Canada

Detailed country profile CA Northern America

All countries can be selected. A scientific country assessment, however, exists only where we found and checked reliable sources.

Applicable frameworks: Canada · International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

At a glance

Data availability by topic
Topic	Applicable frameworks
Pesticides and pesticide residues	Canada Data quality: high
Veterinary medicines and antibiotics	Canada Data quality: high
Hormonal growth promoters	Canada Data quality: moderate
Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)	Canada Data quality: moderate
Mycotoxins (mould toxins)	Canada Data quality: moderate
Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)	Canada Data quality: moderate
Additives and processing	Canada Data quality: moderate
Animal husbandry and feed	Canada Data quality: moderate
Controls, imports, recalls, labelling	Canada Data quality: high
Drinking water	Canada Data quality: moderate

National profile: Canada

In Canada, pesticides, veterinary drugs and food additives are approved by Health Canada, and the CFIA checks food on the market. In the CFIA's 2022/23 random residue programme, 97.5% of about 15,500 food samples met Canadian limits (domestic 98.2%, imported 96.9%). Some groups were lower, such as imported dairy, imported fish, domestic honey and some imported vegetables. Hormone implants are allowed only in beef cattle; rbST is not approved for dairy cows. Antibiotics important for human medicine need a veterinary prescription since December 2018, and growth-promotion claims were removed. Data limits: compliance rates mix all chemicals, and Canadian limits (e.g. the 0.1 mg/kg general pesticide limit) differ from EU limits, so direct comparisons need care.

Research scope: Researched Health Canada (PMRA, Veterinary Drugs Directorate, Food Directorate), CFIA monitoring reports (NCRMP 2022/23 full PDF, Children's Food Project 2022 and 2023, NMMP 2024/25, targeted surveys on PFOA/PFOS and toxic metals), veterinary antimicrobial sales reports 2022-2024, CIPARS 2023, FoodNet Canada 2019, NFACC layer code, CFIA feed-ban consultation, SFCR and recall pages, drinking-water guidelines and JMP. CFIA open-science pages blocked WebFetch (HTTP 403); PDFs were downloaded through the DSpace API. Not found or not accessible: current ractopamine MRL values, share of hens by housing type, extent of HGP use, recent Total Diet Study results, FoodNet reports after 2019, EU-style flock-level Salmonella data.

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – Canada

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Health Canada's Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) registers pesticides and sets maximum residue limits (MRLs) under the Pest Control Products Act. MRLs are listed in Health Canada's MRL database. Where no specific MRL exists, a general MRL of 0.1 mg/kg applies under section B.15.002(1) of the Food and Drug Regulations. This applies equally to domestic and imported food. The CFIA enforces MRLs.
B. What is actually used in production?: Pesticides are used in conventional Canadian agriculture. Sales of pest control products were 144,301,218 kg active ingredient in 2024 (1% more than 2023). Changes are driven by agricultural herbicide sales. Glyphosate is used on major Canadian crops such as wheat, canola, soybean and corn (stated in the NCRMP report). Per-crop use data are confidential and not public.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: CFIA NCRMP 2022/23 (April 2022 to March 2023; about 15,500 random monitoring samples of all chemical classes): fresh fruit and vegetables were 96.7% compliant; domestic 99.4%, imported 95.5%. All non-compliances in fresh produce were pesticides above the MRL. Imported legume vegetables were 75.6% compliant, imported herbs 83.0%, imported leafy vegetables 91.3%. Many residues in imports were of pesticides not registered in Canada, judged against the 0.1 mg/kg general MRL. New glyphosate testing in domestic honey: residues in 93 of 170 samples, 9 above the general MRL. Children's Food Project 2023 (105 infant purees, Ottawa): 69% without detectable residues, 100% compliant.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada assesses non-compliant results. The NCRMP report states that exceedances of the general MRL in imports 'do not necessarily indicate that imported FFVs are a concern for consumers'. For glyphosate in honey, Health Canada updated its dietary exposure assessment and found no increased risk. No health risk was identified for the children's foods tested.
E. How robust are the data?: The NCRMP uses random, pre-scheduled sampling designed to estimate compliance. Results are reported as compliance (all chemical classes combined per sample), not as a pure 'pesticide MRL exceedance rate'. The Canadian general MRL (0.1 mg/kg) differs from the EU default (0.01 mg/kg), so compliance rates are not directly comparable with the EU. Detection rates per pesticide are in Annex B of the report but not summarised.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Fruit and vegetables: chemical compliance ffv_chem_compliance_pct CFIA NCRMP n not stated as a single number for FFV in text	96.7 % of fresh fruit and vegetable samples compliant (all non-compliances were pesticides)	2022/23	–	random	all foods	RS-CA-01
Fruit and vegetables: chemical compliance ffv_chem_compliance_pct CFIA NCRMP	99.4 % compliant	2022/23	–	random	domestic products	RS-CA-01
Fruit and vegetables: chemical compliance ffv_chem_compliance_pct CFIA NCRMP Imports judged against Canadian MRLs or 0.1 mg/kg general MRL	95.5 % compliant	2022/23	–	random	imports	RS-CA-01
Pesticides: samples with measurable residues pest_quantified_pct CFIA Children's Food Project infant purees, single city	31 % of samples with detectable pesticide residues (33 of 105)	2023 (sampled Feb 2024)	105	targeted	all foods	RS-CA-04

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: Imported legume vegetables, herbs and leafy vegetables had the lowest compliance in 2022/23 (75.6%, 83.0%, 91.3%). Domestic produce compliance was 99.4%.
Honey, sugar, sweets: Domestic honey 93.9% compliant in 2022/23, mainly due to new glyphosate testing (9 of 170 above the general MRL).
Cereals and rice: Cereal grains (CG15) were 100% compliant, domestic and imported, in NCRMP 2022/23.

