Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing MRLs for chlorantraniliprole in carrots, parsnips, parsley root and celeriac

• Main Author: European Food Safety Authority
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2012-11-01
• Series: EFSA Journal
• Subjects: Chlorantraniliprole; root crops; MRL application; Regulation (EC) No 396/2005; consumer risk assessment; anthranilic diamide insecticide
• Online Access: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2988.pdf

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the United Kingdom, herewith referred to as the evaluating Member State (EMS), received an application from the Horticultural Development Company to modify the existing MRL for chlorantraniliprole in carrots, parsnips, celeriac and parsley root. In order to accommodate the intended use in the NEU, the EMS proposed to set the MRL for chlorantraniliprole in the crops under consideration at 0.04 mg/kg. The existing MRL for carrots is set at the level of 0.08 mg/kg. This MRL will expire on 1 January 2013 and after that date a MRL of 0.02 mg/kg will be applicable unless modified by a Regulation. The EMS drafted an evaluation report according to Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA. According to EFSA, the data are sufficient to extrapolate residue data from carrots to parsnips, parsley root and celeriac and to derive MRL proposals for all these crops in support of the NEU use. Member States granting authorisations of the use of chlorantraniliprole should implement necessary risk mitigation measures to ensure that residues do not occur in rotational/succeeding crops. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concludes that the intended use of chlorantraniliprole on the crops under consideration will not result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference value and therefore is unlikely to pose a public health concern. Since the peer review is not yet finalised, the conclusions reached in this reasoned opinion should be taken as provisional and might need to be reconsidered in the light of the outcome of the peer review.