1
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clove oil. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8671. [PMID: 38585212 PMCID: PMC10995819 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 04/09/2024] Open
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.
Collapse
|
2
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dichlorprop-P and variant dichlorprop-P-2-ethylhexyl. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8658. [PMID: 38505476 PMCID: PMC10949385 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8658] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/21/2024] Open
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.
Collapse
|
3
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mavriou G, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance quinolin-8-ol. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8670. [PMID: 38510325 PMCID: PMC10952017 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/22/2024] Open
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.
Collapse
|
4
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Giner Santonja G, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Mioč A, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Scarlato AP, Szot M, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Updated reasoned opinion on the toxicological properties and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the benzimidazole substances carbendazim and thiophanate-methyl. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8569. [PMID: 38379729 PMCID: PMC10878431 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8569] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/22/2024] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
5
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Mioč A, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Santos M, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pydiflumetofen. EFSA J 2024; 22:e8559. [PMID: 38288395 PMCID: PMC10823393 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8559] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2024] Open
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.
Collapse
|
6
|
Pelkonen O, Abass K, Parra Morte JM, Panzarea M, Testai E, Rudaz S, Louisse J, Gundert-Remy U, Wolterink G, Jean-Lou CM D, Coecke S, Bernasconi C. Metabolites in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticides in the EU. Front Toxicol 2023; 5:1304885. [PMID: 38188093 PMCID: PMC10770266 DOI: 10.3389/ftox.2023.1304885] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/30/2023] [Accepted: 11/30/2023] [Indexed: 01/09/2024] Open
Abstract
A large majority of chemicals is converted into metabolites through xenobiotic-metabolising enzymes. Metabolites may present a spectrum of characteristics varying from similar to vastly different compared with the parent compound in terms of both toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics. In the pesticide arena, the role of metabolism and metabolites is increasingly recognised as a significant factor particularly for the design and interpretation of mammalian toxicological studies and in the toxicity assessment of pesticide/metabolite-associated issues for hazard characterization and risk assessment purposes, including the role of metabolites as parts in various residues in ecotoxicological adversities. This is of particular relevance to pesticide metabolites that are unique to humans in comparison with metabolites found in in vitro or in vivo animal studies, but also to disproportionate metabolites (quantitative differences) between humans and mammalian species. Presence of unique or disproportionate metabolites may underlie potential toxicological concerns. This review aims to present the current state-of-the-art of comparative metabolism and metabolites in pesticide research for hazard and risk assessment, including One Health perspectives, and future research needs based on the experiences gained at the European Food Safety Authority.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olavi Pelkonen
- Research Unit of Biomedicine, Pharmacology and Toxicology, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
| | - Khaled Abass
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, College of Health Sciences, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- Sharjah Institute for Medical Research (SIMR), University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates
- Research Unit of Biomedicine and Internal Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oulu, Oulu, Finland
| | | | | | - Emanuela Testai
- Mechanisms, Biomarkers and Models Unit, Environment and Health Department, Istituto Superiore di Sanità, Rome, Italy
| | - Serge Rudaz
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Geneva, CMU, Geneva, Switzerland
| | - Jochem Louisse
- EFSA, European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy
- Wageningen Food Safety Research (WFSR), Wageningen, Netherlands
| | - Ursula Gundert-Remy
- Institute of Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Gerrit Wolterink
- Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Bilthoven, Netherlands
| | | | - Sandra Coecke
- European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), Ispra, Italy
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Chukwubike K, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Giner Santonja G, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Martinez J, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for profenofos. EFSA J 2023; 21:e8445. [PMID: 38046200 PMCID: PMC10690445 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8445] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/05/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
8
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Chukwubike K, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Santonja GG, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Martinez J, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for dicofol. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08425. [PMID: 38027437 PMCID: PMC10664694 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8425] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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 dicofol in view of the possible lowering of the MRL. EFSA investigated the origin of the current EU MRLs. All existing EU MRLs reflect previously authorised uses in the EU or are based on obsolete Codex Maximum Residue Limits. Furthermore, in view of the limitations of the toxicological dataset and related uncertainties, the existing toxicological reference values derived at the EU level cannot be confirmed for dicofol. EFSA therefore proposed lowering all existing EU MRLs for dicofol to the limit of quantification.
