Nezam El-Tayebat Fact CheckA scientific assessment of the “نظام الطيبات” nutrition system
Choose country

Japan

Detailed country profile JP Eastern Asia

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

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

At a glance

Data availability by topic
TopicApplicable frameworks
Pesticides and pesticide residuesJapan Data quality: moderate
Veterinary medicines and antibioticsJapan Data quality: moderate
Hormonal growth promotersJapan Data quality: low
Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate)Japan Data quality: moderate
Mycotoxins (mould toxins)Japan Data quality: low
Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.)Japan Data quality: low
Additives and processingJapan Data quality: low
Animal husbandry and feedJapan Data quality: low
Controls, imports, recalls, labellingJapan Data quality: high
Drinking waterJapan Data quality: moderate

National profile: Japan

Japan regulates pesticide, veterinary-drug and feed-additive residues under a positive list system (since 2006): substances without a specific MRL may not exceed a uniform limit of 0.01 ppm. In FY2024 national and local tests of about 3 million analyte determinations found 0.008% above the limits (domestic 0.002%, imported 0.012%); this unit is not the same as samples. Imported food is checked at the border mainly on a risk basis: 8.4% of 2.47 million notifications were inspected and 731 violations were found, most often aflatoxin, pesticide residues, microbiological criteria and additives. Hormonal growth promoters and ractopamine are not approved for use in Japan, but MRLs exist, so meat from treated animals can be imported if it meets them. Veterinary antimicrobial sales were 717.5 t in 2023; antimicrobial feed additives (219.2 t) are still permitted. Main data gaps: no public figure on cage housing of laying hens was accessible, and residue statistics are counted per analyte test, which limits comparisons.

Research scope: Searched and read official Japanese sources: CAA (food standards since 1 April 2024), MHLW (imported-food monitoring FY2024, national residue test compilation FY2024, food-poisoning statistics 2024/2025, growth-promoter Q&A, aflatoxin M1 notice), FSCJ (arsenic risk assessment 2013), NAOR 2025 (JVARM sales data), JFCRF MRL database, Ministry of the Environment (radiation booklet, PFOS/PFOA drinking-water standard), NIHS analysis of all FY2024 radioactive cesium tests, MAFF (hijiki arsenic, laying-hen statistics) and WHO/UNICEF JMP via the World Bank API. Not accessible: the MAFF FY2024 animal-welfare survey on laying-hen housing (HTTP 403, no archive copy), so no cage-share figure is reported. Not covered or not found: a national Salmonella/Campylobacter control programme for poultry flocks with prevalence data, a mg/PCU antimicrobial indicator, FSCJ hormone assessments, the count of designated additives, rice cadmium limit text, national PFAS or dioxin monitoring in food.

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – Japan

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Positive List System under the Food Sanitation Act, introduced by MHLW on 29 May 2006; administration moved to the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) on 1 April 2024. Foods may not contain agricultural chemicals above set MRLs; where no specific MRL exists, a uniform limit applies (0.01 ppm; MHLW Notification No. 497), with exempted substances (Notification No. 498) and substances that must not be detected. The JFCRF database marks the basis of each MRL (e.g. Codex-based, domestic registration, import tolerance).
B. What is actually used in production?
Pesticides are registered and used in Japanese agriculture; national use volumes were not researched. The residue report notes that the most frequently detected pesticides differ between domestic and imported products because different pesticides are in common use.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
FY2024 national compilation (138 local governments plus quarantine stations): 2,973,324 analyte tests (domestic 1,251,232; imported 1,722,092); detections 10,073 (0.34%); exceedances 224 (0.008%): domestic 23 (0.002%), imported 201 (0.012%). Agricultural products: domestic 1,092,421 tests, 0.001% above MRL; imported 659,661 tests, 0.022%. Import inspection FY2024: 169 violations of agricultural-chemical residue standards (23.1% of violation cases), mainly China (68), Ghana (21), Viet Nam (15); by product carrot (29), cacao bean (26), sesame seed (14). 10,669 checks of processed imported food for pesticides found no violation.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
No health-risk conclusion is drawn in the monitoring reports. MRLs and the uniform limit are set so that intake is not expected to harm health (CAA/MHLW framing).
E. How robust are the data?
Counts are analyte x sample determinations, not samples; one sample tested for 300 pesticides counts 300 times, which makes percentages much smaller than sample-based rates (e.g. EFSA). Local-government sampling plans are not described as random. Import data mix statistically planned monitoring and risk-based ordered inspections. Comparison with EU sample-based rates is not admissible.
Indicators
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
Pesticides: tests above the limit (per single test)
pest_mrl_exceed_test_pct
MHLW compilation of local-government residue tests
Unit is tests (analyte x sample), not samples. Not comparable with pest_mrl_exceed_pct.		0.002 % of analyte determinations above MRL (pesticides, veterinary drugs, feed additives)FY20241,251,232unknowndomestic productsRS-JP-03
Pesticides: tests above the limit (per single test)
pest_mrl_exceed_test_pct
Quarantine station tests incl. ordered and voluntary inspections
Includes risk-based ordered inspections.		0.012 % of analyte determinations above MRL (pesticides, veterinary drugs, feed additives)FY20241,722,092mixedimportsRS-JP-03
Pesticides: tests above the limit (per single test)
pest_mrl_exceed_test_pct
MHLW compilation of local-government residue tests
Agricultural products (produce, cereals etc.).		0.001 % of analyte determinations above MRL, agricultural products onlyFY20241,092,421unknowndomestic productsRS-JP-03
Pesticides: tests above the limit (per single test)
pest_mrl_exceed_test_pct
Quarantine station tests		0.022 % of analyte determinations above MRL, agricultural products onlyFY2024659,661mixedimportsRS-JP-03

