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

• Main Authors: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Stefania Barmaz, Giulia Bellisai, Alba Brancato, Daniela Brocca, Laszlo Bura, Harry Byers, Arianna Chiusolo, Daniele Court Marques, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Marcella De Maglie, Mark Egsmose, Zoltan Erdos, 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, Alessia Verani, Laura Villamar‐Bouza
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Wiley 2017-07-01
• Series: EFSA Journal
• Subjects: chlorpropham; peer review; risk assessment; pesticide; plant growth regulator; herbicide
• Online Access: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4903

Abstract 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, the Netherlands, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance chlorpropham 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 chlorpropham as a plant growth regulator on potatoes and as a herbicide on glasshouse and field lettuce, field onion and field flower bulbs. MRLs were assessed in potato 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.