Honey Samples From Around the World: Analytical Results of a Wide Spectrum of Pesticides and Other Substances

A report from the European Union Reference Laboratories

Ann-Kathrin Schäfer

 

Honey is a beloved food item in Germany; many couldn't imagine their meals without it. Whether spread on bread or drizzled over granola at breakfast or as an alternative to sugar, honey finds a variety of uses in our cuisine. After China, the EU is the second largest producer of honey worldwide. The EU alone can't completely still European citizens' hunger for honey, however. More than 150,000 tons of honey is also imported into the EU annually, mostly from Ukraine, China, Argentina, Mexico, New Zealand, and Brazil. In a pilot monitoring study conducted by the two EU reference laboratories (EURL) for pesticides situated in Baden-Württemberg, samples of honey were analyzed for pesticides and other substances in order to facilitate a focused and efficient testing of honey in the internal EU market. The EURL at CVUA Freiburg, tasked with analyzing pesticides in animal-based foods, and the EURL at CVUA Stuttgart, tasked with pesticides that require single residue methods, investigated together a total of 187 honey samples in the study.

 

Illustration 1: Honey – a popular product of nature and breakfast spread. AdobeStock

 

Introduction

Honey is a natural sweetener widely available here in Germany and Europe and, given its excellent storage stability and taste, is very popular. Germany itself is among the top five production countries in the EU, and produces about 7 % of the 250,000 to 300,000 tons of honey annually. [1][2] Because EU consumer demand for honey is greater than can be locally produced, however, about 40 % of the honey consumed here is imported from outside Europe. [1][2] The biggest importers are Ukraine, China, Argentina, Mexico, New Zealand and Brazil. [1][2]

 

Honey is made from honey bees, which collect nectar from flowers and process it into honey in their beehives. Honey bees play an especially important role as pollinators in fruit orchards. However, during their search for nectar and pollen, bees unintentionally come in direct contact with pesticides used on fields and orchards. Their honey is therefore expected to be contaminated with such pesticide residues. For fruits and vegetables there are legally prescribed waiting periods between application of pesticides and harvest or consumption. In contrast, honey bees also collect nectar during or shortly after an application of plant protector which, under certain circumstances, exposes them to quantities very large relative to their size. During the early steps in making the honey in the beehive, these residues can break down again, however. It additionally depends on the chemical properties, e.g. the polarity of the substance, as to whether they accumulate further in the honey or beeswax. Substances that are practically insoluble in water show a high affinity to the nonpolar wax and therefore accumulate in the beeswax. In honey, however, residues are more expected to contain water-soluble substances.

 

Illustration 2: Honey bees on the honeycomb. Own photo.

 

In addition to the employment of pesticides in agriculture, other substances are used to protect the bees in the beehive. These combat the so-called Varroa mite, treat infectious diseases, or are intended to curb infestation by pests. Because the Varroa mite is considered to be especially aggressive and can seriously damage an individual bee colony, there are several possible treatment alternatives. [3] The most common measures undertaken in Germany do not use synthetic ingredients, but rather organic acids (formic acid and oxalic acid), or biotechnical means are employed. [3]

 

In order to more easily identify the most important of these myriad potential substances, the EURL-AO (European Reference Laboratory for pesticides in animal-based foods, CVUA Freiburg) and the EURL-SRM (European Reference Laboratory for single residue methods, CVUA Stuttgart) conducted a pilot monitoring study with the goal of observing the residue situation in honey more closely. Over a period of four years (2020–2024), they procured a total of 187 honey samples from around the world. Most of the samples came from shops, but some also from Business-to-Business (B2B) arrangements. The latter refers to barrel or container goods, most of which were mixed with other ingredients to achieve an end product or were used as an ingredient in food. In order to cover as many active substances as possible in the study, the two laboratories complemented each other's spectra and carried out preliminary validation experiments to test their own methodology for analyzing honey. Different procedural and instrumental methods were used in the analyses of the samples.

 

The main focus of the analyses was on residues of pesticides and their metabolites, as well as common contaminants. The origin and authenticity of the samples was not verified in the study, as the main goal of the pilot monitoring project was to identify substances from a very wide spectrum that are quite often detectable in honey. Publishing these findings is intended to help laboratories adjust their analytical spectra to the currently relevant substances, so that they can conduct their investigations in a more goal-oriented manner.

