Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance phenmedipham. (31st January 2018)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Arena, Maria; Auteri, Domenica; Barmaz, Stefania; Bellisai, Giulia; Brancato, Alba; Brocca, Daniela; Bura, Laszlo; Byers, Harry; Chiusolo, Arianna; Court Marques, Daniele; Crivellente, Federica; De Lentdecker, Chloe; Egsmose, Mark; Erdos, Zoltan; Fait, Gabriella; Ferreira, Lucien; Goumenou, Marina; Greco, Luna; Ippolito, Alessio; Istace, Frederique; Jarrah, Samira; Kardassi, Dimitra; Leuschner, Renata; Lythgo, Christopher; Magrans, Jose Oriol; Medina, Paula; Miron, Ileana; Molnar, Tunde; Nougadere, Alexandre; Padovani, Laura; Parra Morte, Juan Manuel; Pedersen, Ragnor; Reich, Hermine; Sacchi, Angela; Santos, Miguel; Serafimova, Rositsa; Sharp, Rachel; Stanek, Alois; Streissl, Franz; Sturma, Juergen; Szentes, Csaba; Tarazona, Jose; Terron, Andrea; Theobald, Anne; Vagenende, Benedicte; Verani, Alessia; Villamar‐Bouza, Laura;
• Is Part Of: EFSA journal. Volume 16:Number 1(2018)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2018-01-31
• Subjects: phenmedipham -- peer review -- risk assessment -- pesticide -- herbicide; Food -- Europe -- Safety measures -- Periodicals; Food Safety; Food -- Safety measures; Europe; Periodicals; Periodicals; Fulltext; Government Publications, International; Internet Resources; Periodicals; Periodicals; 363.19209405
• DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5151
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1831-4732

Abstract

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, Finland, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance phenmedipham 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 phenmedipham as a herbicide on sugar beet/fodder beet. 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.