Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Jan 11;18(1):7.
doi: 10.1186/s12940-018-0441-7.

Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999-2015

Hillary A Craddock  1 , Dina Huang  2 , Paul C Turner  1 , Lesliam Quirós-Alcalá  1 , Devon C Payne-Sturges  3
Affiliations

Trends in neonicotinoid pesticide residues in food and water in the United States, 1999-2015

Hillary A Craddock et al. Environ Health. .

Abstract

Background: Neonicotinoids are a class of systemic insecticides widely used on food crops globally. These pesticides may be found in "off-target" food items and persist in the environment. Despite the potential for extensive human exposure, there are limited studies regarding the prevalence of neonicotinoid residues in foods sold and consumed in the United States.

Methods: Residue data for seven neonicotinoid pesticides collected between 1999 and 2015 by the US Department of Agriculture's Pesticide Data Program (PDP) were collated and summarized by year across various food commodities, including fruit, vegetable, meat, dairy, grain, honey, and baby food, as well as water to qualitatively describe and examine trends in contamination frequency and residue concentrations.

Results: The highest detection frequencies (DFs) for neonicotinoids by year on all commodities were generally below 20%. Average DFs over the entire study period, 1999-2015, for domestic and imported commodities were similar at 4.5%. For all the samples (both domestic and imported) imidacloprid was the neonicotinoid with the highest overall detection frequency at 12.0%. However, higher DFs were observed for specific food commodity-neonicotinoid combinations such as: cherries (45.9%), apples (29.5%), pears (24.1%) and strawberries (21.3%) for acetamiprid; and cauliflower (57.5%), celery (20.9%), cherries (26.3%), cilantro (30.6%), grapes (28.9%), collard greens (24.9%), kale (31.4%), lettuce (45.6%), potatoes (31.2%) and spinach (38.7%) for imidacloprid. Neonicotinoids were also detected in organic commodities, (DF < 6%). Individual commodities with at least 5% of samples testing positive for two or more neonicotinoids included apples, celery, and cherries. Generally, neonicotinoid residues on food commodities did not exceed US Environmental Protection Agency tolerance levels. Increases in detection trends for both finished and untreated water samples for imidacloprid were observed from 2004 to 2011.

Conclusions: Analysis of PDP data indicates that low levels of neonicotinoids are present in commonly-consumed fruits and vegetables sold in the US. Trends in detection frequencies suggest an increase in use of acetamiprid, clothianidin and thiamethoxam as replacements for imidacloprid. Given these findings, more extensive surveillance of the food and water supply is warranted, as well as biomonitoring studies and assessment of cumulative daily intake in high risk groups, including pregnant women and infants.

Keywords: Food; Insecticides; Neonicotinoids; Water.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Proportion of domestic samples from the PDP above the LOD among all neonicotinoids, by year and neonicotinoid type, 1999–2015. Please see Additional file 2 for LODs by year, commodity and neonicotinoid
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Proportion of import samples from the PDP above the LOD among all neonicotinoids, by year and neonicotinoid type, 1999–2015. Please see Additional file 2 for LODs by year, commodity and neonicotinoid
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Proportion of all fruit (major commodity) samples from the PDP above the LOD among all neonicotinoids, by year and neonicotinoid type, 1999–2015. Please see Additional file 2 for LODs by year, commodity and neonicotinoid
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Proportion of all vegetable (major commodity) samples from the PDP above the LOD among all neonicotinoids, by year and neonicotinoid type, 1999–2015. Please see Additional file 2 for LODs by year, commodity and neonicotinoid
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Proportion of organic samples from the PDP above the LOD among all neonicotinoids, by year and neonicotinoid type, 1999–2015. Please see Additional file 2 for LODs by year, commodity and neonicotinoid
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Jeschke P, Nauen R, Schindler M, Elbert A. Overview of the status and global strategy for neonicotinoids. J Agric Food Chem. 2011;59(7):2897–2908. doi: 10.1021/jf101303g. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Douglas MR, Tooker JF. Large-scale deployment of seed treatments has driven rapid increase in use of neonicotinoid insecticides and preemptive Pest Management in U.S. field crops. Environ Sci Technol. 2015;49(8):5088–5097. doi: 10.1021/es506141g. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Simon-Delso N, Amaral-Rogers V, Belzunces LP, et al. Systemic insecticides (neonicotinoids and fipronil): trends, uses, mode of action and metabolites. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2015;22(1):5–34. doi: 10.1007/s11356-014-3470-y. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bass C, Denholm I, Williamson MS, Nauen R. The global status of insect resistance to neonicotinoid insecticides. Pestic Biochem Physiol. 2015;121:78–87. doi: 10.1016/j.pestbp.2015.04.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kleinschmit J, Lilliston B. Unknown Benefits, Hidden Costs Neonicotinoid Seed Coatings, Crop Yields and Pollinators. Minneapolis: Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy; 2015.