; Nikitovic, D.; Fenga, C. Occupational and Environmental Exposure to Pesticides and Cytokine Pathways in Chronic Diseases (Review). Int. J. Mol. Med. 2016, 38, 1012–1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, H.; Zhang, R.; Zeng, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, D.; Jia, H.; Xu, W.; Gao, Y. Exposure to Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Their Characteristic Metabolites: Association With Human Liver Cancer. Environ. Res. 2022, 208, 112703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Hood, R.B.; Liang, D.; Chiu, Y.-H.; Sandoval-Insausti, H.; Chavarro, J.E.; Jones, D.; Hauser, R.; Gaskins, A.J. Pesticide Residue Intake from Fruits and Vegetables and Alterations in the Serum Metabolome of Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment. Envir. Int. 2022, 160, 107061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Shekhar, C.; Khosya, R.; Thakur, K.; Mahajan, D.; Kumar, R.; Kumar, S.; Sharma, A.K. A Systematic Review of Pesticide Exposure Associated Risks, and Long-term Human Health Impacts. Toxicol. Rep. 2024, 13, 101840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ahmad, M.F.; Ahmad, F.A.; Alsayegh, A.A.; Zeyaullah, M.; AlShahrani, A.M.; Muzammil, K.; Saati, A.A.; Wahab, S.; Elbendary, E.Y.; Kambal, N.; et al. Pesticides Impacts on Human Health and the Environment with Their Mechanisms of Action and Possible Countermeasures. Heliyon 2024, 10, 29128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kazimierczak, R.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Golba, J.; Nowacka, A.; Hołodyńska-Kulas, A.; Kopczyńska, K.; Gnusowski, B. Evaluation of Pesticide Residues Occurrence in Random Samples of Organic Fruits and Vegetables Marketed in Poland. Foods 2022, 11, 1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Manuben, J.; Sarmiento, J. Rapid Screening of Pesticide Residues in Organic-labeled and Conventional Vegetables in Southern Luzon, Philippines and Its Implication on Food Safety. Philipp. J. Sci. 2022, 151, 843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Benbrook, C.M.; Baker, B.P. Perspective on Dietary Risk Assessment of Pesticide Residues in Organic Food. Sustainability 2014, 6, 3552–3570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Agriculture and Food Board. Republic of Estonia. Taimekaitsevahendi Jäägid Toidus 2023. Available online: https://pta.agri.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2025-02/Taimekaitsevahendite%20j%C3%A4%C3%A4kide%20j%C3%A4relevalvetulemused%202023.pdf (accessed on 16 March 2025).
  41. Mahepõllumajanduse Edendamise Tegevuskava Aastateks 2023–2030. Available online: https://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2023-10/arengukava-mahep%C3%B5llumajandus-2023-2030.pdf (accessed on 15 June 2025).
  42. Hoefkens, C.; Vandekinderen, I.; De Meulenaer, B.; Devlieghere, F. A Literature-based Comparison of Nutrient and Contaminant Contents Between Organic and Conventional Vegetables and Potatoes. Br. Food J. 2009, 111, 1078–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lee, S.J.; Park, H.J.; Kim, W.; Jin, J.S.; Abd El-Aty, A.M.; Shim, J.-H.; Shin, S.C. Multiresidue Analysis of 47 Pesticides in Cooked Wheat Flour and Polished Rice by Liquid Chromatography with Tandem Mass Spectrometry. Biomed. Chromatogr. 2009, 23, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Hou, X.; Han, M.; Dai, X.; Yang, X.; Yi, S. A Multi-residue Method for the Determination of 124 Pesticides in Rice by Modified QuEChERS Extraction and Gas Chromatography–tandem Mass Spectrometry. Food Chem. 2013, 138, 1198–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Thompson, T.S.; Dimock, R.; Bradbury, R.W.; Rieve, R.; Fehr, M. Pesticides in Fresh Potatoes Sold in Farmers’ Markets in Alberta, Canada. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 87, 580–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Anastassiadou, M.; Bernasconi, G.; Brancato, A.; Cabrera, L.C.; Greco, L.; Jarrah, S.; Verani, A. Reasoned Opinion on the Setting of Temporary Maximum Residue Levels for Chlorpropham in Potatoes. EFSA J. 2020, 18, e06061. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Leistra, M.; Berg, F.v.d. Volatilization of Parathion and Chlorothalonil from a Potato Crop Simulated by the Pearl Model. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 2243–2248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/989 of 17 June 2019 Soncerning the Non-renewal ofAapproval of the Active Substance Chlorpropham, in Accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council Concerning the Placing of Plant Protection Products on the Market and Amending the Annex to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 540/2011. Off. J. Eur. Union. 2019, 160, 11–13.
