Open AccessPeer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance beta‐cyfluthrin
Author(s) -
Arena Maria,
Auteri Domenica,
Brancato Alba,
Bura Laszlo,
Carrasco Cabrera Luis,
Chiusolo Arianna,
Court Marques Daniele,
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 Jose Oriol,
Miron Ileana,
Molnar Tunde,
Padovani Laura,
Parra Morte Juan Manuel,
Pedersen Ragnor,
Reich Hermine,
Sacchi Angela,
Santos Miguel,
Serafimova Rositsa,
Sharp Rachel,
Stanek Alois,
Sturma Juergen,
Szentes Csaba,
Terron Andrea,
Theobald Anne,
Vagenende Benedicte,
VillamarBouza Laura
Publication year - 2020
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.2020.6058
Subject(s) - member state , context (archaeology) , european commission , risk assessment , business , commission , pesticide , environmental health , member states , cyfluthrin , environmental planning , medicine , european union , environmental science , computer security , biology , computer science , ecology , paleontology , deltamethrin , finance , 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, Germany, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Hungary, for the pesticide active substance beta‐cyfluthrin 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 beta‐cyfluthrin as an insecticide on beet, potato, wheat and greenhouse tomato. In addition, this conclusion also addresses the request received from the European Commission during the decision‐making phase following completion of the peer review with regard to the risk to non‐target arthropods. 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.