DOCSLIB.ORG

Commission Regulation (EU)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

L 140/2 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.5.2011 REGULATIONS COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) No 520/2011 of 25 May 2011 amending Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards maximum residue levels for benalaxyl, boscalid, buprofezin, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, indoxacarb, metaflumizone, methoxy- fenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, spirodiclofen, prothioconazole and zoxamide in or on certain products (Text with EEA relevance) THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, (4) The European Food Safety Authority, hereinafter ‘the Authority’, assessed the application and the evaluation report, examining in particular the risks to the consumer and where relevant to animals and gave a Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European reasoned opinion on the proposed MRLs ( 2 ). It Union, forwarded this opinion to the Commission and the Member States and made it available to the public. Having regard to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 February 2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin and amending Council Directive 91/414/EEC ( 1 ), and in particular Article 14(1)(a) thereof, (5) The Authority concluded in its reasoned opinion that all requirements with respect to data were met and that the modifications to the MRLs as recommended by the Whereas: Authority were acceptable with regard to consumer safety on the basis of a consumer exposure assessment for 27 specific European consumer groups. It took into account the most recent information on the toxicological (1) For benalaxyl, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, properties of the substances. Neither the lifetime indoxacarb, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, and exposure to these substances via consumption of all zoxamide maximum residue levels (MRLs) were set in food products that may contain these substances, nor Annex II and Part B of Annex III to Regulation (EC) the short term exposure due to extreme consumption No 396/2005. For boscalid, buprofezin, fluopicolide, of the relevant crops showed that there is a risk that hexythiazox, metaflumizone, prothioconazole and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) or the acute reference spirodiclofen, MRLs were set in Part A of Annex III to dose (ARfD) is exceeded. Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. (2) In accordance with Article 6(2) and (4) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 an application was made for boscalid in a wide range of crops for modification of (6) On 9 July 2010 the Codex Alimentarius Commission the existing MRLs. The authorised use of boscalid in (CAC) adopted Codex limits (CXLs) for benalaxyl, NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) boscalid, buprofezin, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cyper­ countries lead to higher residues than the MRLs in methrin, fluopicolide, hexythiazox, indoxacarb, meta­ Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To avoid flumizone, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz, trade barriers for the importation of cherries, onions, spirodiclofen, prothioconazole and zoxamide. These spring onions, tomatoes, aubergines, cucumbers, CXLs should be included in Regulation (EC) No melons, broccoli, head cabbage, basil, dry beans, dry 396/2005 as MRLs, with the exception of those CXLs peas, sunflower seed and rape seed, higher MRLs are which are not safe for a European consumer group and necessary. ( 2 ) EFSA scientific reports available on http://www.efsa.europa.eu: Reasoned opinion of EFSA prepared by the Pesticides Unit (PRAPeR) on the modification of existing MRL for boscalid in various crops , (3) In accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No EFSA Journal 2010; 8(9):1780. Published: 16 September 2010. 396/2005, this application was evaluated by the Adopted: 12 September 2010. Member State concerned and the evaluation report was Scientific report of EFSA. Scientific and technical support for forwarded to the Commission. preparing a EU position in the 42nd Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR), EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11):1560. Published: 26 November 2010. Adopted: 24 March ( 1 ) OJ L 70, 16.3.2005, p. 1. 2010. 