Heavy metals in Pear

Quick read

Pear in the HMI library has 266 reported results for lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid, total mercury, nickel, chromium, aluminium, tin, antimony, uranium, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, V, arsenic (As), Ba and Tl from 25 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{5Lee JH, Seo JW, An ES, Kuk JH, Park JW, Bae MS, Park SW, Yoo MS · 2011Monitoring of Heavy Metals in Fruits in KoreaKorean Journal of Food Science and Technology 43(2): 230-234 (2011)Read source →}^{6Lee J, Hwang I, Park YS, Lee DY · 2023Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaApplied Biological ChemistryRead source →}

Metals measured:
Lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid and total mercury and others, in 266 results from 25 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}
Main drivers:
Pear, as sold from processed product, Poland retail/official control had lead higher at 24.5 µg/kg, against 8 µg/kg for fresh product, Poland retail/official control in the same study.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →}
Practical framing:
Ask for lot results with a quantification limit well below the limit that applies in the destination market.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}

Pear overview

Pear in the HMI library has 266 reported results for lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid, total mercury, nickel, chromium, aluminium, tin, antimony, uranium, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, V, As, Ba and Tl from 25 sources.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{5Lee JH, Seo JW, An ES, Kuk JH, Park JW, Bae MS, Park SW, Yoo MS · 2011Monitoring of Heavy Metals in Fruits in KoreaKorean Journal of Food Science and Technology 43(2): 230-234 (2011)Read source →}^{6Lee J, Hwang I, Park YS, Lee DY · 2023Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaApplied Biological ChemistryRead source →} WHO GEMS/Food submissions reported lead in pear, as sold from 2,379 results in 4 reporting regions, with subgroup medians from 14.8 to 180 µg/kg.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} In the US Total Diet Study, pear, as sold had a median lead result below 4 µg/kg across 27 composites from 2017–2020.^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}

Across 4 other studies of ordinary farms and markets, reported lead means and medians on an as-sold or fresh-weight basis ranged from 5.2 µg/kg (Lee et al. 2023) to 78.1 µg/kg (Bora et al. 2022).^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{6Lee J, Hwang I, Park YS, Lee DY · 2023Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaApplied Biological ChemistryRead source →} For cadmium, 5 studies on an as-sold or fresh-weight basis reported means and medians from 0.8 µg/kg (Rusin et al. 2021) to 16.8 µg/kg (Bora et al. 2022).^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →} Higher results came from contaminated or exposed settings rather than ordinary supply. Pear, as sold from fresh product, Poland retail/official control had cadmium higher at 4 µg/kg, against 0.8 µg/kg for processed product, Poland retail/official control in the same study.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →}

For a buyer the practical points are the form bought, the basis a result is reported on, where the pear came from and the laboratory’s reporting limit. Testing finds contamination but does not remove it.

What counts as pear

This page covers pear in 3 forms kept separate in every comparison: pear, as sold (233 results), pear, canned (27 results) and pear, dried (6 results).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{5Lee JH, Seo JW, An ES, Kuk JH, Park JW, Bae MS, Park SW, Yoo MS · 2011Monitoring of Heavy Metals in Fruits in KoreaKorean Journal of Food Science and Technology 43(2): 230-234 (2011)Read source →}^{6Lee J, Hwang I, Park YS, Lee DY · 2023Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaApplied Biological ChemistryRead source →} Foods made from pear that have their own pages, such as pear juice, are covered there.

Results stay on the basis each source reports: as sold or fresh weight, dry weight, or unstated. Dry-weight, as-sold and unstated results are never pooled, and no moisture conversion is applied.

