Search

Abstract The European Commission has asked the EFSA to evaluate the risk for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey bee feed. HMF is a degradation product of particular sugars and can be present in bee feed. HMF is of low acute toxicity in bees but causes increased mortality upon chronic exposure. A benchmark dose lower limit 10% (BMDL10) of 1.16 μg HMF per bee per day has been calculated from mortalities observed in a 20‐day study and established as a Reference Point covering also mortality in larvae, drones and queens for which no or insufficient toxicity data were available. Winter bees have a much longer lifespan than summer bees and HMF shows clear time reinforced toxicity (TRT) characteristics. Therefore, additional Reference Point intervals of 0.21–3.1, 0.091–1.1 and 0.019–0.35 µg HMF/bee per day were calculated based on extrapolation to exposure durations of 50, 90 and 180 days, respectively. A total of 219 analytical data of HMF concentrations in bee feed from EU Member States and 88 from Industry were available. Exposure estimates of worker bees and larvae ranged between 0.1 and 0.48, and between 0.1 and 0.51 μg HMF/per day, respectively. They were well below the BMDL10 of 1.16 μg HMF/bee per day, and thus, no concern was identified. However, when accounting for TRT, the probability that exposures were below established reference point intervals was assessed to be extremely unlikely to almost certain depending on exposure duration. A concern for bee health was identified when bees are exposed to HMF contaminated bee feed for several months.

Abstract The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems‐based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent‐based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Beeswax is intended for use in the beekeeping sector but also in the agro-food, pharmaceutical or cosmetics sectors. The adulteration of beeswax is an emerging issue that was reported lately at several occasions in the scientific literature. This issue tends to become more frequent and global, but its exact extent is not accurately defined. The present study aims to assess the current situation in Belgium through a nationwide survey. Randomized beeswax samples originating from Belgian beekeepers (N = 98) and commercial suppliers (N = 9) were analysed with a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) coupled with Attenuated Total Reflectance (ATR) accessory (FTIR-ATR spectroscopy) for adulteration. The survey revealed a frequency of 9.2% and 33.3% of adulteration in beekeepers beeswax samples (9 samples out of 98: 2 with paraffin and 7 with stearin/stearic acid) and commercial beeswax samples (3 samples out of 9: all adulterated with stearin/stearic acid), respectively. The analysed samples were adulterated with various percentages of paraffin (12 to 78.8%) and stearin/stearic acid (1.2 to 20.8%). This survey indicates that in the beekeepers samples, beeswax adulteration was more frequent in comb foundation and crude beeswax than in comb wax. With the example of this nationwide survey conducted in Belgium, this study shows the emergence of the issue and the urgent need for action to safeguard the health of both honey bees health and humans, in particular with the setting of a proper regulation legal framework and a specific routine analytical testing of commercial beeswax to ensure beeswax quality.

Bees are exposed to a wide range of multiple chemicals “chemical mixtures” from anthropogenic (e.g. plant protection products or veterinary products) or natural origin (e.g. mycotoxins, plant toxins). Quantifying the relative impact of multiple chemicals on bee health compared with other environmental stressors (e.g. varroa, viruses, and nutrition) has been identified as a priority to support the development of holistic risk assessment methods. Here, extensive literature searches and data collection of available laboratory studies on combined toxicity data for binary mixtures of pesticides and non-chemical stressors has been performed for honey bees (Apis mellifera), wild bees (Bombus spp.) and solitary bee species (Osmia spp.). From 957 screened publications, 14 publications provided 218 binary mixture toxicity data mostly for acute mortality (lethal dose: LD50) after contact exposure (61%), with fewer studies reporting chronic oral toxicity (20%) and acute oral LC50 values (19%). From the data collection, available dose response data for 92 binary mixtures were modelled using a Toxic Unit (TU) approach and the MIXTOX modelling tool to test assumptions of combined toxicity i.e. concentration addition (CA), and interactions (i.e. synergism, antagonism). The magnitude of interactions was quantified as the Model Deviation Ratio (MDR). The CA model applied to 17% of cases while synergism and antagonism were observed for 72% (MDR > 1.25) and 11% (MDR