 

Samples

The 187 analyzed honey samples came from 29 different countries (Illustration 3), with the greatest numbers coming from China (24), Spain (13), Germany (11), Bulgaria (8), Mexico (8), and Greece, France and Turkey (with 7 each). Moreover, 25 samples contained a mixture of honey and raw materials from different countries of origin, and two samples were of unknown origin. A total of 44 % of the samples came from within Europe and 48 % from outside Europe (non-EU) (Illustration 3, middle). As much as possible, the goal was to only analyze honeys produced in one country, in order to avoid mixtures whose labels bore a non-specific designation of origin. Finally, 12 samples were from organic production.

 

Regarding labeling, there is good news in the meantime concerning transparency of origin. The non-specific origin designation of "EU"/"Non-EU" is to become more exact; thus, starting in mid-2026 honey mixtures will have to indicate the individual countries where the honey was produced. [4][5] There is a sell-by date for honeys that have already been labeled. [4][5][6]

 

Illustration 3: Overview of the countries of origin for the analyzed honey samples. Left: Samples from outside the EU (CN = China, MX = Mexico, TR = Turkey, IN = India, CR = Costa Rica, BR = Brazil, AR = Argentina, UA = Ukraine, CU = Cuba, CL = Colombia, AUS = Australia, MD = Moldova, NZ = New Zealand, and UY = Uruguay). Middle: 44 % from the EU, 48 % from outside the EU ("non-EU"), 7 % mixed honeys ("EU/non-EU"), 1 % unknown origin. Right: Sample origins from the EU (ES = Spain, DE = Germany, BG = Bulgaria, GR = Greece, FR = France, HU = Hungary, RO = Romania, IT = Italy, HR = Croatia, IR = Ireland, PL = Poland, CY = Cyprus, SL = Slovenia).

 

Illustration 4: Types of honey analyzed. In addition to mostly unknown types and flower blossom honeys, there were also some classic and rare varieties.

 

There was no indication regarding the specific type of honey for almost 40 % of the samples (and all of the B2B honeys). Among those providing this information, most stated non-specific "flower blossom" honey (30 %). The remaining samples included eight acacia, eight wild, six orange blossom, five lavender, and three rapeseed honeys. Just one to two samples each of exotic types such as Manuka, eucalyptus, broom, and avocado honeys were analyzed.

 

Analytical Results

All of the analyzed samples were detected with at least five substances. In all, 135 different substances with quantifiable amounts were detected, as well as another 50 different substances in trace amounts. A detailed list of the 30 most frequently detected substances can be found in the appendix.

 

Especially frequent were substances that, besides being used as a pesticide, can also end up in honey via other paths of contamination, including phosphonic acid, copper, bromide and cyanuric acid (see appendix table). Phosphonic acid and copper were found in all of the analyzed samples. These four substances are often present in food, but their quantities are not generally problematic, toxicologically. Some samples did contain levels of bromide that were above the valid maximum level. However, since the residues were mainly due to natural sources rather than plant protectorates, the maximum levels should be adjusted in our view.

 

In addition, the environmental contaminant trifluoroacetic acid (TFA) was found in 79 % of the honey samples. TFA, the smallest of the so-called per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), can end up in the environment as a degradation product of various pesticides or from industrial sources (see Info Box). Also here, the detected quantities were of no concern, based on currently available knowledge. There was no difference between European and non-European honeys in terms of the TFA levels and frequency of detection.

 

 

In addition to bromide (see above), exceedances of the currently valid maximum levels were also detected for other substances, including azoxystrobin, glyphosate, chlorate, and the plant alkaloid matrin. The fungicide azoxystrobin was only found in eight samples, but among these was an exceedance of the maximum level in a honey from Poland. The herbicide glyphosate was detected in a total of 28 samples, four cases of which exceeded the valid maximum level. These four honeys came from Germany, the USA, Brazil and Argentina. Chlorate has the characteristics of an herbicide, but the residues mainly resulted from the use of chlorinated water for irrigation or chlorine-containing disinfectants for, e.g. the cleaning of surfaces (biocide use). The plant alkaloid matrin is regularly found in Acacia honey from China. [9] There is also a type of honey similar to acacia, which comes from the Japanese Pagoda tree (Sophora Japonica) and forms matrin naturally. Bees are equally attracted to this nectar source as well as to the pseudo acacia Locust tree. [9]

 

Residues from several synthetic substances used to combat Varroa mites were also detected in the honey samples. Those most frequently found included coumaphos (29 % of samples), two metabolites of amitraz (12 % and 21 %), thymol (9 %), fluvalinate (4 %), and propargite (3 %). Most of the quantities were significantly lower than the valid maximums, however. Analysis of residues from the abovementioned organic acids, often applied by German beekeepers, was not part of this study.

