Pesticides in Australian Food:
What the Headlines Actually Mean
By Dr Hazel Batten, Integrative GP at Remede Wellness Medicine
You may have seen recent coverage about a proposal to raise the allowable residue limit of a pesticide called Isocycloseram on berries in Australia. I want to be clear from the outset about what is actually known, what is still under review, and how to think about pesticide exposure more broadly, without dismissing the concern or tipping into fear.
What is actually known right now
Isocycloseram is a newer insecticide used to control pests on berry crops. It is classified as a PFAS (per and poly fluoroalkyl substances) type compound by the European Union, the Organisation for Economic Co operation and Development (OECD) and several other bodies, because it is highly persistent and breaks down very slowly into a smaller compound called trifluoroacetic acid (TFA).
The application to expand its use and raise residue limits in Australia was submitted by Syngenta Australia and is being reviewed by the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA). I have verified this directly against the APVMA’s own Gazette No. 12, published 16 June 2026: it proposes raising the maximum residue limit for isocycloseram from 0.01 mg/kg to 3 mg/kg on bush berries, to 5 mg/kg on cane berries, and to 0.7 mg/kg on low growing berries. That works out to roughly a 70 fold increase for low growing berries and up to a 500 fold increase for cane berries. Public consultation closed on 14 July 2026, and as of today, no final decision has been published. Isocycloseram is already approved for agricultural use in the United States, while the European Union has not approved it, reflecting a more precautionary approach to persistent chemicals generally.
Regulatory toxicology assessments from the US EPA and Health Canada, both of which have reviewed isocycloseram, found that in animal studies the testes, epididymides and liver were the organs most affected, with effects including reduced sperm and testicular changes at higher doses. The US EPA set a safety threshold, called a NOAEL, of 2 mg/kg per day from these studies, well above expected dietary exposure. A separate assessment noted a rare skeletal finding in a rat developmental study, though this is attributed to the APVMA’s review rather than one I have read directly. The WHO’s 2023 evaluation took a more reassuring view, concluding there was no evidence of developmental, reproductive or cancer risk overall.
There is also a June 2026 European classification of the chemical’s breakdown product, TFA, as toxic to reproduction. That classification relates to TFA as a chemical broadly, not specifically to the trace dietary residue levels being proposed for Australian berries. This distinction matters and is often lost in social coverage.
Does the Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen apply to us
You have probably seen the Environmental Working Group’s Dirty Dozen and Clean Fifteen lists shared widely online. These are US based lists ranking produce by pesticide residue detected in USDA testing. They are a useful mental model, but they are not a direct match for Australia. Our farming practices, approved chemicals, and residue testing programs differ from the US, and Australia does not publish an equivalent, comprehensive annual dataset.
That said, the broad pattern tends to hold across countries. Produce with thin, edible skin such as berries, apples, grapes, spinach and stone fruit generally carries more residue, simply because there is more surface area and less of a protective barrier. Thick skinned produce you peel, such as avocado, banana, pineapple and sweet corn, generally carries less. If you want a practical, low effort rule rather than memorising a list, that skin thickness principle travels well regardless of country.
Why this is not one size fits all
This is the part I think gets lost in most coverage. Two people can eat the same conventionally grown produce and have quite different physiological responses to the same trace pesticide exposure. Metabolism of many pesticides relies on liver enzyme pathways, and there is documented genetic variability in how efficiently these pathways work between individuals. This is an area of ongoing research, and current evidence does not allow us to say precisely how much this variability matters for a given person at typical dietary exposure levels, but it is a reasonable part of why blanket statements about pesticide safety do not fit everyone equally well.
Total dietary exposure also matters more than any single food. A toddler eating berries daily has a very different exposure profile to an adult eating them occasionally, simply due to intake relative to body weight, which is part of why regulators pay particular attention to childhood consumption patterns when setting limits.
What the evidence actually shows
The reassuring evidence: Australian residue testing programs consistently find that the vast majority of produce sits well within legal limits, and those limits are set with a safety margin, typically at least tenfold below the lowest dose shown to cause any effect in animal studies.
The more cautious evidence: some pesticides, particularly older organophosphate and organochlorine compounds, have been linked in research to endocrine disruption, and some studies suggest associations between higher pesticide exposure and reproductive or hormonal effects. It is important to be honest that most of this evidence comes from occupational exposure studies, in people handling concentrated chemicals directly, rather than from the trace dietary residues most of us encounter. That distinction gets lost constantly in social media commentary, and I think it deserves more airtime.
There is also reasonably good human data, including an Australian study, showing that switching to an organic diet for as little as a week measurably lowers pesticide metabolites in urine. What that means for long term health outcomes is less clear, but it does confirm that dietary choices meaningfully change your actual exposure.
Where this leaves you
I do not think the answer here is fear, and I do not think it is dismissal either. A few practical, proportionate steps:
- Wash produce under running water, even if you plan to peel it
- Prioritise organic or lower spray options for thin skinned produce you eat often, if budget allows
- Do not let this stop you eating fruit and vegetables. The evidence for the benefits of a produce rich diet is far stronger and more consistent than the evidence for harm from trace residues
- If you have ongoing symptoms or health conditions that concern you, discuss individual dietary choices with your GP (General Practitioner) or health practitioner rather than relying on general guidance alone
- Keep an eye on the APVMA public consultation process if this is an issue you care about. Community submissions do influence outcomes
This is an evolving area and the evidence, like the regulations, keeps shifting. I will keep following it and update you as more comes through.
This article is general information and does not replace individualised medical advice.
References
- Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA) Gazette No. 12, 16 June 2026, page 50, item 8 — proposed isocycloseram maximum residue limit changes on berries. Verified directly by me against this primary document
- United States Environmental Protection Agency, Isocycloseram Human Health Risk Assessment and Federal Register tolerance notice, 20 November 2025
- Health Canada Pest Management Regulatory Agency, Proposed Registration Decision PRD2025-11, Isocycloseram
- World Health Organization, JMPR toxicology evaluation of isocycloseram, 2023
- Center for Food Safety, public comments on isocycloseram registration, June 2025 — cites APVMA’s own developmental toxicity findings
- European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), scientific committee classification of trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) as toxic to reproduction, Category 1B, June 2026
- PubChem / ECHA InfoCard, chemical identifiers for isocycloseram (CAS 1309959-62-3)