Heavy metal contamination profile of pear

The table holds every extracted pear result: one row for each statistic a source reports for a form, group and metal, 266 rows in all, grouped by metal and form; percentiles, ranges and maxima for the same samples as a mean or median are shown on that row.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{5Lee JH, Seo JW, An ES, Kuk JH, Park JW, Bae MS, Park SW, Yoo MS · 2011Monitoring of Heavy Metals in Fruits in KoreaKorean Journal of Food Science and Technology 43(2): 230-234 (2011)Read source →}^{6Lee J, Hwang I, Park YS, Lee DY · 2023Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaApplied Biological ChemistryRead source →} Monitoring medians are HMI calculations from individual submissions; non-detects remain intervals between zero and the reporting limit and are never read as zero.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

29 rows can be rated against an HMI reference for the same form and basis, 36 rows have a direct same-study comparison, and the rest stay unrated with the reason recorded. 3 values from 1 source failed a check against their own source and are shown but not compared.^{8Liang G, Gong W, Li B, Zuo J, Pan L, Liu X · 2019Analysis of Heavy Metals in Foodstuffs and an Assessment of the Health Risks to the General Public via Consumption in Beijing, ChinaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthRead source →}

Comparison methods and scope

Each row is one statistic a source reports for one form of pear, group and metal; percentiles, ranges and maxima reported for the same samples as a mean or median are shown on that row. Different forms and preparation states are kept apart, and dry-weight results never share a reference with as-sold or fresh-weight results. Ratings place a result against an HMI reference built from monitoring results and ordinary-setting medians for the same form and basis. Same-study contrasts compare a contaminated or treated site with its control, targeted with random sampling, a prepared form with the unprocessed one, or one group of a study with the median of its other groups. Held rows failed a check against their own source and are shown but not compared.

Filter findings

AnalyteFood formCollection regionCollection periodSourceCompare withComparable findings only

246 of 246 findings · 21 analytes

About this table

Food formCollection scopeFindingComparisonEvidence

Pear findings from monitoring programmes, total diet studies and every extracted field, market and contaminated-site study, in µg/kg with each source’s form, basis, statistic and censoring retained.
Food form	Collection scope	Finding (µg/kg)

57 findings · 20 studies · 4 spread figures folded in
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2007–2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2018–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2004–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2003–2020	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2003–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2013	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2000–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2014	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2000–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2013	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2000–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2006–2010	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	SEARO2013–2014	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2007–2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2013	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2001–2012	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2013	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #81; purchased Houston, TX2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #82; purchased Gambell, AK2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #83; purchased Boulder, CO2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	mean.Same samples: 0.4 µg/kg (minimum); 74.1 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	min.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	max.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	fresh product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreported	mean.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	processed product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreported	mean.
Pear, as soldSpungen et al. 2024	all samples2018–2020	not detected.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20122009–2024	not detected.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20122009–2024	not detected.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20172009–2024	not detected.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20192009–2024	sample value.
Pear, as soldAl 2010	Fruits, Riyadh city markets, May 20092009Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldLiang et al. 2019	Beijing, four sampling sites pooledCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldOrisakwe et al. 2012	all samples (Ohaji, Umuagwo, Owerri sites)Collection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	dried product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldSharma et al. 2022	four market sites, Bareilly city (pooled)2018Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	not detected.
Pear, as soldauthors 2012	Pear, farm samples from main producing regions across Korea2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.Same samples: 6 µg/kg (minimum); 62 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	other.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	all samples (both areas)2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Other (non-Songhua) area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Songhua River basin area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
10 findings · 1 study · 4 spread figures folded in
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.Same samples: 81 µg/kg (minimum); 5.8 µg/kg (minimum); 241 µg/kg (maximum); 133 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Halifax 19861986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal 19881986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Ottawa 1985 (preliminary study)1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Toronto 19881986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Vancouver 19871986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Winnipeg 19871986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
2 findings · 1 study
Pear, driedWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2006–2007	median.
Pear, driedWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2008–2017	median.

