Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance spinosad

• Main Authors: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Stefania Barmaz, Alba Brancato, Daniela Brocca, Laszlo Bura, Luis Carrasco Cabrera, Arianna Chiusolo, Daniele Court Marques, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Lucien Ferreira, Marina Goumenou, Luna Greco, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Renata Leuschner, Christopher Lythgo, Jose Oriol Magrans, Paula Medina, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Alexandre Nougadere, Laura Padovani, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Ragnor Pedersen, Hermine Reich, Angela Sacchi, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Alois Stanek, Franz Streissl, Juergen Sturma, Csaba Szentes, Jose Tarazona, Andrea Terron, Anne Theobald, Benedicte Vagenende, Laura Villamar‐Bouza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2018-05-01
• Series: EFSA Journal
• Subjects: spinosad; peer review; risk assessment; pesticide; insecticide
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5252

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, the Netherlands, and co‐rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance spinosad and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of spinosad as an insecticide on bulb/dry onions, maize (fodder and grain), sweet corn, grapes (table and wine), lettuce, potato, aubergine, pepper and tomato. MRLs were assessed in field leek and field and glasshouse strawberries, cane fruits, lettuce and plants salad (others), spinach and similar leaves (others), herbs and edible flowers (others), cardoons, rhubarb and animal commodities. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.