Sources: RS-CA-01, RS-CA-04, RS-CA-18, RS-CA-19

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – Canada

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Veterinary drugs are authorised by Health Canada's Veterinary Drugs Directorate, which sets MRLs (List of MRLs for Veterinary Drugs in Foods). Without an MRL, any residue at or above the method's limit of quantification is non-compliant. Banned drugs in food animals are listed in FDR section B.01.048. Regulations published 17 May 2017 and in force from November 2017: medically important antimicrobials (MIAs) can no longer be imported under the Own Use Importation policy; manufacturers, importers and compounders must report annual MIA sales (from 2018). From 1 December 2018, all MIAs need a veterinary prescription (pre-2004 MIAs moved to the Prescription Drug List). Growth-promotion claims were removed from MIA labels; MIAs in food animals should only be used to treat or prevent disease.
B. What is actually used in production?: Medically important antimicrobial sales for all animals were 917,178 kg in 2024 (81.0 mg/kg biomass), 17% fewer kg than in 2018. By species (mg/kg biomass, 2024): pigs 139.5, beef cattle 56.5, poultry 48.1, dairy cattle 28.5, aquaculture 221.9 (a 226% rise, possibly a disease outbreak). Category I (very high importance) was under 1% of sales (6,824 kg); Category II 31%; Category III 66%. Category I sales were not reported for poultry or aquaculture in 2023-2024. In mg per Canadian PCU (all animals incl. pets): 148.9 (2018) to 132.6 (2022). CIPARS sentinel farms: AMU decreased 2019-2023 on broiler, turkey, pig and feedlot farms; under 2% of farm AMU was Category I. The chicken industry states it eliminated preventive use of Category I (2014) and Category II (end 2018) antimicrobials; ionophores and coccidiostats are still used preventively.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: NCRMP 2022/23 domestic meat (slaughter samples incl. liver, kidney, fat): 97.8% compliant overall; chicken 613 samples, 0 violations; pork 638 samples, 2 violations; beef 648 samples, 12 violations; lamb/mutton 90.8%; rabbit 79.1% (mainly extra-label drug use in minor species without MRLs). Imported meat 99.9%. Domestic eggs 95.2% compliant, mainly nicarbazin and ionophore residues from feed carry-over (not approved for laying hens). Imported dairy 91.0%, mostly thiouracil in cheese, attributed to brassica feed; none above the action level. Imported fish and seafood 94.5%; 44 violations, mostly vet drugs in non-salmonid aquaculture fish and shrimp. Children's Food Project 2022: 3 of 93 dairy-based children's foods with drug residues, all non-violative.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada states that the nicarbazin/ionophore levels in eggs are unlikely to pose a human health concern and that thiouracil levels in imported cheese were not expected to be a risk. Residues in minor species and non-salmonid fish were below MRLs set for the same drugs in other species. CIPARS 2023 reports rising ESBL-producing Salmonella in humans, animals and food and rising ciprofloxacin resistance in Campylobacter from animals and food; this is an antimicrobial-resistance concern rather than a residue concern.
E. How robust are the data?: NCRMP sampling is random and designed to estimate compliance; species tables give n. Detection-based non-compliance (LOQ) for drugs without MRL means 'non-compliant' does not equal 'unsafe'. Sales data (VASR) are sales, not use, and species splits are estimates. The Canadian PCU differs from the European PCU, so mg/PCU values cannot be compared one-to-one with ESVAC/ESUAvet figures. The 2018 baseline was revised between reports.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Veterinary drugs: non-compliant samples vetdrug_noncompliant_pct CFIA NCRMP 0 violations	0 % of domestic chicken samples non-compliant (all chemical classes)	2022/23	613	random	domestic products	RS-CA-01
Veterinary drugs: non-compliant samples vetdrug_noncompliant_pct CFIA NCRMP just over 400 samples; derived from stated compliance rate	4.8 % of domestic shell egg samples non-compliant (100 - 95.2% compliance; mainly vet drug residues)	2022/23	–	random	domestic products	RS-CA-01
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/kg biomass) amu_mg_per_kg_biomass Health Canada VASR sales data, mandatory reporting	81 mg MIA sold per kg animal biomass (all animals)	2024	–	unknown	all foods	RS-CA-11
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes) amu_tonnes Health Canada VASR 917,178 kg	917.2 tonnes MIA sold (all animals)	2024	–	unknown	all foods	RS-CA-11
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/PCU) amu_mg_per_pcu Health Canada VASR Canadian PCU; not equal to the European PCU	132.6 mg per Canadian PCU (all animals incl. cats and dogs)	2022	–	unknown	all foods	RS-CA-13

Notes on foods

Poultry: Domestic chicken: 613 NCRMP samples, 0 violations (2022/23). Industry eliminated preventive Category I and II antimicrobial use; ionophores still used.
Eggs: Domestic eggs 95.2% compliant; residues of nicarbazin/ionophores from feed carry-over.
Dairy: Domestic dairy 99.8% compliant; imported dairy 91.0% (thiouracil in cheese).
Fish and seafood: Domestic fish 100% compliant; imported 94.5% (vet drugs in non-salmonid aquaculture fish and shrimp).
Red meat: Beef 98.1%, pork 99.7%, lamb/mutton 90.8% compliant (domestic).

Sources: RS-CA-01, RS-CA-05, RS-CA-09, RS-CA-10, RS-CA-11, RS-CA-12, RS-CA-13, RS-CA-14, RS-CA-38

Hormonal growth promoters – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Six hormonal growth promoters are approved for beef cattle only: progesterone, testosterone, estradiol-17beta (natural), and trenbolone acetate, zeranol and melengestrol acetate (synthetic). They are not approved for any other species, so not for poultry, pigs or dairy cows. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (rbST) is not approved for sale in Canada; Health Canada found no human health risk but had animal health concerns. Ractopamine (a beta-agonist, not a hormone) was approved by Health Canada after a human health risk assessment and was described in 2012 as used by Canadian beef and pork producers.
B. What is actually used in production?: HGPs are given as ear implants (MGA as a feed additive) in beef cattle; the extent of use is not documented in the sources read. The Canadian Pork Council states that virtually all Canadian pork producers do not feed ractopamine and that it is not available in Canada as a swine product; a ractopamine-free certification programme supports exports. NCRMP data show ractopamine residues in domestic beef liver (see measured), which indicates use in beef cattle.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: NCRMP 2022/23 Annex B (domestic): free ractopamine detected in 90 of 579 beef liver samples, 2 violations; melengestrol acetate detected in 16 of 439 beef fat samples, 0 violations. Chicken liver: free ractopamine in 1 of 568 samples, 0 violations. Screens for zeranol/stilbenes, hormones and steroids are part of the programme.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada: 'Scientific research to date has not demonstrated that food products' from HGP-treated animals pose a threat to human health. HGPs are banned in the EU (noted by Health Canada).
E. How robust are the data?: Approval status is clear from official sources. Residue data come from random NCRMP sampling with sample numbers. Actual rate of HGP use in Canadian beef herds was not found. Current ractopamine MRL values were not verified (the 2013 Health Canada proposal page returned 404).

Notes on foods

Red meat: Beef cattle may receive approved hormone implants and ractopamine; residues are monitored against MRLs.
Poultry: Hormones are not approved for poultry.
Dairy: rbST is not approved; hormones are not approved for dairy cows.
Eggs: Hormones are not approved for laying hens.

Sources: RS-CA-15, RS-CA-16, RS-CA-17, RS-CA-01

Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate) – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Maximum levels are set in Health Canada's List of Contaminants and other Adulterating Substances in Foods (version 2026-07-24, incorporated by reference into FDR Division 15) and the List of Maximum Levels for Various Chemical Contaminants in Foods, both enforced by the CFIA. Examples: inorganic arsenic 0.2 ppm in white rice, 0.35 ppm in brown rice, 0.1 ppm in rice-based foods for infants; lead 0.01 ppm in infant formula and bottled water; mercury 0.5 mg/kg in most retail fish (1 mg/kg tuna, swordfish, shark and some others); 2,3,7,8-TCDD 20 ppt in fish. There are no general Canadian maximum levels for cadmium or for PFAS in food; PCBs are listed 'under review'. PFOA and PFOS are prohibited under the Prohibition of Certain Toxic Substances Regulations, 2012. In March 2025 the State of PFAS Report concluded that the PFAS class (excluding fluoropolymers) meets criteria of CEPA section 64.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable (contaminants are not intentionally used).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: NCRMP 2022/23 tests metals, dioxins, PCBs and PAHs; imported wild fish had 4 mercury non-compliances. Domestic raw milk: no dioxin/PCB violations in 127 samples. CFIA targeted survey 2013-2016: 1,418 foods, none with detectable PFOA or PFOS (LOD 0.25 ppb). CFIA toxic metals survey 2023-24: 957 retail samples; 69% had at least one of As, Cd, Pb, Hg; bottled water had none detected. Children's Food Project 2023: 80% of infant purees without detectable As, Cd, Pb, Hg. The Total Diet Study (since 1969) analyses about 160 composites per year; the State of PFAS report says PFOS and PFOA were the most frequently detected PFAS in TDS foods.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada found no health concern for the samples in these surveys. The State of PFAS Report identifies harm to human health and the environment for the PFAS class.
E. How robust are the data?: Many contaminant results are from targeted retail surveys with varying designs; the PFAS food survey is old and covers only two compounds at a relatively high LOD. Recent TDS results were not found on the pages read.

Notes on foods

Cereals and rice: Inorganic arsenic MLs for rice: 0.2 ppm white, 0.35 ppm brown, 0.1 ppm infant rice foods.
Fish and seafood: Mercury ML 0.5 mg/kg (1 mg/kg for tuna, swordfish, shark and some others). 4 mercury non-compliances in imported wild fish in 2022/23.