52 findings · 20 studies · 4 spread figures folded in
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EMRO2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2007–2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2018–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2004–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2012	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2005	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2003–2020	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000–2006	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2003–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2003–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2011–2017	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO1999–2018	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2003–2010	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2005–2010	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2013	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #81; purchased Houston, TX2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #82; purchased Gambell, AK2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #83; purchased Boulder, CO2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	mean.Same samples: 0.3 µg/kg (minimum); 9.8 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	min.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	max.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	fresh product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreported	mean.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	processed product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreported	mean.
Pear, as soldSpungen et al. 2024	all samples2018–2020	mean.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20172009–2024	sample value.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20192009–2024	sample value.
Pear, as soldLiang et al. 2019	Beijing, four sampling sites pooledCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldOrisakwe et al. 2012	all samples (Ohaji, Umuagwo, Owerri sites)Collection date unreportedDry weight	not detected.
Pear, as soldRusin et al. 2021	dried product, Poland retail/official controlCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldSharma et al. 2022	four market sites, Bareilly city (pooled)2018Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldauthors 2012	Pear, farm samples from main producing regions across Korea2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.Same samples: 1.57 µg/kg (minimum); 6.05 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
Pear, as soldJoint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2022	GEMS/Food contaminants database2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldJoint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives 2022	GEMS/Food contaminants database2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	other.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	all samples (both areas)2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Other (non-Songhua) area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Songhua River basin area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
4 findings · 1 study · 4 spread figures folded in
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	median.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.Same samples: 0.84 µg/kg (minimum); 1.12 µg/kg (minimum); 7.78 µg/kg (maximum); 14 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	min.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	5 city composites1986–1988Basis not stated	max.
2 findings · 1 study
Pear, driedWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2006–2007	median.
Pear, driedWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015–2017	median.

25 findings · 11 studies · 2 spread figures folded in
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2018	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2014–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2014–2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2004–2023	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2002–2022	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2017–2023	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2009	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2013	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #81; purchased Houston, TX2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #82; purchased Gambell, AK2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #83; purchased Boulder, CO2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	mean.Same samples: 0.5 µg/kg (minimum); 6.8 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	min.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	max.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20172009–2024	not detected.
Pear, as soldU.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	Fruits, FY20192009–2024	not detected.
Pear, as soldLiang et al. 2019	Beijing, four sampling sites pooledCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldSharma et al. 2022	four market sites, Bareilly city (pooled)2018Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldauthors 2012	Pear, farm samples from main producing regions across Korea2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	all samples (both areas)2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Other (non-Songhua) area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Songhua River basin area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
1 finding · 1 study
Pear, driedWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2022	median.

8 findings · 3 studies
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2017–2023	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2011–2012	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2012–2014	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	PAHO2012	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2010–2022	median.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR 2012	all samples (4 sampling occasions, composites)2010–2011Basis not stated	not detected.
1 finding · 1 study
Pear, driedEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2014	European dietary-survey occurrence data2003–2013Basis not stated	mean.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2016	median.

16 findings · 8 studies · 2 spread figures folded in
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2007–2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2004–2019	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2015–2016	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2005	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 2003	Ottawa composite (retail Oct-Nov 2000)1998–2000	sample value.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 2003	Whitehorse composite (retail Jan-Feb 1998)1998–2000	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #81; purchased Houston, TX2019	not detected.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #82; purchased Gambell, AK2019	sample value.
Pear, as soldHoulihan et al. 2019	Fruit - single; single product sample #83; purchased Boulder, CO2019	not detected.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	mean.Same samples: 0.1 µg/kg (minimum); 0.7 µg/kg (maximum)
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	min.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2011	Korean wholesale markets, nationwide, all samplesCollection date unreported	max.
Pear, as soldLiang et al. 2019	Beijing, four sampling sites pooledCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldSharma et al. 2022	four market sites, Bareilly city (pooled)2018Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.

12 findings · 9 studies
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2008	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldOrisakwe et al. 2012	all samples (Ohaji, Umuagwo, Owerri sites)Collection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	other.
2 findings · 1 study
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.

10 findings · 7 studies
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2008	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldLiang et al. 2019	Beijing, four sampling sites pooledCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	median.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldNie et al. 2016	main producing areas of China2014Basis not stated	other.

8 findings · 5 studies
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2007–2009	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2000	median.
Pear, as soldSharma et al. 2022	four market sites, Bareilly city (pooled)2018Dry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	all samples (both areas)2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Other (non-Songhua) area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.
Pear, as soldWang et al. 2020	Songhua River basin area2015–2016Basis not stated	mean.

