United States

Detailed country profile US Northern America

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

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

At a glance

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

National profile: United States

In the United States, EPA sets pesticide tolerances, FDA regulates animal drugs, additives and most foods, and USDA inspects meat, poultry and egg products. In USDA's representative 2024 survey of mainly fruit and vegetables, 0.77% of samples exceeded a tolerance and 42.3% had no detectable residue. FDA's targeted sampling finds higher violation rates for imports, but these rates are not prevalence estimates. Medically important antibiotics have not been allowed for growth promotion since 2017, yet their sales rose 16% in 2024. Hormone implants and ractopamine are legal for beef cattle, and rbST is legal for dairy cows. No hormone implants are approved for poultry or pigs. Some rules changed in 2025-2026, including food dyes, GRAS, Salmonella in poultry and PFAS in drinking water, and these should be re-checked before publication.

Research scope: We reviewed federal US rules and monitoring reports from EPA, FDA, USDA (AMS, FSIS) and CDC. These covered pesticide tolerances and the PDP and FDA residue programmes, animal drug sales and FSIS residue testing, hormones, beta-agonists and rbST, contaminant action levels, the Total Diet Study and PFAS, aflatoxin action levels, poultry Salmonella standards, the Egg Safety Rule, FoodNet, colour additives and GRAS, FSMA and import controls, and drinking-water PFAS rules. We read legal texts through the eCFR and Federal Register APIs (up to date as of 22 October 2026). FSIS web pages blocked automated access (HTTP 403), so FSIS reports were read from Internet Archive copies. We did not find or review: pesticide use statistics, hormone and beta-agonist residue results, data on actual use of implants, rbST or ractopamine, aflatoxin monitoring results, milk drug-residue testing, NARMS resistance results, the share of cage-free hens, aquaculture rules, or state statutes (we relied on a secondary compilation for cage laws).

Last checked: 25 October 2026

Pesticides and pesticide residues – United States

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: EPA sets pesticide tolerances (maximum residue limits) under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. They are listed per pesticide and commodity in 40 CFR part 180 (subpart C: specific tolerances; subpart D: exemptions). EPA sets a tolerance only after it finds a 'reasonable certainty of no harm'. There is no general default limit like the EU 0.01 mg/kg; a residue of a pesticide that has no US tolerance for that food is a 'no-tolerance' violation. FDA enforces tolerances for most foods, including imports; USDA FSIS covers meat, poultry, catfish and certain egg products.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented in this review. Pesticide use data (for example USDA NASS chemical use surveys) were not consulted.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP), calendar year 2024: 9,872 samples of 19 commodities (fruit and vegetables 92.8%, almonds, salmon); 60.1% domestic, 38.9% imported. Samples are collected randomly at distribution centres in nine states, close to the point of consumption. 42.3% had no detectable residue. 0.77% (76 samples) had a residue above the EPA tolerance (12 domestic, 63 imported, 1 unknown). 3.7% (361 samples) had a residue with no established tolerance (118 domestic, 230 imported, 13 unknown). FDA Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, fiscal year 2023: 3,577 human food samples. Violative residues in 2.8% of 1,003 domestic samples and 13.5% of 2,574 import samples; no residues in 39.0% and 39.2%. Most violations were no-tolerance violations (domestic 23 of 28 samples; import 327 of 348).
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: EPA sets tolerances on the basis of a safety finding ('reasonable certainty of no harm') and uses PDP data for dietary exposure assessments. FDA concludes that residue levels in the US food supply are generally in compliance with EPA tolerances. Exceeding a tolerance is a legal finding, not proof of a health risk. No epidemiological outcome data were reviewed.
E. How robust are the data?: PDP is a statistically designed survey, described by FDA as 'statistically representative', and it is not used for enforcement. It covers a rotating set of commodities (no meat, eggs or milk in 2024), and samples are washed before analysis. The FDA programme is 'not random or statistically designed': it targets commodities and origins with a history of violations, and 72% of its samples were imports. Its violation rates therefore cannot be read as prevalence and cannot be compared with PDP or with the EU coordinated programme. FDA itself warns that a high violation rate for a targeted commodity does not show a high overall rate for a country. US 'violations' include residues that are legal in the exporting country but have no US tolerance, and the US has no EU-style 0.01 mg/kg default. Cross-jurisdiction comparisons of exceedance rates are only admissible with these differences stated.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Pesticides: samples above the maximum residue level pest_mrl_exceed_pct USDA Pesticide Data Program Residues above an established tolerance only; 76 samples (12 domestic, 63 imported, 1 unknown origin).	0.77 % of samples above EPA tolerance	2024	9,872	representative	all foods	RS-US-01
Pesticides: residues without a tolerance pest_no_tolerance_pct USDA Pesticide Data Program 361 samples (118 domestic, 230 imported, 13 unknown). Presumptive violations reported to FDA.	3.7 % of samples with a residue for which no US tolerance exists	2024	9,872	representative	all foods	RS-US-01
Pesticides: samples with measurable residues pest_quantified_pct USDA Pesticide Data Program Derived as 100 minus the stated 42.3% without detectable residue; PDP uses detection, not quantification, as the stated threshold.	57.7 % of samples with at least one detectable residue	2024	9,872	representative	all foods	RS-US-01
Pesticides: violative samples (FDA) pest_violative_pct FDA Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Selective surveillance sampling, not random.	2.8 % of samples violative (over-tolerance or no-tolerance)	FY2023	1,003	targeted	domestic products	RS-US-02
Pesticides: violative samples (FDA) pest_violative_pct FDA Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program Import sampling targets commodities/origins with violation history; 84 countries/economies.	13.5 % of samples violative (over-tolerance or no-tolerance)	FY2023	2,574	risk-based	imports	RS-US-02

