Open AccessPeer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain SA ‐11
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.2020.6261
Subject(s) - bacillus thuringiensis , european commission , context (archaeology) , pesticide , member state , member states , microbiology and biotechnology , european union , biology , business , ecology , paleontology , genetics , bacteria , economic policy
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, Denmark, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain SA ‐11 and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation ( EC ) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU ) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation ( EU ) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki strain SA ‐11 as an insecticide on pome fruits (field use), protected tomato (including permanent greenhouses and walk‐in tunnels) and turf (field use). 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.