  49. Pasquini, L.; Lardy-Fontan, S.; Rosin, C. Pesticide Transformation Products: A Potential New Source of Interest for Drinking water. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2025, 32, 4619–4635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Riigi Teataja. Plant Protection Act. Available online: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/506102023003/consolide (accessed on 19 September 2025).
  51. Wanwimolruk, C.; Phopin, K.; Wanwimolruk, S. Food Safety in Thailand 6: How to Eat Guava Fruits Safely? Effects of Washing and Peeling on Removing Pesticide Residues in Guava Fruits. J. Food Saf. 2019, 39, e12654. [Google Scholar]
  52. Balinova, A.M.; Mladenova, R.I.; Shtereva, D.D. Effects of Processing on Pesticide Residues in Peaches Intended for Baby Food. Food Addit. Contam. 2006, 23, 895–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Soliman, K.M. Changes in Concentration of Pesticide REsidues in Potatoes During Washing and Home Preparation. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2001, 39, 887–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Lentza-Rizos, C.; Balokas, A. Residue Levels of Chlorpropham in Individual Tubers and Cpmposite Samples of Postharvest-treated Potatoes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2021, 49, 710–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Estonian Agricultural and Food Board. Available online: https://pta.agri.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09/TKV%20j%C3%A4%C3%A4gid%20toidus%202024.pdf (accessed on 19 August 2025).
  56. European Commission Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides in/on Food and Feed of Plant and Animal. Off. J. Eur. Union 2005, L70, 1–16.
  57. Kong, Z.; Shan, W.; Dong, F.; Liu, X.; Xu, J.; Li, M.; Zheng, Y. Effect of Home Processing on the Distribution and Reduction of Pesticide Residues in Apples. Food Addit. Contam. 2012, 29, 1280–1287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Yang, T.; Doherty, J.; Zhao, B.; Kinchla, A.J.; Clark, J.M.; He, L. Effectiveness of Commercial and Homemade Washing Agents in Removing Pesticide Residues on and in Apples. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2017, 65, 9744–9752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Tambo, J.A.; Kansiime, M.K.; Alaganthiran, J.R.; Danish, M.; Duah, S.A.; Faisal, S.; Khonje, M.G.; Mbugua, F.; Rajendran, G. Consumer Pesticide Concerns and the Choice of Fruit and Vegetable Markets in Five Low- and Middle-Income Countries. Glob. Food Secur. 2024, 42, 100801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Alam, M.A. Consumer Awareness and Perceptions of Pesticide Residues in Vegetables in Bangladesh. Res. Agric. Livest. Fish 2024, 11, 25–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Simoglou, K.Β.; Skarpa, P.E.; Roditakis, E. Pesticide Safety in Greek Plant Foods from the Consumer Perspective: The Importance of Reliable Information. Agrochemicals 2023, 2, 484–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Simoglou, K.Β.; Roditakis, E. Consumers’ Benefit—Risk Perception on Pesticides and Food Safety—A Survey in Greece. Agriculture 2022, 12, 192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Kutman, A.; Parm, Ü.; Tamm, A.L.; Andreson, H. Parental Opinions and Willingness to Pay for Organic School Meals in Tartu. Cogent. Food Agric. 2025, 11, 2546080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Łozowicka, B.; Kaczyński, P.; Wołejko, E.; Jankowska, M.; Iwaniuk, P.; Hrynko, I.; Rutkowska, E.; Łuniewski, S.; Ilyasova, G.; Jabłońska-Trypuć, A.; et al. Comprehensive Toxicological Multi-year Study on Pesticides in Apples: Control, trends, and dietary risk assessment. Food Chem. 2025, 464, 141897. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Nikolić, S.; Pantić-Palibrk, V.; Ristić, M.; Koprivica, D.; Stošić, D.; Nikolić, V. Analysis of Pesticide Residues in Apples in the Institute of Public Health of Belgrade for 2022. Proceedings 2024, 91, 278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Roberts, J.R.; Reigart, J.R. Fungicides. In Recognition and Management of Pesticide Poisonings, 6th ed.; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2013; p. 149. [Google Scholar]
  67. The Merck Index. An Encyclopedia of Chemicals, Drugs, and Biologicals, 11th ed.; Budavari, S., Ed.; Merck and Co. Inc.: Rahway, NJ, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  68. European Chemical Agency. Captan. Available online: https://echa.europa.eu/es/substance-information/-/substanceinfo/100.004.626 (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  69. Shrestha, S.; Parks, C.G.; Umbach, D.M.; Richards-Barber, M.; Hofmann, J.N.; Chen, H.; Blair, A.; Beane Freeman, L.E.; Sandler, D.P. Pesticide Use and Incident Parkinson’s Disease in a Cohort of Farmers and Their Spouses. Environ. Res. 2020, 191, 110186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Rawn, D.F.K.R.; Quade, S.C.; Sun, W.F.; Fouguet, A. Captan Residue Reduction in Apples as a Result of Rinsing and Peeling. Food Chem. 2008, 104, 790–796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Odabas, E.; Keklik, M.; Golge, O.; González-Curbelo, M.Á.; Kabak, B. Monitoring and Risk Assessment of Multi-pesticide Residues in Apples: A Focus on Consumer Safety. Foods 2024, 13, 3186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Pirasath, S.; Senthuran, R.; Athirayan, C.; Gevakaran, M. Acute Poisoning with Acetamiprid: A Case Report. J. Med. Case Rep. 2021, 15, 102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Phogat, A.; Singh, J.; Kumar, V.; Malik, V. Toxicity of the Acetamiprid Insecticide for Mammals: A Review. Environ. Chem. Lett. 2022, 20, 1453–1478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. European Parliament. Available online: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20240917IPR24036/pesticides-no-residues-of-eu-banned-products-in-imported-food (accessed on 12 August 2025).