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: PDP 2024 tested apples, avocados, blackberries, cherry tomatoes, cucumbers, lettuce, onions, oranges, pineapples, potatoes, canned pumpkin, sweet corn and tomatillos. FDA FY2023 (targeted): violative residues in 1.6% of domestic fruit (n=245) and 4.0% of domestic vegetables (n=545), versus 11.2% of import fruit (n=757) and 13.9% of import vegetables (n=1,370).
Cereals and rice: FDA FY2023: no violative residues in 60 domestic grain samples; 23.1% of 169 import grain samples were violative (targeted sampling).
Dairy: FDA FY2023: no violative residues in 68 domestic milk/dairy/egg samples (88.2% without residues), and none in 95 domestic milk, shell egg, honey and game meat samples.
Eggs: Shell eggs were included in FDA's FY2023 domestic animal-derived food assignment: no violative residues found (n=95 for the whole assignment).
Fish and seafood: PDP 2024 included 176 salmon samples (individual results not extracted). FDA FY2023: no residues in 16 domestic fish samples; 1.3% of 79 import fish samples violative.
Legumes and nuts: PDP 2024 included 531 almond samples. FDA FY2023: 2.9% of 69 domestic 'other' samples (mostly nuts) and 16.1% of 199 import seed/nut samples violative.
Honey, sugar, sweets: Honey was part of FDA's FY2023 domestic animal-derived food assignment, in which no violative residues were found.

Sources: RS-US-01, RS-US-02, RS-US-03, RS-US-44

Veterinary medicines and antibiotics – United States

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: FDA (Center for Veterinary Medicine) approves animal drugs and sets residue tolerances (21 CFR part 556). Guidance #209 (final April 2012) set the principle that medically important antimicrobials should be used only when needed for animal health and under veterinary oversight. Under Guidance #213, growth-promotion (production) uses of medically important antimicrobials in feed and water ended on 1 January 2017. Since then these drugs need veterinary oversight: feed uses need a Veterinary Feed Directive (final rule June 2015; 21 CFR 558.6, extralabel use of VFD feed not permitted), and water uses need a prescription. Guidance #263 (final 10 June 2021) moved the remaining over-the-counter medically important products, such as injectables, to prescription status. Antimicrobials that FDA does not classify as medically important, such as ionophores, may still carry production claims. Arsenic-based feed drugs were withdrawn in 2014 and 2015.
B. What is actually used in production?: In 2024, sponsors reported domestic sales of 7,096,577 kg of medically important antimicrobials for food-producing animals. This was 16% more than in 2023 (6,127,991 kg) and 27% less than in 2015 (9,702,943 kg). Estimated split by species in 2024: swine 3,031,149 kg, cattle 2,915,589 kg, turkeys 745,309 kg, chickens 260,483 kg, other 144,047 kg. Tetracyclines made up 4,895,876 kg. 4,619,930 kg was sold for feed use under VFD, 2,476,647 kg on prescription, and 0 kg over the counter. Sales of ionophores (not medically important) were 4,428,380 kg. FDA reports that about 65% of approved medically important feed and water products have a defined duration of use. It also reports that 95% of inspected stakeholders complied with the VFD rule.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: USDA FSIS National Residue Program, fiscal year 2024 (meat, poultry, catfish and egg products). Scheduled surveillance sampling: 6,188 samples, of which 25 were violative (0.40%) and 66 were positive below the tolerance; about 250 compounds were screened. Inspector-generated sampling of suspect animals: 104,154 kidney swab (KIS) screening tests and 1,573 laboratory samples, with 368 violations in 276 samples. Most violative residues were ceftiofur (97), penicillin (52) and flunixin (38). In bovine classes, 272 of 91,948 in-plant KIS tests were violative (0.3%); in swine, 0 of 10,866. Import reinspection found five residue violations in FY2024.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Tolerances are derived from acceptable daily intakes set in the drug approval. FSIS reports violations against these tolerances; a violation is a legal finding, not proof of harm. Antimicrobial resistance is monitored through NARMS (89,994 cumulative retail meat isolates by 2024). NARMS resistance results were not reviewed here.
E. How robust are the data?: The FDA figures are sales data, not use data. The species split is an estimate, and the biomass-adjusted (mg/kg) data are only in a dashboard that was not extracted. FSIS surveillance results come from scheduled sampling at slaughter. Inspector-generated results come from animals selected because they were suspect, so they are not prevalence estimates. Residues in milk (FDA/state programmes) were not reviewed. FSIS web pages blocked scripted access, so the reports were read from Internet Archive copies.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes) amu_tonnes FDA antimicrobial sales and distribution reporting (ADUFA s.105) Sales, not use. 2023: 6,128.0 t; 2015: 9,702.9 t. Not medically important classes (e.g. ionophores 4,428.4 t) excluded.	7096.6 tonnes of medically important antimicrobials sold (domestic, food-producing animals)	2024	–	unknown	all foods	RS-US-04
Antimicrobial sales, animals (tonnes) amu_tonnes FDA antimicrobial sales and distribution reporting (ADUFA s.105) Previous year for trend.	6128 tonnes of medically important antimicrobials sold (domestic, food-producing animals)	2023	–	unknown	all foods	RS-US-04
Veterinary drugs: non-compliant samples vetdrug_noncompliant_pct FSIS National Residue Program - scheduled surveillance sampling 25 violative samples. Scheduled sampling of slaughter classes after antemortem inspection; selection method not described in the report read. Includes some pesticides/contaminants.	0.4 % of samples with violative residues	FY2024	6,188	unknown	domestic products	RS-US-09
Veterinary drugs: non-compliant samples vetdrug_noncompliant_pct FSIS National Residue Program - inspector-generated sampling 276 of 1,573 samples sent to laboratories after screening of suspect animals (104,154 KIS tests). Derived percentage; not a prevalence.	17.5 % of laboratory-submitted samples with violations	FY2024	1,573	targeted	domestic products	RS-US-09

