Open AccessUpdated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance flumioxazin
Author(s) -
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,
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.2020.6246
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , european commission , commission , risk assessment , environmental health , czech , food and drug administration , business , environmental planning , political science , european union , medicine , environmental science , computer security , law , computer science , geography , archaeology , economic policy , linguistics , philosophy
The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the Czech Republic, for the pesticide active substance flumioxazin are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Regulation ( EU ) No 1141/2010 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU ) No 380/2013. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of flumioxazin as a herbicide on winter wheat and sunflower (pre‐ and post‐emergence). The conclusions were updated with regard to the endocrine‐disrupting properties. The reliable end points concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.