Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Streptomyces strain K61

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, Estonia, and co‐rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance Streptomyces st...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Maria Anastassiadou, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Alba Brancato, Laszlo Bura, Luis Carrasco Cabrera, Eugenia Chaideftou, Arianna Chiusolo, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Luna Greco, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Renata Leuschner, Alfonso Lostia, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Ragnor Pedersen, Hermine Reich, Miguel Santos, Rositsa Serafimova, Rachel Sharp, Alois Stanek, Juergen Sturma, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Manuela Tiramani, Benedicte Vagenende, Laura Villamar‐Bouza
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2020-07-01
Series:EFSA Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6182
Description
Summary: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, Estonia, and co‐rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance Streptomyces strain K61 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 use of Streptomyces strain K61 as a fungicide on fruiting vegetables, leafy vegetables, bulb vegetables, pulses, ornamentals, aromatic herbs and root crops, onions and seedlings, in permanent greenhouses and walk‐in tunnels. 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 identified.
ISSN:1831-4732