Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance phosmet. (17th March 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Anastassiadou, Maria; Arena, Maria; Auteri, Domenica; Brancato, Alba; Bura, Laszlo; Carrasco Cabrera, Luis; Chaideftou, Eugenia; Chiusolo, Arianna; Crivellente, Federica; De Lentdecker, Chloe; Egsmose, Mark; Fait, Gabriella; Greco, Luna; Ippolito, Alessio; Istace, Frederique; Jarrah, Samira; Kardassi, Dimitra; Leuschner, Renata; Lostia, Alfonso; Lythgo, Christopher; Magrans, Oriol; Mangas, Iris; Miron, Ileana; Molnar, Tunde; Padovani, Laura; Parra Morte, Juan Manuel; Pedersen, Ragnor; Reich, Hermine; Santos, Miguel; Sharp, Rachel; Szentes, Csaba; Terron, Andrea; Tiramani, Manuela; Vagenende, Benedicte; Villamar‐Bouza, Laura;
• Is Part Of: EFSA journal. Volume 19:Number 3(2021)
• Page Start: n/a
• Page End: n/a
• Publication Date: 2021-03-17
• Subjects: phosmet -- peer review -- risk assessment -- pesticide -- insecticide; 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.2021.6237
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1831-4732

Abstract

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, Spain, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance phosmet 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 phosmet as an insecticide on citrus fruits, pome fruits, peaches/nectarines and potatoes (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 identified.