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, Greece, and co‐rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance paraffin oil 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 paraffin oil as an acaricide and insecticide on potatoes, ornamentals (flower bulbs) and orchards (pear/apple), on pome fruit and stone fruit, on field and permanent protected fruiting vegetables and on field and permanent protected roses and on citrus. 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]

In compliance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA received from the European Commission in 2020 a mandate to provide its reasoned opinion on the toxicological properties and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the benzimidazole substances carbendazim and thiophanate‐methyl. Specifically, EFSA was asked to assess whether thiophanate‐methyl or carbendazim has clastogenic potential and, in case clastogenic potential can be excluded, to derive toxicological reference values necessary for consumer risk assessment and assessment of maximum residue levels (MRLs). Although these active substances are no longer authorised within the European Union, MRLs were established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (codex maximum residue limits; CXLs), and import tolerances are in place. Based on the assessment of the available data, toxicological reference values and MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Some information required by the regulatory framework was found to be missing and a possible acute risk to consumers was identified. Hence, the consumer risk assessment was considered indicative only and all MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers. In October 2022, to ensure that MRLs derived by EFSA in its assessment of 2021 are safe for consumers also in view of endocrine‐disrupting properties, EFSA was requested to carry out a follow‐up assessment taking into account the scientific criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors (ED). Based on the outcome of the assessment, the experts agreed that the reference values are also covering the concern related to the identified hazards indicative of endocrine disruption for thiophanate‐methyl. No further considerations on the impact of the ED assessment on the current reference values were needed for carbendazim since the ED criteria are not met for this substance. Therefore, the risk assessment and the MRL recommendations derived in 2021 are confirmed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the Federal Public Service (FPS) Health, Food chain Safety and Environment submitted a request on behalf of Belgium (evaluating Member State, EMS) to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRL) in okra/lady's fingers and various leaf vegetables, herbs and edible flowers. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for all crops under assessment. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of sulfoxaflor in plant matrices under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of sulfoxaflor according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to review the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the non‐approved active substance profenofos in view of the possible lowering of the MRL. EFSA investigated the origin of the current EU MRLs. Existing EU MRLs are based on Codex Maximum Residue Limits still in place or reflect temporary MRLs set from monitoring data. EFSA performed an indicative chronic and acute dietary risk assessment for the list of MRLs to allow risk managers to take the appropriate decisions. For some commodities, further risk management discussions are required to decide which of the risk management options proposed by EFSA should be implemented in the EU MRL legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to review the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the non‐approved active substance chlorfenapyr in view of the possible lowering of the MRL set for tea. This current EU MRL is based on an import tolerance established in 2007. EFSA reviewed the toxicological data assessed by other scientific bodies, proposing toxicological reference values to be used for an indicative risk assessment, noting that the values are affected by additional, non‐standard uncertainties. According to the indicative chronic and acute dietary risk assessment the existing MRL for tea does not pose an unacceptable risk for consumers. Further risk management discussions are required to decide which of the risk management options proposed by EFSA should be implemented in the EU MRL legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to review the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the non‐approved active substance diazinon in view of the possible lowering of the MRL. EFSA investigated the origin of the current EU MRLs. For existing EU MRLs that reflect previously authorised uses in the EU, or that are based on obsolete Codex MRLs, or import tolerances that are not required any longer, EFSA proposed the lowering to the limit of quantification. EFSA performed an indicative chronic and acute dietary risk assessment for the revised list of MRLs to allow risk managers to take the appropriate decisions. For some commodities, further risk management discussions are required to decide which of the risk management options proposed by EFSA should be implemented in the EU MRL legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The applicant Corteva Agrosciences submitted a request to the competent national authority in Slovenia to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for fenbuconazole in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available. To address the Article 12 confirmatory data gaps, new residue trials analysing triazole derivative metabolites (TDMs) were submitted on grapefruits, lemons, apples, pears, peaches, cherries and blueberries. Following the assessment of submitted data, EFSA concluded that Article 12 confirmatory data gaps are considered addressed for grapefruits, oranges, lemons, limes, pome fruits, peaches, cherries and blueberries. The calculated livestock dietary burdens indicated that for the individual TDMs, the trigger value of 0.004 mg/kg bw day is not exceed from the intake of apple pomace and citrus dried pulp. The new information provided required the assessment of consumer exposure to TDMs, which identified no consumer intake concerns for the crops under consideration. No data were submitted to address the Article 12 confirmatory data gaps for tree nuts, apricots, plums, table grapes, wine grapes, cranberries, bananas, sweet peppers/bell peppers, cucurbits with edible/inedible peel, peanuts/groundnuts, sunflower seeds and rapeseeds/canola seeds, barley, rye and wheat. For these commodities, the existing EU MRL could be lowered to the enforcement LOQ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant DLR‐Rheinpfalz submitted a request to the competent national authority in Germany to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance flonicamid in Chinese cabbages, kales and kohlrabies. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for the commodities under assessment. