4.4 Review

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

期刊

EFSA JOURNAL
卷 21, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8164

关键词

glyphosate; peer review; risk assessment; pesticide; herbicide

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The EFSA reports the conclusions of the peer review carried out by the AGG on the initial risk assessments of the pesticide glyphosate. The review evaluated various uses of glyphosate as a herbicide proposed by the applicants, including pre-sowing, pre-planting, pre-emergence, and post-harvest uses in vegetables and sugar beet, as well as post-emergence use in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, and railway tracks. Missing information required by the regulatory framework is identified, and concerns are reported.
The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), consisting of the competent authorities of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary, acting jointly as rapporteur Member State for the pesticide active substance glyphosate 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 glyphosate as a herbicide as proposed by the applicants, covering uses pre-sowing, pre-planting and pre-emergence plus post-harvest in vegetables and sugar beet; post-emergence of weeds in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, railway tracks against emerged annual, biennial and perennial weeds. Moreover, uses as spot treatment against invasive species in agricultural and non-agricultural areas, and in vegetables and sugar beet against couch grass are also included. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据