Sources: RS-CA-22, RS-CA-23, RS-CA-01, RS-CA-07, RS-CA-08, RS-CA-04, RS-CA-25, RS-CA-39

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Aflatoxins in nuts and nut products: 15 ppb (List of Contaminants). Deoxynivalenol: 2.0 mg/kg in uncleaned soft wheat for non-staple foods and 1.0 mg/kg for baby foods (under review). Patulin in apple juice: 50 ppb. The CFIA uses a reference level of 0.5 ppb for aflatoxin M1 in dairy-based foods (stated in the Children's Food Project 2022 report). For ochratoxin A, Health Canada (2025) judged dietary exposure of low concern and decided that regulatory maximum levels are not necessary at this time.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: NCRMP 2022/23: aflatoxin M1 detected in 4 of 191 domestic raw milk samples (maximum 0.120 ng/g), 0 violations. Children's Food Project 2022: aflatoxin M1 in 1 of 93 dairy-based children's foods (0.0566 ppb).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada 2025: OTA exposure of low concern. No health risk found for aflatoxin M1 results.
E. How robust are the data?: Aflatoxin M1 data are from random NCRMP sampling but with modest n. Other CFIA mycotoxin surveys (fumonisins, multi-mycotoxins, OTA, aflatoxins) exist but were not read in detail.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Aflatoxin M1: samples above the limit aflatoxin_m1_exceed_pct CFIA NCRMP 4 of 191 detected, 0 violations	0 % of raw milk samples above limit	2022/23	191	random	domestic products	RS-CA-01

Notes on foods

Dairy: Aflatoxin M1: 0 of 191 domestic raw milk samples above the limit (2022/23).
Cereals and rice: DON ML for uncleaned soft wheat (2.0 mg/kg; 1.0 mg/kg for baby foods).

Sources: RS-CA-22, RS-CA-23, RS-CA-24, RS-CA-01, RS-CA-05

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Health Canada sets microbiological standards and policies; the CFIA verifies them. The Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods (2023) took effect on 1 October 2023 and classifies RTE foods by growth potential. Since 1 April 2019, manufacturers must reduce Salmonella in frozen raw breaded chicken products to below a detectable amount (after 17 national outbreaks investigated since 2017). The SFCR (2019) requires preventive controls against hazards such as Listeria, E. coli and Salmonella.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable as such; industry is responsible for preventive controls and testing.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: CFIA NMMP 2024/25: 5,305 products; domestic 99.0% and imported 98.9% satisfactory. Domestic RTE meat and poultry 99.8% satisfactory (1,056 samples); Salmonella 0 of 443 domestic RTE tests; imported RTE meat 95.4% (87 samples, Listeria). Domestic egg products: Salmonella 0 of 134. Shell egg grading stations: 187 environmental samples 100% satisfactory for Salmonella. FoodNet Canada 2019 (sentinel sites): retail chicken breast Salmonella 16%, Campylobacter 42%; broiler farm manure Salmonella 44%, Campylobacter 28%; endemic human incidence Campylobacter 20 and Salmonella 9 per 100,000. Peer-reviewed evaluation: Salmonella in retail frozen breaded chicken fell from 28% to 2.9% after the 2019 requirement; human salmonellosis incidence estimated 23% lower.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: In FoodNet sentinel sites in 2019, Campylobacter had the highest endemic incidence of the pathogens reported (20 per 100,000), followed by Salmonella (9 per 100,000). An estimated 26% of salmonellosis cases before 2019 were attributable to frozen breaded chicken products (peer-reviewed study).
E. How robust are the data?: NMMP results are compliance with criteria on SFC-licensed products, not prevalence estimates. FoodNet retail prevalence comes from a few sentinel sites; the latest integrated report found is for 2019. Raw poultry is not reported in the NMMP. Comparable flock-level Salmonella prevalence data (as in the EU) were not found.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Salmonella: poultry meat salmonella_poultry_meat_pct FoodNet Canada sentinel sites sentinel sites BC, AB, ON, QC; n not on page	16 % of retail chicken breast samples Salmonella-positive	2019	–	mixed	all foods	RS-CA-32
Campylobacter: retail chicken meat campylobacter_retail_chicken_pct FoodNet Canada sentinel sites retail meat, not broiler carcass/flock; new id	42 % of retail chicken breast samples Campylobacter-positive	2019	–	mixed	all foods	RS-CA-32
Salmonella: broiler flocks salmonella_broiler_flocks_pct FoodNet Canada sentinel sites farm manure samples at sentinel sites, not an EU-style flock programme	44 % of broiler farm manure samples Salmonella-positive	2019	–	mixed	domestic products	RS-CA-32
Microbiology: satisfactory samples micro_satisfactory_pct CFIA NMMP compliance with microbiological criteria; new id	98.9 % of food products satisfactory (domestic+imported)	2024/25	5,305	mixed	all foods	RS-CA-06

Notes on foods

Poultry: Retail chicken breast 2019: Salmonella 16%, Campylobacter 42% (sentinel sites). Frozen raw breaded chicken rule since 2019.
Eggs: Egg products and grading stations: no Salmonella found in NMMP 2024/25.
Red meat: Retail ground beef Listeria 25% (2019). RTE meat 99.8% satisfactory (2024/25).

Sources: RS-CA-06, RS-CA-29, RS-CA-30, RS-CA-31, RS-CA-32, RS-CA-36

Additives and processing – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Food additives are permitted through 15 Lists of Permitted Food Additives, each incorporated by reference into a Marketing Authorization. An unlisted additive or new use needs a food additive submission and Health Canada assessment. Titanium dioxide remains permitted: in 2022 Health Canada found no conclusive scientific evidence of a human health concern, a different conclusion from the EU, which no longer considers E171 safe.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented in the sources read.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not applicable.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Health Canada (2022) on TiO2: no conclusive evidence of harm; it will keep monitoring the science.
E. How robust are the data?: Only TiO2 was checked as a notable difference; other differences (e.g. potassium bromate, azodicarbonamide) were not verified.

Sources: RS-CA-21, RS-CA-20

Animal husbandry and feed – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Farm animal welfare codes are developed by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC); most provinces incorporate them by reference into animal protection regulations. The 2017 Code of Practice for Pullets and Laying Hens requires that all hens be in enriched cages or non-cage systems by 1 July 2036 (industry commitment: at least 85% transitioned within 15 years; 50% within 8 years). Enriched cages built after 1 April 2017 must give at least 750 cm2 per hen. Enhanced feed ban (in force 2007): specified risk material (SRM) banned from all animal feed, pet food and fertilizer; most mammalian proteins banned from ruminant feed. Canada has WOAH negligible BSE risk status since 2021. In 2026 the CFIA consulted (closed 9 September 2026) on allowing lower-risk SRM in non-ruminant feed, pet food and fertilizer; brain and spinal cord from cattle 30 months or older would stay banned; no final rule yet.
B. What is actually used in production?: Share of hens currently in each housing system was not found in the sources read. Nicarbazin/ionophore residues in eggs point to feed carry-over at mills (NCRMP).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not applicable.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Codes are legally binding only where provinces incorporate them; enforcement varies by province.

Notes on foods

Eggs: Conventional cages to be phased out by 1 July 2036; enriched cages remain allowed.
Red meat: SRM banned from human food and ruminant feed.

Sources: RS-CA-33, RS-CA-34, RS-CA-35, RS-CA-01

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – Canada

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Safe Food for Canadians Regulations (SFCR) in force since 15 January 2019: licensing of importers and of businesses that make, package or label food for export or interprovincial trade; preventive controls and written preventive control plans; traceability one step back and one step forward; recall systems. Imported food must have the same level of food safety controls as food prepared in Canada, and an SFC licence is needed before goods reach the border. Recalls: Class I-III by risk; most recalls are voluntary under CFIA oversight; the Minister of Health can order a mandatory recall; all recalls are posted on the Recalls and Safety Alerts website.
B. What is actually used in production?: Food made and sold within one province generally does not need a federal SFC licence (provincial rules apply).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: CFIA monitoring programmes: NCRMP (chemical, about 15,500 samples in 2022/23), NMMP (microbiological, 5,305 products in 2024/25), Children's Food Project and targeted surveys. A CFIA internal audit (page dated 2018) found that NCRMP process and follow-up controls needed improvement.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Programme reports are published with a delay of 2-3 years (NCRMP 2022/23 published June 2026). Recall counts were not compiled.

