Search

The conclusions of 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 Greece for the pesticide active substance kieselgur (diatomaceous earth) 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 kieselgur (diatomaceous earth) as an insecticide and acaricide on stored cereals, empty storage rooms and storage rooms, mills and warehouses (with stored goods). 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., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Austria and co-rapporteur Member State Lithuania for the pesticide active substance blood meal 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 blood meal as a game repellent on deciduous and coniferous trees in forestry, orchard trees and ornamental plants and as a vole repellent on deciduous and coniferous trees in forestry (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. No concerns are identified., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State France for the pesticide active substance dimethyl disulfide 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 dimethyl disulfide as a nematicide, fungicide and herbicide on carrot (field use) and on tomato (greenhouse application). The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Norway, and co-rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance benfluralin 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 benfluralin as a herbicide on chicory and lettuce. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The conclusions of 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. 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 identified., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance terbuthylazine are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory data on groundwater metabolites. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of terbuthylazine as a herbicide on maize and sorghum and taking into account the scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) on the setting of health-based reference values for metabolites of the active substance terbuthylazine. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Concerns are identified., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Spain for the pesticide active substance pyriproxyfen 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 pyriproxyfen as an insecticide on citrus fruit, pome fruit (apple, pears), tomatoes, ornamentals (field use) and tomatoes, ornamentals (greenhouse application). MRLs were assessed in citrus fruits. 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 identified., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. Glyphosate is not the first topic of disagreement between IARC and regulatory evaluations, but has received greater attention. This review presents the scientific basis of the glyphosate health assessment conducted within the European Union (EU) renewal process, and explains the differences in the carcinogenicity assessment with IARC. Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses. Two complementary exposure assessments, human-biomonitoring and food-residues-monitoring, suggests that actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.