6 findings · 3 studies
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	EURO2007–2009	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2015	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO2005–2010	median.
Pear, as soldWHO GEMS/Food	WPRO1998–2000	median.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	mean.
1 finding · 1 study
Pear, cannedMania et al. 2021	single sample, China2015	max.

3 findings · 3 studies
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	not detected.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldFDA Total Diet Study	6 collection regions2017–2020	median.

2 findings · 2 studies
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.
Pear, as soldDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
2 findings · 1 study
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.
Pear, cannedDabeka et al. 1995	Montreal composite1986–1988Basis not stated	sample value.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	mean.

7 findings · 2 studies
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	mean.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with tap water2021	mean.
Pear, as soldUroko et al. 2019	Ubani market, Umuahia, Abia StateCollection date unreportedDry weight	not detected.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldCentre for Food Safety (Hong Kong) 2013	all samples2010–2011Basis not stated	not detected.

6 findings · 1 study
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	not detected.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	not detected.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	amateur farmers; washed with tap water2021	not detected.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar2021	not detected.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with 10% acetic acid vinegar2021	not detected.
Pear, as soldBora et al. 2022	vegetable and fruit market; washed with tap water2021	not detected.

2 findings · 2 studies
Pear, as soldLee et al. 2023	all samples2019	mean.
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	sample value.

1 finding · 1 study
Pear, as soldBaxter et al. 2015	food category composite 15_932014–2015Basis not stated	not detected.

Shared dataset methods and interpretation

Source summaries retain their original statistic, material, basis and censoring. Each source drawer identifies methods and overlapping samples. No matched reference or pooled distribution is inferred.

HMI pear Pb reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Pb reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1.2	≤4	1.2–4 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤1.2	≤4	1.2–4 (bounded)

151 reference units; 5 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	119	20%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	20%
Houlihan et al. 2019	3	20%
Spungen et al. 2024	1	20%
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	1	20%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

5 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-258456506f51:2bb99f15c1fb

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Pb reference · Pear, dried

Reference and scope

HMI pear Pb reference · Pear, dried. Pear, dried; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤20	8–24.5 (bounded)	20–50 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤20	8–24.5 (bounded)	20–50 (bounded)

6 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	6	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, dried on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, dried on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-83fcfac2d4a2:4c261ceb03fc

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Cd reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Cd reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1.1	1.2–1.5 (bounded)	2.4
Alternative weighting	≤1.1	1.2–1.5 (bounded)	2.4

139 reference units; 4 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	107	25%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	25%
Houlihan et al. 2019	3	25%
U.S. Food and Drug Administration 2024	2	25%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

4 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-b6d3b3e6e7ac:6fb422f340d9

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Cd reference · Pear, dried

Reference and scope

HMI pear Cd reference · Pear, dried. Pear, dried; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤6	≤10	≤10
Alternative weighting	≤6	≤10	≤10

5 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	5	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, dried on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, dried on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-3b6cbd0ba69e:51e837b689fe

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear tAs reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear tAs reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤4.2	4.2–5.1 (bounded)	5.7–8.2 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤4.2	4.2–5 (bounded)	6.2–8 (bounded)

77 reference units; 3 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	47	33%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	33%
Houlihan et al. 2019	3	33%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

3 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-51914cda6e11:827ae6cbd0c8

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear tAs reference · Pear, dried

Reference and scope

HMI pear tAs reference · Pear, dried. Pear, dried; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤80	≤80	≤80
Alternative weighting	≤80	≤80	≤80

1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	1	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, dried on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, dried on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-e79b8ecb61b2:c809a5a6ce2b

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear iAs reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear iAs reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤0.66	≤4.21	≤20
Alternative weighting	≤0.66	≤4.85	≤20

11 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	11	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, as sold on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-cf4788356675:01329c214d4c

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear DMA reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear DMA reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤20	≤20	≤20
Alternative weighting	≤20	≤20	≤20

1 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	1	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, as sold on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-7865d2b788a0:3b15f09890c4

