Expansion of the Low-Risk Substances in the Framework of the European Pesticide Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-20
Author(s):  
Diane C. Robin ◽  
Patrice A. Marchand

Abstract Signed in 2009, the plant protection Commission Regulation EC No 1107/2009 created a new category of active substances, the low-risk substances, with specific status defined in Article 22. The initial and specific criteria, not suitable for microorganisms and natural substances, were modified in 2018, and the first low-risk substance, allocating Part D of Regulation EC No 540/2011, was granted in the same year. Since then, thirty-three low-risk substances have been granted with this specific status through approvals and renewals, while a larger list of potential low-risk substances from already-approved active substances was published. This list is only exploited during renewals, and this process would take another five years to complete. After four years of the implementation of this status, the number of such substances is still low, but is intended to increase slowly. Two more low-risk substances are already pending in 2021, which will bring the number of low-risk substances to thirty-five, while the initial list of potential low-risk substances (only renewals) included fifty-seven substances.

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-22
Author(s):  
Diane C. ROBIN ◽  
Patrice A. MARCHAND

The specific status of active substance candidates for substitution (CfS) is detailed by Article 24 of plant protection Commission Regulation EC No 1107/2009 (PPP Regulation). The criteria of candidates for substitution are now clearly defined: low acceptable daily intake/acute reference dose/acceptable operator exposure level or two persistent, bio-accumulative or toxic criteria, or by nature of the critical effects: non-active isomers, carcinogen 1A/1B, toxic for reproduction 1A/1B or endocrine disruption properties, with these later properties now being well characterised. The total number of active substances CfS has been in constant evolution since 2011, with the first batch of candidates for substitution being published in 2015 and updated since then. After a slow decrease, growth is again observed, with another list of active substances being granted this status. CfS are substances targeted by the PPP Regulation that are supposed to be cancelled or non-renewed at the active substance level or substituted at the market authorisation level. CfS are also supposed to be replaced by substances with better toxicological profiles. However, after five years of implementation of the status, their number, which is intended to decrease, remains high, at sixty residual CfS. We exhibit here their evolution.


2021 ◽  
Vol 350 ◽  
pp. S237
Author(s):  
M. Karaca ◽  
B. Fischer ◽  
C.T. Willenbockel ◽  
P. Marx-Stoelting ◽  
D. Bloch

2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-167
Author(s):  
M. Makarov

Today, chemical plant protection methods are based on the safe use of pesticides. Environmental and toxicological effects are taken into account. To expand the possibilities of pest control, diseases and weeds, in the cultivation of crops, use tank mixtures that contain two or three active substances. In the preparation of mixtures take into account the processes of interaction of components and timing of application of drugs. In addition, this technique is one of the elements of the strategy to overcome the resistance of pests to insecticides, pathogens — to systemic fungicides, weeds — to herbicides.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rositsa Serafimova ◽  
Tamara Coja ◽  
George E. N. Kass

The safety assessment of chemicals added or found in food has traditionally made use of data from in vivo studies performed on experimental animals. The nature and amount of data required to carry out a risk assessment is generally stipulated either in the different food legislations or in sectoral guidance documents. However, there are still cases where no or only limited experimental data are available or not specified by law, for example for contaminants or for some minor metabolites from active substances in plant protection products. For such cases, the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) can be applied. This review explores the use of the TTC approach in food safety in the European Union, in relation to the different food sectors, legal requirements and future opportunities.


Author(s):  
Torsten Källqvist ◽  
Merete Grung ◽  
Katrine Borgå ◽  
Hubert Dirven ◽  
Ole Martin Eklo ◽  
...  

