Open AccessReview of the existing maximum residue levels for Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005
Author(s) -
Anastassiadou Maria,
Bernasconi Giovanni,
Brancato Alba,
Carrasco Cabrera Luis,
Ferreira Lucien,
Greco Luna,
Jarrah Samira,
Kazocina Aija,
Leuschner Renata,
Magrans Jose Oriol,
Miron Ileana,
Nave Stefanie,
Pedersen Ragnor,
Reich Hermine,
Rojas Alejandro,
Sacchi Angela,
Santos Miguel,
Theobald Anne,
Vagenende Benedicte,
Verani Alessia
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.2020.6241
Subject(s) - streptomyces , residue (chemistry) , european commission , strain (injury) , microbiology and biotechnology , food science , biology , european union , toxicology , business , biochemistry , genetics , anatomy , bacteria , economic policy
According to Article 12 of Regulation ( EC ) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels ( MRL s) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108. Considering the information provided by Member States, neither EU uses nor import tolerances are currently authorised for Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 within the EU . Furthermore, no MRL s are established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (codex maximum residue limits) for this active substance. Therefore, residues of Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 are not expected to occur in any plant or animal commodity and therefore a consumer risk assessment is not required. Nevertheless, the available information allowed EFSA to propose a marker residue definition noting that methods for identification and quantification of Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 are available; however, a method for enforcement fully validated at a specific limit of quantification ( LOQ ) was not provided. An inclusion of Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 in Annex IV of ( EC ) No 396/2005 is not recommended.