Notes on foods

  • Fruit and vegetables: Imported carrots (China, mepiquat-chloride) and bananas (Viet Nam, permethrin) were among the products with residue violations at the border in FY2024.
  • Legumes and nuts: Sesame seed and cacao bean were among the top products with pesticide violations at the border in FY2024.

Sources: RS-JP-01, RS-JP-02, RS-JP-03, RS-JP-05

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – Japan

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Veterinary drug and feed-additive residues fall under the same positive list system (uniform limit where no MRL; for antibiotics and synthetic antibacterials without an MRL the food 'shall not contain the substance'). Veterinary medicinal product sales must be reported under Article 71-2 of the Regulatory Rules for Veterinary Medicinal Products. Antimicrobial feed additives remain legal, but designations were revoked for colistin (July 2018), tylosin (May 2019) and two tetracyclines (December 2019). National Action Plan target: 15% reduction of livestock antimicrobial use 2020-2027; second-line drugs below 27 t.
B. What is actually used in production?
Veterinary antimicrobial sales (JVARM) 717.5 t active ingredient in 2023 (776.9 t in 2022; range 717.54-858.09 t in 2014-2023). Livestock sector 559.4 t (10.8% below 2020), aquatic animals 150.4 t, companion animals 7.7 t; antimicrobial feed additives 219.2 t in 2023 (203.3 t in 2022). Tetracyclines are the largest class (below 40% recently); 3rd-generation cephalosporins about 0.2%, fluoroquinolones about 1%.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
Residues: the FY2024 compilation (pesticides, feed additives and veterinary drugs together) found exceedance rates of 0.006% (domestic) and 0.004% (imported) of analyte tests in livestock and fishery products. At the border in FY2024, 16 violations of veterinary drug residue standards (2.2% of violations): Viet Nam 8 (enrofloxacin, doxycycline in shrimps), India 4 (furazolidone in shrimps). Resistance: colistin resistance in swine E. coli fell from more than 50% (2017) to 7.7% (2023).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Not assessed in the sources read beyond AMR surveillance; NAOR links reduced colistin use to falling resistance.
E. How robust are the data?
Sales data, not farm-level use; no mg/PCU or mg/kg biomass figure was found in the report passages read, so cross-country comparison per animal mass is not possible from this source. Residue rates are per analyte test.
Indicators
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes)
amu_tonnes
JVARM sales monitoring (NAOR 2025)
Excludes antimicrobial feed additives (219.2 t, reported separately in effective value).		717.5 tonnes active ingredient, veterinary antimicrobial sales (livestock, aquatic, companion animals)2023–unknownall foodsRS-JP-04
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes)
amu_tonnes
JVARM sales monitoring (NAOR 2025)
Performance indicator of the National Action Plan.		559.4 tonnes active ingredient, livestock sector only2023–unknownall foodsRS-JP-04

Notes on foods

  • Fish and seafood: Aquaculture used 150.4 t of antimicrobials in 2023; most veterinary-drug violations at the border in FY2024 involved imported shrimps (Viet Nam, India).