Notes on foods

Red meat: Dairy cows, beef cows and bob veal account for 74% of FSIS inspector-generated violations (FY2024); ceftiofur metabolite and penicillin dominate in dairy cows. Cattle and swine accounted for most medically important antimicrobial sales in 2024.
Dairy: Cull dairy cows are the main source of FSIS residue violations at slaughter. Residue testing of milk itself was not reviewed.
Poultry: Estimated sales of medically important antimicrobials for chickens were 260,483 kg in 2024 (145,809 kg in 2023), and 745,309 kg for turkeys. FSIS does not use KIS screening tests in poultry; suspect birds are sampled directly.
Eggs: FSIS cut egg product residue samples from 250 to 100 in FY2024 because of few positive results in recent years.
Fish and seafood: Siluriformes fish (catfish) are included in FSIS residue sampling; other farmed fish fall under FDA and were not reviewed for drug residues.

Sources: RS-US-04, RS-US-05, RS-US-06, RS-US-07, RS-US-08, RS-US-09, RS-US-10, RS-US-15

Hormonal growth promoters – United States

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Steroid hormone implants for growth are approved for beef cattle and sheep. They contain natural estradiol, progesterone or testosterone, or synthetic trenbolone acetate or zeranol. Melengestrol acetate is approved as a feed additive for cattle. FDA states: 'No steroid hormone implants are approved for growth purposes in dairy cows, veal calves, pigs, or poultry.' Residue limits are set in 21 CFR part 556. For natural hormones they are increments above natural levels; for example, estradiol in cattle muscle may exceed the natural level by at most 0.2 ppb. Trenbolone has an ADI of 0.4 µg/kg bw/day and zeranol 1.25 µg/kg bw/day. The beta-agonist ractopamine is approved, with tolerances for cattle, swine and turkeys (ADI 1.25 µg/kg bw/day; e.g. swine muscle 0.05 ppm). Tolerances are also listed for zilpaterol in cattle. Recombinant bovine somatotropin (Posilac) was approved for dairy cows on 5 November 1993, with a zero-day milk withdrawal.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented in this review. The share of cattle given implants, the share of animals fed ractopamine, and current rbST use were not found in official sources consulted. Ractopamine labelling warns of more injured, lame or fatigued pigs and recommends no more than 5 ppm in swine diets.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Hormone- and beta-agonist-specific residue results were not extracted from the FSIS National Residue Program reports reviewed.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: FDA approves these drugs after it concludes that food from treated animals is safe, and it sets ADIs and tolerances. FDA states that bST is a protein that is digested into inactive fragments. These are regulator conclusions; independent risk assessments (for example by EFSA or JECFA) are covered under the EU and INT profiles.
E. How robust are the data?: The legal status is clear from the CFR. Data on actual use and monitoring are missing from this review. CFR tolerances show what is legally permitted, not which products are marketed today.

Notes on foods

Poultry: No hormone implants are approved for chickens or turkeys (also not for pigs). Ractopamine (a non-hormonal beta-agonist) has tolerances for turkeys.
Red meat: Hormone implants (beef cattle, sheep) and ractopamine (cattle, swine) are legally approved.
Dairy: rbST (Posilac) is approved for dairy cows; no hormone implants are approved for dairy cows or veal calves.

