India

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.

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.

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.

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.

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