Cargando…

Evaluation of confirmatory data following the Article 12 MRL review for diquat

The applicant Syngenta Crop Protection AG submitted a request to the competent national authority in Sweden to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for diquat in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available. The applicant provided su...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bellisai, Giulia, Bernasconi, Giovanni, Brancato, Alba, Cabrera, Luis Carrasco, Castellan, Irene, Ferreira, Lucien, Giner, German, Greco, Luna, Jarrah, Samira, Leuschner, Renata, Magrans, Jose Oriol, Miron, Ileana, Nave, Stefanie, Pedersen, Ragnor, Reich, Hermine, Ruocco, Silvia, Santos, Miguel, Scarlato, Alessia Pia, Theobald, Anne, Verani, Alessia
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8915154/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35311010
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7186
Descripción
Sumario:The applicant Syngenta Crop Protection AG submitted a request to the competent national authority in Sweden to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for diquat in the framework of the MRL review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available. The applicant provided sufficient data to address the data gaps related to plant metabolism studies and analytical methods for plant and animal products. The data gap requesting further studies to investigate the nature of residues of diquat and its metabolite TOPPS in processed products was not sufficiently addressed. Considering the new studies submitted under the current application and considering that the EU uses for diquat had to be withdrawn following a decision on non‐approval, EFSA proposed the lowering of the existing MRLs to the appropriate limit of quantifications for the commodities under assessment. In addition, EFSA proposed to perform a more comprehensive review of the existing MRLs that were not subject to the current assessment, taking into account the findings and conclusions of the peer review, the consequences of the non‐approval decision and the revisions of Codex MRLs.