Sources: RS-CA-36, RS-CA-37, RS-CA-01, RS-CA-06, RS-CA-40

Drinking water – Canada

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Health Canada develops the Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality with the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water. Day-to-day responsibility for safe drinking water generally rests with the provinces and territories; municipalities usually operate treatment. Selected values (December 2025 tables): E. coli none detectable per 100 mL; nitrate 45 mg/L; lead 0.005 mg/L; arsenic 0.010 mg/L; PFAS objective 30 ng/L for the sum of 25 PFAS (2024).
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: WHO/UNICEF JMP (via World Bank WDI): 96.9% of the population used safely managed drinking water services in 2024; 98.3% at least basic.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not assessed here.
E. How robust are the data?: JMP is globally comparable. PFAS in drinking water are not regularly monitored at treatment plants (State of PFAS Report). The legal status of the guidelines depends on each province.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF) water_safely_managed_pct WHO/UNICEF JMP via World Bank WDI API	96.9 % of population	2024	–	unknown	all foods	RS-CA-28

Sources: RS-CA-26, RS-CA-27, RS-CA-28, RS-CA-25

Sources – Canada (38)

RS-CA-01: National Chemical Residue Monitoring Program (NCRMP) 2022/23 Annual Report – Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) (2026). https://open-science.canada.ca/items/f87b0dc3-95fc-4877-a8c8-c3810884d7ff (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-04: Children's Food Project - Annual Report 2023 – CFIA (2026). https://open-science.canada.ca/items/bb9b515e-27e5-4d39-a5dc-dde00892067d (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-18: Progress on Minimizing Reliance on the 0.1 ppm General MRL (archived information note) – Health Canada PMRA (2009). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/fact-sheets-other-resources/progress-minimizing-reliance-0-1-parts-million-general-maximum-residue-limit-food-pesticide-residue.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-19: Pest Control Products sales report for 2024 (executive summary) – Health Canada PMRA (2026). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/reports-publications/pesticides-pest-management/corporate-plans-reports/pest-control-products-sales-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-05: Children's Food Project - Annual report: 2022 – CFIA (2025). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-safety-industry/food-chemistry-and-microbiology/testing-reports-and-journal-articles/children-food-project (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-09: Responsible use of Medically Important Antimicrobials in animals – Health Canada / Public Health Agency of Canada (2017-2018). https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/antibiotic-antimicrobial-resistance/animals/actions/responsible-use-antimicrobials.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-10: New rules to reduce risk of antimicrobial resistance come into force (news release) – Health Canada (2017). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/news/2017/11/new_rules_to_reduceriskofantimicrobialresistancecomeintoforce.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-11: 2024 Veterinary Antimicrobial Sales Highlights Report – Health Canada (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/2024-veterinary-antimicrobial-sales-highlights-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-12: 2023 Veterinary Antimicrobial Sales Highlights Report – Health Canada (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/2023-veterinary-antimicrobial-sales-highlights-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-13: 2022 Veterinary Antimicrobial Sales Highlights Report – Health Canada (2024). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/publications/drugs-health-products/2022-veterinary-antimicrobial-sales-highlights-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-14: Canadian Integrated Program for Antimicrobial Resistance Surveillance (CIPARS) 2023: Key and Integrated Findings – Public Health Agency of Canada (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/drugs-health-products/canadian-integrated-program-antimicrobial-resistance-surveillance-2023-key-integrated-findings.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-38: Responsible AMU Strategy (2023) – Chicken Farmers of Canada (2023). https://www.chickenfarmers.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Responsible-AMU-Strategy-communication-Final-2023.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-15: Questions and Answers - Hormonal Growth Promoters – Health Canada (2022). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/veterinary-drugs/factsheets-faq/hormonal-growth-promoters.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-16: Harper Government Welcomes New International Standards on Ractopamine (news release) – Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada / Government of Canada (2012). https://www.canada.ca/en/news/archive/2012/07/harper-government-welcomes-new-international-standards-ractopamine.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-17: Ractopamine (Canadian Pork Council) – Canadian Pork Council (2026). https://www.cpc-ccp.com/ractopamine (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-22: List of Contaminants and other Adulterating Substances in Foods – Health Canada (2026). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/contaminants-adulterating-substances-foods.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-23: List of Maximum Levels for Various Chemical Contaminants in Foods – Health Canada (2026). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/maximum-levels-chemical-contaminants-foods.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-07: Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) in selected foods - April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2016 (targeted survey) – CFIA (2026). https://open-science.canada.ca/items/ab394d1f-b69b-4443-bd50-bd6aafd200d7 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-08: Toxic metals in selected foods - April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024 (targeted survey) – CFIA (2026). https://open-science.canada.ca/items/58939906-f2c6-4cec-ad9b-e3f1249fe4c3 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-25: State of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Report – Environment and Climate Change Canada; Health Canada (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/evaluating-existing-substances/state-per-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-39: Canadian Total Diet Study – Health Canada (2009 (page date)). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-nutrition-surveillance/canadian-total-diet-study.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-24: Ochratoxin A in foods: Health risk assessment and risk management approach – Health Canada (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/chemical-contaminants/natural-toxins/ochratoxin-a-risk-assessment-management-approach.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-06: National Microbiological Monitoring Program (NMMP) 2024/25 Annual Report – CFIA (2025). https://open-science.canada.ca/items/16ad7d62-0792-4006-8797-ce17304e815e (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-29: Policy on Listeria monocytogenes in ready-to-eat foods (2023): Overview – Health Canada (2023). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/legislation-guidelines/policies/listeria-monocytogenes-ready-eat-foods.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-30: Salmonella in frozen raw breaded chicken products - Backgrounder – CFIA (2018). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/preventive-controls/meat/salmonella-frozen-raw-breaded-chicken/backgrounder (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-31: Estimated reduction in human salmonellosis incidence in Canada from a new government requirement to reduce Salmonella in frozen breaded chicken products – Kanoatova S, Hurst M, Dougherty B, Dumoulin D, Silver HM, O'Neill L, Nesbitt A (2024). https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11626448/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-32: FoodNet Canada 2019 Integrated Findings Report – Public Health Agency of Canada (2021). https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/publications/food-nutrition/foodnet-canada-2019-integrated-findings-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-36: Key requirements of the Safe Food for Canadians Regulations – CFIA (n.d.). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-safety-industry/key-requirements (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-21: Lists of Permitted Food Additives – Health Canada (2026). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/food-safety/food-additives/lists-permitted.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-20: Titanium dioxide (TiO2) as a food additive: Current science report – Health Canada Food Directorate (2022). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutrition/reports-publications/titanium-dioxide-food-additive-science-report.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-33: Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pullets and Laying Hens – National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) (2017 (2025 amendments)). http://www.nfacc.ca/poultry-layers-code-of-practice (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-34: Codes of Practice (NFACC) - legal status – NFACC (n.d.). http://www.nfacc.ca/codes-of-practice (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-35: Share your thoughts: Proposed changes to Canada's Enhanced Feed Ban – CFIA (2026). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/transparency/consultations-and-engagement/enhanced-feed-ban (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-37: How we decide to recall a food – CFIA (n.d.). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/food-safety-consumers/how-recall-food-product (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-40: Audit of the National Chemical Residue Monitoring Program (overview) – CFIA Audit and Evaluation (2018 (page date)). https://inspection.canada.ca/en/about-cfia/transparency/corporate-management-reporting/audits-reviews-and-evaluations/ncrmp-overview (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-26: Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality - Summary Tables (December 2025) – Health Canada / Federal-Provincial-Territorial Committee on Drinking Water (2025). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/reports-publications/water-quality/guidelines-canadian-drinking-water-quality-summary-table.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-27: Water Quality - Drinking water (Health Canada) – Health Canada (n.d.). https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/environmental-workplace-health/water-quality/drinking-water.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-CA-28: World Development Indicators SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS (source: WHO/UNICEF JMP) - Canada – World Bank / WHO-UNICEF JMP (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/CAN/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)

International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Codex Alimentarius, run by FAO and WHO, sets international food standards: maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs, maximum levels for contaminants such as aflatoxins and lead, additive rules and hygiene codes. These standards are voluntary. A country is bound only by its own law, but under WTO rules Codex is the reference point in trade disputes. Codex accepts some hormonal growth promoters and ractopamine; the ractopamine limits were adopted in 2012 by a vote of 69 to 67, and many countries, including the EU and China, still ban it. WHO recommends stopping antibiotic use for growth promotion and for routine prevention in healthy animals; WOAH reports that 22% of reporting countries still allowed growth promoters in 2022. WHO estimates that unsafe food caused about 866 million illnesses and 1.5 million deaths in 2021, with the highest burden in Africa and South-East Asia. There is no international monitoring that measures residues in each country's food; such data come from national programmes.

