DOCSLIB.ORG

Farmer to Farmer Programmatic Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Farmer to Farmer Programmatic Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe RAISE PLUS-Limited scope of work IQC FARMER TO FARMER PROGRAMMATIC PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFE USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) i Contract No.: AEG-I-18-04-00010-00 Prepared: December 2009 This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International Development. It was prepared by Weidemann Associates, Inc. DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. ii PROGRAMMATIC PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT and SAFE USE ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) Activity Location: Global: activities in over 30 countries including Egypt, Lebanon, Ghana, Mali, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan, Serbia, Uzbekistan, Angola, Malawi, Mozambique, Dominican Republic, Guyana, Haiti, Nicaragua, South Africa, Belarus, Dominic, Grenada, Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, Peru, Colombia, Bolivia, Dominican Republic, Sumatra, Ethiopia, Uganda, St. Kitts and Nevis Activity Title: John Ogonowski Farmer-to-Farmer Volunteer Programs Life of Project: FY 2009-FY 2013 Program Funding: $75 million iii Contents Pesticide Evaluation Report ........................................................................................................................ 1 Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................................................................3 Summary of Recommendations ..............................................................................................................................4 Introduction and Background .................................................................................................................................5 Pesticide Management Issues ............................................................................................................................... 13 Pesticide Evaluation Report (PER): USAID’s Pesticide Procedures .................................................................... 20 PER Annex A: Farmer-to-Farmer Programmatic PERSUAP Scope of Work ..................................................... 33 PER Annex B: List of Pesticide Active Ingredients Requested by FTF Country Programs ................................ 37 PER Annex C: List of Active Ingredients Rejected for use under the FTF Programmatic PERSUAP ................ 64 Safe Use Action Plan (SUAP) .......................................................................................................................................... 74 Mitigation Measures to be Incorporated into the FTF Program ........................................................................... 74 Monitoring and Reporting .................................................................................................................................... 78 SUAP Attachment A: Compiled list of active ingredients allowed in FTF programs .......................................... 80 SUAP Attachment B: Guide to minimizing the impacts of pesticides to human health ....................................... 96 SUAP Attachment C: Guide to minimizing impacts of pesticides on the environment ..................................... 100 SUAP Attachment D: Guide to Host Country Registered Pesticides ................................................................. 115 SUAP Attachment E. Pesticides of Global Concern........................................................................................... 116 SUAP Attachment F: Guide to IPM Practices .................................................................................................... 120 SUAP Attachment G. Monitoring Pests and Pesticide Effects ........................................................................... 127 SUAP Attachment H: Key Websites for Pesticide and IPM Research ............................................................... 129 SUAP Attachment I: Bullet Points for Volunteer SOWs .................................................................................. 131 Tables Table # 1: Active Farmer to Farmer Programs ..................................................................................................... 10 Table # 2: Analysis of Active Ingredients Requested by FTF Programs .............................................................. 39 Table # 3: List of Active Ingredients Rejected for use under the FTF Programmatic PERSUAP ....................... 64 Table # 4: Active Ingredients Approved for use by FTF Programs ...................................................................... 82 Table # 5: Pesticides Classified as Highly- to Very Highly-Toxic to Fish ......................................................... 127 Table # 6: Pesticides Classified as Highly- to Very Highly-Toxic to Birds ....................................................... 103 Table # 7: The Effects of Commonly Used Insecticides on Wildlife ................................................................. 106 iv Acronyms EC ............................................................................................. European Community EGAT .......................... Economic Growth, Agriculture, and Trade (Office of USAID) EU ...................................................................................................... European Union EUREP ............................................................... Euro-Retailer Produce Working Group FAO .......................................... Food and Agriculture Organization (United Nations) FTF .................................................................................................. Farmer to Farmer GAP .................................................................................. Good Agricultural Practices GUP .......................................................................................... General Use Pesticide IEE ........................................................................ Initial Environmental Examination IPM ................................................................................. Integrated Pest Management MRL .................................................................................... Maximum Residue Level OP ........................................................................................ Organophosphate Pesticides PANNA ....................................................... Pesticide Action Network – North America PERSUAP ..................................... Pesticide Evaluation Report-Safe Use Action Plan PIC .......................................................................................... Prior Informed Consent POP ................................................................................ Persistent Organic Pollutants RUP ....................................................................................... Restricted Use Pesticide SOW .................................................................................................... Scope of Work SPS .................................................................................. Sanitary and Phyto-Sanitary UNEP ........................................................... United Nations Environment Programme USAID ...................................... United States Agency for International Development US EPA .............................................United States Environmental Protection Agency VC ............................................................................................................ Value Chain WHO ................................................................................. World Health Organization WTO ...................................................................................World Trade Organization v Pesticide Evaluation Report Scope of the Programmatic Review In accordance with the Scope of Work, (Pesticide Evaluation Report, Attachment A), this Programmatic PERSUAP evaluates the Farmer-to-Farmer (FTF) Program’s proposed assistance for the use of pesticides in 21 countries in which FTF currently has active programs. Also, given the “programmatic” nature of this PERSUAP, it can be applied to countries where FTF is not currently working in, but where FTF may implement volunteer programs in the future. The target value chains (VCs) for each country program are listed in Section 1.2. In addition to these, FTF may be requested to provide assistance in a VC not among the current target VCs. Again, given its “programmatic” nature, this PERSUAP is intended to cover VCs that are not yet included as part of a FTF country program. The PERSUAP also covers yet-to-be-programmed FTF support through Associate Awards (USAID Mission funded), the Special Program Support Project (through Weidemann Associates), and “flex assignments” (part of existing FTF contracts). These types of FTF activities may take place in one of the existing FTF countries or in countries that currently have no FTF program; and they may work with FTF target VCs, or with new VCs. In sum, this Programmatic PERSUAP covers FTF volunteer technical assistance and the associated administrative, consultant, training, and technical assistance under the FTF Programs. This includes the core country FTF projects, flexible assignments, and volunteer services under Associate Awards and other mechanisms whereby Missions or other offices fund FTF programs. Given the types of support FTF provides (described in Section 1.2), this Programmatic PERSUAP is able to recommend safeguards to ensure—no
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Organochlorine Pesticides and Metals in Ring-Tailed Lemurs (Lemur Catta) at Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar
    American Journal of Primatology 71:998–1010 (2009) RESEARCH ARTICLE Assessment of Organochlorine Pesticides and Metals in Ring-Tailed Lemurs (Lemur catta) at Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve, Madagascar THOMAS R. RAINWATER1Ã, MICHELLE L. SAUTHER2, KATHERINE A.E. RAINWATER3, RACHEL E. MILLS3, FRANK P. CUOZZO4, BAOHONG ZHANG1, LES N. MCDANIEL1, MICHAEL T. ABEL1, ERIC J. MARSLAND1, 5 6 7 1 MARTHA A. WEBER , IBRAHIM ANTHO YOUSSOUF JACKY , STEVEN G. PLATT , GEORGE P. COBB , AND TODD A. ANDERSON1 1Department of Environmental Toxicology, The Institute of Environmental and Human Health, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas 2Department of Anthropology, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado 3School of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis, California 4Department of Anthropology, University of North Dakota, Grand Forks, North Dakota 5Department of Animal Health and Nutrition, St. Louis Zoo, St. Louis, Missouri 6De´partement de Sciences Biologie, Universite´ de Toliara, Toliara, Madagascar 7Department of Biology, Sul Ross State University, Alpine, Texas Like most of Madagascar’s endemic primates, ring-tailed lemurs (Lemur catta) face a number of threats to their survival. Although habitat loss is of greatest concern, other anthropogenic factors including environmental contamination may also affect lemur health and survival. In this study, we examined ring-tailed lemurs from the Beza Mahafaly Special Reserve (BMSR), southern Madagascar for exposure to organochlorine (OC) pesticides and metals and examined differences in contaminant concentrations between sexes and among age groups, troops, and habitats. A total of 14 pesticides and 13 metals was detected in lemur blood (24 individuals) and hair (65 individuals) samples, respectively. p,p0-DDT, heptachlor, aldrin, heptachlor epoxide, endrin aldehyde, and endrin were among the most prevalent pesticides detected.
