EFSA Journal (Mar 2019)

Modification of the existing maximum residue level for cyprodinil in Florence fennel

  • European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),
  • Maria Anastassiadou,
  • Alba Brancato,
  • Daniela Brocca,
  • Luis Carrasco Cabrera,
  • Lucien Ferreira,
  • Luna Greco,
  • Samira Jarrah,
  • Aija Kazocina,
  • Renata Leuschner,
  • Alfonso Lostia,
  • Jose Oriol Magrans,
  • Paula Medina,
  • Ileana Miron,
  • Ragnor Pedersen,
  • Marianna Raczyk,
  • Hermine Reich,
  • Silvia Ruocco,
  • Angela Sacchi,
  • Miguel Santos,
  • Alois Stanek,
  • Jose Tarazona,
  • Anne Theobald,
  • Alessia Verani

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5623
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 17, no. 3
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the FPS Health, Food chain safety and Environment of Belgium, submitted an application to modify the existing maximum residue level (MRL) for the active substance cyprodinil in Florence fennel to accommodate the intended use in the northern Europe. The submitted data were found sufficient to derive an MRL proposal of 4 mg/kg for cyprodinil in Florence fennel. Adequate analytical methods for enforcement are available to control the residues of cyprodinil in the plant matrix under consideration at the validated limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the long‐term intake of residues resulting from the authorised uses of cyprodinil and the intended use on Florence fennel is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. An indicative acute exposure assessment was performed, considering the acute reference dose (ARfD) proposed by the rapporteur Member State (RMS) in the framework of the currently ongoing renewal of the approval of cyprodinil; no acute health concerns were identified with regard to cyprodinil residues in Florence fennel. As the peer review on the renewal of the approval of cyprodinil in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 is currently ongoing, the conclusions reported in this reasoned opinion may need to be reconsidered in the light of the outcome of the peer review.

Keywords