Research scope: International reference framework: Codex Alimentarius (standards, MRL databases, CAC 2012 report), WHO (antimicrobial guidelines and MIA List, GEMS/Food, Drinking-water Guidelines, foodborne disease burden estimates 2015 and 2026), FAO (JECFA/JMPR, INFOSAN), WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report, WHO/UNICEF JMP and IARC classifications, all read from primary documents in October 2026. These are voluntary references, not laws of any country; they are shown when a country has no researched profile. Not covered or not verifiable: WOAH animal-welfare housing chapters, a 10th ANIMUSE report (not found), the post-2012 Codex status of bovine somatotropin from a primary report, and Codex positions on PFAS (no ML exists).

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex sets maximum residue limits (CXLs) for pesticide/commodity combinations. Scientific basis: the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR, since 1963) evaluates toxicology (acceptable daily intake, acute reference dose) and residue data; the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues proposes the limits; the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) adopts them. The Codex database lists MRLs and extraneous MRLs adopted up to CAC 49 (July 2026). Up to 2024, CAC had adopted 6,453 MRLs and 63 EMRLs. A Codex MRL applies at the point of entry into a country or into trade channels. Codex does not approve or ban pesticide active substances; registration and bans are national decisions.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented at the international level. Codex and JMPR do not collect data on actual pesticide use.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international monitoring programme reports MRL exceedance rates. WHO GEMS/Food collects contaminant and residue data submitted voluntarily by national institutions (more than 9 million analytical results in total). These data are not representative samples and are not published as exceedance rates per country.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JMPR derives health-based guidance values (ADI, ARfD) and dietary exposure estimates (IESTI for short-term, IEDI with GEMS/Food cluster diets for long-term intake). Exceeding an MRL is non-compliance with a legal limit; whether it is a health concern depends on estimated intake relative to the ADI/ARfD (the JMPR approach). The 2026 WHO foodborne disease burden estimates did not include pesticide residues because of insufficient data.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal reference values (official, current database). There are no globally comparable data on use or residue levels. Country exceedance rates depend on national MRLs, sampling design (random vs risk-based) and laboratory scope, so they cannot be compared with Codex values directly.

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: Codex MRLs exist for many fruit and vegetable commodities; national MRLs can be lower or higher.
Cereals and rice: Codex MRLs apply to cereal grains as traded (raw agricultural commodity).

Sources: RS-INT-01, RS-INT-02, RS-INT-05, RS-INT-07, RS-INT-36, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-29

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex MRLs and risk management recommendations (RMRs) for veterinary drug residues are listed in CXM 2-2024, based on JECFA evaluations. RMRs state that there is no safe residue level and that authorities should prevent residues by not using the substance in food-producing animals: carbadox, chloramphenicol, chlorpromazine, dimetridazole, furazolidone, gentian violet, ipronidazole, malachite green, metronidazole, nitrofural, olaquindox, ronidazole and stilbenes. Antimicrobial resistance: Codex CXC 61-2005 (amended 2021) states that responsible use does not include growth promotion with medically important antimicrobials; medically important antimicrobials should be used only for treatment, control or prevention under professional oversight. Codex CXC 54-2004 states antibiotics should not be used in feed for growth promotion without a public health safety assessment. WHO guidelines (2017) recommend an overall reduction in use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals, complete restriction for growth promotion and for prevention in healthy animals (strong recommendations, low-quality evidence), and suggest not using critically important antimicrobials for group control and not using highest-priority ones for treatment (conditional, very low-quality evidence). The WHO MIA List (2024) classes 3rd/4th-generation cephalosporins, quinolones, polymyxins (e.g. colistin) and phosphonic acid derivatives (fosfomycin) as highest priority critically important (HPCIA).
B. What is actually used in production?: WOAH ANIMUSE, 9th report (2025, data year 2022): 70,648 tonnes of antimicrobials reported for animals by 107 participants (adjusted estimate up to 74,035 t). Biomass-adjusted use 89-93 mg/kg (71% of global animal biomass covered); terrestrial food animals 95-98 mg/kg; aquatic 21 mg/kg. Trend panel of 85 participants (62% of biomass): 102 mg/kg in 2020 to 97 mg/kg in 2022 (-5%). Regional changes 2020-2022: Africa -20%, Americas -4%, Europe -23%, Asia-Pacific -2%, Middle East +43% (Middle East participants cover only 17% of the region's biomass). Tetracyclines (28.29%) and penicillins (17.75%) were the largest classes; fluoroquinolones 3.7%, polymyxins 1.8%, 3rd/4th-gen cephalosporins 0.9%. In 2022, 34 of 157 Members (22%) still reported antimicrobial growth promoter use; 112 (71%) reported it is no longer authorised. Colistin as a growth promoter was still reported by 8 participants. Regional mg/kg levels by country are not published in the report; only 38 of 111 quantitative reporters made national reports public, and 39 Members had public reports on the ANIMUSE portal by January 2025.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international programme measures veterinary drug residues in food. Residue monitoring is national (see country profiles). Codex CXG 71-2009 gives guidance for designing national residue control programmes.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA evaluations (ADI, recommended MRLs) are the scientific basis of Codex veterinary drug MRLs. WHO (2017) systematic reviews: where antimicrobial use in animals was restricted, AMR prevalence in animal bacteria was 10-20% lower and multidrug resistance 24-32% lower; in humans (13 studies meta-analysed) AMR prevalence was 24% lower in intervention groups. The 2026 WHO foodborne disease estimates did not include antimicrobial-resistant bacteria because of insufficient data.
E. How robust are the data?: ANIMUSE data are mostly sales and import data, not farm-level use. Coverage differs by region; participants and methods change between years. mg/kg biomass values are estimates; WOAH reports ranges. Country-level data are public only for Members that choose to publish.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/kg biomass) amu_mg_per_kg_biomass WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report - trend panel Global, 85 participants reporting 2020-2022 consistently, 62% of global animal biomass; mostly sales/import data. 2020 value: 102 mg/kg. n = number of participating countries/territories, not samples.	97 mg antimicrobial per kg estimated animal biomass	2022	85	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Antimicrobial sales, animals (mg/kg biomass) amu_mg_per_kg_biomass WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report - 2022 cross-section Global range 89-93 mg/kg depending on coverage adjustment; 107 participants, 71% of global animal biomass; food-producing animals only. 'value' is the lower bound, 'value_upper' the upper bound.	89 mg antimicrobial per kg estimated animal biomass (range)	2022	107	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes) amu_tonnes WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report Reported total; WOAH's coverage-adjusted estimate is up to 74,035 t. n = participants.	70648 tonnes of antimicrobial agents (reported)	2022	107	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24
Countries using growth promoters (share) agp_use_members_pct WOAH ANIMUSE 9th report 34 of 157 participants; self-reported legal/practice status, not measured use.	22 % of WOAH reporting Members still using antimicrobial growth promoters	2022	157	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-24

Notes on foods

Poultry: Codex/WHO texts apply to all food animals; WHO 2017 recommends no routine preventive use in healthy flocks.
Fish and seafood: WOAH 2022: aquatic food animals 21 mg/kg; fluoroquinolones were 15.8% of aquatic use (3.9 mg/kg). Codex RMR: malachite green and gentian violet should not be used.