27.5.2011 EN Official Journal of the European Union L 140/3 for which the Union presented a reservation to the Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health and CAC ( 1) based on a scientific report of the Authority. neither the European Parliament nor the Council has opposed them, (7) Based on the reasoned opinion of the Authority and taking into account the factors relevant to the matter HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION: under consideration, the appropriate modifications to the MRLs fulfil the requirements of Article 14(2)(a)(e) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. Article 1 Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended in accordance with the Annex to this Regulation. (8) Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 should therefore be amended accordingly. Article 2 (9) The measures provided for in this Regulation are in This Regulation shall enter into force on the day following that accordance with the opinion of the Standing of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union. This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States. Done at Brussels, 25 May 2011. For the Commission The President José Manuel BARROSO ( 1 ) Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues reports available on: http:// www.codexalimentarius.net/web/archives.jsp?year=10 ALINORM 10/33/REP. JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION. APPENDIX II and III. Thirty-Third Session. International Conference Centre, Geneva, Switzerland, 5 - 9 July 2010. L 140/4 EN Official Journal of the European Union 27.5.2011 ANNEX Annexes II and III to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are amended as follows: (1) In Annex II the columns for benalaxyl, carbofuran, carbosulfan, cypermethrin, indoxacarb, methoxyfenozide, paraquat, prochloraz and zoxamide are replaced by the following: 27.5.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 140/5 Union L European the of Journal 27.5.2011 Official ‘Pesticide residues and maximum residue levels (mg/kg) EN a Code number Groups and examples of individual products to which the MRLs apply ( ) Zoxamide Carbofuran (sum ofhydroxy-carbofuran carbofuran expressed and asfuran) 3- carbo- Benalaxyl includingconstituent other isomers mixtures includingM benalaxyl- (sum of of isomers) Cypermethrin (cypermethrinother including mixtures(sum of of isomers)) constituent (F) isomers Prochloraz (sum ofmetabolites containing prochloraz the 2,4,6-Trichlor- andophenol moiety its expressed as prochloraz) Paraquat Carbosulfan Indoxacarb as sum of the(F) isomers S and R Methoxyfenozide (F) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 0100000 1. FRUIT FRESH OR FROZEN; NUTS 0,02 (*) 0110000 (i) Citrus fruit 0,05 (*) 2 0,02 (*) 1 10 0,02 (*) 0110010 Grapefruit (Shaddocks, pomelos, sweeties, tangelo (except 0,3 0,05 (*) mineola), ugli and other hybrids) 0110020 Oranges (Bergamot, bitter orange, chinotto and other hybrids) 0,5 0,1 0110030 Lemons (Citron, lemon) 0,3 0,05 (*) 0110040 Limes 0,3 0,05 (*) 0110050 Mandarins (Clementine, tangerine, mineola and other hybrids) 0,5 0,1 0110990 Others 0,3 0,05 (*) 0120000 (ii) Tree nuts (shelled or unshelled) 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0,05 (*) 0,05 (*) 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0,1 (*) 0,02 (*) 0120010 Almonds 0120020 Brazil nuts 0120030 Cashew nuts 0120040 Chestnuts 0120050 Coconuts 0120060 Hazelnuts (Filbert) 0120070 Macadamia 0120080 Pecans L 140/6 Union European the of Journal Official 27.5.2011 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 0120090 Pine nuts 0120100 Pistachios 0120110 Walnuts EN 0120990 Others 0130000 (iii) Pome fruit 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0,05 (*) 1 2 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0130010 Apples (Crab apple) 0,5 0130020 Pears (Oriental pear) 0,3 0130030 Quinces 0,3 0130040 Medlar (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) 0130050 Loquat (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) 0130990 Others 0,3 0140000 (iv) Stone fruit 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0,05 (*) 2 1 0,05 (*) 0,02 (*) 0140010 Apricots 0,3 0140020 Cherries (sweet cherries, sour cherries) 0,02 (*) 0140030 Peaches (Nectarines and similar hybrids) 0,3 0140040 Plums (Damson, greengage, mirabelle, sloe) 0,02 (*) 0140990 Others 0,02 (*) 0150000 (v) Berries & small fruit 0,02 (*) 0,05 (*) 0,05 (*) 0151000 (a) Table and wine grapes 0,3 0,5 2 1 5 0151010 Table grapes 0151020 Wine grapes 0152000 (b) Strawberries 0,05 (*) 0,07 0,02 (*) 2 0,02 (*) 0153000 (c) Cane fruit 0,05 (*) 0,5 0,02 (*) 0,02 (*) 0153010 Blackberries 0,5 0153020 Dewberries (Loganberries, boysenberries, and cloudberries) 0,02 (*) 0153030 Raspberries (Wineberries, arctic bramble/raspberry, (Rubus 0,5 arcticus), nectar raspberries (Rubus arcticus x idaeus)) 27.5.2011 Official Journal of the European Union L 140/7 Union L European the of Journal 27.5.2011 Official (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) 0153990 Others 0,02 (*) 0154000 (d) Other small fruit & berries 0,05 (*) 0,05 (*) 1 0,02 (*) 0154010 Blueberries (Bilberries) 4 EN 0154020 Cranberries (Cowberries (red bilberries)) 0,7 0154030 Currants (red, black and white) 0,02 (*) 0154040 Gooseberries (Including hybrids with other ribes species) 0,02 (*) 0154050 Rose hips (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) 0154060 Mulberries (arbutus berry) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) 0154070 Azarole (mediteranean medlar) (Kiwiberry (Actinidia arguta)) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) (**) 0154080 Elderberries (Black chokeberry (appleberry),
Recommended publications
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES

    INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES

    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
  • A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Landscape

    A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Landscape

    A Pesticide Decision-Making Guide to Protect Pollinators in Landscape, Ornamental and Turf Management 2019 Edition By Maria van Dyke, Emma Mullen, Dan Wixted, and Scott McArt Pollinator Network at Cornell, 2018 Cornell University, Department Of Entomology Download this guide for free from: https://pollinator.cals.cornell.edu/resources/grower-resources/ Contents Choosing lower-risk pesticides for pollinators in landscape, ornamental & turf management ____ 1 How to use this guide 3 Understanding the terms in this guide 4 EPA Pesticide toxicity standards 4 Synergistic Interactions 4 Systemic Pesticides 4 Adjuvants and/or inert ingredients 5 Tying it all together: adopting an Integrated Pest and Pollinator Management (IPPM) approach 5 IPPM: Putting the “pollinator” in IPM: 6 Table 1: Product formulations and their active ingredients 7 Table 2: Pesticide synergies and acute, chronic, and sublethal toxicities for honey bees and other pollinators 10 Literature cited 25 Appendix A: Pollination contract ______________________________________________________ 29 Acknowledgments This research and development of this guide was supported by the New York State Environmental Protection Fund and New York Farm Viability Institute grant FOC 17-001. The expert advice and consultation provided by Dan Wixted of the Cornell Pesticide Management Education Program was supported by the Crop Protection and Pest Management Extension Implementation Program [grant no. 2017-70006-27142/project accession no. 1014000] from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture. 1 Choosing lower-risk pesticides for pollinators in landscape, ornamental & turf management Managing pests on ornamentals, in landscapes, and in nurseries while protecting pollinators can be a balancing act. Pollinators (mostly bees) are busy pollinating blossoms in nurseries and landscapes at the same time growers and landscapers need to be managing specific pests and diseases.
  • UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic

    UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic

    UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Distr.: General 14 August 2012 English only Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Eighth meeting Geneva, 15–19 October 2012 Item 5 (e) and (f) of the provisional agenda* Technical work: assessment of alternatives to endosulfan; assessment of alternatives to DDT Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Note by the Secretariat As referred to in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/8 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/9, the report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT is set out in the annex to the present note; it has not been formally edited. * UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/1. K1282318 040912 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Annex Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Draft prepared by the ad hoc working group on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan and DDT under the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention July 2012 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Table of Content 1. Disclaimer 2. Background and proposed results 3. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 3.3. Experimental information 3.4. QSAR information 3.5. Description of the data sources 3.6. Uncertainties 3.7. Data analysis 3.8. Results 3.9. Comments on selected alternative substances 4. Methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and identification of other hazard indicators for the assessment of chemical alternatives to Endosulfan and DDT 4.1.
  • Pesticide Reference Values Comparison Study

    Pesticide Reference Values Comparison Study

    Is Protecting Aquatic Life from Pesticides Sufficient to Ensure Human Health Protection in Sources of Drinking Water? Kelly D. Moran, Ph.D., TDC Environmental, LLC Bonny Starr, P.E., Starr Consulting October 1, 2018 Abstract California water and pesticides regulators have long operated under the informal assumption that programs to protect aquatic life from currently used pesticides will also ensure the safety of surface water drinKing water sources. This paper examines the scientific validity of this assumption for the agricultural pesticides in California’s Central Valley by comparing water quality regulatory values and benchmarks (“reference values”) for human health with those for aquatic life. Because numeric water quality criteria and other numeric regulatory values established for water quality protection exist for only a handful of currently used pesticides, the comparison relies heavily on US EPA pesticides human health and aquatic life benchmarks. For acute endpoints, both human health and aquatic life reference values typically use a one-day exposure time frame, but chronic endpoint exposure periods differ, with aquatic life exposure periods (4 to 60 days) usually shorter than human health exposure periods (annual). The evaluation looKed in detail at 301 agricultural pesticides with human health reference values. Of these 301 pesticides, only 46% had aquatic life reference values that were equal to or lower than the human health reference value. For 54% of these pesticides, either no aquatic life reference value existed or the aquatic life reference value was higher than the human health reference value. In these cases, aquatic life protection actions would not suffice to protect human health.
  • Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!

