|efsa conclusion on the peer review 2022||0.59||0.4||3944||99|
|efsa conclusion on the peer review phosmet||1.37||0.3||1249||76|
|efsa conclusion on the peer review||0.37||0.4||8864||1|
|efsa conclusion on the peer review abamectine||0.68||0.3||2027||22|
|efsa peer review cyazofamid||0.06||0.1||4867||87|
|efsa peer review diflufenican||1.85||0.4||7962||99|
|efsa peer review flonicamid||0.69||0.2||2454||23|
|efsa peer review fenpropidin||1.1||1||1809||53|
|efsa peer review azoxystrobin||0.71||0.8||9036||25|
|efsa peer review acequinocyl||0.28||0.4||5191||56|
Learn more. 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 Germany, for the pesticide active substance glyphosate are reported.What is the context of the peer review?
The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 1141/2010 as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 380/2013.Is a consumer risk assessment necessary for sulfur?
Residues do not need to be considered as the mammalian toxicology assessment has concluded that sulfur is of low toxicity, and it is not necessary to set an ADI or ARfD. Therefore, a consumer risk assessment is neither possible nor necessary. Sulfur degradation in soil is governed by oxidation.