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear tHg reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear tHg reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤0.12	≤0.169	0.12–1 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤0.12	≤0.169	0.12–1 (bounded)

57 reference units; 4 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	25	25%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	25%
Dabeka et al. 2003	2	25%
Houlihan et al. 2019	3	25%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

4 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-80d3772099d3:3b81ceda9416

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Ni reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Ni reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	55	76.5	76.5
Alternative weighting	53	76.5	76.5

28 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	1	50%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	50%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

2 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-f5bcbe9dc20d:f820a74b5ec9

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Cr reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Cr reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤20	10–35 (bounded)	20–50 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	≤20	10–35 (bounded)	20–50 (bounded)

28 reference units; 2 sampling families. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	1	50%
FDA Total Diet Study	27	50%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

2 sampling families with different designs; none is a probability sample of world supply. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-e624f0c6f88c:208e03d2d19f

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Al reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Al reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	570–652 (bounded)	652–688 (bounded)	1120
Alternative weighting	570–652 (bounded)	652–688 (bounded)	1120

3 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	3	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, as sold on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-5ed581fb7116:d99e7ed728d7

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear Sn reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear Sn reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	4	15–17.5 (bounded)	100–130 (bounded)
Alternative weighting	4	15–17.5 (bounded)	100–130 (bounded)

6 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
WHO GEMS/Food	6	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

WHO GEMS/Food is the only compatible sampling family for pear, as sold on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

WHO GEMS/Food

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-3f8257772f18:5c2b43797910

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

HMI pear U reference · Pear, as sold

Reference and scope

HMI pear U reference · Pear, as sold. Pear, as sold; As sold, as eaten or fresh weight, µg/kg; no moisture conversion. Distribution of subgroup median concentration values.

Reference (µg/kg)	Q1	Median	Q3
Primary HMI reference	≤1	≤1	≤1
Alternative weighting	≤1	≤1	≤1

27 reference units; 1 sampling family. Counts describe evidence units, not independent studies or certainty.

Contributing family	Reference units	Weight
FDA Total Diet Study	27	100%

Methods

HMI pools subgroup medians for pear, as sold on a as sold, as eaten or fresh weight basis: monitoring results summarized as one median per reporting region, sampling type and collection year, total diet composites and printed sample values as single observations, and printed subgroup medians from ordinary farms or markets. Each sampling family has equal total weight. Non-detects stay as zero-to-limit intervals, so quartiles carry lower and upper bounds. Means, ranges and maxima never enter as observations. Other forms, other bases, targeted sampling and results from mining, industrial, wastewater-affected, experimental, fertiliser or manufacturer settings are kept out of this reference.

Inverse weighted empirical CDF; midpoint at exact cumulative-weight boundaries. At least four reference units and a definitely positive Q1 to Q3 spread are required. This is a display eligibility rule, not statistical validation.

Limitations

FDA Total Diet Study is the only compatible sampling family for pear, as sold on this basis in the completed pear ledger, so this single-family reference cannot represent other markets. Reporting regions and purchase markets are not growing areas. Non-detects with differing limits widen the bounds. A position is descriptive concentration, not a safety or compliance judgment.

Admitted source families

FDA Total Diet Study

Reference version and interpretation

Frozen evidence selection: 2026-10-22. Method: hmi-pooled-reference-v2.

hmi-pooled-reference-v2:pear-c173bf711c4f:17424180e9f4

The reference is computed by HMI from admitted evidence, not copied from a study baseline. It describes the evidence currently in this scope; it is not a worldwide or current-lot benchmark. Source, year and region filters do not change it. Different HMI scopes are not one common ranking.

How metals reach pear

The evidence on how metals reach pear comes from studies that compared exposed and ordinary settings. Pear, as sold from fresh product, Poland retail/official control had cadmium higher at 4 µg/kg, against 0.8 µg/kg for processed product, Poland retail/official control in the same study.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →}

These are observational comparisons from single studies; the size of the difference depends on the site, metal and distance.

