Two-page Summary 1. Country GREECE 1.1. Summary of Results 2009

Document Sample
Two-page Summary 1. Country GREECE 1.1. Summary of Results 2009 Powered By Docstoc
					                                   Two-page Summary

1. Country: GREECE

1.1.     Summary of Results 2009
Category             Total     Number       of          Number          of   Number     of
                     number of samples without          samples       with   Samples with
                     samples   detectable               residues       not   residues
                               residues                 exceeding     EU-    exceeding EU-
                                                        MRL                  MRL

Fruits     and              1959       1459 (74.48%)         431 (22.00%)         69 (3.52%)
Cereals                       38         36 (94.74%)             2 (5.26%)            0 (0%)
Plant    Origin              223           194 (87%)              29 (13%)            0 (0%)
Baby Food                     17           17 (100%)                0 (0%)            0 (0%)
Food of Animal                41         39 (95.12%)                0 (0%)         2 (4.88%)
Feed                           8             4 (50%)              4 (50%)             0 (0%)
Total                       2286       1749 (76.51%)         466 (20.38%)         71 (3.10%)

1.2.     Organisation of monitoring programmes and Sampling

1.2.1.   Responsibilities
The multi-annual and annual monitoring programmes were designed and organised by the
central competent authority. Monitoring programme for olive oil is foreseen through a
Ministerial Decision. The responsibilities of the laboratories involved, regarding the number of
samples of each commodity that should be analysed and the areas of sampling were well
defined. The responsible for the EU co-ordinated program laboratories were clearly stated. The
sampling is carried out by the responsible for sampling regional and local authorities.

1.2.2.   Design of Programmes (priorities, targeting, criteria for the percentage of
         samples to be taken from the organic sector)
The program was designed based on several risk analysis criteria and parameters (Number of
samples (domestic and imported), for each product, agricultural produce, cultivation area per
culture, expected imports, results from previous years’ monitoring programmes, dietary
intake contribution of each product, sampling location, pesticides used in practice by the
farmers, community control programme, relevant RASFF notifications for pesticide residues,
personnel and analytical capacity of the official laboratories.
1.2.3.   Sampling: personnel, procedures, sampling points
The responsible for sampling authorities, with the designated personnel, follow the methods of
sampling according to Commission Directive 2002/63/EC. Samples were taken from “the farm
to the fork” (points of entry, wholesalers, retailers, farm gates etc.).

1.2.4.   Enforcement action
In the case of an MRL exceedance, the relevant to the case enforcement actions specified by
national law are taken.

1.3.     Quality assurance
ISO/IEC 17025:2005, SANCO/2007/3131, SANCO/10684/2009.

1.3.1.   Status of accreditation of laboratories, number of laboratories
The official laboratories involved in the pesticide monitoring program of 2009 are nine (9)
which are all accredited under the terms of the ELOT EN ISO/IEC 17025:2005.

1.3.2.   Analytical methods used
Dutch multi-residue method, MA-01, MA-02, Dithiocarbamates UV-determination, ELOT EN
12396-1:1999, Lentza-Rizos and E.J. Avramides, Analyst 1990-vol. 115., Lentza-Rizos, J.
AOAC, 1994, vol 77, QuEChERS method of AOAC 2007.01, pr EN 15662 2007-10-24.

1.3.3.   Participation in proficiency tests
FV12, EUPT-C4 2010, COIPT 09-olive oil IOCC, EUPT-AO-4, EUPT-C3-SRM4, EUPTSM-
01, EUPT-FV-amitraz

1.3.4.   Implementation of EU quality control procedures
The EC guidelines of the quality control procedures for pesticide residue analysis are followed
as close as possible.

1.3.5.   Analytical uncertainty
The pesticide residues figures found are compared with the MRLs. In a case of an exceedance of
the MRL, before any administrative and punitive enforcement action is taken, a default
analytical uncertainty of 50% is subtracted from the measured value. If this figure still exceeds
the MRL, enforcement action relevant to the case is taken.

1.4.     Other information
In all cases of MRL exceedances, risk assessment for acute exposure is conducted, using the
ARfD value. In the cases of pesticides that an ARfD has not been set, the ADI is used.

Shared By: