Search

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, Denmark, and co-rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain ABTS-351 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 Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain ABTS-351 as an insecticide on cabbage (field use) and tomato (permanent greenhouse and walk-in tunnel 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 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, Denmark, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain EG2348 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 Bacillus thuringiensis kurstaki strain EG2348 as an insecticide on pome fruits (field use), solanaceous fruiting vegetables (uses in permanent greenhouse and walk‐in tunnel) and ornamentals (field, permanent greenhouse and walk‐in tunnel 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 assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, and co-rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713, formerly Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713, 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 Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713 as a fungicide on strawberry (field and greenhouse uses) and grapes (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 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, Denmark, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain SA‐12 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 Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain SA‐12 as an insecticide on pome fruits (field use), protected tomato (including permanent greenhouses and walk‐in tunnels) and ornamentals (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 identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]