    Pesticide Resistance in Bed Bugs Everywhere!!!!!

    2/24/2018 Pesticide Resistance in Bed bugs were virtually eradicated from the U.S. in Bed Bugs the post WWII era due to DDT and other powerful Shujuan (Lucy) Li insecticides. University of Arizona Alvaro Romero New Mexico State University 2 By the 1960s, bed bugs had developed resistance Public housing Apartments to DDT, methoxychlor and analogues, BHC, Schools dieldrin and analogues , and pyrethrins ( Busvine 1958, Hospitals Nursing homes Cwilich & Mer 1957, Mallis and Miller 1964 ) . Homes Transportation Child care Medical facilities Hotels & motels Health care facilities Airports Movie theaters Department stores Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for Everywhere!!!!! illustrative purposes only and are not meant to be endorsements. 3 4 University of Arizona; Arizona Pest Management Center 1 2/24/2018 Possible reasons for treatment failure? Missed some Clutter Reintroduction Have you seen these after treatments? 5 6 Dose - response assays for field - collected strains Bed bugs survived direct insecticide sprays 99 deltamethrin 90 Ft. Dix F1 50 ) e l a c 10 s t CIN1 i b o 1.0 r p ( y t i l a t r 99 - cyhalothrin o m e 90 g a t n Resistance ratio (RR) at least 6,000 !!! e c Ft. Dix r 50 e P 10 CIN1 Suspend® ( Deltamethrin ) 1.0 10 -7 10 -6 10 -5 10 -4 10 -3 10 -2 10 -1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Treatment (mg active ingredient/cm 2 ) Products, vendors, or commercial services mentioned or pictured in this seminar are for illustrative purposes only and are not meant Romero et al.
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980

    Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980

    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
  • Pesticide Residues : Maximum Residue Limits

    Pesticide Residues : Maximum Residue Limits

    THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives ICS 67.040 ISBN UNOFFICAL TRANSLATION THAI AGRICULTURAL STANDARD TAS 9002-2013 PESTICIDE RESIDUES : MAXIMUM RESIDUE LIMITS National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives 50 Phaholyothin Road, Ladyao, Chatuchak, Bangkok 10900 Telephone (662) 561 2277 Fascimile: (662) 561 3357 www.acfs.go.th Published in the Royal Gazette, Announcement and General Publication Volume 131, Special Section 32ง (Ngo), Dated 13 February B.E. 2557 (2014) (2) Technical Committee on the Elaboration of the Thai Agricultural Standard on Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticide 1. Mrs. Manthana Milne Chairperson Department of Agriculture 2. Mrs. Thanida Harintharanon Member Department of Livestock Development 3. Mrs. Kanokporn Atisook Member Department of Medical Sciences, Ministry of Public Health 4. Mrs. Chuensuke Methakulawat Member Office of the Consumer Protection Board, The Prime Minister’s Office 5. Ms. Warunee Sensupa Member Food and Drug Administration, Ministry of Public Health 6. Mr. Thammanoon Kaewkhongkha Member Office of Agricultural Regulation, Department of Agriculture 7. Mr. Pisan Pongsapitch Member National Bureau of Agricultural Commodity and Food Standards 8. Ms. Wipa Thangnipon Member Office of Agricultural Production Science Research and Development, Department of Agriculture 9. Ms. Pojjanee Paniangvait Member Board of Trade of Thailand 10. Mr. Charoen Kaowsuksai Member Food Processing Industry Club, Federation of Thai Industries 11. Ms. Natchaya Chumsawat Member Thai Agro Business Association 12. Mr. Sinchai Swasdichai Member Thai Crop Protection Association 13. Mrs. Nuansri Tayaputch Member Expert on Method of Analysis 14.
  • How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides

    How to Reduce Bee Poisoning from Pesticides

    PNW 591 December 2006 How to ReduceReduce BeeBee PoisoningPoisoning from pesticides H. Riedl E. Johansen L. Brewer J. Barbour A Pacific Northwest Extension publication Oregon State University • University of Idaho • Washington State University Contents Pollinators are essential to Pacific Northwest agriculture .......................................................................1 Rules to protect bees ..............................................................................................................................1 Causes of bee poisoning in the Pacific Northwest .................................................................................2 Investigating a suspected bee poisoning ................................................................................................2 Signs and symptoms of bee poisoning ...................................................................................................2 Honey bees .................................................................................................................................................... 2 Managed solitary bees ................................................................................................................................... 3 Ways to reduce bee poisoning ...............................................................................................................3 Beekeeper–grower cooperation ..................................................................................................................... 3 What pesticide
  • A Retrospective Analysis of the Immunotoxicity Study (OCSPP Test Guideline No

    A Retrospective Analysis of the Immunotoxicity Study (OCSPP Test Guideline No

    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION MEMORANDUM Date: February, 2013 SUBJECT: A Retrospective Analysis of the Immunotoxicity Study (OCSPP Test Guideline No. 870. 7800) PC Code: NA DP Barcode: NA Decision No.: NA Registration No.: NA Petition No.: NA Regulatory Action: NA Risk Assessment Type: NA Case No.: NA TXRNo.: NA CAS No.: NA MRIDNo.: NA 40CFR: NA Ver.Apr. 20 l 0 FROM: Jess Rowland le..s.s. (C .... u.. ~""'-"-­ Associate Director Health Effects Division TO: Jack Housenger, Director Health Effects Division In 2011, CropLife America (CLA) conducted a retrospective evaluation of 82 irnmunotoxicity studies to determine the potential regulatory impact of this study. The assessment concluded that the large majority of studies demonstrated no treatment-related effects at the high dose level for the given study and in no case was the irnmunotoxicity finding the most sensitive endpoint when compared to other existing toxicity endpoints in the data base, indicating the lack of impact ofthese studies on human health risk assessments. Based on their findings, the CLA requested that the Agency begin granting waivers for the irnmunotoxicity guideline study based on its authority under 40 CFR § 15 8.45 to grant waivers for studies for which "the data would not be useful in the Agency's evaluation of the risks or benefits of the product." In 2012, the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) similarly conducted a retrospective analysis of over 170 irnmunotoxicity studies (including the 82 chemicals evaluated by CLA) for the purpose of 1) assessing if the results of the guideline immunotoxicity study impact human health risk assessment; 2) determining whether there is sufficient justification for granting waivers for this immunotoxicity study; and 3) proposing a path forward.
  • US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, BUPROFEZIN 40SC,09/13/2019

    US EPA, Pesticide Product Label, BUPROFEZIN 40SC,09/13/2019

    81,7('67$7(6(19,5210(17$/3527(&7,21$*(1&< :$6+,1*721'& 2)),&(2)&+(0,&$/6$)(7< $1'32//87,2135(9(17,21 6HSWHPEHU &KULVWLQD0'XEDV 5HJXODWRU\$IIDLUV0DQDJHU 1LFKLQR$PHULFD,QF /LQGHQ+LOO5G :LOPLQJWRQ'( 6XEMHFW 35,$/DEHO$PHQGPHQW±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³7RGLVWULEXWHRUVHOO´LV GHILQHGXQGHU),)5$VHFWLRQ JJ DQGLWVLPSOHPHQWLQJUHJXODWLRQDW&)5 6KRXOG\RXZLVKWRDGGUHWDLQDUHIHUHQFHWRWKHFRPSDQ\¶VZHEVLWHRQ\RXUODEHOWKHQSOHDVHEH DZDUHWKDWWKHZHEVLWHEHFRPHVODEHOLQJXQGHUWKH)HGHUDO,QVHFWLFLGH)XQJLFLGHDQG5RGHQWLFLGH $FWDQGLVVXEMHFWWRUHYLHZE\WKH$JHQF\,IWKHZHEVLWHLVIDOVHRUPLVOHDGLQJWKHSURGXFW ZRXOGEHPLVEUDQGHGDQGXQODZIXOWRVHOORUGLVWULEXWHXQGHU),)5$VHFWLRQ D ( &)5 D OLVWH[DPSOHVRIVWDWHPHQWV(3$PD\FRQVLGHUIDOVHRUPLVOHDGLQJ,QDGGLWLRQ
  • List of Class 1 Designated Chemical Substances