Which forms and regions measured lower

The HMI reference for lead in pear, as sold pools 151 subgroup units from 5 sampling families, with a median of below 4 µg/kg and a middle half spanning below 1.2 (lower quartile) and between 1.2 and 4 µg/kg (upper quartile).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{9Spungen JH, et al. · 2024Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Food Additives & Contaminants: Part ARead source →}^{10U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2024Analytical Results for Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children - TEP (FY2009-FY2024)FDA analytical results tableRead source →} For lead in pear, dried, the reference median was between 8 and 24.5 µg/kg, with a middle half from below 20 to between 20 and 50 µg/kg across 6 units.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} For cadmium in pear, as sold, the reference median was between 1.2 and 1.5 µg/kg, with a middle half from below 1.1 to 2.4 µg/kg across 139 units.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →}^{10U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2024Analytical Results for Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children - TEP (FY2009-FY2024)FDA analytical results tableRead source →}

Among GEMS/Food reporting regions, pear, as sold had the lowest lead subgroup median in PAHO (14.8 µg/kg) and the highest in SEARO (180 µg/kg); reporting regions are markets, not growing areas.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} For cadmium, the lowest regional median was in PAHO (2 µg/kg) and the highest in EMRO (7.55 µg/kg).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

Targeted pear, as sold samples in WPRO had lead higher at 40 µg/kg, against 35.5 µg/kg for WPRO in the same study.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} In another study, targeted pear, as sold samples in EURO had nickel higher at 81.3 µg/kg, against 76.5 µg/kg for EURO in the same study.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

In one study, lead across 6 groups of pear ranged from 81 µg/kg (Montreal 1988) to 241 µg/kg (Vancouver 1987); the lowest is the lowest observed in that study, not an established sourcing preference.^{11Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD · 1995Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel, and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietary Intakes of These Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988Journal of AOAC InternationalRead source →} In another study, lead across 4 groups of pear ranged from 64 µg/kg (amateur farmers; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar) to 74.9 µg/kg (vegetable and fruit market; washed with 5% acetic acid vinegar); the lowest is the lowest observed in that study, not an established sourcing preference.^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}

Processing, cooking and preparation

Processed or prepared forms were compared only with unprocessed pear in the same study and group. Pear, canned (5 city composites) had lead higher at 116 µg/kg, against 9.8 µg/kg for the unprocessed form in the same group (pear, as sold).^{11Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD · 1995Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel, and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietary Intakes of These Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988Journal of AOAC InternationalRead source →}

Forms differ in water content, so a per-kilogram difference is not by itself a measured removal or gain of metal.

Mitigation for pear

Lot testing against the applicable limit is the check that can be verified.

No measured way to lower metals in this food is in the library yet.

Trade-offs and limits of controls

Avoiding exposed growing areas lowered the metal measured in the studies available, but no study measured the cost or supply effect of doing so.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →} Metals do not move together, so a lot that passes a lead limit says little about cadmium, arsenic or nickel unless those are tested as well.

Testing pear for metals

Results depend on the method and its reporting limit. Reporting limits for lead ranged from 1 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food) to 3,000 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food), so a non-detect from a less sensitive method says much less.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} Reporting limits for cadmium ranged from 0.1 µg/kg (Nie et al. 2016) to 1,000 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food), so a non-detect from a less sensitive method says much less.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{12Nie JY, Kuang LX, Li ZX, Xu WH, Wang C, Chen QS, Li A, Zhao XB, Xie HZ, Zhao DY, Wu YL, Cheng Y · 2016Assessing the concentration and potential health risk of heavy metals in China’s main deciduous fruitsJournal of Integrative Agriculture 2016, 15(7): 1645-1655Read source →} Reporting limits for total arsenic ranged from 0.4 µg/kg (Liang et al. 2019) to 300 µg/kg (WHO GEMS/Food), so a non-detect from a less sensitive method says much less.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{8Liang G, Gong W, Li B, Zuo J, Pan L, Liu X · 2019Analysis of Heavy Metals in Foodstuffs and an Assessment of the Health Risks to the General Public via Consumption in Beijing, ChinaInternational Journal of Environmental Research and Public HealthRead source →}

A useful lot result names the form, the basis and a quantification limit well below the limit that applies.