Collapse
|
9
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Chukwubike K, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Giner Santonja G, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Martinez J, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for diazinon. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08426. [PMID: 38035145 PMCID: PMC10687764 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8426] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/02/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
10
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Chukwubike NJK, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimoxystrobin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08329. [PMID: 37908444 PMCID: PMC10613935 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8329] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/02/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
11
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metalaxyl-M (amendment of approval conditions). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08373. [PMID: 37915982 PMCID: PMC10616734 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8373] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/03/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
12
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Updated conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mecoprop-P. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08344. [PMID: 37901692 PMCID: PMC10605765 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/31/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the initial competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, and co-rapporteur Member State, Ireland, for the pesticide active substance mecoprop-P are reported. Due to the UK leaving the EU, the renewal of approval dossier on mecoprop-P was reallocated to Ireland, as RMS. 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 mecoprop-P as a herbicide on winter and spring wheat (including durum and spelt), barley, rye, oats and triticale. The conclusions were updated following the request from the European Commission to review the risk assessment as regards non-dietary exposure and the endocrine-disrupting properties of mecoprop-P. 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.
Collapse
|
13
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance urea. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08112. [PMID: 37564186 PMCID: PMC10410501 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8112] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/12/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
14
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia SBLM, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Morte JMP, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metconazole. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08141. [PMID: 37637506 PMCID: PMC10448793 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8141] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
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, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance 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 metconazole as a fungicide on cereals and oilseed rape and as a plant growth regulator on oilseed rape. 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.
Collapse
|
15
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance folpet. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08139. [PMID: 37599799 PMCID: PMC10436790 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8139] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/22/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
16
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance tritosulfuron. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08142. [PMID: 37564191 PMCID: PMC10410504 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/12/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
17
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Leite SB, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Morte JMP, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metribuzin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08140. [PMID: 37637505 PMCID: PMC10448452 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
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, 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.
Collapse
|
18
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Cioca A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Herrero Nogareda L, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepanipyrim. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08196. [PMID: 37564193 PMCID: PMC10410503 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8196] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/12/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
19
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Giner Santonja G, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for fenarimol. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08113. [PMID: 37492499 PMCID: PMC10363964 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8113] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/27/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
20
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Batista Leite S, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Louisse J, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance milbemectin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08126. [PMID: 37502009 PMCID: PMC10369232 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8126] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, and co-rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance milbemectin 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 milbemectin as an acaricide and insecticide in strawberry (field and greenhouse), berries and black and white currant (field and greenhouse), apple, pear, cherry and plum (field) and ornamentals (field and greenhouse). 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.
Collapse
|
21
|
Álvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Mangas I, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Romac A, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08164. [PMID: 37502013 PMCID: PMC10369247 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/29/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
22
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Santonja GG, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for endosulfan. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08114. [PMID: 37522102 PMCID: PMC10373131 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8114] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/01/2023] Open
Abstract
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 endosulfan 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 all 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.
Collapse
|
23
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Padricello V, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Rortais A, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance trinexapac (variant evaluated trinexapac-ethyl). EFSA J 2023; 21:e08082. [PMID: 37389027 PMCID: PMC10301692 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8082] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/01/2023] Open
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.
Collapse
|
24
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance hydrolysed proteins. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08079. [PMID: 37359473 PMCID: PMC10285626 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8079] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/28/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of 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 Greece for the pesticide active substance hydrolysed proteins 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 hydrolysed proteins as an insect attractant on olive tree, deciduous fruit tree, stone fruit tree, pome fruit tree, walnut tree, citrus tree, fig tree, persimmon tree, kiwi and blueberry 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.
Collapse
|
25
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Brancato A, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Santonja GG, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for azocyclotin and cyhexatin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08038. [PMID: 37304356 PMCID: PMC10251540 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8038] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/13/2023] Open
Abstract
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 substances azocyclotin and cyhexatin in view of the possible lowering of these 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 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 under assessment, 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.
Collapse
|
26
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance dimethomorph. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08032. [PMID: 37359474 PMCID: PMC10288354 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8032] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/28/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State The Netherlands and co-rapporteur Member State Germany for the pesticide active substance dimethomorph 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 dimethomorph as a fungicide applied via foliar spraying on field strawberry and grapevine crops and permanent greenhouse lettuce crops; via drenching on field and permanent greenhouse strawberry crops and via dripping on permanent greenhouse strawberry crops. The peer review also provided considerations on whether exposure to humans and the environment from the representative uses of dimethomorph can be considered negligible, taking into account the European Commission's draft guidance on this topic. MRLs were assessed in potatoes, other root and tuber vegetables (except radishes), stem vegetables (except celery, leeks, globe artichokes, sugar beet, cereal forage and straw). 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. The concerns are reported where identified.