  75. Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of Substances and Mixtures, Amending and Repealing Directives 67/548/EEC and 1999/45/EC, and Amending Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006. OJ L 2008, 353, 1–1355.
  76. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority). Conclusion on the Peer Review of the Pesticide Risk Assessment of the Active Substance Chlorantraniliprole. EFSA J. 2013, 11, 3413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Benbrook, C.; Davis, D.R. The Dietary Risk Index System: A Tool to Track Pesticide Dietary Risks. Environ. Health 2020, 19, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Brantsæter, A.L.; Ydersbond, T.A.; Hoppin, J.A.; Haugen, M.; Meltzer, H.M. Organic food in the diet: Exposure and health implications. Annu. Rev. Public Health 2017, 38, 295–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Barański, M.; Średnicka-Tober, D.; Volakakis, N.; Seal, C.; Sanderson, R.; Stewart, G.B.; Benbrook, C.; Biavati, B.; Markellou, E.; Giotis, C. Higher Antioxidant and Lower Cadmium Concentrations and Lower Incidence of Pesticide Residues in Organically Grown Crops: A Aystematic Literature Review and Meta-Analyses. Br. J. Nutr. 2014, 112, 794–811. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Oberholtzer, L.; Greene, C.; Lopez, E. Organic Poultry and Eggs Capture High Price Premiums and Growing Share of Specialty Markets); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  81. Carter, D.; Cachelin, A. The Consumer Costs of Food Certification: A Pilot Study and Research Opportunities. J. Consum. Aff. 2018, 53, 652–661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Mahoney, P.; Olson, K.D.; Porter, P.M.; Huggins, D.R.; Perillo, C.A.; Crookston, R.K. Profitability of Organic Cropping Systems in South-western Minnesota. Renew. Agric. Food Syst. 2004, 19, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Smoluk-Sikorska, J. Differences Between Prices of Organic and Conventional Food in Poland. Agriculture 2024, 14, 2308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Lee, M.; von der Heidt, T.; Bradbury, J.; Grace, S. How Much More to Pay? A study of Retail Prices of Organic Versus Conventional Vegetarian Foods in an Australian Regional Area. J. Food Distrib. Res. 2021, 52, 46–62. [Google Scholar]
  85. Chen, Y.; Haifeng, D.; Chang, Q.; Fan, C.P. An Intelligent Analysis System for Pesticide Residue Detection Data and Its Application in Food Safety Supervision. Foods 2022, 11, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Sotsiaalministeerium. Koolitoidu Teekaart 2024; Sotsiaalministeerium: Tallinn, Estonia, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  87. Eesti Toidukaupade Positsioon Siseturul 2022; Eesti Konjunktuuriinstituut: Tallinn, Estonia, 2022. Available online: https://www.agri.ee/sites/default/files/documents/2023-01/uuring-2022-toidukaubad-siseturg-2022.pdf (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  88. Nuutila, J.; Risku-Norja, H.; Arolaakso, A. Public Kitchen Menu Substitutions Increase Organic Share and School Meal Sustainability at Equal Cost. Org. Agric. 2018, 8, 213–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Eesti Pank. The Estonian Economy and Monetary Policy 1/2025; Eesti Pank: Tallinn, Estonia, 2025; Available online: https://www.eestipank.ee/en/publications/estonian-economy-and-monetary-policy (accessed on 6 November 2025).
  90. Statistics Estonia. Suhteline Vaesus on Eestis Vähenenud, Absoluutne Vaesus Suurenenud; Statistics Estonia: Tallinn, Estonia, 2025; Available online: https://www.stat.ee/et/uudised/suhteline-vaesus-eestis-vahenenud-absoluutne-vaesus-suurenenud (accessed on 7 November 2025).