Sources: RS-US-11, RS-US-12, RS-US-13, RS-US-14

Contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, PCBs, dioxins, nitrate) – United States

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Food is adulterated under section 402(a)(1) of the FD&C Act if it contains a harmful substance. FDA uses action levels, which are guidance values under 21 CFR 109.6 and are not binding regulations. Examples: methylmercury in fish 1 ppm; lead and inorganic arsenic in apple juice 10 ppb each; inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal 100 ppb. Under the 'Closer to Zero' programme, final lead action levels for processed baby foods were issued in January 2025: 10 ppb for most categories and 20 ppb for single-ingredient root vegetables and dry infant cereals. Draft cadmium action levels were published on 23 October 2026: 10 ppb for most categories, 25 ppb for carrots and meats, 20 ppb for yogurts and puddings, and 45 ppb for dry infant cereals. A draft for inorganic arsenic in baby foods is targeted for 2027. No federal PFAS limits for food were found. FDA assesses PFAS case by case, using toxicological reference values for ten PFAS.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable (contaminants are not intentionally used).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: FDA Total Diet Study, fiscal years 2018-2020: 3,241 samples of 305 foods and beverages. Lead was detected in 15% of samples, arsenic in 43%, cadmium in 61% and mercury in 8%. All results for foods with action levels were below those levels. In 384 additional baby food samples, 65% of results for the four metals were non-detects. Mercury in baby foods: 4 of 995 samples were above the quantitation level. PFAS: in a 2022 survey of 81 seafood samples, most levels were 'not likely' a health concern. The exception was some imported canned clams from China, which led to recalls and three refused shipments. FSIS suspended PFAS testing of domestic pork and poultry in FY2024 because positive results were very rare.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: FDA concluded that estimated PFOA exposure from some imported canned clams was likely a health concern, and that most other seafood levels were not. The baby food action levels are intended to 'further reduce' lead and cadmium in the food supply; they are not thresholds of harm.
E. How robust are the data?: The most recent published TDS elements report covers 2018-2020. TDS sampling has been population-based since 2018, but it is small per food (305 foods). Action levels are non-binding guidance, which limits comparison with binding EU maximum levels. FDA has published PFAS results only as surveys, with no detection percentages.

Notes on foods

Fish and seafood: Methylmercury action level 1 ppm. Most PFAS detections in the TDS were in seafood; some imported canned clams were recalled.
Cereals and rice: Infant rice cereal: 100 ppb inorganic arsenic. Dry infant cereals: 20 ppb lead (final) and 45 ppb cadmium (draft).
Fruit and vegetables: Baby foods from single-ingredient root vegetables: 20 ppb lead; carrots: 25 ppb cadmium (draft).
Red meat: Action level for PCBs in red meat: 3 ppm (fat basis), from the 2000 guidance. FSIS publishes quarterly results for metals and PFAS.

Sources: RS-US-16, RS-US-17, RS-US-18, RS-US-19, RS-US-20, RS-US-21, RS-US-09, RS-US-36

Mycotoxins (mould toxins) – United States

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: FDA action levels for aflatoxins (guidance, August 2000): 20 ppb for foods, Brazil nuts, peanuts and peanut products, and pistachios; 0.5 ppb aflatoxin M1 in milk. Feed levels depend on the animal: 20 ppb for dairy and immature animals, and 100, 200 or 300 ppb for breeding stock and finishing cattle or swine.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not found in this review. FDA mycotoxin compliance programme results were not consulted.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not reviewed for the United States; see the INT profile (JECFA/IARC).
E. How robust are the data?: Framework only. No US monitoring data are recorded here. The aflatoxin M1 action level (0.5 µg/kg) is ten times the EU maximum level of 0.050 µg/kg (Regulation (EU) 2023/915, regional source R-SRC-07), so exceedance rates are not comparable.

Notes on foods

Dairy: Aflatoxin M1 action level in milk: 0.5 ppb.
Legumes and nuts: Peanuts, Brazil nuts and pistachios: 20 ppb total aflatoxins.

