z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Evaluation of the emergency authorisations granted by Member State Lithuania for plant protection products containing clothianidin or thiamethoxam
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
efsa supporting publications
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2397-8325
DOI - 10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.en-1421
Subject(s) - clothianidin , thiamethoxam , european commission , business , neonicotinoid , mandate , context (archaeology) , european union , political science , pesticide , law , biology , agronomy , imidacloprid , paleontology , economic policy
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested by the European Commission to provide technical assistance in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009 to examine the two emergency authorisations granted in 2017 by the competent authority in Lithuania for plant protection products containing the neonicotinoid active substances (a.s.) clothianidin or thiamethoxam for uses on spring oilseed rape that were restricted in accordance with Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 485/2013. In particular, EFSA was asked to assess whether the granting of these emergency authorisations and their wide scope were necessary because of danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. In this context, EFSA collected and evaluated the information in relation to the emergency authorisations for clothianidin and thiamethoxam in Lithuania in line with the EFSA insecticide protocol developed in the framework of a mandate concerning the application of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No. 1107/2009. The current Technical Report summarises the outcome of the evaluation of four crop/pest combinations considered in Lithuania. The evaluation demonstrated that for two crop/pest combinations no sufficient alternative a.s to clothianidin and thiamethoxam are currently available in Lithuania, to provide an alternative mode of action (MoA); whereas, for two combinations there was an alternative a.s. authorised with the same MoA as the a.s. under consideration. The evaluation included an assessment of non‐chemical alternatives for the presented uses. A wide range of non‐insecticidal methods is available, but often these do not have the same efficacy as insecticidal methods, or present some technical or cultural limitations.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here