Collapse
|
27
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance flutolanil. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07997. [PMID: 37293567 PMCID: PMC10246411 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7997] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/10/2023] Open
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, the Netherlands, and co-rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance flutolanil, 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 flutolanil as a fungicide on potatoes, tulips and iris (field uses). MRLs were assessed for a potato in-furrow treatment. 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.
Collapse
|
28
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Brancato A, Carrasco Cabrera L, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Santonja GG, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for fenpropathrin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08057. [PMID: 37342544 PMCID: PMC10277777 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8057] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/23/2023] Open
Abstract
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 fenpropathrin 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.
Collapse
|
29
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metrafenone. EFSA J 2023; 21:e08012. [PMID: 37223756 PMCID: PMC10201407 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/25/2023] Open
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 Latvia and co-rapporteur Member State Slovakia for the pesticide active substance metrafenone 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 metrafenone as a fungicide on wheat, rye, triticale, oats, barley 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 reported where identified.
Collapse
|
30
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Halling K, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metiram. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07937. [PMID: 37122286 PMCID: PMC10134058 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7937] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/02/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of 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 the United Kingdom for the pesticide active substance metiram 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 metiram as a fungicide on grapes (wine table) and potatoes (all being field uses). It was concluded that following the guidance on this topic, metiram has endocrine disrupting potential, which is a cut-off criterion for non-approval of an active substance. Considerations are also provided on whether exposure to humans and the environment from the representative use of metiram on potatoes can be considered negligible, taking into account information from the applicant and the European Commission's draft technical guidance on this topic. The information available indicated this exposure was not negligible. 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. An evaluation of data concerning the necessity of metiram as a fungicide to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means, including non-chemical methods is also presented.
Collapse
|
31
|
Bishop PL, Brescia S, Brunner R, Casey W, Conlee-Griffin K, Currie RA, Domoradzki J, Embry M, Harris MI, Hartung T, Hilton GM, Hooberman B, Ingle B, Jang KJ, Kinter L, Krall C, Leedale J, Lowit A, Mehta J, Mendez E, Mingoia B, Munarriz E, Murphy L, Myer A, Ottoni A, Panzarea M, Perron M, Pina J, Ramsingh D, Sewell F, Swanson J, Tan YM, Terron A, Trainer MA, Valadares MC, Webb S, Webb E, Willett C, Wolf DC, Wolf DC. Challenges and opportunities for overcoming dog use in agrochemical evaluation and registration. ALTEX 2023. [PMID: 36888967 DOI: 10.14573/altex.2302151] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2023] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
Progress in developing new tools, assays, and approaches to assess human hazard and health risk provides an opportunity to re-evaluate the necessity of dog studies for the safety evaluation of agrochemicals. A workshop was held where participants discussed the strengths and limitations of past use of dogs for pesticide evaluations and registrations. Opportunities were identified to support alternative approaches to answer human safety questions without performing the required 90-day dog study. Development of a decision tree for determining when the dog study might not be necessary to inform pesticide safety and risk assessment was proposed. Such a process will require global regulatory authority participation to lead to its acceptance. The identification of unique effects in dogs that are not identified in rodents will need further evaluation and determination of their relevance to humans. The establishment of in vitro and in silico approaches that can provide critical data on relative species sensitivity and human relevance will be an important tool to advance the decision process. Promising novel tools including in vitro comparative metabolism studies, in silico models, and high-throughput assays able to identify metabolites and mechanisms of action leading to development of adverse outcome pathways will need further development. To replace or eliminate the 90-day dog study, a collaborative, multidisciplinary, international effort that transcends organizations and regulatory agencies will be needed in order to develop guidance on when the study would not be necessary for human safety and risk assessment.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Rachel Brunner
- formerly in United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA and currently in United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Warren Casey
- National Institute of Environmental Health Services (NIEHS), Research Triangle Park, NC, USA
| | | | | | - Jeanne Domoradzki
- Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Michelle Embry
- Health and Environmental Sciences Institute (HESI), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Thomas Hartung
- Johns Hopkins University, Bloomberg School of Public Health and Whiting School of Engineering, Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing (CAAT), Baltimore, MD, USA.,University of Konstanz, CAAT-Europe, Konstanz, Germany
| | - Gina M Hilton
- PETA Science Consortium International, Stuttgart, Germany
| | - Barry Hooberman
- US Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Brandall Ingle
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Lewis Kinter
- Green Lawn Professional Scientific Consulting, DE, USA
| | - Caroline Krall
- Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | | | - Anna Lowit
- formerly in United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, DC, USA and currently in United States Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Elizabeth Mendez
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Bob Mingoia
- KB Environmental Sciences, North Hollywood, CA, USA
| | - Eliana Munarriz
- Universidad de Buenos Aires, Department of Biological Chemistry, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina
| | | | - Angela Myer
