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, 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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, Estonia, and co-rapporteur Member State, Germany, for the pesticide active substance metribuzin and the assessment of application to amend existing residue definition 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 metribuzin as a herbicide on potato and soybean (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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

For risk communication, it is important to understand the difference between "hazard" and "risk". Definitions can be found in Codex Alimentarius and the European Union (EU) General Food Regulation (EC) No. 178/2002. The use of these terms as synonyms or their interchange is a recurrent issue in the area of food safety, despite awareness-raising messages sent by EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) and other interested entities. A quick screening of the EU's food regulations revealed several inconsistencies. Hence, it was considered necessary to further investigate if regulations could act as a source for this problem. A software tool was developed to support the detection and listing of inconsistent translations of "hazard" and "risk" in certain EU food regulations. Subsequently, native-speaking experts working in food safety from each EU country were asked to provide their individual scientific opinion on the prepared list. All data were statistically analysed after applying numerical scores (1-5) describing different levels of consistency. Results showed that the most common problem was the interchange of "hazard" with "risk" and vice versa. This lack of consistency can create confusion that can further translate into misjudgments at food risk assessment and communication levels.

Food risk assessment plays an important role in protecting public health worldwide. Stakeholders involved in food risk assessment, such as national authorities, agencies, non-governmental organisations (NGOs), industry and consumers, need to properly understand the terminology of food risk assessment effectively. In this respect, the first part of the EU-FORA work programme (WP1) aimed to provide insights into the actual translation of two essential terms used in food risk assessment. 'Hazard' and 'risk' were first identified and compared between the English version of various food regulations and their equivalents in the national legislation of EU Member States. The comparison and critical evaluation revealed several inconsistencies. These inconsistencies could lead to misinterpretations, followed by errors in conducting risk assessments or communicating risks. We recommend that consistency is restored and maintained so that the message is properly communicated. The second part of the work programme (WP2) was focused on a specific area within chemical risk assessment (CRA). In this context, special attention was given to the impact of the food matrix on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of heavy metals and metalloids. After collection and careful selection of data from scientific journals, a database with information on the bioaccessibility and bioavailability of cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg) and arsenic (As) in different food matrices was created for future statistical analyses related to dietary exposure., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)