학술논문
Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pydiflumetofen
Document Type
article
Author
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA); Fernando Álvarez; Maria Arena; Domenica Auteri; Sofia Batista Leite; Marco Binaglia; Anna Federica Castoldi; Arianna Chiusolo; Angelo Colagiorgi; Mathilde Colas; Federica Crivellente; Chloe De Lentdecker; Isabella De Magistris; Mark Egsmose; Gabriella Fait; Franco Ferilli; Varvara Gouliarmou; Katrin Halling; Laia Herrero Nogareda; Alessio Ippolito; Frederique Istace; Samira Jarrah; Dimitra Kardassi; Aude Kienzler; Anna Lanzoni; Roberto Lava; Renata Leuschner; Alberto Linguadoca; Jochem Louisse; Christopher Lythgo; Oriol Magrans; Iris Mangas; Andrea Mioč; Ileana Miron; Tunde Molnar; Laura Padovani; Vincenzo Padricello; Martina Panzarea; Juan Manuel Parra Morte; Simone Rizzuto; Anamarija Romac; Agnès Rortais; Miguel Santos; Rositsa Serafimova; Rachel Sharp; Csaba Szentes; Andrea Terron; Anne Theobald; Manuela Tiramani; Giorgia Vianello; Laura Villamar‐Bouza
Source
EFSA Journal, Vol 22, Iss 1, Pp n/a-n/a (2024)
Subject
Language
English
ISSN
1831-4732
Abstract
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.