Sources: RS-INT-08, RS-INT-10, RS-INT-11, RS-INT-17, RS-INT-18, RS-INT-19, RS-INT-20, RS-INT-24, RS-INT-35, RS-INT-29

Hormonal growth promoters – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex (CXM 2-2024) treats several hormonal growth promoters as acceptable when used according to good practice: estradiol-17beta, progesterone and testosterone in cattle have MRL 'unnecessary' (JECFA: residues from growth-promoter use are unlikely to pose a hazard). Numeric MRLs exist for trenbolone acetate (cattle muscle 2, liver 10 ug/kg), zeranol (muscle 2, liver 10 ug/kg) and melengestrol acetate (muscle 1, liver 10, kidney 2, fat 18 ug/kg). Beta-agonists: ractopamine MRLs for cattle and pigs (muscle 10, liver 40, kidney 90, fat 10 ug/kg; ADI 0-1 ug/kg bw) were adopted at CAC 35 in July 2012 by secret ballot, 69 votes to 67 with 7 abstentions, without consensus; China, Norway and the EU recorded opposition and the EU stated its ban would remain. Zilpaterol MRLs for cattle (kidney 3.3, liver 3.5, muscle 0.5 ug/kg) were adopted at CAC 46 (2023). Stilbenes (e.g. diethylstilbestrol): Codex RMR - no safe level, should not be used. Somatotropins: porcine somatotropin ADI/MRL 'not specified' (CAC 26, 2003). Draft MRLs for bovine somatotropin (bST/rbST, dairy) were 'held at Step 8' since 1999 according to the 2012 CAC report; CXM 2-2024 contains no bST MRL. Codex MRLs do not oblige any country to permit these substances. In the WTO EC-Hormones dispute (DS26), the Appellate Body (1998) found the EC import ban inconsistent with SPS Article 5.1 (risk assessment), but the ban remained part of EU law.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally. Use of hormonal implants, beta-agonists and bST is authorised in some countries and banned in others (see country profiles).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international residue monitoring. National programmes test for hormones and beta-agonists.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA evaluations underpin the Codex values (e.g. ractopamine ADI 0-1 ug/kg bw; estradiol-17beta ADI 0-0.05 ug/kg bw). At CAC 35 (2012) the EU delegation stated that EFSA had concluded the data were insufficient to propose ractopamine MRLs and that risks to human health had not been sufficiently ruled out. This profile records the positions; it does not resolve the scientific disagreement.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal status of Codex texts (primary documents). The scientific assessment differs between JECFA and some national authorities; the ractopamine standard was adopted by a narrow vote, not by consensus.

Notes on foods

Red meat: Codex values exist for hormonal growth promoters and ractopamine/zilpaterol in cattle (and ractopamine in pigs).
Dairy: No Codex MRL for bovine somatotropin (rbST) as of CXM 2-2024.
Poultry: Codex lists no hormonal growth promoter MRLs for poultry.

Sources: RS-INT-08, RS-INT-09, RS-INT-05, RS-INT-06, RS-INT-35

Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (CXS 193-1995, last amended 2025) lists maximum levels for international trade. Examples (mg/kg): lead - milk 0.02, meat of cattle/pigs/sheep 0.1, poultry meat 0.1, fish 0.3, cereal grains 0.2, leafy vegetables 0.3, fruiting vegetables 0.05, infant formula 0.01; inorganic arsenic - husked rice 0.35, polished rice 0.2; methylmercury - tuna 1.2, shark 1.6, marlin 1.7, alfonsino 1.5, orange roughy 0.8, pink cusk-eel 1.0. CXS 193 contains no maximum levels for dioxins, PCBs or PFAS; Codex has a code of practice to reduce dioxins and PCBs in food and feed (CXC 62-2006) and to reduce lead (CXC 56-2004) and arsenic in rice (CXC 77-2017).
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable (contaminants are not intentionally used).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: WHO GEMS/Food holds more than 9 million analytical results submitted by national institutions (records by region, e.g. WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region 15,064 in total, none added in the past year as of the access date). The data can be browsed online but are not representative surveys and are not summarised as national compliance rates.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: JECFA withdrew its tolerable weekly intakes for lead and inorganic arsenic in 2010 because they were no longer considered health-protective (lead: IQ and blood-pressure effects; inorganic arsenic: lung cancer BMDL). WHO 2026 foodborne disease estimates (data year 2021): chemical hazards accounted for 73% of foodborne deaths, mostly inorganic arsenic (42%) and lead (31%); inorganic arsenic and lead were among the leading causes of foodborne DALYs. PFAS were not included for lack of data. IARC classifies TCDD dioxin and PCB-126 in Group 1 (Volume 100F).
E. How robust are the data?: Codex MLs: high (primary text). Burden estimates: model-based with wide uncertainty intervals. GEMS/Food data: heterogeneous, non-representative.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Share of chemical causes in foodborne deaths fbd_chemical_deaths_share_pct WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition Global model-based estimate (not a sampling result); 9 chemical hazards included; inorganic arsenic 42% and lead 31% of chemical-related deaths.	73 % of foodborne deaths due to chemical hazards	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-29

Notes on foods

Fish and seafood: Codex methylmercury MLs apply to specific large predatory species; lead ML for fish 0.3 mg/kg.
Cereals and rice: Codex inorganic arsenic ML: polished rice 0.2 mg/kg, husked rice 0.35 mg/kg.
Dairy: Codex lead ML for milk 0.02 mg/kg.

Sources: RS-INT-12, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-22, RS-INT-29, RS-INT-31, RS-INT-33

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. CXS 193-1995: aflatoxin M1 in milk 0.5 ug/kg. Total aflatoxins (ug/kg): almonds, hazelnuts, pistachios, Brazil nuts 10 (ready-to-eat) / 15 (for further processing); peanuts for further processing 15; dried figs 10; chili pepper and nutmeg 20; maize grain for further processing 15; maize flour/meal 10; husked rice 20; polished rice 5; sorghum for further processing 10; cereal-based foods for infants and young children 5. MLs also exist for deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, ochratoxin A and patulin. Codex codes of practice cover aflatoxin B1 in feed for dairy animals (CXC 45-1997), peanuts (CXC 55-2004), tree nuts (CXC 59-2005), cereals (CXC 51-2003), dried figs and spices.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: GEMS/Food holds about 1.09 million total-aflatoxin records and about 0.19 million aflatoxin B1 records (all regions, voluntarily submitted). No representative global prevalence figure exists.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: IARC classifies aflatoxins as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1; Monographs Volume 100F). JECFA (2001), cited in CXS 193: the additional liver-cancer risk predicted with aflatoxin M1 limits of 0.05 or 0.5 ug/kg is very small; hepatitis B carriers might benefit from lower aflatoxin intake. The 2026 WHO burden estimates excluded growth impairment from aflatoxin exposure.
E. How robust are the data?: Codex MLs: high. Occurrence data: not representative; strong regional and climatic variation.

Notes on foods

Dairy: Codex aflatoxin M1 ML 0.5 ug/kg in milk; national limits can be lower (see country profiles).
Legumes and nuts: Codex total aflatoxin MLs 10-15 ug/kg for tree nuts and peanuts depending on processing.
Cereals and rice: Codex total aflatoxin MLs for maize (15 / 10 ug/kg) and rice (20 husked / 5 polished).

