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.
Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action whose approval was renewed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/113. In January 2022, the EFSA PPR Panel published a ...statement following a request from the European Commission to advise on human health or the environment based on new scientific evidence presented by France during the decision‐making phase. In July 2022, by means of a further mandate received from the European Commission, EFSA was requested to provide advice if new information and any other scientific evidence that has become available since the assessment conducted for the renewal in 2018 warrant re‐evaluation of (i) toxicological parameters used for the risk assessment of acetamiprid during the renewal process, including toxicological endpoints; (ii) the residue definition for acetamiprid in products of plant origin; and (iii) the safety of existing maximum residue levels (MRLs). Meanwhile, the applicant of acetamiprid in the EU submitted new toxicology studies regarding the toxicological profile of the metabolite IM‐2‐1. Furthermore, the European Commission was made aware that several recent publications in scientific literature were made available after the literature searches conducted by EFSA. As the new data could affect the advice that EFSA was expected to deliver through the 2022 mandate, EFSA was further requested to consider this information by means of a revised mandate received in September 2023. As regards re‐evaluation of point (i) in this statement, this was addressed by an EFSA Working Group integrating all the available evidence. The results of the weight of evidence indicated that there are major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid and further data are therefore needed to come to a more robust mechanistic understanding to enable appropriate hazard and risk assessment. In view of these uncertainties, the EFSA WG proposed to lower the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) from 0.025 to 0.005 mg/kg body weight (per day). A revised residue definition for risk assessment was proposed for leafy and fruit crops as sum of acetamiprid and N‐desmethyl‐acetamiprid (IM‐2‐1), expressed as acetamiprid. Regarding pulses/oilseeds, root crops and cereals, the new data received did not indicate a need to modify the existing residue definition for risk assessment, which therefore remains as parent acetamiprid. Regarding the residue definition for enforcement, the available data did not indicate a need to modify the existing definition because acetamiprid is still a sufficient marker of the residues in all crop groups. Considering the new health‐based guidance values derived in the present statement, a risk for consumer has been identified for 38 MRLs currently in place in the EU Regulation. Consequently, EFSA recommended to lower the existing MRLs for 38 commodities based on the assessment of fall‐back Good Agricultural Practices received within an ad hoc data call. Some fall‐back MRLs proposals require further risk management considerations.
The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of thaumatin (E 957) when used as a food additive. Thaumatin is a natural plant protein, consisting of thaumatin I and thaumatin II proteins together ...with minor amounts of plant constituents, obtained by acidic aqueous extraction of the arils of the fruit of Thaumatococcus daniellii plant. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives and considered that thaumatin is a digestible protein; adequate exposure estimates were available; there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity; no conclusion on oral allergenicity could be drawn from the available human data; no adverse effects were observed in sub‐chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested of up 5,200 and 1,476 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day, respectively, and in a prenatal developmental toxicity study up to 2,000 mg/kg bw per day; moderate confidence in the body of evidence supported the absence of association between exposure to thaumatin and adverse health outcomes. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for thaumatin (E 957) and, based on a margin of safety (MOS) of 5,417, considered to be an underestimate and derived using the highest 95th percentile (P95) exposure of 0.48 mg/kg bw per day in consumers only, there is no safety concern for thaumatin (E 957) at the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario, which was considered the most appropriate. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers introducing in the EU specifications for thaumatin (E 957) a new specification limit for the minimum combined content of thaumatin I and II proteins in E 957, a specification limit for yeast, mould counts and Salmonella spp and lowering the existing maximum limit for arsenic along with the inclusion of maximum limits for mercury and cadmium.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6918/full
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.
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.
The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone – neohesperidine – ...which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13‐week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter‐ and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from < 0.01 to 0.09 mg/kg bw per day and at the 95th percentile (P95) from 0.01 to 0.24 mg/kg bw per day. Considering the derived ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day, the exposure estimates were below the reference value in all age groups. Therefore, the Panel concluded that dietary exposure to the food additive neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) at the reported uses and use levels would not raise a safety concern.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications on smoke flavouring primary products. This ...guidance describes the scientific data to be included in the applications for the authorisation of new smoke flavouring primary products, as well as for the renewal or for the modification of existing authorisations, submitted respectively under Articles 7, 12 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: the characterisation of the primary product, including the description of the source materials, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications and stability; the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure; the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the identified components and of the unidentified fraction of the primary product, toxicological data other than genotoxicity and information on the safety for the environment. For the toxicological studies a tiered approach is applied, for which the testing requirements, key issues and triggers are described. A description of the standard uncertainties relevant for the evaluation of primary products and how these are considered in the standardised risk assessment procedure is also included. The applicant should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the smoke flavouring primary product. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the primary product and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment under the proposed conditions of use.
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.
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.
PDF