The EU’s strict pesticide regulations protect consumer health, but when it comes to certain chemical compounds that result from tea production, regulations need to be reconsidered.
The European Union’s increasingly strict pesticide regulations are reshaping the rules for imported tea. As more active substances are banned for agricultural use within the EU, maximum residue levels (MRLs) for those same substances in imported foods are being lowered — often to the limit of detection (LOD). This logic aims to ensure consumer protection but creates challenges for producers and traders outside the EU.
The EU’s approach is grounded in public health and environmental ideals, including goals set out in the Farm to Fork strategy. These principles are broadly supported, but they raise complex questions when applied to residues that result not from pesticide application, but from processing or environmental exposure. In such cases, the regulatory framework may fail to reflect the realities of traditional tea production.
Tea production encompasses a wide range of traditional techniques, many of which involve high heat. Pan-fried green teas and smoked black teas, such as Lapsang Souchong, rely on thermal treatments essential to their sensory profile. However, these methods can also lead to the formation or accumulation of chemical residues that are not the result of pesticide use.
Two substances in particular — anthraquinone and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) — have become focal points in regulatory discussions. According to recent studies, anthraquinone can be introduced into tea through atmospheric deposition or combustion-related contamination during processing. Meanwhile, PAHs are formed during smoking or when organic material is exposed to incomplete combustion. Both should be considered process-related contaminants.
While the EU regulatory framework does distinguish between contaminants and pesticide residues, there are recurring cases where the classification of specific substances does not align with production realities. This disconnect can lead to disproportionate compliance burdens and unintended barriers to market access — particularly for traditionally processed teas.
The legal framework governing chemical residues in tea within the EU is split between two core regulatory paths: pesticide residues are covered under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, while contaminants fall under Regulation (EC) No. 315/93 and Regulation (EU) 2023/915, which sets maximum levels for specific contaminants in food. This distinction determines not only the applicable limits but also the flexibility of enforcement.
The cases of PAHs and anthraquinone show how classification affects regulatory outcomes. For example, PAHs are correctly classified as contaminants, but their regulation allows for a more pragmatic approach. There are currently no specific maximum levels set for PAHs in tea. In discussions surrounding herbal teas and mate, authorities have acknowledged that contamination may result from traditional drying or roasting methods. Transfer rates into the infusion are relatively low, which supports a risk-based assessment rather than a zero-tolerance stance.
However, anthraquinone presents a different challenge. Although its use as a pesticide was banned in the EU in 2008, and its MRLs were subsequently tightened, it continues to be regulated as a pesticide residue under Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005. This classification persists even when the compound is demonstrably not applied agriculturally. The EU’s approach — once classified as a pesticide, a substance remains regulated as such — may be consistent, but does not reflect real-world contamination. For tea producers and importers, this rigidity creates compliance hurdles.
If a compound is correctly identified as a contaminant, it opens the door to differentiated risk assessment, including the possibility of setting higher maximum levels or allowing for exceptions based on technological inevitability and low consumer exposure. PAHs offer a practical example: their classification as contaminants has enabled a more balanced regulatory approach.
By contrast, when process-related contaminants are misclassified as pesticide residues, the consequences can be severe. Even trace amounts may lead to non-compliance, and for traditionally produced teas, this can result in de facto import bans.