Sources: RS-INT-12, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-21, RS-INT-33, RS-INT-29

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Principles of Food Hygiene (CXC 1-1969, revised 2020 and 2022) set out good hygiene practice and HACCP. Specific codes and guidelines: Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat (CXG 78-2011, farm-to-consumption approach without numeric targets), eggs and egg products (CXC 15-1976, rev. 2007: Salmonella Enteritidis monitoring and vaccination may reduce risk where SE is associated with poultry or eggs), meat hygiene (CXC 58-2005), milk and milk products (CXC 57-2004), fresh fruits and vegetables (CXC 53-2003), Listeria monocytogenes (CXG 61-2007), STEC in beef, leafy vegetables, raw milk and sprouts (CXG 99-2023). JEMRA provides microbiological risk assessments.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally; control programmes are national.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international prevalence monitoring of pathogens in food. WHO burden estimates (2026 edition, data year 2021, 42 hazards): 866 million illnesses (95% UI 680-1090 million), 1.52 million deaths (0.783-2.51 million), 57.1 million DALYs (39.4-81.1 million). Biological hazards caused about 860 million illnesses. Non-typhoidal Salmonella enterica, inorganic arsenic and lead caused the most DALYs. Children under 5 (9% of the population) had nearly one third of cases. The first WHO estimates (2015, data year 2010, 31 hazards) gave 33 million DALYs; WHO states the 2026 edition supersedes all earlier estimates. National estimates for every WHO Member State are available in the WHO Global Health Observatory.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Foodborne disease burden is highest in the African and South-East Asia regions (nearly three quarters of illnesses, 60% of deaths). WHO states many cases could be prevented by improved water, sanitation and hygiene, pasteurisation and access to health care.
E. How robust are the data?: Burden estimates are model-based (systematic reviews, meta-regression, expert elicitation for foodborne attribution) with wide uncertainty. They are not measured case counts and should not be ranked against national surveillance numbers. Many hazards (e.g. AMR bacteria) are not included.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Foodborne illnesses (million) fbd_illnesses_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 680-1090 million.	866 million foodborne illnesses per year	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne deaths (million) fbd_deaths_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 0.783-2.51 million.	1.52 million foodborne deaths per year	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne disease burden (DALYs, million) fbd_dalys_million WHO foodborne disease burden estimates, 2026 edition (FERG) Global model-based estimate, 42 hazards; 95% UI 39.4-81.1 million.	57.1 million DALYs	2021	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-31
Foodborne disease burden (DALYs, million) fbd_dalys_million WHO FERG first estimates (2015) 31 hazards; superseded by the 2026 edition and not directly comparable (different hazard set and methods).	33 million DALYs	2010	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-27

Notes on foods

Poultry: Codex CXG 78-2011 targets Campylobacter and Salmonella in chicken meat; no numeric international targets.
Eggs: Codex CXC 15-1976 (rev. 2007) addresses Salmonella Enteritidis control incl. vaccination.
Fruit and vegetables: Codex CXC 53-2003 and CXG 99-2023 (STEC in leafy vegetables and sprouts).

Sources: RS-INT-41, RS-INT-14, RS-INT-15, RS-INT-16, RS-INT-04, RS-INT-27, RS-INT-28, RS-INT-29, RS-INT-30, RS-INT-31

Additives and processing – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA, CXS 192-1995, revised up to 2026): only listed additives are recognised as suitable under the standard; an additive is considered only if JECFA has assigned an ADI (or found it safe on other criteria) and Codex has given it an INS number. Use levels are set per food category. Countries keep their own positive lists, which can be narrower or wider.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented internationally.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: No international monitoring of additive use levels; JECFA estimates intake when evaluating additives.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Aspartame (INS 951): IARC (2023) classified it as possibly carcinogenic to humans (Group 2B, limited evidence); JECFA (2023) kept the ADI of 0-40 mg/kg bw. IARC classifications describe strength of evidence for hazard, not the size of risk. Processed meat (a processing category, not an additive): IARC Group 1 (colorectal cancer; about 18% higher risk per 50 g eaten daily). Red meat: IARC Group 2A. These are listed here as international reference classifications; claim-level evidence is handled in the project's study files.
E. How robust are the data?: High for the legal reference (primary text). IARC and JECFA answer different questions (hazard vs risk at given intake).

Notes on foods

Red meat: IARC: processed meat Group 1, red meat Group 2A (2015, Monographs Vol. 114).

Sources: RS-INT-13, RS-INT-39, RS-INT-34, RS-INT-32, RS-INT-35

Animal husbandry and feed – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (CXC 54-2004, amended 2024): antibiotics should not be used in feed for growth promotion without a public health safety assessment; animal products that could carry the BSE agent should not be fed to ruminants; undesirable substances (e.g. mycotoxins, contaminants) in feed should be identified and minimised; feed traceability and records. CXS 193 includes feed MLs only where transfer to food of animal origin is relevant. Aflatoxin B1 in feed for dairy animals is covered by CXC 45-1997. WOAH standards: the Terrestrial Code chapter 6.10 on responsible and prudent use of antimicrobials (cited in the ANIMUSE report). WOAH animal-welfare chapters on housing (e.g. cages) were not verified in this research.
B. What is actually used in production?: WOAH ANIMUSE (2022 data): 22% of reporting Members still allowed or used antimicrobial growth promoters; most reported were bacitracin, tylosin and avilamycin.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not documented internationally.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: See vet_drugs (antimicrobial resistance) and mycotoxins (aflatoxin M1 transfer from feed to milk).
E. How robust are the data?: Codex text: high. No international data on housing systems or feed compliance.

Notes on foods

Dairy: Aflatoxin B1 in dairy feed transfers to milk as aflatoxin M1 (CXC 45-1997; CXS 193).

Sources: RS-INT-17, RS-INT-12, RS-INT-24

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. Codex texts are voluntary references. They become binding only when a country adopts them into national law. Under the WTO SPS Agreement, measures based on Codex are presumed consistent; stricter national rules are allowed if they are scientifically justified. National law decides what is allowed in a given country. Codex texts on food import and export inspection and certification (e.g. CXG 20-1995, CXG 26-1997, equivalence CXG 53-2003, traceability CXG 60-2006) guide national control systems. There is no international food inspection authority: official controls, recalls and border checks are national. INFOSAN (FAO/WHO) is a voluntary network of national food safety authorities from almost all FAO and WHO members; it shares information on incidents involving internationally traded food. WTO SPS Agreement: Codex standards are the benchmark for food-safety measures in trade disputes.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: INFOSAN does not publish per-country alert statistics comparable to RASFF. Not documented.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Codex and WTO texts: high. Implementation varies by country.

Sources: RS-INT-05, RS-INT-03, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-38, RS-INT-37

Drinking water – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: International reference only. WHO Guidelines for Drinking-water Quality (4th edition incorporating the 1st and 2nd addenda, 2022) are a scientific starting point for national standards; WHO does not promote a single international standard. Selected guideline values: E. coli or thermotolerant coliforms not detectable in any 100 ml sample; arsenic 0.01 mg/l (provisional); lead 0.01 mg/l (provisional); cadmium 0.003 mg/l; nitrate 50 mg/l (as NO3-); nitrite 3 mg/l (as NO2-). WHO recommends water safety plans and independent surveillance. Codex CXC 48-2001 covers hygiene of bottled/packaged drinking water.
B. What is actually used in production?: WHO/UNICEF JMP defines 'safely managed' drinking water as water from an improved source that is accessible on premises, available when needed and free from faecal and priority chemical contamination. Global 2024: 73.7% of the population used safely managed drinking water (WHO GHO); JMP states 1 in 4 people (2.1 billion) still lack it, including 106 million drinking untreated surface water. Urban 83.5%, rural 60.5%.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: JMP estimates combine household surveys, censuses and administrative or regulatory data; water quality testing is included in some household surveys (e.g. MICS). Country-level data are published at washdata.org/data and in the WHO Global Health Observatory.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: WHO (2026) states that many foodborne illnesses and deaths could be prevented with measures including improved water, sanitation and hygiene. GDWQ guideline values are health-based (e.g. nitrate 50 mg/l based on short-term effects).
E. How robust are the data?: JMP is the globally comparable reference (one definition for all countries). Estimates are modelled; the water-quality component is missing or estimated for many countries.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF) water_safely_managed_pct WHO/UNICEF JMP (via WHO GHO, indicator WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED) Global modelled estimate (GHO value 73.735). World Bank WDI world aggregate: 73.67%. JMP text: '1 in 4 ... still lack access'.	73.7 % of population using safely managed drinking water	2024	–	mixed	all foods	RS-INT-26