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | | | - Monique Perron
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | - Juan Pina
- Center for Genetic Disorders and Aging Research, SBP Medical Discovery Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | | | - Fiona Sewell
- National Centre for the Replacement Refinement & Reduction of Animals in Research, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer Swanson
- Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Armidale, NSW, Australia
| | - Yu-Mei Tan
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Maria A Trainer
- Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, Armidale, NSW, Australia
| | - Marize Campos Valadares
- Laboratory of Education and Research in In Vitro Toxicology (Tox In), Faculty of Pharmacy, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goiânia, GO, Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
32
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Brancato A, Cabrera LC, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Santonja GG, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Magrans JO, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Morte JMP, Pedersen R, Reich H, Robinson T, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Verani A. Review of the existing maximum residue levels for cypermethrins according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07800. [PMID: 36936511 PMCID: PMC10018393 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7800] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/18/2023] Open
Abstract
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 cypermethrins. To assess the occurrence of cypermethrin, alpha-cypermethrin, zeta-cypermethrin, beta-cypermethrin residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (codex maximum residue limits; CXLs) for cypermethrin, alpha-cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin as well as the European authorisations and import tolerances reported by Member States and the UK (including the supporting residues data) for cypermethrin and zeta-cypermethrin. The toxicological profile of zeta-cypermethrin was also assessed. 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 consumer 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.
Collapse
|
33
|
Bellisai G, Bernasconi G, Binaglia M, Brancato A, Cabrera LC, Castellan I, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Crivellente F, Del Aguila M, Ferreira L, Giner Santonja G, Greco L, Istace F, Jarrah S, Lanzoni A, Leuschner R, Magrans JO, Mangas I, Miron I, Nave S, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Pedersen R, Reich H, Robinson T, Ruocco S, Santos M, Scarlato AP, Terron A, Theobald A, Verani A. Targeted review of maximum residue levels (MRLs) for bifenthrin. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07864. [PMID: 36875863 PMCID: PMC9982544 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/06/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
34
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar-Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance sulfur. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07805. [PMID: 36908565 PMCID: PMC9993132 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7805] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/14/2023] Open
Abstract
The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State France and co-rapporteur Member State Slovenia for the pesticide active substance sulfur 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 sulfur as a fungicide and acaricide on grapevine and cereals (wheat, 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 reported where identified.
Collapse
|
35
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance S-metolachlor excluding the assessment of the endocrine disrupting properties. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07852. [PMID: 36866190 PMCID: PMC9972551 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7852] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/04/2023] Open
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 Germany and co-rapporteur Member State France for the pesticide active substance S-metolachlor 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. In September 2022, the European Commission asked EFSA to deliver its conclusion on the available outcomes of the assessments in all areas excluding the full assessment of endocrine disrupting properties as several critical areas of concern related to the protection of the environment were identified. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of S-metolachlor as a herbicide on maize and sunflower. 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. The concerns identified are presented.
Collapse
|
36
|
Hernandez‐Jerez AF, Adriaanse P, Aldrich A, Berny P, Coja T, Duquesne S, Focks A, Millet M, Pelkonen O, Pieper S, Tiktak A, Topping CJ, Widenfalk A, Wilks M, Wolterink G, Angeli K, Recordati C, Van Durseen M, Aiassa E, Lanzoni A, Lostia A, Martino L, Guajardo IPM, Panzarea M, Terron A, Marinovich M. Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07744. [PMID: 36818642 PMCID: PMC9926893 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7744] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA-ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.
Collapse
|
37
|
Cattaneo I, Astuto MC, Binaglia M, Devos Y, Dorne JLCM, Ana FA, Fernandez DA, Garcia-Vello P, Kass GE, Lanzoni A, Liem AKD, Panzarea M, Paraskevopulos K, Parra Morte JM, Tarazona JV, Terron A. Implementing New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in food safety assessments: Strategic objectives and actions taken by the European Food Safety Authority. Trends Food Sci Technol 2023. [DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2023.02.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/10/2023]
|
38
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance fat distillation residues. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07811. [PMID: 36742464 PMCID: PMC9887467 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7811] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
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, Czech Republic, and co-rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance fat distillation residues 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 fat distillation residues as a repellent on seedlings of coniferous and deciduous trees. 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 were not identified.
Collapse
|
39
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance ethephon. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07742. [PMID: 36742463 PMCID: PMC9888216 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7742] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/03/2023] Open
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, the Netherlands and co-rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance ethephon 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 ethephon as a plant growth regulator on cereals (winter and spring barley, winter and spring wheat, winter rye, winter triticale, spelt, durum wheat). 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.