Sources: RS-US-16

Pathogens (Salmonella, Campylobacter, etc.) – United States

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: FSIS verifies Salmonella performance standards (2016, 81 FR 7285) for raw chicken carcasses, chicken parts, and comminuted chicken and turkey, and places each establishment in a category. Salmonella in raw poultry is generally not treated as an adulterant. The exception is not-ready-to-eat breaded stuffed chicken: since 1 May 2025, these products are adulterated at 1 CFU/g or more. The proposed 'Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products' (August 2024) would have made certain Salmonella levels and serotypes adulterants. FSIS withdrew it on 25 April 2025. FSIS then held a public meeting on 14 January 2026 on alternative strategies and performance standard parameters. No new proposed rule was found up to 22 October 2026. FDA's Egg Safety Rule (2009; 21 CFR part 118) requires producers with 3,000 or more laying hens to have a Salmonella Enteritidis prevention plan. The plan must cover chicks from SE-monitored breeder flocks, environmental testing, cleaning and disinfection, biosecurity, and refrigeration.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented beyond the legal requirements.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: FSIS fiscal year 2024 Salmonella prevalence: chicken carcasses 4.9% (9,638 samples), chicken parts 8.3% (14,737), comminuted chicken 31.3% (1,072), turkey carcasses 0.3% (640), comminuted turkey 17.0% (913). The most common serotypes in chicken were Kentucky, Infantis and Enteritidis. Campylobacter: 25.6% of chicken carcasses and 20.3% of chicken parts. Listeria monocytogenes: 0.22% of randomly selected ready-to-eat products. CDC FoodNet 2024 (about 15% of the population): 24,624 infections, 6,746 hospitalizations and 178 deaths. Estimated Salmonella incidence was 16.79 per 100,000, similar to 2016-2018. STEC (7.02 per 100,000) was higher than in 2016-2018. Campylobacter incidence was not calculated because the case definition changed.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: FoodNet measures human illness directly. Salmonella incidence has not fallen compared with the 2016-2018 baseline.
E. How robust are the data?: FSIS results come from verification sampling of products at establishments, scheduled by production volume. FSIS calls them prevalence estimates. They are not flock-level results like the EU Salmonella control programmes, and they are not directly comparable with EU carcass process hygiene results (different matrices, methods and sampling points). FoodNet covers about 15% of the population, and more use of culture-independent tests (78% in 2024) affects trends. The FSIS report was read from an Internet Archive copy.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Salmonella: poultry meat salmonella_poultry_meat_pct FSIS Salmonella verification sampling - chicken carcasses FSIS 'prevalence' = estimated national proportion; 211 establishments; sampling method details not extracted.	4.9 % of raw chicken carcass samples positive (prevalence)	FY2024	9,638	representative	domestic products	RS-US-09
Salmonella: poultry meat salmonella_poultry_meat_pct FSIS Salmonella verification sampling - chicken parts Legs, breasts, wings; 493 establishments.	8.3 % of raw chicken parts samples positive (prevalence)	FY2024	14,737	representative	domestic products	RS-US-09
Salmonella: poultry meat salmonella_poultry_meat_pct FSIS Salmonella verification sampling - comminuted chicken 74 establishments.	31.3 % of comminuted chicken samples positive (prevalence)	FY2024	1,072	representative	domestic products	RS-US-09
Campylobacter: broilers campylobacter_broiler_pct FSIS Campylobacter sampling - chicken carcasses Carcass samples, not flocks or neck skin; not comparable with EU process hygiene criterion data.	25.6 % of raw chicken carcass samples positive (prevalence)	FY2024	4,578	representative	domestic products	RS-US-09
Salmonellosis cases per 100,000 salmonellosis_incidence_per_100k CDC FoodNet (historic 10-site catchment, ~51 million people) 95% CrI 15.85-17.86; includes all sources of infection, not only food.	16.79 estimated laboratory-diagnosed Salmonella infections per 100,000 population	2024	–	representative	all foods	RS-US-26

Notes on foods

Poultry: FSIS FY2024: Salmonella in 4.9% of chicken carcasses, 8.3% of chicken parts and 31.3% of ground chicken. The 2024 framework proposal was withdrawn in April 2025.
Eggs: The FDA Egg Safety Rule (21 CFR 118) requires SE prevention plans on farms with 3,000 or more hens. No national SE prevalence figure for layer flocks was found.
Red meat: FSIS also samples raw beef and pork for Salmonella and STEC; these results were not extracted. FoodNet showed STEC incidence above the 2016-2018 baseline in 2024.

Sources: RS-US-09, RS-US-22, RS-US-23, RS-US-24, RS-US-25, RS-US-26

Additives and processing – United States

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Under the FD&C Act, a food additive needs FDA premarket approval unless it is 'generally recognized as safe' (GRAS). GRAS status rests on the views of qualified experts (21 CFR 170.30), and notifying FDA is currently voluntary. On 11 August 2026 FDA proposed to make GRAS notices mandatory (comments until 9 December 2026). Colour additives must be listed by FDA, and synthetic colours need batch certification. FD&C Red No. 3 was revoked on 16 January 2025 because it caused cancer in male rats. The revocation takes effect in food on 15 January 2027 and in ingested drugs on 18 January 2028. On 22 April 2025 HHS and FDA announced a phase-out of petroleum-based dyes. For six dyes (Green No. 3, Red No. 40, Yellow No. 5, Yellow No. 6, Blue No. 1, Blue No. 2), the plan relies on voluntary industry action with a target of the end of 2026. These six dyes remain listed: no revocation was found in the Federal Register up to 22 October 2026. Orange B was revoked with effect from 8 September 2026. Revocation of Citrus Red No. 2 was proposed on 23 July 2026. Several colours from natural sources were newly listed or expanded in 2025-2026, such as galdieria extract blue, butterfly pea flower extract, calcium phosphate, gardenia blue, spirulina extract and beetroot red. Titanium dioxide remains a listed colour additive (21 CFR 73.575). A 2023 petition to revoke it was filed, and no decision was found.
B. What is actually used in production?: FDA keeps a tracker of voluntary company pledges to remove petroleum-based dyes. These pledges are self-reported and were not verified.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not applicable / not found.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: FDA based the Red No. 3 revocation on the Delaney Clause, because the dye caused cancer in male rats. FDA has announced post-market reassessments of phthalates, propylparaben, BHA and BHT for 2026; no conclusions were found.
E. How robust are the data?: The regulatory status changed often in 2025-2026. Status here is as found in the Federal Register up to 22 October 2026 and should be re-checked before publication. Many GRAS determinations are not notified to FDA, so a complete public list of substances in use does not exist.

Notes on foods

Fruit and vegetables: Citrus Red No. 2 (for orange skins) is proposed for revocation; FDA says it has not been certified since 2020.
Red meat: Orange B (for sausage casings) was revoked, effective 8 September 2026; it had not been certified since 1978.

