Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626361›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

The 2017 European Union report on pesticide residues in food.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Notifications on Pesticide Residues in the Rapid Alert System for Food and Feed (RASFF).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The latest in this series of annual reports describes in detail the official control activities carried out for pesticide residues by EU Member States, Iceland and Norway in 2017. Under Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, Member States are requested to share the results of their official control activities and other relevant information with the European Commission, EFSA and other Member States. Based on the results provided by the reporting countries, a detailed analysis was performed on the pesticide occurrence data in the relevant food products consumed and the dietary risk related to the exposure of European consumers to pesticide residues was estimated. Overall, 95.9% of the 88,247 samples analysed fell within the legal limits (84,627, samples). In 54.1% of the tested samples, no quantifiable residues were reported (residue levels below the limit of quantification (LOQ)), while 41.8% of the samples analysed contained quantified residues at or below the maximum residue levels (MRLs). The dietary risk assessment indicated that, for the samples analysed, the probability of European citizens being exposed to pesticide residue levels that could lead to negative health outcomes is low. Based on the analysis of the 2017 results, EFSA derived several recommendations to increase the efficiency of the European control systems to ensure a continuing high level of consumer protection.

Indexed as

consumer risk assessmentfood controlmaximum residue levelsmonitoringpesticide residuesRegulation (EC) No. 396/2005

Identifiers

PMID32626361
PMCPMC7009310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.