EFSA Journal (May 2022)

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triflusulfuron‐methyl

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
  • Fernando Alvarez,
  • Maria Arena,
  • Domenica Auteri,
  • Marco Binaglia,
  • Anna Federica Castoldi,
  • Arianna Chiusolo,
  • Angelo Colagiorgi,
  • Mathilde Colas,
  • Federica Crivellente,
  • Chloe De Lentdecker,
  • Mark Egsmose,
  • Gabriella Fait,
  • Franco Ferilli,
  • Varvara Gouliarmou,
  • Laia Herrero Nogareda,
  • Alessio Ippolito,
  • Frederique Istace,
  • Samira Jarrah,
  • Dimitra Kardassi,
  • Aude Kienzler,
  • Anna Lanzoni,
  • Roberto Lava,
  • Alberto Linguadoca,
  • Christopher Lythgo,
  • Oriol Magrans,
  • Iris Mangas,
  • Ileana Miron,
  • Tunde Molnar,
  • Laura Padovani,
  • Juan Manuel Parra Morte,
  • Rositsa Serafimova,
  • Rachel Sharp,
  • Csaba Szentes,
  • Andrea Terron,
  • Anne Theobald,
  • Manuela Tiramani,
  • Laura Villamar‐Bouza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7303
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 5
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance triflusulfuron‐methyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of triflusulfuron‐methyl as a herbicide on sugar beet, fodder beet, red beet, chicory and witloof (field uses). The peer review also provided considerations on whether exposure to humans and the environment from the representative uses of triflusulfuron‐methyl can be considered negligible, taking into account the European Commission’s draft guidance on this topic. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified. An evaluation of data concerning the necessity of triflusulfuron‐methyl as herbicide to control a serious danger to plant health which cannot be contained by other available means, including non‐chemical methods is also presented.

Keywords