Sources: RS-US-29, RS-US-30, RS-US-31, RS-US-32, RS-US-33, RS-US-34, RS-US-35, RS-US-36

Animal husbandry and feed – United States

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: No federal ban on cages for laying hens was found. According to an ASPCA compilation (secondary source), ten states have battery-cage laws: Arizona, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah and Washington. Several have been delayed or loosened: Arizona to 2034, Rhode Island and Utah to 2030, and Nevada allows temporary suspension of its sales ban (2025 law). California's Proposition 12 (2018) bans the sale of eggs from caged hens; the US Supreme Court upheld it in 2023. A 2025 US Department of Justice lawsuit against California's egg laws was dismissed for lack of standing in March 2026. Feed: 21 CFR 589.2000 bans most mammalian protein in ruminant feed, and 589.2001 bans certain high-risk cattle materials in all animal feed. Arsenic-based feed drugs for poultry are no longer approved (withdrawn 2014-2015). The Egg Safety Rule's biosecurity requirements are listed under microbiology.
B. What is actually used in production?: The share of cage-free laying hens and of hens in the different housing systems was not found in official sources consulted.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Not found.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: The list of state cage laws comes from a secondary advocacy source; state statutes and court records were not read directly. Aquaculture rules were not covered.

Notes on foods

Eggs: Cage rules depend on the state. California, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Colorado, Michigan and Nevada have sales or production bans on battery-cage eggs, with some exceptions and delays.
Poultry: Roxarsone and other arsenicals were withdrawn as poultry feed drugs (2014-2015).
Red meat: Most mammalian protein is banned in ruminant feed (BSE rules); feed for pigs and poultry falls outside the ruminant-feed rule.

Sources: RS-US-27, RS-US-28, RS-US-39, RS-US-15

Controls, imports, recalls, labelling – United States

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Responsibility is split. USDA FSIS inspects meat, poultry, Siluriformes fish and egg products. FDA covers all other foods, including shell eggs, dairy, most seafood and produce. Under the FDA Food Safety Modernization Act (FSMA), FDA issued rules on preventive controls, produce safety (2015), foreign supplier verification (FSVP, 2015; 21 CFR 1.502) and food traceability (2022). In August 2025 FDA proposed to move the traceability compliance date from 20 January 2026 to 20 July 2028; a final rule was not found. For imports, FDA can refuse admission (FFDCA section 801) and can detain products without physical examination through import alerts. FSIS reinspects imported meat, poultry and egg products at the point of entry. This sampling checks whether the inspection systems of exporting countries are equivalent to US standards.
B. What is actually used in production?: Not documented in this review (inspection frequencies and FSVP inspection results were not reviewed).
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: Import residue results: FDA pesticide sampling found 13.5% of targeted import samples violative in FY2023. FSIS import reinspection found five residue violations in FY2024 and none in FY2024 Q4.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: Not applicable.
E. How robust are the data?: Framework only. Import sampling is risk-based, so violation rates are not prevalence estimates.

Sources: RS-US-37, RS-US-38, RS-US-02, RS-US-09, RS-US-10

Drinking water – United States

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

A. What is legally allowed or banned?: Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA sets National Primary Drinking Water Regulations. The PFAS regulation of 26 April 2024 (effective 25 June 2024) set limits (MCLs) of 4.0 ng/L each for PFOA and PFOS, 10 ng/L each for PFHxS, PFNA and HFPO-DA (GenX), and a Hazard Index of 1 for mixtures of these with PFBS. On 20 May 2026 EPA proposed two changes. First, it proposed to rescind the limits for PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA and the mixture Hazard Index. Second, it proposed to let water systems that request it comply with the PFOA and PFOS limits by 26 April 2031 instead of 26 April 2029. Comments closed on 20 July 2026; no final rule was found up to 22 October 2026. Other recent actions include the Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (October 2024) and a proposed perchlorate regulation (January 2026).
B. What is actually used in production?: Not applicable.
C. Which residues or levels were measured?: WHO/UNICEF JMP (via World Bank): in 2024, 97.57% of the US population used safely managed drinking water and 99.98% used at least basic drinking water. PFAS occurrence data (UCMR 5) were not reviewed.
D. Which health risks are demonstrated?: EPA set the MCLGs for PFOA and PFOS at zero. It estimated that the 2024 rule, once fully implemented, would prevent thousands of deaths and tens of thousands of serious illnesses. That estimate is from the rulemaking and is not an observed outcome.
E. How robust are the data?: The JMP figure is a modelled estimate and is comparable across countries. The PFAS limits are changing; the status here is as of 22 October 2026. Litigation on the 2024 rule was not reviewed.