Sources: RS-JP-02, RS-JP-03, RS-JP-04, RS-JP-05

Hormonal growth promoters – Japan

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Hormonal growth promoters (veterinary drugs) and ractopamine (feed additive) are not approved in Japan because, per MHLW, producers have not requested them; their domestic use is therefore not permitted. MRLs are nevertheless set and imports of meat within the MRLs are legal: ractopamine cattle/pig muscle 0.01 ppm, liver 0.04, kidney 0.09; trenbolone acetate cattle muscle 0.002 ppm (N.D. in pigs, poultry, milk); zeranol 0.002 ppm in muscle; melengestrol acetate cattle muscle 0.001 ppm (N.D. in other species). MHLW states that MRLs are set below the JECFA ADI and that meat above the MRLs may not be imported or sold.
B. What is actually used in production?
No domestic use (not approved). Use in exporting countries (USA, Canada, Australia named by MHLW) means imported beef and pork may come from treated animals.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
No residue results specific to hormones or ractopamine were found in the sources read; the import monitoring includes 'hormone agents' within the 'antibacterial substances, etc.' category, with no separate result reported.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
MHLW cites Codex (1996) and states that, when used properly, there is no adverse health effect; it describes the EU ban as internationally considered not supported by scientific evidence. This is the position of the Japanese risk manager; FSCJ assessments were not read.
E. How robust are the data?
Legal status well documented; no published residue data for these substances were located.

Notes on foods

  • Red meat: Domestic cattle and pigs: growth promoters not approved. Imported beef/pork: may come from treated animals; MRLs apply (e.g. ractopamine 0.01 ppm in muscle).

Sources: RS-JP-05, RS-JP-06, RS-JP-02

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Radioactive cesium (Cs-134 + Cs-137) standard limits since April 2012: general foods 100 Bq/kg, milk and infant foods 50 Bq/kg, drinking water 10 Bq/kg. No legal limit for arsenic in hijiki was found; MAFF gives preparation advice instead.
B. What is actually used in production?
Not applicable (contaminants). Testing for cesium concentrates on items from affected regions and on wild products.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
FY2024: 45,897 radioactive cesium tests published by MHLW; 0.42% above the standard limit overall; marketed foods 0.20%; pre-shipment tests 0.065%; survey samples not intended for sale 5.6%. Exceedances were limited to wild mushrooms, wild edible plants, wild game (boar, deer, bear) and dried wild products, plus one beef sample from cattle fed contaminated rice straw. No rice above the limit since FY2015 (to end 2023). Inorganic arsenic: estimated intake 0.130-0.674 µg/kg bw/day (duplicate-diet studies); FSCJ 2013 survey mean 0.315, 95th percentile 0.754 µg/kg bw/day.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
FSCJ (2013) could not determine a carcinogenicity threshold for inorganic arsenic and set no TDI; it noted that some highly exposed people in Japan may have intakes above the NOAEL/BMDL values derived. MAFF: hijiki contains mainly inorganic arsenic; soaking removes about 50%, boiling after soaking about 90%.
E. How robust are the data?
Cesium testing is targeted and large; it is not a representative survey of the diet. Arsenic exposure estimates come from duplicate-diet studies with acknowledged uncertainty.
Indicators
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
Radioactive caesium: tests above the limit
cs_exceed_pct
Prefectural radioactive cesium testing, analysed by NIHS
Total tests all categories n=45,897 (overall 0.42%). Exceedances only in wild products.		0.2 % of radioactive cesium tests above standard limit, marketed foodsFY2024–targeteddomestic productsRS-JP-08

Notes on foods

  • Cereals and rice: Rice: no cesium exceedance since FY2015; inorganic arsenic in rice contributes to intake (FSCJ).
  • Fish and seafood: Hijiki seaweed: high inorganic arsenic; soaking and boiling reduce it by about 50-90% (MAFF).
  • Red meat: Wild game meat (boar, deer, bear) can exceed the cesium limit; farmed meat only exceptionally.

