FDA Laboratories issued a clarification regarding the results of an independent report that identified pesticide residues in common South African food products. The company emphasized that its involvement was limited to conducting laboratory analysis and does not endorse the interpretation of these data presented in the report.
Context of the Report Release
The clarification followed the publication of the African Centre for Biodiversity (ACB) report from June 2026 titled 'What's really in our food?'. This document reported the detection of pesticide residues in several supermarket products, including maize, bread, tomato sauce, and baby food.
FDA Laboratories' Position
FDA Laboratories stated its support for science-based open discussions on food safety but expressed concern that some laboratory data in the report were interpreted in a way that could cause unwarranted anxiety among consumers. In an official statement, the company noted: 'The role of FDA Laboratories was limited to generating analytical test data. The company was not the author of the report, did not prepare conclusions, and does not endorse the interpretations, results, or opinions presented in the published report.'
The Data Interpretation Issue
Chief Technical Officer Azel Swemmer noted that the issue is not with the laboratory testing itself, but with how the results obtained were presented and interpreted. He stated that 'the core of this issue is not the testing itself, but how the data were interpreted and presented to the public.' Swemmer added that analytical results must be considered within the proper scientific and regulatory context, otherwise, the conclusions might create a perception of product unsafety among consumers, even if the data do not support this.
Regarding Maximum Residue Levels
One of the key points causing concern for the laboratory is the interpretation of Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs)—regulatory standards used to determine compliance with good agricultural practices for pesticide application. According to FDA Laboratories, exceeding an MRL does not automatically mean a product is unsafe. The company stressed that drawing any conclusions about actual risks to consumer health requires a separate and much more detailed toxicological assessment.
Correction of Exceedance Data
The laboratory also disagrees with the report's assertion that 13 product-pesticide combinations exceeded applicable regulatory standards. According to FDA Laboratories, after their review, only one out of 43 products exceeded the applicable MRLs of South Africa, the Codex, and the European Union. Furthermore, it was noted that some formats of the laboratory's reporting might have been misunderstood, as results below validating limits were allegedly treated as precise measured values, which could affect the count and dissemination of exceedance information.
Limitations of Laboratory Tests
FDA Laboratories further reported that laboratory testing alone cannot determine cumulative impact on the body, toxicity of mixtures, or long-term health risks. The company clarified: 'A laboratory test can confirm the presence of a residue and, if possible, at what level. It cannot itself determine the cumulative impact on the body, the toxicity of mixtures, or 'cocktail' toxicity, or long-term health risk. These conclusions require a broader toxicological assessment by qualified experts.'
Commitment to Scientific Integrity
Azel Swemmer urged consumers to seek 'accurate, balanced information' and insisted that discussions on food safety must be based on correctly interpreted scientific evidence. FDA Laboratories reaffirmed its commitment to scientific integrity, responsible testing, and improving food safety monitoring and regulatory transparency in South Africa, but stressed that the data generated by the company should not be viewed as an endorsement of the report's conclusions or broader policy recommendations. The African Centre for Biodiversity was requested for comment on FDA Laboratories' clarification, but no response was received in time.