Indicators
Indicator	Value	Year	Samples	Sampling design	Scope	Source
Safely managed drinking water (WHO/UNICEF) water_safely_managed_pct WHO/UNICEF JMP via World Bank WDI Modelled estimate.	97.57 % of population using safely managed drinking water	2024	–	representative	all foods	RS-US-43

Sources: RS-US-40, RS-US-41, RS-US-42, RS-US-43

Sources – United States (44)

RS-US-01: Pesticide Data Program Annual Summary, Calendar Year 2024 (34th annual summary) – USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (2025). https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/PDPAnnualSummary.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-02: Pesticide Residue Monitoring Program, Fiscal Year 2023 Pesticide Report – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.fda.gov/media/190315/download (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-03: 40 CFR Part 180 - Tolerances and Exemptions for Pesticide Chemical Residues in Food (eCFR, up to date as of 2026-10-22) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency / Office of the Federal Register (eCFR) (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-180 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-44: Pesticide Residue Monitoring Report and Data FY 2023 (FDA web page and data files) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.fda.gov/food/pesticides/pesticide-residue-monitoring-report-and-data-fy-2023 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-04: 2024 Summary Report on Antimicrobials Sold or Distributed for Use in Food-Producing Animals, with data workbook 'CVM Antimicrobial Sales and Distribution Data 2015-2024' and CVM Update – U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Veterinary Medicine (2025). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/antimicrobial-resistance/2024-summary-report-antimicrobials-sold-or-distributed-use-food-producing-animals (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-05: FDA-TRACK: Progress on FDA's Support of Antimicrobial Stewardship in Veterinary Settings – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-track-agency-wide-program-performance/fda-track-progress-fdas-support-antimicrobial-stewardship-veterinary-settings (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-06: Guidance for Industry #209: The Judicious Use of Medically Important Antimicrobial Drugs in Food-Producing Animals; Notice of availability (77 FR 22328, 13 April 2012) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2012). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2012/04/13/2012-8846/guidance-for-industry-on-the-judicious-use-of-medically-important-antimicrobial-drugs-in (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-07: Veterinary Feed Directive final rule (80 FR 31708, 3 June 2015) and 21 CFR 558.6 (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2015). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-558/subpart-A/section-558.6 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-08: FDA finalizes GFI #263 to bring remaining approved over-the-counter medically important antimicrobial drugs for animals under veterinary oversight (CVM Update) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2021). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/cvm-updates/fda-finalizes-guidance-bring-remaining-approved-over-counter-medically-important-antimicrobial-drugs (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-09: FSIS Annual Sampling Summary Report, Fiscal Year 2024 – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/FY2024A_Sampling%20Summary%20Report.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-10: National Residue Program Quarterly Report, FY2024 Q4 (July-September 2024) – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/documents/FY24_Quarterly_Sampling_Summary_Report_Residue_Q4.pdf (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-15: Questions and Answers on Arsenic-based Animal Drugs and Poultry (FDA page) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CVM (2022). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/arsenic-based-animal-drugs-and-poultry (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-11: Steroid Hormone Implants Used for Growth in Food-Producing Animals – U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CVM (2024). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/steroid-hormone-implants-used-growth-food-producing-animals (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-12: 21 CFR Part 556 - Tolerances for residues of new animal drugs in food: ss.556.240 estradiol, 556.380 melengestrol, 556.540 progesterone, 556.570 ractopamine, 556.710 testosterone, 556.739 trenbolone, 556.760 zeranol, 556.765 zilpaterol (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration / eCFR (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-556 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-13: 21 CFR 558.500 Ractopamine (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration / eCFR (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-558/subpart-B/section-558.500 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-14: Bovine Somatotropin (bST) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration, CVM (2024). https://www.fda.gov/animal-veterinary/product-safety-information/bovine-somatotropin-bst (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-16: Guidance for Industry: Action Levels for Poisonous or Deleterious Substances in Human Food and Animal Feed – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2000). https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/guidance-industry-action-levels-poisonous-or-deleterious-substances-human-food-and-animal-feed (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-17: Closer to Zero: Reducing Childhood Exposure to Contaminants from Foods (FDA programme page) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-food/closer-zero-reducing-childhood-exposure-heavy-metals-foods (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-18: Action Levels for Lead in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children; Guidance for Industry; Availability (90 FR 1135, 7 January 2025; correction 90 FR 16692) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/07/2024-31534/action-levels-for-lead-in-processed-food-intended-for-babies-and-young-children-guidance-for-industry (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-19: Action Levels for Cadmium in Processed Food Intended for Babies and Young Children; Draft Guidance for Industry (91 FR 66796, 23 October 2026) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/10/23/2026-21670/action-levels-for-cadmium-in-processed-food-intended-for-babies-and-young-children-draft-guidance (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-20: Total Diet Study Report: Fiscal Years 2018-2020 Elements Data – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2022). https://www.fda.gov/media/159745/download (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-21: Testing Food for PFAS and Assessing Dietary Exposure (FDA page) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.fda.gov/food/process-contaminants-food/testing-food-pfas-and-assessing-dietary-exposure (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-36: Human Foods Program 2026 Priority Deliverables – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/human-foods-program/human-foods-program-2026-priority-deliverables (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-22: Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products; withdrawal of proposed rule and proposed determination (90 FR 17344, 25 April 2025) – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/04/25/2025-07187/salmonella-framework-for-raw-poultry-products (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-23: Exploring Practical Strategies To Reduce Salmonella in Poultry Products; public meeting (90 FR 55297, 2 Dec 2025; time change 90 FR 57949, 15 Dec 2025) – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/12/02/2025-21738/exploring-practical-strategies-to-reduce-salmonella-in-poultry-products (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-24: Salmonella in Not-Ready-To-Eat Breaded Stuffed Chicken Products; final determination (89 FR 35033, 1 May 2024) – USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service (2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/05/01/2024-09393/salmonella-not-ready-to-eat-breaded-stuffed-chicken-products (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-25: Prevention of Salmonella Enteritidis in Shell Eggs During Production, Storage, and Transportation (Egg Safety Rule, 74 FR 33030, 9 July 2009) and 21 CFR part 118 (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2009). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-118 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-26: FoodNet 2024 Preliminary Data – U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2026). https://www.cdc.gov/foodnet/reports/preliminary-data.html (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-29: 21 CFR 170.30 Eligibility for classification as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration / eCFR (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-B/part-170/subpart-B/section-170.30 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-30: Substances Generally Recognized as Safe; proposed rule (91 FR 51834, 11 August 2026) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/08/11/2026-16296/substances-generally-recognized-as-safe (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-31: Color Additive Petition From CSPI et al.; Request To Revoke Color Additive Listing for Use of FD&C Red No. 3 in Food and Ingested Drugs; final order (90 FR 4628, 16 January 2025) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/16/2025-00830/color-additive-petition-from-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-et-al-request-to-revoke-color (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-32: HHS, FDA to Phase Out Petroleum-Based Synthetic Dyes in Nation's Food Supply (press announcement, 22 April 2025) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration / HHS (2025). https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/hhs-fda-phase-out-petroleum-based-synthetic-dyes-nations-food-supply (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-33: Revocation of Orange B listing (final order, 91 FR 46276, 23 July 2026) and proposal to revoke Citrus Red No. 2 listing (91 FR 46330, 23 July 2026); FDA press release 22 July 2026 – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-takes-further-steps-remove-outdated-authorizations-color-additives-food (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-34: Listing of Color Additives Exempt From Certification: galdieria extract blue (90 FR 20104), butterfly pea flower extract (90 FR 20101), calcium phosphate (90 FR 20097) - 12 May 2025; gardenia (genipin) blue (90 FR 31586, 15 July 2025); spirulina extract (91 FR 5291) and beetroot red (91 FR 5295) - 6 Feb 2026, effective dates delayed 24 March 2026 – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bterm%5D=%22Listing+of+Color+Additives+Exempt+From+Certification%22 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-35: 21 CFR 73.575 Titanium dioxide (eCFR 2026-10-22) and Filing of Color Additive Petition from Environmental Defense Fund et al. to revoke titanium dioxide in food (88 FR 27818, 3 May 2023) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2023). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2023/05/03/2023-09366/filing-of-color-additive-petition-from-environmental-defense-fund-et-al-request-to-revoke-color (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-27: Farm Animal Confinement Bans by State – ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) (2026). https://www.aspca.org/improving-laws-animals/public-policy/farm-animal-confinement-bans (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-28: Judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit challenging California layer welfare laws (news report) – Agri-Pulse (2026). https://www.agri-pulse.com/articles/24399-judge-dismisses-doj-lawsuit-challenging-california-layer-welfare-laws (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-39: 21 CFR 589.2000 (animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed) and 589.2001 (cattle materials prohibited in all animal feed) (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration / eCFR (2026). https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-21/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-589 (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-37: FSMA final rules: Foreign Supplier Verification Programs (80 FR 74226) and Produce Safety standards (80 FR 74354), 27 November 2015; 21 CFR 1.502 (eCFR 2026-10-22) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2015). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/11/27/2015-28158/foreign-supplier-verification-programs-for-importers-of-food-for-humans-and-animals (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-38: Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods (final rule 87 FR 70910, 21 Nov 2022) and proposed compliance date extension (90 FR 38084, 7 Aug 2025) – U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2025). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/08/07/2025-14967/requirements-for-additional-traceability-records-for-certain-foods-compliance-date-extension (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-40: PFAS National Primary Drinking Water Regulation (final rule, 89 FR 32532, 26 April 2024) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2024). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-07773/pfas-national-primary-drinking-water-regulation (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-41: Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels; proposed rule (91 FR 29425, 20 May 2026) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/20/2026-10086/extending-the-compliance-deadline-for-the-pfoa-and-pfos-maximum-contaminant-levels (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-42: Rescission of Regulatory Determinations and Removal of Related Provisions for Four PFAS Substances (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO-DA, and the mixture with PFBS); proposed rule (91 FR 29413, 20 May 2026) – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2026). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/05/20/2026-10085/rescission-of-regulatory-determinations-and-removal-of-related-provisions-for-four-pfas-substances (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)
RS-US-43: World Bank World Development Indicators API - SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS and SH.H2O.BASW.ZS, United States (source: WHO/UNICEF JMP) – World Bank / WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme (2026). https://api.worldbank.org/v2/country/USA/indicator/SH.H2O.SMDW.ZS?format=json (checked, accessed 2026-10-25)

International reference framework (Codex, WHO, FAO)

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

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

Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: low Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

Notes on foods

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

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

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

Data quality: moderate Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

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

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

Data quality: high Last checked: 25 October 2026

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

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

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

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

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

← Go to the country overview