 

A comparison of the honeys produced in and outside of Europe showed no basic tendency in terms of the frequency of findings. There were, however, differences among specific substances. For example, the herbicide 2,4-D, which is also used as a growth regulator, was detected in many more South American and Indian honeys (in 45 % of the non-EU positive samples) than in the EU honeys (13 % of positive samples). This was also the case for glyphosate findings, which were more frequent among South American samples (37 % of positives) than in EU samples (13 % of positives). On the other hand, other substances were more often detected in European honeys, such as mepiquat, coumaphos, acetamiprid, and thiacloprid.

 

The last two of these substances are so-called neonicotinoids, to which a total of five insecticides belong, and are classified as especially dangerous for bees. [10][11] In the EU, therefore, the use of neonicotinoids for plant protection is banned, with the exception of the active substance acetamiprid. [10] This final, still authorized, neonicotinoid was found in 38 % of the EU honeys (31 samples) and in only 18 % of the non-EU honeys (14 samples). In addition, there were nine positive samples among the honey mixtures (69 % of the mixed honey samples). Moreover, the following neonicotinoids were also found in our samples: thiacloprid (21 %), imidacloprid (5 %), and thiamethoxam (3 %). It must be said, however, that the ban on thiacloprid only came in 2020, within the timeframe of the study. [10] Fortunately, the levels of neonicotinoids were very low, so the consumption of honey is not considered a health risk. The same cannot be said with certainty for the bees, however.

 

Our Conclusion

Despite the many findings, honey can continue to be enjoyed without concern. To a great extent the determined pesticide levels were much lower than the valid maximum levels, and most had very small quantities. Nevertheless, the results show that the analysis of honey within the framework of food control is important and should be continued, given that some valid maximum levels were exceeded. The results of this pilot monitoring project provided clarification regarding the relevance and frequency of individual substances in honey. The EU reference laboratories can now use this information to recommend a specific analytical spectrum to the EU Commission, thereby achieving an important contribution to consumer protection in all EU member states.

 

Further, detailed information on the findings from this study is available in English in a joint report on the EURL website.

 

Photo Credit

AdobeStock-Photo: Anton Ignatenco – stock.adobe.com

 

References

[1] Honey – Detailed information on honey production in the European Union: Link to Website; Link to Presentation; European Commission (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[2] Key facts about Europe´s honey market (infographic) – Topics – European Parliament (europa.eu) (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[3] Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft: Die Varroamilbe – der schlimmste Feind der Honigbiene (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[4] Verbraucherzentrale Niedersachsen: Lebensmittelproduktion – Importierter Honig oft gepanscht (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[5] EU-Kommission: Klare Kennzeichnung von Honig, Fruchtsäften, Konfitüre und Milch: Kommission begrüßt politische Entscheidung (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[6] Verordnungs-Entwurf: Zweite Verordnung zur Änderung der Honigverordnung uns anderer lebensmittelrechtlicher Vorschriften, DIP – Zweite Verordnung zur Änderung der Honigverordnung und anderer lebensmittelrechtlicher Vorschriften (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

[7] Umweltbundesamt (2021): Chemikalieneintrag in Gewässer vermindern – Trifluoracetat (TFA) als persistente und mobile Substanz mit vielen Quellen (last accessed 23.01.2026).

 

[8] Umweltbundesamt (2023): Trifluoracetat (TFA): Grundlagen für eine effektive Minimierung schaffen – Räumliche Analyse der Eintragspfade in den Wasserkreislauf (last accessed 23.01.2026).

 

[9] Wang Z, Zu T, Huang X, Jiang X, Jia G, Xu J, Cui Z, Zhu F, Zhang J, Li J, Cao Y. Comprehensive investigation of the content and the origin of matrine-type alkaloids in Chinese honey. Food Chemistry. 2023;402:134254.

 

[10] Bundesinformationszentrum Landwirtschaft: Neonicotinoide – ein Risiko für Bienen (last accessed 20.10.2025).

 

Appendix

Honey Samples From Around the World: Analytical Results of a Wide Spectrum of Pesticides and Other Substances

 

Translator

Catherine Leiblein

 

 

Report published on 20.04.2026