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of flonicamid, 4‐trifluoromethylnicotinic acid (TFNA) and N‐(4‐trifluoromethylnicotinoyl) glycine (TFNG) (sum expressed as flonicamid) in the commodities under consideration at the validated combined limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.03 mg/kg and the residues of flonicamid and TFNA‐AM in animal matrices at the validated combined LOQ of 0.02 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of flonicamid according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The applicant UPL Europe Ltd submitted a request to the competent national authority in Slovenia to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for napropamide in the framework of the maximum residue levels (MRLs) review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available. To address the data gaps, a new storage stability study on grapes (high acid content commodity) was submitted while a metabolism study in fruit crops following foliar treatment, residue trials on fresh herbs and edible flowers and an analytical method for matrices difficult to analyse were not submitted. Therefore, only the data gap for storage stability was satisfactorily addressed. The new information provided required a revision of the tentative MRLs for commodities where confirmatory data were indicated. An update of the consumer risk assessment for napropamide was performed considering the new data submitted and it did not indicate any consumer intake concerns in relation to the chronic exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to review the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the non‐approved active substance fenarimol in view of the possible lowering of the MRLs. EFSA investigated the origin of the current EU MRLs. For existing EU MRLs that reflect previously authorised uses in the EU, or that are based on obsolete Codex maximum residue limits, or import tolerances that are not required any longer, EFSA proposed the lowering to the limit of quantification. EFSA performed a chronic and acute dietary risk assessment for the revised list of MRLs to allow risk managers to take the appropriate decisions. For some commodities, further risk management discussions are required to decide which of the risk management options proposed by EFSA should be implemented in the EU MRL legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the group of pesticide active substances dithiocarbamates. To assess the occurrence of metiram, ziram, maneb and mancozeb residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009, the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (codex maximum residue limits; CXLs) as well as the European authorisations and the import tolerances reported by Member States and the UK (including the supporting residues data) for metiram and mancozeb. Propineb and thiram were not considered further in this assessment since it is expected that all uses for these compounds, including import tolerances, have been withdrawn after the lowering of all the MRLs to the limit of quantification (LOQ) following the EFSA MRLs reviews completed, respectively, in 2020 and 2021. When reviewing the MRLs for the common residue definition (determined and expressed as CS2), EFSA was requested to consider also the monitoring data from organic samples collected and made available by the EURLs, reflecting the sulfur naturally occurring in crops and not related to the uses of the dithiocarbamates. Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived, and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Some information required by the regulatory framework was missing and a possible chronic/acute risk to consumers was identified. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only, all MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers and measures for reduction of the consumer exposure should also be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant Glanzit Pfeiffer Gmbh & Co. KG submitted a request to the competent national authority in Germany to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance metaldehyde in flowering brassica and leafy brassica. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for both brassica crop groups. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of metaldehyde on the commodities under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.05 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the intended uses of metaldehyde according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. The long‐term consumer risk assessment shall be regarded as indicative only due to the data gaps identified for certain existing MRLs in the framework of the MRL review of metaldehyde according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, EFSA received a request from the European Commission to review the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the non‐approved active substance bifenthrin in view of the possible lowering of the MRLs. EFSA investigated the origin of the current EU MRLs. For existing EU MRLs that reflect previously authorised uses in the EU, or that are based on obsolete Codex maximum residue limits, or import tolerances that are not required any longer, EFSA proposed the lowering to the limit of quantification or to an alternative MRL. EFSA performed an indicative chronic and acute dietary risk assessment for the revised list of MRLs to allow risk managers to take the appropriate decisions. For some commodities, further risk management discussions are required to decide which of the risk management options proposed by EFSA should be implemented in the EU MRL legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant BASF Agro B.V. submitted a request to the competent national authority in France to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance pendimethalin in peas (with pods), beans (with pods) and leeks. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for the commodities under assessment. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of pendimethalin on the commodities under consideration at the validated LOQ of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of pendimethalin according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicant Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Gartenbau (LLG) submitted a request to the competent national authority in Germany to modify the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance spirotetramat in herbs and edible flowers. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for the group of herbs and edible flowers. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of spirotetramat and its metabolite spirotetramat‐enol on the commodities under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg for each analyte. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of spirotetramat according to the reported agricultural practice is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. [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, France, for the pesticide active substance paraffin oil 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 paraffin oil as an acaricide and insecticide on potatoes, ornamentals (flower bulbs) and orchards (pear/apple), on pome fruit and stone fruit, on field and permanent protected fruiting vegetables and on field and permanent protected roses and on citrus. 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 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., 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 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, France, for the pesticide active substance paraffin oil 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 paraffin oil as an acaricide and insecticide on potatoes, ornamentals (flower bulbs) and orchards (pear/apple), on pome fruit and stone fruit, on field and permanent protected fruiting vegetables and on field and permanent protected roses and on citrus. 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.)