Sources: RS-JP-07, RS-JP-08, RS-JP-09, RS-JP-10

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – Japan

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Foods with total aflatoxin (B1+B2+G1+G2) above 10 µg/kg violate Article 6(2) of the Food Sanitation Act (since 2011). Milk with aflatoxin M1 above 0.5 µg/kg violates Article 6(2), applicable from 23 January 2016.
B. What is actually used in production?
Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
FY2024 import inspections: aflatoxin was the most frequent harmful substance (130 of 142 cases in that category), e.g. almonds from the USA, peanuts from China, pistachio from Iran, sesame seed from Nigeria, mixed spice from Nepal. No domestic aflatoxin M1 monitoring results were found.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
MHLW cites the FSCJ assessment and treats AFM1 as a genotoxic carcinogen (notification rationale).
E. How robust are the data?
Import data are risk-based; no representative domestic data found.

Notes on foods

  • Dairy: Aflatoxin M1 limit in milk 0.5 µg/kg.
  • Legumes and nuts: Aflatoxin in imported almonds, peanuts and pistachios is the most frequent contaminant finding at the border.

Sources: RS-JP-15, RS-JP-02

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – Japan

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Microbiological standards for foods under the Food Sanitation Act; imports are checked for EHEC (O26, O103, O104, O111, O121, O145, O157), Listeria monocytogenes, Vibrio parahaemolyticus and indicator organisms. No national poultry-flock Salmonella or Campylobacter control programme with published targets was found in this review.
B. What is actually used in production?
Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
Food poisoning statistics (passive outbreak reporting): 2024 – 1,037 incidents, 14,229 patients, 3 deaths; 2025 – 1,172 incidents, 24,727 patients, 2 deaths (rise driven by norovirus). 2016-2025 patients: norovirus 78,550; Campylobacter 16,690; Salmonella 6,754. In Tokyo in 2024, Campylobacter caused 26 of 114 outbreaks (22.8%), the largest bacterial cause since 2005; ciprofloxacin resistance in human C. jejuni isolates 61.4%. At the border FY2024: 141 violations of microbiological criteria (mostly indicator organisms in frozen food) and 3 Listeria cases.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Outbreak data show Campylobacter as a leading bacterial cause of food poisoning; Salmonella and EHEC caused deaths in the last ten years.
E. How robust are the data?
Outbreak statistics undercount sporadic cases; no flock or carcass prevalence data were located, so no comparison with EU baseline surveys is possible.

Notes on foods

  • Poultry: Campylobacter is a leading bacterial cause of food-poisoning outbreaks in Japan; food attribution (e.g. to chicken) was not quantified in the sources read.

Sources: RS-JP-11, RS-JP-12, RS-JP-04, RS-JP-02

Additives and processing – Japan

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Four categories of permitted additives: designated additives (designated by the Prime Minister/CAA after FSCJ risk assessment; by MHLW until March 2024), existing food additives (long-used natural substances), natural flavoring agents and ordinary foods used as additives. Use of undesignated additives violates Article 12 of the Food Sanitation Act.
B. What is actually used in production?
Not documented in the sources read.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
FY2024 import inspections: 140 violations concerning additives; undesignated additives most often cyclamic acid (12), TBHQ (9), azorubine (7); use-standard violations most often sulfur dioxide (29), sodium benzoate (22), sorbic acid (16).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Not assessed here.
E. How robust are the data?
Border findings show that some additives permitted elsewhere (e.g. cyclamate, TBHQ, azorubine) are not designated in Japan; this reflects regulatory differences, not necessarily risk.

Sources: RS-JP-14, RS-JP-02

Animal husbandry and feed – Japan

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Antimicrobial feed additives are permitted where designated (colistin, tylosin and two tetracyclines withdrawn 2018-2019). Ractopamine is not designated as a feed additive.
B. What is actually used in production?
1,640 farms kept 129.7 million laying hens on 1 February 2024 (average 79,000 birds per farm). The share of cage housing could not be documented: the MAFF FY2024 animal-welfare survey was not accessible (HTTP 403).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
Antimicrobial feed additives distributed: 219.2 t (2023).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?
Absence of an accessible official cage-share figure is itself a result; snippet-only figures were not used.

Notes on foods

  • Eggs: Laying-hen farms are large (average 79,000 birds). No verified figure on cage vs. non-cage housing was accessible.

