NATA, Australia’s primary independent accreditation body. The lab found 201 pesticide residues from 54 chemicals with 44 per cent of samples containing residues of pesticides classified by the report as PFAS, or ‘forever’ pesticides. Bupirimate on strawberries reached 9.5 times the maximum residue limit (MRL), while bifenthrin on grapes hit 5.5 times. Fipronil and permethrin were also detected on capsicum where Pesticide Action Australia said no APVMA MRL, label or permit could be found. The findings on their own, however, do not explain how the residues came to be there nor establish that any unlawful use occurred.  APVMA itself stresses that an MRL is a compliance tool, rather than a health or safety threshold. The pesticide itself may follow a comprehensible path from farm to shelf, but the responsibility is less straightforward. From growers to retailers to the APVMA and food regulators, everyone in that chain has a part to play, which makes it hard to work out who is answerable when a residue exceeds a limit or a chemical may have been used incorrectly. Why it gets complicated The report’s most unsettling argument concerns accumulation as growers may use several chemicals across a crop cycle, meaning a tomato or grape can carry several residues at once. Pesticide Action Australia calls this the “cocktail effect”. Associate Professor Mark Green, a reproductive biologist at the University of Melbourne, put the uncertainty to words. “We know little to nothing about all the endless combinations of chemicals and how they can work synergistically or antagonistically.”  Eleanor Davis, who led the project, does not speak about the results with alarm, but quite the opposite. What concerns her is how ordinary she thinks the findings are. “It was quite unsurprising because it’s reflective of a system that isn’t adequately testing our food,” she told Inside Retail. Davis pointed to the Australian Total Diet Study as the government’s most comprehensive survey of chemicals in the national diet, yet its last study focused on agricultural chemicals was published in 2019 using food purchased in 2013 and 2014.  Who bears the burden? The APVMA sets the conditions for how agricultural chemicals can be used and the residue limits that follow, but told Inside Retail that it does not itself monitor residues in food and suspected breaches go to state or territory authorities. Food Standards Australia and New Zealand, meanwhile, governs the residue limits for food sold in Australia; growers are expected to use chemicals correctly, and supermarkets add their own layer of supplier testing and assurance. Whilst it may be a well-populated system of responsibility, it is not quite the same as having a dedicated scrutineer. Between the farm, the regulator, the auditor and the produce aisle, the shopper is left with a reasonable assumption that somebody, somewhere, has checked.  All produce tested in the laboratory was Australian-grown, but Pesticide Action Australia deliberately avoided naming individual growers. Farmers, Davis said, already operate between climate volatility, rising production costs and the bargaining power of a concentrated grocery market. “Ultimately, the regulation and monitoring of the safety of our food is a government responsibility,” Davis explained. “The reason why we’re asking supermarkets to step up as well is just that in this incredibly concentrated grocery market in Australia, they just have such a significant role and can really be part of the solution.” Aldi, Coles and Woolworths require in-scope direct fresh-produce suppliers to meet HARPS requirements alongside certification to a recognised third-party food-safety scheme. Aldi said suppliers must meet recognised food-safety standards and undergo regular testing, supplemented by its own risk-based surveillance. Coles claims its supply chains are independently audited. “Coles regularly tests a range of fresh produce for pesticide residues throughout the year, as we have done for decades,” a spokesperson said. Still, retailers do not routinely publish detailed residue-testing protocols and results, so aggregate results remain, for the most part, out of public view. Collective effort over defensive posture Overseas in the UK, there exists a more transparent model at government level. Monitoring results are published throughout the year, including the pesticides detected and, in many cases, brands, suppliers and sampling locations. Davis would like Australia to replicate that model. “We really want to work with supermarkets on this,” Davis stressed. “There’s a really clear path that we can follow, and this has to happen collectively.” What constitutes “collective” is Australia’s government, growers, retailers and civil society, along with practical support for farmers adopting alternatives. Davis also wants clearer protocols for what occurs when a sample exceeds an MRL or suggests off-label use, areas she says remain difficult for the public to decipher.  Seventy-eight samples cannot describe every fruit or vegetable sold in Australia, and Pesticide Action Australia itself calls the exercise a snapshot. They can, however, expose the limits of what shoppers know about a food system that asks them to trust several layers of oversight at once. Davis believes one retailer moving first could alter the behaviour of the others.“ Because of the concentration of the supermarkets here, when one leads, it really pushes the others to follow.” Pesticide Action Australia has launched a campaign calling for greater transparency in residue testing and more support for farmers to reduce pesticide use.