Sources: RS-INT-23, RS-INT-41, RS-INT-25, RS-INT-26, RS-INT-40, RS-INT-29

Sources – International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO) (41)

RS-INT-01: About Codex (Codex Alimentarius website) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-02: About Codex texts – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/about-codex-texts (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-05: Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) – World Trade Organization (1994 (in force 1995)). https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/15sps_01_e.htm (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-07: Codex Pesticide Residues in Food and Feed Database – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/codex-online-databases/pesticides-residues (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-36: Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) - WHO page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/groups/joint-fao-who-meeting-on-pesticide-residues-(jmpr) (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-21: GEMS/Food - Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme (WHO web page) and GEMS/Food Contaminants database landing page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/databases/global-environment-monitoring-system-food-contamination (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-29: News release: Unsafe food causes 866 million illnesses and 1.5 million deaths annually, young children at highest risk (4 June 2026) – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/news/item/04-06-2026-unsafe-food-causes-866-million-illnesses-and-1.5-million-deaths-annually--young-children-at-highest-risk (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-08: CXM 2-2024 Maximum Residue Limits (MRLs) and Risk Management Recommendations (RMRs) for Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Foods – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2024). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/MRL2e.pdf?lang=en&id=41 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-10: CXC 61-2005 Code of Practice to Minimize and Contain Foodborne Antimicrobial Resistance (amended 2021) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2005, amended 2021). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_061e.pdf?lang=en&id=302 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-11: CXG 94-2021 Guidelines on integrated monitoring and surveillance of foodborne antimicrobial resistance; CXG 77-2011 Guidelines for Risk Analysis of Foodborne AMR (rev. 2021) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2021). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_94e.pdf?lang=en&id=8037 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-17: CXC 54-2004 Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding (amended 2008, 2024) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2004, amended 2024). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_054e.pdf?lang=en&id=414 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-18: CXG 71-2009 Guidelines for the Design and Implementation of National Regulatory Food Safety Assurance Programmes Associated with the Use of Veterinary Drugs in Food Producing Animals (rev. 2012, 2014) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2009, rev. 2014). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_071e_2014.pdf?lang=en&id=7006 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-19: WHO guidelines on use of medically important antimicrobials in food-producing animals – World Health Organization (2017). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550130 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-20: WHO List of Medically Important Antimicrobials: a risk management tool for mitigating antimicrobial resistance due to non-human use (WHO MIA List, 7th revision) – World Health Organization (2024). https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/gcp/who-mia-list-2024-lv.pdf?sfvrsn=3320dd3d_2 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-24: Annual Report on Antimicrobial Agents Intended for Use in Animals, 9th report (ANIMUSE) – World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) (2025). https://www.woah.org/app/uploads/2025/05/en-woah-amu-report-2025-final.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-35: Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) - WHO page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/groups/joint-fao-who-expert-committee-on-food-additives-(jecfa) (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-09: REP12/CAC Report of the 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission, Rome, 2-7 July 2012 – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2012). https://www.fao.org/input/download/report/772/REP12_CACe.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-06: DS26: European Communities - Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones) - case summary – World Trade Organization (1996-2014). https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds26_e.htm (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-12: CXS 193-1995 General Standard for Contaminants and Toxins in Food and Feed (last amended 2025) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1995, amended 2025). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXS_193e.pdf?lang=en&id=18 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-41: Codex 'Find a Codex text' list (LoadFilter endpoint behind codex.fao.org/codex-texts/find-a-codex-text) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/find-a-codex-text (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-22: GEMS/Food overview fact sheet 'Monitoring exposure to food chemicals' – World Health Organization (2017). https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/food-safety/gems-food/gems-overview-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=d33fae48_2 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-31: WHO estimates of the global, regional, and national burden of 42 foodborne infectious and chemical hazards, 2000-21: an updated data synthesis – Lake RJ, Devleesschauwer B, Majowicz S, et al. (2026). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langlo.2026.103994 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-33: IARC Monographs Volume 100F: Chemical Agents and Related Occupations (A Review of Human Carcinogens) - publication page – International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2012). https://publications.iarc.who.int/123 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-14: CXC 1-1969 General Principles of Food Hygiene (revised 2020, 2022) – FAO and WHO / Codex Alimentarius Commission (1969, rev. 2022 (publ. 2023)). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_001e.pdf?lang=en&id=23 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-15: CXG 78-2011 Guidelines for the Control of Campylobacter and Salmonella in Chicken Meat – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2011). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXG_078e.pdf?lang=en&id=449 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-16: CXC 15-1976 Code of Hygienic Practice for Eggs and Egg Products (rev. 2007) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1976, rev. 2007). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXC_015e.pdf?lang=en&id=355 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-04: Codex and science (FAO/WHO scientific advice bodies) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us/science (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-27: World Health Organization Global Estimates and Regional Comparisons of the Burden of Foodborne Disease in 2010 – Havelaar AH, Kirk MD, Torgerson PR, et al. (WHO FERG) (2015). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001923 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-28: WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases: Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group 2007-2015 – World Health Organization (2015). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565165 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-30: WHO estimates of the global burden of foodborne diseases 2000-2021 (2026 edition) - programme page – World Health Organization (2026). https://www.who.int/teams/nutrition-and-food-safety/monitoring-nutritional-status-and-food-safety-and-events/foodborne-disease-estimates/2026-edition (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-13: CXS 192-1995 General Standard for Food Additives (GSFA), revised up to 2026, and GSFA online database – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (1995, rev. 2026). https://codex.fao.org/restapi/searchstandard/CXS_192e.pdf?lang=en&id=353 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-39: Codex online databases (Veterinary Drug Residues in Foods; GSFA) – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (2026). https://codex.fao.org/codex-texts/codex-online-databases (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-34: News release: Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released (14 July 2023) – World Health Organization / IARC / JECFA (2023). https://www.who.int/news/item/14-07-2023-aspartame-hazard-and-risk-assessment-results-released (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-32: IARC Press Release No. 240: IARC Monographs evaluate consumption of red meat and processed meat (Monographs Vol. 114) – International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) (2015). https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-03: Codex and trade – FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission Secretariat (2026). https://codex.fao.org/about-codex/about-us/trade (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-38: International Food Safety Authorities Network (INFOSAN) - FAO page – FAO and WHO (2026). https://www.fao.org/food-safety/emergencies/infosan/en (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-37: FAO Food safety and quality - programme page – Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2026). https://www.fao.org/food-safety/en/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-23: Guidelines for drinking-water quality: fourth edition incorporating the first and second addenda – World Health Organization (2022). https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240045064 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-25: JMP: Drinking water service ladder and 'Progress on household drinking water, sanitation and hygiene 2000-2024: special focus on inequalities' – WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (JMP) (2025). https://washdata.org/reports/jmp-2025-wash-households (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-26: WHO Global Health Observatory OData API - indicator WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED (global, total) – World Health Organization (data from WHO/UNICEF JMP) (2026). https://ghoapi.azureedge.net/api/WSH_WATER_SAFELY_MANAGED?$filter=SpatialDimType%20eq%20'GLOBAL' (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-INT-40: World Bank WDI API - SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS, World aggregate – World Bank (source: WHO/UNICEF JMP) (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/WLD/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json&date=2015:2024 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)

← Go to the country overview