Pollinators in agricultural landscapes can be exposed to mixtures of pesticides and environmental pollutants. Existing mixture toxicity modelling approaches, such as the models of concentration addition and independent action and the mechanistic DEBtox framework have been previously shown as valuable tools for understanding and ultimately predicting joint toxicity. Here we apply these mixture models to investigate the potential to interpret the effects of semi-chronic binary mixture exposure for three bee species: Apis mellifera, Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis within potentiation and mixture toxicity experiments. In the potentiation studies, the effect of the insecticide dimethoate with added propiconazole fungicide and neonicotinoid insecticide clothianidin with added tau-fluvalinate pyrethroid acaricide showed no difference in toxicity compared to the single chemical alone. Clothianidin toxicity showed a small scale, but temporally conserved increase in exposure conducted in the presence of propiconazole, particularly for B. terrestris and O. bicornis, the latter showing a near three-fold increase in clothianidin toxicity in the presence of propiconazole. In the mixture toxicity studies, the dominant response patterns were of additivity, however, binary mixtures of clothianidin and dimethoate in A. mellifera, B. terrestris and male O. bicornis there was evidence of a predominant antagonistic interaction. Given the ubiquitous nature of exposures to multiple chemicals, there is an urgent need to consider mixture effects in pollinator risk assessments. Our analyses suggest that current models, particularly those that utilise time-series data, such as DEBtox, can be used to identify additivity as the dominant response pattern and also those examples of interactions, even when small-scale, that may need to be taken into account during risk assessment.

The main objectives of EFSA's activities on emerging risks are: (i) to carry out activities to identify emerging risks; (ii) to develop and improve emerging risk identification (ERI) methodologies and approaches; and (iii) communicate the issues and risks identified. The outcome of these activities also allows EFSA to prepare for future risk assessment challenges. The current technical report summarises the activities of all groups involved in the ERI procedure, the issues identified in the course of 2020, a description of the methodologies that have been considered, and collaborative activities. EFSA networks of knowledge contributing to the ERI activity include the Emerging Risks Exchange Network (EREN), the Stakeholder Discussion Group on Emerging Risks, EFSA's scientific units, scientific panels and the Scientific Committee. In total, 13 potential emerging issues were discussed in 2020. Six were concluded to be emerging issues. The potential issues were organised according to the hazard or driver identified. In addition, in 2020, EREN network members presented and discussed a total of 35 signals/potential emerging issues that had been identified by their own horizon‐scanning activities. Member State representatives shared their work on signal identification with the objective of collecting additional information that could be used for better characterisation. It is crucial to introduce more dynamic and interactive approaches to gather and disseminate knowledge, while also taking into consideration the potential risks that may arise in new areas. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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 Slovenia and co‐rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellins (GA4/GA7) 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 gibberellins (GA4/GA7) as a plant growth regulator on apple and pear (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 when identified.

Abstract 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 Slovenia and co‐rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance gibberellic acid 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 use of gibberellic acid as a plant growth regulator on seedless 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 reported when identified.

Abstract 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 Finland for the pesticide active substance fenoxaprop‐P‐ethyl 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 fenoxaprop‐P‐ethyl as a post‐emergence herbicide in wheat, durum wheat, rye, triticale and barley to control annual monocotyledonous weeds. 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 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, Poland, for the pesticide active substance penoxsulam 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 penoxsulam as a herbicide on rice and chicory. 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 The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State Austria for the pesticide active substance elemental iron 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 elemental iron in field and greenhouses (permanent and non‐permanent structures) via granule application by spreading on all edible and non‐edible crops, ornamental plants and amenity grassland to control molluscs. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed.

Abstract The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance bixlozone 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 bixlozone as an herbicide on winter cereals (wheat and barley), winter oilseed rape and maize via soil broadcast spray application in field. 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 identified.

Abstract 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 The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State The Netherlands for the pesticide active substance 1‐methylcyclopropene 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 for an amendment in approval conditions. The current approval of 1‐methylcyclopropene includes the specific provision ‘Only uses as plant growth regulator for post‐harvest storage in sealable warehouse may be authorised’. The applicant AgroFresh Holding France SAS submitted, in accordance with Article 7 of Reg. (EC) 1107/2009, an application to remove this specific provision in order to allow member states to authorise the use of products containing 1‐methylcyclopropene on outdoor crops pre‐harvest. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use(s) of 1‐methylcyclopropene as a plant growth regulator via spray application on pome fruit. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.

