Open AccessPeer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance thiophanate‐methyl
Author(s) -
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,
VillamarBouza Laura
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
efsa journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.076
H-Index - 97
ISSN - 1831-4732
DOI - 10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5133
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , european commission , member state , pesticide , wine , member states , risk assessment , environmental health , fungicide , business , medicine , european union , food science , biology , agronomy , computer science , computer security , paleontology , economic policy
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, Sweden, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Finland, for the pesticide active substance thiophanate‐methyl 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 thiophanate‐methyl as a fungicide on wine grapes, tomato, aubergine, leek, fresh beans with pods and wheat (winter and durum). 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 identified.