EFSA Journal (Nov 2022)

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV)

  • 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,
  • Renata Leuschner,
  • Alberto Linguadoca,
  • Christopher Lythgo,
  • Oriol Magrans,
  • Iris Mangas,
  • Ileana Miron,
  • Tunde Molnar,
  • Laura Padovani,
  • Juan Manuel Parra Morte,
  • Simone Rizzuto,
  • Rositsa Serafimova,
  • Rachel Sharp,
  • Csaba Szentes,
  • Andrea Terron,
  • Anne Theobald,
  • Manuela Tiramani,
  • Laura Villamar‐Bouza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7630
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 20, no. 11
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

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 Germany and co‐rapporteur Member State the Netherlands for the pesticide active substance Cydia pomonella granulovirus (CpGV) and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 CpGV as an insecticide on pome fruit (apple, pear, quince, nashi pears, medlars), stone fruit (peach, apricot, nectarine, almond, plum trees), walnut trees (field foliar spray applications, professional and non‐professional uses). 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.

Keywords