Collapse
|
40
|
Alvarez F, Arena M, Auteri D, Binaglia M, Castoldi AF, Chiusolo A, Colagiorgi A, Colas M, Crivellente F, De Lentdecker C, De Magistris I, Egsmose M, Fait G, Ferilli F, Gouliarmou V, Nogareda LH, Ippolito A, Istace F, Jarrah S, Kardassi D, Kienzler A, Lanzoni A, Lava R, Leuschner R, Linguadoca A, Lythgo C, Magrans O, Mangas I, Miron I, Molnar T, Padovani L, Panzarea M, Parra Morte JM, Rizzuto S, Serafimova R, Sharp R, Szentes C, Szoradi A, Terron A, Theobald A, Tiramani M, Vianello G, Villamar‐Bouza L. Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance (3 E)-dec-3-en-2-one. EFSA J 2023; 21:e07765. [PMID: 36704193 PMCID: PMC9868876 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7765] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/25/2023] Open
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 (3E)-dec-3-en-2-one 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 post-harvest use of (3E)-dec-3-en-2-one on potato as a sprouting inhibitor applied by hot fogging in potato storage rooms. 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.
Collapse
|
41
|
Mangas I, Crofton K, Nepal M, Panzarea M, Tagaras N, Colas M, Viviani B, Terron A. SOC-V-08 Developmental neurotoxicy EFSA database for in vivo studies. Toxicol Lett 2022. [DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2022.07.197] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/14/2022]
|
42
|
Panzarea M, Terron A, Coja T, Pelkonen O. Editorial: Relevance of dog studies for the derivation of health‐based guidance values for plant protection products approval. EFSA J 2022; 20:e200923. [PMID: 36188063 PMCID: PMC9495302 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.e200923] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
|
43
|
Hernandez Jerez A, Adriaanse P, Berny P, Coja T, Duquesne S, Focks A, Marinovich M, Millet M, Pelkonen O, Pieper S, Tiktak A, Topping C, Widenfalk A, Wilks M, Wolterink G, Rundlöf M, Ippolito A, Linguadoca A, Martino L, Panzarea M, Terron A, Aldrich A. Statement on the active substance acetamiprid. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07031. [PMID: 35106090 PMCID: PMC8784984 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7031] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action currently under the third renewal (AIR3) of the Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 844/2012. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to advise on the likelihood that body of evidence would constitute proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments.A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) the data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) the weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) the uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For human health, no conclusive evidence of higher hazards compared to previous assessment was found for genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, due to the lack of adequate assessment of the current data set, the PPR Panel recommends conducting an assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for acetamiprid in line with EFSA/ECHA guidance document for the identification of endocrine disruptors. For environment, no conclusive, robust evidence of higher hazards compared to the previous assessment was found for birds, aquatic organisms, bees and soil organisms. However, the potential of high inter-species sensitivity of birds and bees towards acetamiprid requires further consideration.
Collapse
|
44
|
Hernandez Jerez A, Adriaanse P, Berny P, Coja T, Duquesne S, Focks A, Marinovich M, Millet M, Pelkonen O, Pieper S, Tiktak A, Topping C, Widenfalk A, Wilks M, Wolterink G, Rundlöf M, Ippolito A, Linguadoca A, Martino L, Panzarea M, Terron A, Aldrich A. Statement on the active substance flupyradifurone. EFSA J 2022; 20:e07030. [PMID: 35106089 PMCID: PMC8784983 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7030] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/01/2022] Open
Abstract
Flupyradifurone is a novel butenolide insecticide, first approved as an active substance for use in plant protection products by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2084. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities, in November 2020, asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. In addition, in June 2020, the Dutch Authorities notified the Commission, under Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of new information on flupyradifurone on the wild bee species Megachile rotundata. This notification is also referred to in the French notification on flupyradifurone. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to quantify the likelihood of this body of evidence constituting proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments. A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For the human health, only one study was considered relevant for the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone in vitro. These data did not provide sufficient information to overrule the EU assessment, as in vivo studies already addressed the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone. Environment: All available data investigated hazards in bee species. For honey bees, the likelihood of the new data indicating higher hazards than the previous EU assessment was considered low or moderate, with some uncertainties. However, among solitary bee species - which were not addressed in the previous EU assessment - there was evidence that Megachile rotundata may be disproportionately sensitive to flupyradifurone. This sensitivity, which may partially be explained by the low bodyweight of this species, was mechanistically linked to inadequate bodily metabolisation processes.
Collapse
|