    List of Class 1 Designated Chemical Substances

    List of Class 1 Designated Chemical Substances *1：CAS numbers are to be solely as references. They may be insufficient or lacking, in case there are multiple chemical substances. No. Specific Class 1 CAS No. (PRTR Chemical （*1） Name Law) Substances 1 - zinc compounds(water-soluble) 2 79-06-1 acrylamide 3 140-88-5 ethyl acrylate 4 - acrylic acid and its water-soluble salts 5 2439-35-2 2-(dimethylamino)ethyl acrylate 6 818-61-1 2-hydroxyethyl acrylate 7 141-32-2 n-butyl acrylate 8 96-33-3 methyl acrylate 9 107-13-1 acrylonitrile 10 107-02-8 acrolein 11 26628-22-8 sodium azide 12 75-07-0 acetaldehyde 13 75-05-8 acetonitrile 14 75-86-5 acetone cyanohydrin 15 83-32-9 acenaphthene 16 78-67-1 2,2'-azobisisobutyronitrile 17 90-04-0 o-anisidine 18 62-53-3 aniline 19 82-45-1 1-amino-9,10-anthraquinone 20 141-43-5 2-aminoethanol 21 1698-60-8 5-amino-4-chloro-2-phenylpyridazin-3(2H)-one; chloridazon 5-amino-1-[2,6-dichloro-4-(trifluoromethyl)phenyl]-3-cyano- 22 120068-37-3 4[(trifluoromethyl)sulfinyl]pyrazole; fipronil 23 123-30-8 p-aminophenol 24 591-27-5 m-aminophenol 4-amino-6-tert-butyl-3-methylthio-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one; 25 21087-64-9 metribuzin 26 107-11-9 3-amino-1-propene 27 41394-05-2 4-amino-3-methyl-6-phenyl-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one; metamitron 28 107-18-6 allyl alcohol 29 106-92-3 1-allyloxy-2,3-epoxypropane 30 - n-alkylbenzenesulfonic acid and its salts(alkyl C=10-14) 31 - antimony and its compounds 32 120-12-7 anthracene 33 1332-21-4 asbestos ○ 34 4098-71-9 3-isocyanatomethyl-3,5,5-trimethylcyclohexyl isocyanate 35 78-84-2 isobutyraldehyde
  • NMP-Free Formulations of Neonicotinoids

    NMP-Free Formulations of Neonicotinoids

    (19) & (11) EP 2 266 400 A1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION (43) Date of publication: (51) Int Cl.: 29.12.2010 Bulletin 2010/52 A01N 43/40 (2006.01) A01N 43/86 (2006.01) A01N 47/40 (2006.01) A01N 51/00 (2006.01) (2006.01) (2006.01) (21) Application number: 09305544.0 A01P 7/00 A01N 25/02 (22) Date of filing: 15.06.2009 (84) Designated Contracting States: (72) Inventors: AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR • Gasse, Jean-Jacques HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL 27600 Saint-Aubin-Sur-Gaillon (FR) PT RO SE SI SK TR • Duchamp, Guillaume Designated Extension States: 92230 Gennevilliers (FR) AL BA RS • Cantero, Maria 92230 Gennevilliers (FR) (71) Applicant: NUFARM 92233 Gennevelliers (FR) (74) Representative: Cabinet Plasseraud 52, rue de la Victoire 75440 Paris Cedex 09 (FR) (54) NMP-free formulations of neonicotinoids (57) The invention relates to NMP-free liquid formulation comprising at least one nicotinoid and at least one aprotic polar component selected from the group comprising the compounds of formula I, II or III below, and mixtures thereof, wherein R1 and R2 independently represent H or an alkyl group having less than 5 carbons, preferably a methyl group, and n represents an integer ranging from 0 to 5, and to their applications. EP 2 266 400 A1 Printed by Jouve, 75001 PARIS (FR) EP 2 266 400 A1 Description Technical Field of the invention 5 [0001] The invention relates to novel liquid formulations of neonicotinoids and to their use for treating plants, for protecting plants from pests and/or for controlling pests infestation.