Updated peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pydiflumetofen

TL;DR

This paper summarizes the updated peer review of the pesticide pydiflumetofen, assessing its safety and regulatory compliance in the EU.

Contribution

The paper provides updated risk assessments and conclusions based on new toxicity data and regulatory requirements.

Findings

The peer review evaluated pydiflumetofen's use on various crops and updated risk assessments with new inhalation toxicity data.

Reliable endpoints for regulatory use and proposed MRLs were identified, along with missing information required for compliance.

Concerns were reported where risks were identified, based on the updated assessments.

Abstract

The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State France and co‐rapporteur Member State Austria for the pesticide active substance pydiflumetofen and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of pydiflumetofen as a fungicide field application on pome fruits, grapes, potato, fruiting vegetables, cucurbits and Brassica vegetables and updated following the request from Commission to consider additional information submitted and review the risk assessment. The conclusions were further updated at the request of European Commission to review the exposure and risk assessments for pydiflumetofen in light of a newly available 28‐day inhalation toxicity study that was not included in the initial assessment report. Finally, EFSA was mandated to provide a summary of the assessment of the representative formulation in an updated conclusion. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Figures