The plant protection product Malakite (BAS 669 01 F), containing the active substances dithianon and pyrimethanil, is a fungicide against scab in pome fruits. Products containing these active plant protection substances are approved in Norway, but not with both substances in the same product. The Swedish Chemicals Agency (KemI) has as zonal Rapporteur Member State (zRMS) of the Northern Zone evaluated the product Malakite and decided on non-approval due to the observation of unacceptable effects in exposed birds, aquatic organisms, non-target arthropods and earthworms. On request from The Norwegian Food Safety Authority, the VKM Panel on Plant Protection Products has discussed the available data and the report prepared by KemI, and has concluded as follows on the questions raised: On the refinement of DT50 in long term risk assessment for birds: It is the view of the VKM panel that the refinement is not acceptable because the analysis using first order kinetics seems not in line with a realistic and sufficiently conservative approach for the data provided. Furthermore, field studies from more sites are required. On the long term cumulative effects of the active substances on birds: VKM shares the view of KemI, that the combined sub-lethal and reproduction effects should be assessed because the mode of action of the two ingredients has only been shown in fungi, and since the mechanisms in birds could be different. On the reduction of assessment factor for fish: VKM opposes to the reduction of assessment factor for dithianon in fish because the data from acute toxicity tests cannot be extrapolated to chronic toxicity, and because the factor should reflect not only the variation in interspecies sensitivity, but also the uncertainty involved in extrapolation from laboratory tests to the field situation. On the choice of end point in risk assessment for fish: The VKM panel considers the NOEC of dithianon for fish determined from the study at pH 7.9 not to be adequate for the more acidic Norwegian surface waters, and recommends using the data from the test performed at pH 6.5. On the formulation studies for aquatic organisms: It is the opinion of the VKM panel that the formulation studies may be used together with corresponding studies with the active ingredients as long as the studies compared are performed and evaluated according to the same principles. However, VKM notes that the formulation tests as well as the tests of the active ingredients have been performed at high pH values, which are not representative to most Norwegian surface waters. Thus, the toxic effect of dithianon shown in these tests are likely to be lower than expected under typical conditions in Norway. On the assessment factors for concentration addition in fish: It is the opinion of the VKM panel that a reduction in assessment factor for one component in a mixture cannot be used for a formulation containing components for which a similar reduction has not been accepted. On effect studies of active substances and formulations on non-target arthropods: The VKM panel shares the view of KemI that the risk assessment should be based on all available information, including the studies presented for the active substances. On the endpoint in earthworm risk assessment: VKM supports the view of KemI that the observed effects of pyrimethanil on reproduction of earthworms should be considered in the risk assessment of Malakite.


2018 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice A. Marchand

Abstract Directive 2009/128/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 October 2009 established a framework for Community action to bring about the sustainable use of pesticides and encourage low concern biorationals. Basic substances described in article 23 of EC phytopharmaceutical Regulation No 1107/2009 consist of a new operative category for crop protection products with 16 substances approved so far. Another status, ruled by article 22 is also operative with 11 approved low-risk substances (see EU pesticide database). Now small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) have the opportunity to register biorationals at the EU level in one of the two categories. Our institute previously provided technical expertise on how to complete the Basic Substance Application (BSA), together with a description of first results. However it is clear that there is a need for a shorter survey of the two parallel procedures for SMEs. Here we provide a concise sequence of the necessary steps for SMEs, including strategic approach, a rapid steps description, a timeframe for the global pathway, up to the final step, after approval by the Plants, Animals, Food and Feed Standing Committee (PAFF). We present in detail the advantages and limitations of the two statutes. The introduction of approved substances into organic farming is also discussed. Currently basic and low-risk substance pathways are now accessible for biorationals handled by SMEs. Therefore, the option is open for SMEs to seek a possibly low-risk active substances endorsement with market authorizations or a basic substance approval with no plant protection product claims depending on the selected strategy.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 ◽  
pp. 243-272
Author(s):  
Olivia HAMLYN

AbstractIn recent years, pesticides have captured the attention of both policymakers and the general public. A particular focus has been the transparency of the EU-level procedure for approving active substances, spurred by controversies surrounding the active substance glyphosate. Active substances are the ingredient in pesticides with the pesticidal effect. Once an active substance is approved at EU level, the pesticide containing that active substance must be authorised by each Member State. For this purpose, the EU's 2009 Plant Protection Product Regulation divides Member States into three zones—Northern, Central, and Southern—within which, zonal rapporteur Member States evaluate applications for authorisation. National authorisation decisions are based on these zonal evaluations. This novel system governing pesticides is under-researched. Furthermore, unlike active substance approval, the transparency of pesticide authorisation escapes public and policy scrutiny. Drawing on empirical research conducted for the European Parliament, this article evaluates the transparency of the zonal pesticide authorisation procedure. It thus contributes to the literature on transparency a detailed exploration of transparency in a highly complex, decentred, and polycentric risk regulation regime. While it finds that the zonal pesticide authorisation procedure, generally speaking, does not operate transparently, it argues further that levels of transparency within the regime as a whole may vary significantly depending on multiple different factors. It introduces the concept of ‘chiaroscuro regulation’ to characterise and understand these varying levels of transparency across different elements of the regime and considers some of its implications.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document