Buying and verifying pear

No maximum level for metals in pear was verified from primary text for this page; buyers should confirm the limit that applies in the destination market.

Exposure from pear

No source in the library converted pear concentrations into a verified estimate of intake for a defined population. Concentrations describe the food, not individual risk.

Evidence review and remaining gaps

Every source record that names pear was decided on its content: 25 occurrence extracted, 25 records in all. The occurrence table renders every extracted result; held values remain visible with their reason.

References identify the sources used in these answers. The Sources index preserves additional discovery links; inclusion there does not mean a source has been reviewed for this assessment. Corrections, completed searches, new direct evidence and changes in requirements should reopen the relevant answer.

Pear FAQs

What heavy metals are found in pear?

The library reports lead, cadmium, total arsenic, inorganic arsenic, dimethylarsinic acid, total mercury, nickel, chromium, aluminium, tin, antimony, uranium, Co, Cu, Fe, Mn, Zn, V, As, Ba and Tl in pear, most often lead, cadmium and total arsenic.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{2U.S. Food and Drug Administration · 2022FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsFDA Total Diet StudyRead source →}^{3Bora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, Bunea CI · 2022Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaHorticulturaeRead source →}^{4Jane Houlihan, Charlotte Brody · 2019What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadHealthy Babies Bright FuturesRead source →} WHO GEMS/Food submissions reported lead in pear, as sold from 2,379 results in 4 reporting regions, with subgroup medians from 14.8 to 180 µg/kg.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

How do heavy metals get into pear?

In the studies available, pear from contaminated or exposed settings carried more metal than pear from the same study’s control.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →} Pear, as sold from processed product, Poland retail/official control had lead higher at 24.5 µg/kg, against 8 µg/kg for fresh product, Poland retail/official control in the same study.^{7Rusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, Szymala I · 2021Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsScientific ReportsRead source →}

Which regions report the lowest levels in pear?

Among GEMS/Food reporting regions, pear, as sold had the lowest lead subgroup median in PAHO (14.8 µg/kg) and the highest in SEARO (180 µg/kg); reporting regions are markets, not growing areas.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →} For cadmium, the lowest regional median was in PAHO (2 µg/kg) and the highest in EMRO (7.55 µg/kg).^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}

Does processing change heavy metals in pear?

Only comparisons between forms in the same study are available, not before-and-after measurements of the same pear.^{11Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD · 1995Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel, and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietary Intakes of These Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988Journal of AOAC InternationalRead source →} Pear, canned (5 city composites) had lead higher at 116 µg/kg, against 9.8 µg/kg for the unprocessed form in the same group (pear, as sold).^{11Dabeka RW, McKenzie AD · 1995Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel, and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietary Intakes of These Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988Journal of AOAC InternationalRead source →}

How much of the arsenic in pear is inorganic?

Inorganic arsenic, the more toxic form, was measured in 9 results from 4 sources, far fewer than total arsenic.^{1World Health Organization · 2026GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsGEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment ProgrammeRead source →}^{13Baxter M, Brereton N · 2015Total Diet Study of metals and other elements in foodFood and Environment Research Agency report for the UK Food Standards Agency, Fera report 15/06, project FS102081Read source →}^{14Centre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR · 2012The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative RegionRead source →}^{15European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →} European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) 2014 reported inorganic arsenic at 14.5 µg/kg (mean) in pear, dried from European dietary-survey occurrence data.^{15European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · 2014Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597Read source →}

References

Works cited on this page, in citation-number order. See Sources for this page’s source inventory. Each title links to a source record with bibliographic details, reported findings, and document provenance.

