Pesticides Found in Every Second Produce Sample, New Monitoring Data Reveals

3 Min Read

During monitoring conducted in 2024, the Food Safety Inspection Body tested 192 samples of fruits and vegetables, finding residual pesticide violations in 91 of them—meaning every second sample was affected. The inspection body made these findings public only in August 2026 within a sub-section of its website, despite having repeatedly delayed providing the data in the past.

The inspections covered 12 types of fruits and vegetables, including apples, peaches, plums, strawberries, grapes, watermelons, melons, potatoes, tomatoes, cucumbers, peppers, and eggplants. The highest number of samples were taken in the Ararat, Armavir, Aragatsotn, and Kotayk regions, where the highest rates of pesticide excess were also recorded. Discrepancies were registered in 52% of samples in Armavir, 51% in Kotayk, 45% in Ararat, and 43.5% in Aragatsotn. No violations were found in 3 peach samples taken from the Tavush region.

In melon and watermelon samples from the Ararat region, pesticides such as imidacloprid, emamectin benzoate, chlorpyrifos, penconazole, and triadimefon were detected. The inspection body did not clarify the exact quantities of these substances present in specific produce. In addition, permissible nitrate levels were exceeded in 16 tested samples. The mass fraction of nitrates reached 83% in 10 melon samples, 62% in 5 watermelon samples, and 4.1% in 1 potato sample from Gegharkunik.

Regarding heavy metals, out of 696 samples examined, deviations were found in 9, where cadmium was primarily detected. Furthermore, out of 19 corn samples taken from the Lori region, one showed a genetically modified organism (GMO) content of 5.2%.

The high levels of pesticides and nitrates in agricultural samples indicate that control over the use of plant protection agents still requires systemic solutions. The lack of proper monitoring regarding chemical dosages used on farms directly impacts the safety of food appearing on the local market.

The delayed publication of the data raises additional concerns from a public health perspective. When inspection results become accessible months later, consumers and experts are deprived of the opportunity to assess risks and take preventive measures in a timely manner.

Share This Article