Sources: RS-JP-04, RS-JP-18, RS-JP-16, RS-JP-06

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – Japan

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Food Sanitation Act (Act No. 233, 1947) and Food Safety Basic Act (2003). Risk assessment by the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ); food standards by CAA (since April 2024); import inspection by MHLW quarantine stations under the annual Imported Foods Monitoring and Guidance Plan (Article 23). Instruments: monitoring inspections (statistically planned), ordered inspections (Article 26(3), each consignment of high-risk items), comprehensive import bans, enhanced monitoring at 30% after a violation.
B. What is actually used in production?
FY2024: 2,466,004 import notifications (31.91 million t); about 60% of food supply depends on imports (calorie basis).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
FY2024: 206,227 inspections (8.4% of notifications), 731 violations (0.03% of notifications). Monitoring inspections: 48,050 notifications (100,982 gross substance tests, 101% of plan), 127 violations. Ordered inspections: 70,034, 198 violations. As of 31 March 2025: 15 items from all countries and 114 items from 42 countries/regions under ordered inspection.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?
Border inspection is mostly risk-based; violation rates per notification are not prevalence estimates.
Indicators
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
Imports: violations
import_violation_pct
Imported Foods Monitoring and Guidance Plan
731 violations; 206,227 inspections (8.4% of notifications).		0.03 % of import notifications found in violationFY20242,466,004risk-basedimportsRS-JP-02

Sources: RS-JP-02, RS-JP-01

Drinking water – Japan

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?
Drinking-water quality standards under the Waterworks Act (Ministerial Ordinance on Water Quality Standards); responsibility for this matter lies with the Ministry of the Environment. PFOS and PFOA (combined) became a binding standard of 50 ng/L (0.00005 mg/L) on 1 April 2026, with mandatory testing by water suppliers.
B. What is actually used in production?
Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?
WHO/UNICEF JMP: 98.73% of the population used safely managed drinking water in 2024 (99.18% at least basic).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?
Not assessed here.
E. How robust are the data?
JMP figures are internationally comparable; 2023 and 2024 values are identical, suggesting extrapolation. No national compliance statistics for tap water were read.
Indicators
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF)
water_safely_managed_pct
WHO/UNICEF JMP (via World Bank WDI)
Also regional source R-SRC-61 (same route).		98.73 % of population2024–unknownall foodsRS-JP-17