GEMS/Food Contaminants database heavy-metal exportsWorld Health Organization · GEMS/Food Contamination Monitoring and Assessment Programme · 2026 · extranet.who.intDataset
FY2018-FY2020 TDS Elements Analytical ResultsU.S. Food and Drug Administration · FDA Total Diet Study · 2022 · www.fda.govDataset
Quantification and Reduction in Heavy Metal Residues in Some Fruits and Vegetables: A Case Study Galați County, RomaniaBora FD, Bunea A, Pop SR, Banita SI, Dusa DS, Chira A, et al. · Horticulturae · 2022 · doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae8111034Peer-reviewed
What’s in My Baby’s Food? A National Investigation Finds 95 Percent of Baby Foods Tested Contain Toxic Chemicals That Lower Babies’ IQ, Including Arsenic and LeadJane Houlihan and Charlotte Brody · Healthy Babies Bright Futures · 2019 · www.hbbf.orgNGO
Monitoring of Heavy Metals in Fruits in KoreaLee JH, Seo JW, An ES, Kuk JH, Park JW, Bae MS, et al. · Korean Journal of Food Science and Technology 43(2): 230-234 (2011) · 2011 · doi.org/10.9721/kjfst.2011.43.2.230Peer-reviewed
Occurrence and health risk assessment of antimony, arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, nickel, and lead in fresh fruits consumed in South KoreaLee J, Hwang I, Park YS, and Lee DY · Applied Biological Chemistry · 2023 · doi.org/10.1186/s13765-023-00799-xPeer-reviewed
Concentration of cadmium and lead in vegetables and fruitsRusin M, Domagalska J, Rogala D, Razzaghi M, and Szymala I · Scientific Reports · 2021 · doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-91554-zPeer-reviewed
Analysis of Heavy Metals in Foodstuffs and an Assessment of the Health Risks to the General Public via Consumption in Beijing, ChinaLiang G, Gong W, Li B, Zuo J, Pan L, and Liu X · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · 2019 · doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16060909Peer-reviewed
Infants’ and young children’s dietary exposures to lead and cadmium: FDA total diet study 2018-2020Spungen JH and et al. · Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A · 2024 · doi.org/10.1080/19440049.2024.2396910Peer-reviewed
Analytical Results for Arsenic, Lead, Cadmium, and Mercury in Food Intended for Babies and Young Children - TEP (FY2009-FY2024)U.S. Food and Drug Administration · FDA analytical results table · 2024 · www.fda.govDataset
Survey of Lead, Cadmium, Fluoride, Nickel, and Cobalt in Food Composites and Estimation of Dietary Intakes of These Elements by Canadians in 1986-1988Dabeka RW and McKenzie AD · Journal of AOAC International · 1995 · academic.oup.comPeer-reviewed
Assessing the concentration and potential health risk of heavy metals in China’s main deciduous fruitsNie JY, Kuang LX, Li ZX, Xu WH, Wang C, Chen QS, et al. · Journal of Integrative Agriculture 2016, 15(7): 1645-1655 · 2016 · doi.org/10.1016/S2095-3119(16)61342-4Peer-reviewed
Total Diet Study of metals and other elements in foodBaxter M and Brereton N · Food and Environment Research Agency report for the UK Food Standards Agency, Fera report 15/06, project FS102081 · 2015 · www.food.gov.ukGovernment
The First Hong Kong Total Diet Study: Inorganic ArsenicCentre for Food Safety FEHD HKSAR · Centre for Food Safety, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region · 2012 · www.cfs.gov.hkGovernment
Dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European populationEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA) · EFSA Journal 2014;12(3):3597 · 2014 · doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3597Government

Sources

Browse Pear Sources for sources cited on this page and additional discovery candidates. The searchable index distinguishes verified citation use from discovery relationships whose relevance has not been established.

Update history

22 October 2026: Rebuilt from every pear record in the library: 25 occurrence sources, references by form and basis, same-study contrasts.

Referenced by

Graph View

1

2

Food and Drug Administration

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Food Additives

10

11

12

13

14

15

European Food Safety Authority

Heavy metals in Pear

Pear overview

What counts as pear

Heavy metal contamination profile of pear

How metals reach pear

Which forms and regions measured lower

Processing, cooking and preparation

Mitigation for pear

Trade-offs and limits of controls

Testing pear for metals

Buying and verifying pear

Exposure from pear

Evidence review and remaining gaps

Pear FAQs

References

Sources

Update history

Related ingredients

Referenced by

Graph View