EFSA Journal (May 2021)

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance potassium hydrogen carbonate

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
  • Fernando Alvarez,
  • Maria Anastassiadou,
  • Maria Arena,
  • Domenica Auteri,
  • Alba Brancato,
  • Laszlo Bura,
  • Luis Carrasco Cabrera,
  • Anna Federica Castoldi,
  • Eugenia Chaideftou,
  • Arianna Chiusolo,
  • Angelo Colagiorgi,
  • Mathilde Colas,
  • Federica Crivellente,
  • Chloe De Lentdecker,
  • Mark Egsmose,
  • Gabriella Fait,
  • Luna Greco,
  • Alessio Ippolito,
  • Frederique Istace,
  • Samira Jarrah,
  • Dimitra Kardassi,
  • Aude Kienzler,
  • Renata Leuschner,
  • Roberto Lava,
  • Linguadoca Alberto,
  • Alfonso Lostia,
  • Christopher Lythgo,
  • Oriol Magrans,
  • Iris Mangas,
  • Ileana Miron,
  • Tunde Molnar,
  • Laura Padovani,
  • Juan Manuel Parra Morte,
  • Ragnor Pedersen,
  • Hermine Reich,
  • Miguel Santos,
  • Rachel Sharp,
  • Csaba Szentes,
  • Andrea Terron,
  • Manuela Tiramani,
  • Benedicte Vagenende,
  • Laura Villamar‐Bouza

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6593
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 19, no. 5
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

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, Greece, for the pesticide active substance potassium hydrogen carbonate 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 potassium hydrogen carbonate as a fungicide on strawberry, wine and table grapes, pome fruits, stone fruits, ornamentals and cucurbits. 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 not identified.

Keywords