FDA Laboratories Clarifies Interpretation of Food Residue Report and Reassures Consumers

Johannesburg, 30 June 2026 – FDA Laboratories has noted the publication of the recent African Centre for Biodiversity Food Report and the subsequent media coverage around pesticide residues in commonly consumed foods in South Africa.

While FDA Laboratories supports transparent, science-based discussion around food safety and pesticide residue monitoring, the company is concerned that some of the data presented in the report has been incorrectly interpreted and may have created unnecessary alarm among consumers.

FDA Laboratories wishes to make it clear that its role was limited to generating analytical test data. The company did not author the report, did not prepare the conclusions, and does not endorse the interpretations, findings or opinions presented in the published report.

“At the heart of this matter is not the testing itself, but how the data has been interpreted and presented to the public,” says Azel Swemmer, Technical Director at FDA Laboratories. “Analytical results must be read within the correct scientific and regulatory context. When this does not happen, the conclusions can give consumers the impression that food products are unsafe, when the data does not support that conclusion.”

One of the key concerns relates to the way Maximum Residue Limits, commonly known as MRLs, have been presented. An MRL is a regulatory limit used to monitor whether pesticides have been applied according to good agricultural practice. It is not a direct toxicity level and should not be interpreted as the line between “safe” and “unsafe” food.

Importantly, an exceedance of an MRL does not automatically mean that a product is harmful to consumers. MRLs are set with significant safety considerations in mind and are used primarily for regulatory compliance. A separate and much more detailed toxicological risk assessment would be required before any conclusion could be made about actual consumer health risk.

Examples requiring clarification

FDA Laboratories is particularly concerned that the reference to certain household and infant products may have caused unnecessary concern among consumers. These examples require clearer context:

• Knorrox Soya Mince: The report’s presentation may give the impression that multiple food products are unsafe. FDA Laboratories clarifies that, based on its review, only one of the 43 products exceeded the applicable South African, Codex and European Union MRLs. This remains a regulatory finding and should not be presented as proof that the product is harmful to consume.

• Infant milk powder: The report references Nido Baby Milk Powder within a section focused on baby and toddler foods. FDA Laboratories cautions that a detected residue does not automatically mean a product exceeds a safety threshold or poses a health risk. Detection simply means a residue was identified; it does not, on its own, determine whether a food is unsafe.

• Counting of exceedances: FDA Laboratories does not agree with the report’s interpretation that 13 product-pesticide combinations exceeded applicable limits. In the company’s view, this overstates the issue and may mislead consumers into believing that a larger number of foods are unsafe.

FDA Laboratories is also concerned that some laboratory reporting formats appear to have been misunderstood. In certain cases, results that were below the laboratory’s validated reporting limit may have been treated as exact measurable values. This changes the meaning of the result and can materially affect how numbers are counted and communicated.

A laboratory test can confirm whether a residue is present and, where possible, at what level. It cannot, on its own, determine cumulative dietary exposure, mixture or “cocktail” toxicity, or long-term health risk. These conclusions require a broader toxicological assessment by suitably qualified experts.

“Consumers deserve accurate, balanced information,” adds Swemmer. “It is important that public discussion around food safety is based on correctly interpreted science, not on figures that may unintentionally overstate risk or create fear.”

FDA Laboratories remains committed to scientific integrity, responsible testing, and the accurate communication of laboratory data. The company supports ongoing improvements to food safety monitoring and regulatory transparency in South Africa, but believes this must be done through technically sound interpretation and evidence-based public communication.

The company is therefore distancing itself from the conclusions drawn in the report and wishes to clarify that the analytical data generated by FDA Laboratories should not be interpreted as endorsement of the report, its claims, or its broader policy conclusions.

ENDS