The main objectives of EFSA's activities on emerging risks are: (i) to carry out activities to identify emerging risks; and (ii) to develop and improve emerging risk identification (ERI) methodologies and approaches and iii) communicate on identified issues and risks. The outcome of these activities also allows EFSA to prepare for future risk assessment challenges.The current technical report summarises the activities of all groups involved in the emerging risk identification procedure, the issues identified in the course of 2019, a description of methodologies being developed and collaborative activities.EFSA networks of knowledge contributing to the emerging risks identification activity include the Emerging Risks Exchange Network, the StakeholderDiscussion Group on Emerging Risks, EFSA's scientific units, scientific panels and the Scientific Committee and its working groups. In total, 17 potential emerging issues were discussed in 2019. Thirteen were concluded to be emerging issues. The potential issues were classified according to the hazard and/or driver identified. A change in consumer behaviour trends as a driver for emerging issues in food safety was identified for more than half of the issues discussed in 2019. A better understanding of these trends is particularly relevant for EFSA to improve preparedness. In addition, in 2019 EREN network members presented and discussed a total of 28 signals/ potential emerging issues identified by their own horizon scanning activities. Different Member states representatives shared their work on signals identification with the objective to collect additional information that can be used for better characterization. More effective methods to collect and share knowledge need to be implemented. Collaboration was a main feature of the 2019 ERI activities. The number of observers increased, a common session between EREN and StaDGER was organized for the first time and collaboration between institutions is a common feature to all methodological development projects.Such collaboration activities require the development of effective digital collaboration tools and a flexible knowledge management system. Communication is a fundamental part of the ERI procedure, in a more "open knowledge sharing" context it is of increased importance to clearly communicate on the uncertainty associated with the ERI procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract 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 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 mepanipyrim 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 mepanipyrim as a fungicide on table and wine grapes and in field and protected strawberries and tomatoes. The conclusions were updated with regard to the endocrine‐disrupting properties following a mandate received from the European Commission in January 2019. 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 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, Slovenia, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance tritosulfuron 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 tritosulfuron as a herbicide on spring and winter cereals, spring cereals with undersown grasses and maize (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 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 The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), consisting of the competent authorities of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary, acting jointly as rapporteur Member State for the pesticide active substance glyphosate 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 glyphosate as a herbicide as proposed by the applicants, covering uses pre‐sowing, pre‐planting and pre‐emergence plus post‐harvest in vegetables and sugar beet; post‐emergence of weeds in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, railway tracks against emerged annual, biennial and perennial weeds. Moreover, uses as spot treatment against invasive species in agricultural and non‐agricultural areas, and in vegetables and sugar beet against couch grass are also included. 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 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, Lithuania, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Latvia, for the pesticide active substance trinexapac 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 use of trinexapac as a plant growth regulator on barley (winter and spring) and wheat (winter). MRLs were assessed in rye. The conclusions were updated with regard to the endocrine‐disrupting properties following a mandate received from the European Commission in January 2019.The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. The confirmatory data following the review of existing MRLs according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 were also assessed under this conclusion. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture.

Abstract The pre‐market environmental risk assessment (ERA) of regulated products such as genetically modified organisms, plant protection products and feed additives is an important process to safeguard the desired level of protection of the environment and biodiversity. ERA evaluates the potential adverse effects on the environment of certain actions, and is an important analytical scientific tool to support regulatory decision‐making. Significant advances have been made in the field in recent years. Potential avenues to the further advancement of ERA of regulated products under EFSA's remit were discussed during the breakout session ‘Advancing environmental risk assessment’ held at the EFSA 2nd Scientific Conference ‘Shaping the Future of Food Safety, Together’ (Milan, Italy, 14–16 October 2015). The value of ERA and its relevance to decision‐making can be increased by: (1) using the ecosystem services approach to make protection goals operational; (2) relying on problem formulation to enhance the relevance of ERA studies; (3) complying with quality standards to warrant the reliability of ERA studies; (4) making ERA more contextual by accounting for multiple stressors and environmental benefits; and (5) acknowledging the strengths and limitations of post‐market environmental monitoring as a tool to resolve scientific uncertainties.

No abstract available