Sources: RS-JP-13, RS-JP-17

Sources – Japan (18)
  1. RS-JP-01: Residues of Pesticides, Animal Feed Additives and Veterinary Drugs in Foods (Positive List System page) – Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA), Japan (2024). https://www.caa.go.jp/en/policy/standards_evaluation/residues_of_pesticides (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  2. RS-JP-02: Results of Monitoring and Guidance Based on the Imported Foods Monitoring and Guidance Plan for FY 2024 – Public Health Bureau, Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan (2025). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/001588891.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  3. RS-JP-03: 令和6年度 食品中の残留農薬等検査結果 (Results of tests for residues of agricultural chemicals etc. in food, FY2024) – Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan; analysis by National Institute of Health Sciences (NIHS) (2025). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11120000/001681032.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  4. RS-JP-05: Search engine for MRLs of Agricultural Chemicals in Foods (Japanese MRLs) – entries for ractopamine, trenbolone acetate, zeranol, melengestrol acetate; Positive List System glossary – The Japan Food Chemical Research Foundation (JFCRF), compiled from Official Gazette and CAA/MHLW materials (2026). http://db.ffcr.or.jp/front/ (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  5. RS-JP-04: Nippon AMR One Health Report (NAOR) 2025 – The AMR One Health Surveillance Committee (MHLW secretariat), Japan (2026). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10900000/001722027.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  6. RS-JP-06: 牛や豚に使用される肥育促進剤（肥育ホルモン剤、ラクトパミン）について（Q&A） (Q&A on growth promoters used in cattle and pigs: hormonal growth promoters, ractopamine) – Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan (unknown (document undated; file id 0000150442)). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/11120000/0000150442.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  7. RS-JP-07: BOOKLET to Provide Basic Information Regarding Health Effects of Radiation, 5th edition (updated March 31, 2024), Chapter 8.2 'Rice' – Ministry of the Environment, Japan (2024). https://www.env.go.jp/en/chemi/rhm/basic-info/2024/08-02-01.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  8. RS-JP-08: 食品中放射性物質濃度データの解析 (Analysis of radioactive substance concentration data in food), FY2024 shared research report, MHLW Health Labour Sciences Research Grant 23KA1006 – Nabeshi H. (National Institute of Health Sciences), et al. (2025). https://mhlw-grants.niph.go.jp/system/files/report_pdf/202423016A-buntan2.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  9. RS-JP-09: Risk Assessment Report: Arsenic in foods (Chemicals and contaminants) – provisional English translation of excerpt – Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ) (2013). https://www.fsc.go.jp/english/evaluationreports/chemicals/arsenic_fs1004_2013.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  10. RS-JP-10: ヒジキに含まれるヒ素の低減に向けた取組 (Efforts to reduce arsenic in hijiki) – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Japan (2015). https://www.maff.go.jp/j/syouan/nouan/kome/k_as/maff_hijiki.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  11. RS-JP-15: 乳に含まれるアフラトキシンM1の取扱いについて (Handling of aflatoxin M1 in milk), Notification Shokuan-hatsu 0723 No. 1 – Director, Department of Food Safety, Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau, MHLW (2015). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/file/06-Seisakujouhou-11130500-Shokuhinanzenbu/20150723-1.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  12. RS-JP-11: 令和６年食中毒発生状況の概要 (Overview of food poisoning in 2024), based on MHLW Food Poisoning Statistics Survey – Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan (2025). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10906000/001462571.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  13. RS-JP-12: 令和７年食中毒発生状況の概要 (Overview of food poisoning in 2025) – Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW), Japan (2026). https://www.mhlw.go.jp/content/10906000/001679199.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  14. RS-JP-14: Food Additives (policy page) – Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA), Japan (2024). https://www.caa.go.jp/en/policy/standards_evaluation/food_additives_en (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  15. RS-JP-18: 2-4 鶏 採卵鶏（成鶏めす）の飼養戸数・羽数 (Laying hens: number of farms and birds), based on MAFF Livestock Statistics (as of 1 February each year) – MAFF Tohoku Regional Agricultural Administration Office (data: MAFF 'Chikusan Tokei') (2024). https://www.maff.go.jp/tohoku/seisan/tikusan/attach/pdf/index-87.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  16. RS-JP-16: 令和6年度 アニマルウェルフェアに関する飼養管理指針の取組状況に係る調査 – 採卵鶏 (FY2024 survey on implementation of animal-welfare husbandry guidelines – laying hens), file 230726-63.pdf – Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (MAFF), Japan (2025). https://www.maff.go.jp/j/chikusan/sinko/attach/pdf/230726-63.pdf (Not verified, accessed 2026-10-25)
  17. RS-JP-13: 「水質基準に関する省令の一部を改正する省令」及び「水道法施行規則の一部を改正する省令」の公布等について (Promulgation of amended Ministerial Ordinance on Water Quality Standards – PFOS and PFOA) – Ministry of the Environment, Japan (Water Quality and Sanitation Management Office) (2025). https://www.env.go.jp/press/press_00075.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
  18. RS-JP-17: World Bank World Development Indicators API – SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS (safely managed drinking water) and SH.H2O.BASW.ZS (at least basic), Japan (source: WHO/UNICEF JMP) – World Bank, from WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/JPN/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json&mrv=5 (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
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
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 biomass202285mixedall foodsRS-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)2022107mixedall foodsRS-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)2022107mixedall foodsRS-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 promoters2022157mixedall foodsRS-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
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
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 hazards2021–mixedall foodsRS-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
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
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 year2021–mixedall foodsRS-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 year2021–mixedall foodsRS-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 DALYs2021–mixedall foodsRS-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 DALYs2010–mixedall foodsRS-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
IndicatorValueYearSamplesSampling designScopeSource
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 water2024–mixedall foodsRS-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)
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
  3. 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)
  4. 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)
  5. 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)
  6. 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)
  7. 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)
  8. 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)
  9. 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)
  10. 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)
  11. 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)
  12. 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)
  13. 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)
  14. 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)
  15. 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)
  16. 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)
  17. 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)
  18. 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)
  19. 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)
  20. 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)
  21. 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)
  22. 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)
  23. 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)
  24. 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)
  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)
  26. 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)
  27. 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)
  28. 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)
  29. 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)
  30. 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)
  31. 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)
  32. 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)
  33. 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)
  34. 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)
  35. 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)
  36. 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)
  37. 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)
  38. 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)
  39. 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)
  40. 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)
  41. 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