  91. Carrasco Cabrera, L.; Di Piazza, G.; Dujardin, B.; Marchese, E.; Medina Pastor, P. The 2023 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2025, 23, e9398. [Google Scholar]
  92. Carrasco Cabrera, L.; Di Piazza, G.; Dujardin, B.; Marchese, E.; Medina Pastor, P. The 2021 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2023, 21, e07939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Carrasco Cabrera, L.; Di Piazza, G.; Dujardin, B.; Marchese, E.; Medina Pastor, P. The 2022 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food. EFSA J. 2024, 22, e8753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Finnish Food Authority. Pesticide Residue Control Results in 2023; Finnish Food Authority: Helsinki, Finland, 2025; Available online: https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/globalassets/elintarvikkeet/elintarvikeala/vierasaineet-ja-jaamat/valvontatulokset/elintarvikkeiden-torjunta-ainejaamien-valvontaohjelma-vasu.pdf (accessed on 11 November 2025).
  95. Fødevarestyrelsen, DTU Fødevareinstituttet. Pesticidrester i Fødevarer 2023—Resultater Fra den Danske Pesticidkontrol; Fødevarestyrelsen og DTU Fødevareinstituttet: Glostrup og Lyngby, Denmark, 2024. [Google Scholar]
  96. Johansson, A.; Rydevik, A.L. Kontroll av Bekämpningsmedelsrester i Livsmedel 2022 och 2023; Livsmedelsverkets Rapportserie, Livsmedelsverket: Uppsala, Sweden, 2025; Available online: https://www.livsmedelsverket.se/om-oss/publikationer (accessed on 11 November 2025).
Table 1. Methods and equipment used in the laboratory.
Table 1. Methods and equipment used in the laboratory.
AnalysisMethodEquipment
Glyphosate (including AMPA) and glufosinatePesticide SRM glyphosate, methanol extraction (acidified) and LC-MS/MSAgilent 1290 Infinity II LC system coupled to AB Sciex TQ-6500(+) Triple Quadrupole MS (Waldbronn, Germany)
Quantitative multi-residue screeningPesticide multi-residue screening by GC-MS/MS or LC-MS/MSAgilent Intuvo 9000 GC coupled to Agilent 7010B Triple Quadrupole MS (Waldbronn, Germany), or Agilent 1290 Infinity II LC system coupled to AB Sciex TQ-6500(+) Triple Quadrupole MS (Waldbronn, Germany)
SRM—single residue method; LC–MS/MS—liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry; GC–MS/MS—gas chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry.
Table 2. Pesticide residues detected in conventional apple samples.
Table 2. Pesticide residues detected in conventional apple samples.
PesticideType of PesticideConcentration
Detected; mg/kg
Mean SD Max		Detected in No of SamplesMRL, mg/kg
CaptanFU0.375 0.535 0.591510
Chlorantraniliprole *IN0.019 0.035 0.035100.4
AcetamipridIN0.019 0.029 0.07360.07
FlonicamidIN0.018 0.032 0.07460.3
CyprodinilFU0.037 0.084 0.2542
Fludioxonil *FU0.027 0.059 0.1845
CarbendazimFU0.003 0.006 0.01730.2
SpirodiclofenAC/IN0.003 0.006 0.01630.8
Boscalid *FU0.006 0.02 0.08522
Pyraclostrobin *FU0.003 0.011 0.04810.5
PyriproxyfenIN0.002 0.007 0.0310.05
MRL—maximum residue level according to the EU Pesticides Database; IN—insecticide; FU—fungicide; AC—acaricide. * Maximum concentration detected was more than ten times lower than the EU MRL.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kutman, A.; Parm, Ü.; Tamm, A.-L.; Andreson, H. Pesticide Residues in Organic and Conventional Apples and Potatoes Served in Tartu (Estonia) School Meals. Sustainability 2025, 17, 10269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210269

AMA Style

Kutman A, Parm Ü, Tamm A-L, Andreson H. Pesticide Residues in Organic and Conventional Apples and Potatoes Served in Tartu (Estonia) School Meals. Sustainability. 2025; 17(22):10269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210269

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kutman, Ave, Ülle Parm, Anna-Liisa Tamm, and Helena Andreson. 2025. "Pesticide Residues in Organic and Conventional Apples and Potatoes Served in Tartu (Estonia) School Meals" Sustainability 17, no. 22: 10269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210269

APA Style

Kutman, A., Parm, Ü., Tamm, A.-L., & Andreson, H. (2025). Pesticide Residues in Organic and Conventional Apples and Potatoes Served in Tartu (Estonia) School Meals. Sustainability, 17(22), 10269. https://doi.org/10.3390/su172210269

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop