Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metalaxyl‐M (amendment of approval conditions).
Saved in:
| Title: | Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance metalaxyl‐M (amendment of approval conditions). |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Álvarez, Fernando (AUTHOR), Arena, Maria (AUTHOR), Auteri, Domenica (AUTHOR), Leite, Sofia Batista (AUTHOR), Binaglia, Marco (AUTHOR), Castoldi, Anna Federica (AUTHOR), Chiusolo, Arianna (AUTHOR), Colagiorgi, Angelo (AUTHOR), Colas, Mathilde (AUTHOR), Crivellente, Federica (AUTHOR), De Lentdecker, Chloe (AUTHOR), De Magistris, Isabella (AUTHOR), Egsmose, Mark (AUTHOR), Fait, Gabriella (AUTHOR), Ferilli, Franco (AUTHOR), Broussard, Monica Fittipaldi (AUTHOR), Santonja, German Giner (AUTHOR), Gouliarmou, Varvara (AUTHOR), Halling, Katrin (AUTHOR), Ippolito, Alessio (AUTHOR) |
| Source: | EFSA Journal. Jul2025, Vol. 23 Issue 7, p1-21. 21p. |
| Subject Terms: | *Pesticides, *Agriculture, *Fungicides, Risk assessment, Government agencies, Seed treatment |
| Company/Entity: | European Food Safety Authority |
| Abstract: | 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, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance metalaxyl‐M 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 for the amendment to the conditions of approval of metalaxyl‐M as a fungicide seed treatment for sunflower and spinach seeds intended to be sown in field and on the basis of data submitted to update the specified level of an impurity in the technical active substance. This assessment was updated following a request from the Commission to integrate the risk assessment for birds and mammals with the application of refined good agricultural practices (GAPs). 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of EFSA Journal is the property of European Food Safety Authority and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | GreenFILE |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance metalaxyl‐M 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 for the amendment to the conditions of approval of metalaxyl‐M as a fungicide seed treatment for sunflower and spinach seeds intended to be sown in field and on the basis of data submitted to update the specified level of an impurity in the technical active substance. This assessment was updated following a request from the Commission to integrate the risk assessment for birds and mammals with the application of refined good agricultural practices (GAPs). 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 18314732 |
| DOI: | 10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9573 |
