American fungicide scare raises questions about Australian standards

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was alerted to the presence of the fungicide carbendazim in imported Brazilian orange juice concentrate in late December last year. Levels of up to 35 parts per billion were found in the concentrate and, in response, the FDA began testing all imported concentrate in the US. Australia’s reaction to the concerns raises difficult questions about Australian standards, testing procedures and provenance labelling.

On 28 December 2011, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received information from Coca-Cola about levels of the fungicide carbendazim, present in imported Brazilian orange juice concentrate. Coca-Cola found levels of up to 35 parts per billion of carbendazim in the juice - levels that exceed the US’s tough no-trace standards for the fungicide.

The fungicide has been linked to infertility, testicular damage and liver tumours in laboratory animals. Carbendazim use for Australian citrus was banned in 2010, but Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) limits allow 10 parts per million of the fungicide. Despite the FDA’s concerns about carbendazim levels, Australia has continued importing and using Brazilian orange juice concentrate - a move that has raised the ire of Australian citrus growers’ associations, who argue that AQIS should increase testing of imported citrus juice.

Carbendazim in Australia

Interestingly, it seems that a significant number of calls to increase testing on imported citrus products come from those who stand to gain the most from limitations on imports. Citrus Australia’s chief executive, Judith Damiani, is suggesting that Australian consumers buy fresh juice from local growers or juice oranges themselves if they want to avoid imported products that could contain banned fungicides. Is it possible that the industry’s urging of consumers to buy local is related to the fact that local growers generally cannot produce oranges cheaply enough to compete with the imported concentrate, or the recent news that Australian citrus growers are facing their worst returns in 30 years? A cynical observer might comment that the Australian citrus industry is taking advantage of consumers' fears to drum up business.

The levels of carbendazim that caused concern in the US still fall well below FSANZ upper limits of 10 parts per million. Chief scientist for FSANZ, Dr Paul Brent, said: “The levels that were found in the US are parts per billion, a thousand times lower than the levels that we allow.” Given that the levels that caused concern in the US are acceptable by both Australian and European standards, doesn’t this make calls for increased testing of imported concentrate in Australia somewhat redundant?

There is, of course, another side to this: namely, the vast difference between Australian limits for carbendazim levels in foods and those in the US and Europe. In comparison with strict EU limits of 200 parts per billion and US no-trace standards, Australian standards of 10 parts per million appear positively lax. What is the justification behind this considerable difference? The Australian food industry generally has a reputation of upholding strict standards, as do the US and EU industries. So are European and American standards too strict, or are Australian standards not up to scratch?

Global carbendazim use

As of January 2010, carbendazim is no longer used for Australian citrus and has been banned in Europe since 2009. It seems peculiar that, even though we don’t use carbendazim in our own citrus industry, we tolerate its presence in imported food products. Although it permits carbendazim for use with ornamental plants, the US takes a firmer line on carbendazim, rejecting any products with even trace amounts of the fungicide. It is completely banned in the EU and the strict limits on carbendazim levels in food reflect this. In both the EU and the US, tolerated levels of the fungicide in foods reflect the stance taken on carbendazim use. In comparison, Australia’s tolerance of carbendazim levels in foods could be seen as illogical.

The use of carbendazim for juicing fruit is also problematic. Carbendazim is predominantly used to prevent black spot, a mould that affects orange trees. However, black spot does not impact the fruit’s flavour or yield, thus making carbendazim use necessary only for aesthetic reasons. In fruit that is used for juicing, black spot ought not to be a concern. Strangely, Australia mostly exports whole fruit but does not use carbendazim; Brazil does use carbendazim, but exports significant quantities of juice.

Food labelling

Each year the Australian citrus industry produces about 400,000 tonnes of oranges and Australia imports 32,000 tonnes of frozen orange juice concentrate - roughly the equivalent of 350,000 tonnes of fresh oranges. With so much imported juice in circulation and local supply fluctuating throughout the year, identifying a product’s country of origin becomes difficult. But the concerns raised by carbendazim levels in imported juice may highlight issues surrounding food labelling. Consumer pressure to clarify a product’s provenance could increase as a result of the US carbendazim situation.

Carbendazim: a blighted history

Prior to the US orange juice scare, carbendazim had been under investigation for many years. The WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) began testing the fungicide in the early 1970s and the last decade has seen findings that have led to it being tightly restricted in Australia.

• 1995: WHO’s International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) concludes that it is unlikely “that [carbendazim] would cause systemic toxicity effects either in the general population or in occupationally-exposed subjects,” according to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority (APVMA).
• 2005: the JMPR finds that carbendazim can cause foetal and embryonic malformations in rats, but notes that these effects occurred only after the rats consumed large quantities of the fungicide.
• 2007: the APVMA reviews carbendazim after receiving advice from the Office of Chemical Safety and Environmental Health (OCSEH). OCSEH reported that developmental abnormalities occurred in animals exposed to carbendazim and compounds that form it (such as benomyl).The APVMA said OCSEH’s concern was that the fungicide “might pose a potential public and occupational health and safety risk to people.” As a result of this review, the APVMA “suspended the label approvals of carbendazim products and issued new instructions for use that provided revised safety directions for use of the product and a birth defects warning statement, to be attached to the container.”
• 2010: the APVMA issues instructions that “effectively discontinued pre- and post-harvest use of carbendazim on grapes, cucurbits and melons, citrus fruit, custard apple, mango, pome fruit, stone fruit and turf.”
• 2011: Coca-Cola contacts the FDA to warn that imported Brazilian orange juice concentrate contains levels of carbendazim up to 35 parts per billion.
• 2012: the FDA begins testing imported orange juice concentrate, rejecting any concentrate with trace amounts of carbendazim.

Carbendazim in the future

Benjamin England, former FDA Regulatory Counsel, has argued that carbendazim is not used only in orange production: apparently the fungicide “is permitted in much higher concentrations” by the FDA in other fruits, including apples, apricots, bananas, grapes and cherries.

What this means for the Australian fruit industry is unclear, but no doubt Australian industry bodies will be watching the US closely in the coming weeks.

For an update on this article, click here.