Search

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Italy and co‐rapporteur Member State Spain for the pesticide active substance bensulfuron‐methyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of bensulfuron‐methyl as an herbicide on rice and spring cereals (spring wheat, spring barley, oat, rye, triticale). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Poland and co‐rapporteur Member State France for the pesticide active substance flufenacet are reported. In addition, the assessment of the confirmatory data following the Article 12 maximum residue limit (MRL) review of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 is also reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of flufenacet as a herbicide on winter cereals. Confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review were assessed. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the assessment of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Croatia, for the pesticide active substance amidosulfuron and the assessment of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of amidosulfuron as a post‐emergence herbicide on winter cereals, spring cereals, flax and grass/pasture (all field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Belgium for the pesticide active substance Pythium oligandrum strain B301 and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Pythium oligandrum strain B301 as a resistance inducer/elicitor to control trunk diseases on grapevines. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Poland and co‐rapporteur Member State Hungary for the pesticide active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr‐butotyl) and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of triclopyr (variant triclopyr‐butotyl) as a herbicide on established pasture and non‐recreational amenity grassland (field use). MRLs were assessed in rice. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Finland, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Estonia, for the pesticide active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of mepiquat chloride as a plant growth regulator on cereals and grass (field uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance difenoconazole are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory information with regard to the consumer risk assessment. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of difenoconazole as a fungicide on pome fruit, carrot, wheat, barley, triticale, rye and oats. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and/or literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Concerns were not identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance lenacil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of lenacil as a herbicide on sugar and fodder beet (field use). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Malta, for the pesticide active substance clove oil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions for the amendment of approval were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of clove oil as a preharvest nematicide on tomatoes and cucumbers (permanent greenhouse use). The representative use evaluated for the renewal of approval of clove oil was as post‐harvest fungicide and bactericide on apples, pears and peaches (indoor uses). The reliable endpoints appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Endpoints not relevant to the scope of the proposed amendment of approval conditions will be addressed in the context of the renewal of approval procedure of clove oil running in parallel (AIR IV, EFSA Q‐2016‐00809). Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Spain, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance quinolin‐8‐ol are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of quinolin‐8‐ol as a fungicide and bactericide against soil‐borne pathogens in tomato cultivation in permanent greenhouses applied by drip irrigation. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Ireland, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Poland, for the pesticide active substance dichlorprop‐P and the variant dichlorprop‐P‐2‐ethylhexyl and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of dichlorprop‐P as a herbicide on cereals, grassland and grass seed crops and of the variant dichlorprop‐P‐2‐ethylhexyl as a plant growth regulator on citrus. MRLs were assessed in mandarin and lemon. The conclusions from 2018 were updated in 2024 following the request from the European Commission with regard to the endocrine‐disrupting properties. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance pydiflumetofen and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of pydiflumetofen as a fungicide field application on pome fruits, grapes, potato, fruiting vegetables, cucurbits and Brassica vegetables and updated following the request from Commission to consider additional information submitted and review the risk assessment. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance metalaxyl‐M are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses for the amendment to the conditions of approval of metalaxyl‐M as a fungicide seed treatment for sunflower and spinach seeds intended to be sown in field and on the basis of data submitted to update the specified level of an impurity in the technical active substance. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Hungary, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Ireland, for the pesticide active substance dimoxystrobin as well as the assessment of maximum residue levels (MRLs) and confirmatory data following the review of the existing MRLs of dimoxystrobin according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. In June 2023, the European Commission sent a mandate confirming the need to adopt and publish a conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimoxystrobin excluding the full assessment of endocrine‐disrupting properties, containing all the results of the peer review process related to the renewal of approval as well as the assessment of the application for MRL for oilseed rapeseed, poppy seed, mustard seed and gold of pleasure seed, and the MRL application addressing the confirmatory data identified during the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of dimoxystrobin as a fungicide on oilseed rape and sunflower. MRLs were assessed in rapeseeds, poppy seed, mustard seed and Gold of pleasure seed. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are presented where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Austria and co‐rapporteur Member State Italy for the pesticide active substance folpet and of confirmatory data following the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of folpet as a fungicide on barley, wheat and wine grape (field uses) and tomato (field and greenhouse uses). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the confirmatory data, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Greece and co‐rapporteur Member State Finland for the pesticide active substance urea and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of urea as an attractant of fruit fly Bactrocera oleae on olive crops. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]