    [Show full text]
  • Ep 0154508 A2
    Europaisches Patentamt European Patent Office © Publication number: 0 154 508 Office europeen des brevets A2 © EUROPEAN PATENT APPLICATION © Application number: 85301334.0 © Int. CI.4: C 07 C 149/437 A 01 N 47/34 ^ © Date of filing: 27.02.85 © Priority: 27.02.84 JP 36882/84 © Applicant: Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd. 27, Doshomachi 2-chome Higashi-ku Osaka-shi Osaka, 541(JP) @ Date of publication of application: 11.09.85 Bulletin 85/37 @ Inventor: Nagase, Hiroshi 19-6, Daiwahigashi 1-chome © Designated Contracting States: Kawanishi Hyogo 666-OKJP) AT BE CH DE FR GB IT LI LU NL SE © Inventor: Sato, Yasuo 16-5, Ichijojihayama-cho Sakyo-ku Kyoto 606IJP) © Representative: Laredo, Jack Joseph et al, Elkington and Fife High Holborn House 52/54 High Holborn London, WC1V6SH(GB) © Thiophenylureas, their production and use. New insecticidal oriand ovicidal benzoylurea derivatives of the formula: wherein X1 is hydrogen or halogen; X2 is halogen; Y1. Y2 and Y3 are independently hydrogen, halogen or alkyl, whereby at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is other than hydrogen; and R is hydrogen or a group represented by the formula -CFaZbH(3-a-d) wherein a and b are independently 0, 1, or 3, with a + b @ 3 and Z is halogen, their production and use. The present invention relates to benzoylurea derivatives of the formula: wherein X1 is hydrogen or halocgen; X2 is halogen; Y1, Y2 and Y3 are independently hydroaen, halogen or alkyl, whereby at least one of Y1, Y2 and Y3 is other than hydrogen; and R is hydrogen or a group represented by the formula -CFaZbH(3-a-b) wherein a and b are independently 0, 1, 2 or 3, with a + b < 3 and Z is halogen,which are novel compounds processina excellent insecticidal activities, to processes for producing the same, and to insecticides containing the same.
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Oral Toxicity and Repellency of 933 Chemicals to House and Deer Mice
    U.S. Department of Agriculture U.S. Government Publication Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Wildlife Services Archiv-of Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 14, 111-129 (1985) Environmental ontamination C ... ■ nd I oxicolagy © 1985 Springer-Verlag New York Inc. Acute Oral Toxicity and Repellency of 933 Chemicals to House and Deer Mice E. W. Schafer, Jr. and W. A. Bowles, Jr. U.S. Department of Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research Center, Building 16 - Denver Federal Center, Denver, Colorado 80225 Abstract. Five individual bioassay repellency or deer mice and white (house) mice. Our purpose is toxicity variables were estimated or determined for to make available these generally unpublished test deer .mice (Peromyscus maniculatus) and house results so that they can be referenced or used by mice (Mus musculus) under laboratory conditions. the various public, private, and governmental ALD's (Approximate Lethal Doses) or LD50's of groups that may require this information. 230 chemicals to deer mice are presented, as are food reduction (FR) values (3-day feeding test as a 2.0% treatment rate) for white wheat seeds (Tri­ Methods ticum aestivum) for 696 chemicals and Douglas fir seeds (Pseudotsuga menziesii) for 81 chemicals. A The chemicals included in the tests were technical or analytical similar repellency evaluation (REP) using a 5-day grade pesticides and other commercially available or experi­ mental chemicals. They were purchased from various commer­ test with white wheat seeds at a 2.0% treatment rate cial sources or contributed by cooperating chemical companies. was conducted with house mice and the results for For presentation purposes, they have been arranged by Chemical 347 chemicals are presented.
    [Show full text]
  • Minutes of the 52Nd Meeting of The
    DRAFTS MINUTES OF 52nd MEETING OF THE CENTRAL INSECTICIDES BOARD (CIB) HELD ON 12.01.2016 at RESOURCE CENTRE, ROOM NO. 445, ‘A’ WING, NIRMAN BHAWAN, NEW DELHI. The 52nd Meeting of Central Insecticides Board (CIB) was held on 12.01.2016 at 11.00 AM at Resource Centre, Room No. 445, ‘A’ Wing, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi under the chairmanship of Dr. Jagdish Prasad, Director General of Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare. Since the quorum was not complete, meeting was adjourned for half an hour and reconvened at 11.30AM, The list of the participants is at Annexure-I. The Chairman welcomed the participants. After formal self-introduction by the participants, the Chairman requested the APPA & Secretary, CIB & RC, to present the agenda. After detailed deliberation on each issue, the following decisions were taken: - Agenda Item No. 1: Confirmation of minutes of 51st meeting of CIB held on 04.03.2015 As no comments were received on the minutes, the st minutes of 51 meeting of Central Insecticides Board were confirmed. Agenda Item No. 2: Follow up action on the decisions of 51st meeting of the CIB. The Board noted the follow up actions on the decisions st of 51 meeting with satisfaction and appreciated the efforts made to complete the action in time bound manner. Agenda Item No. 3: Progress report of the Registration Committee, Central Insecticides Laboratory and Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratories. a. Registration Committee: The Board was happy to note the progress of the Sectt. of CIB&RC and burst in to applaud and congratulated the APPA & Secretary, CIB&RC for achieving this mile stone while bringing the pendency at a very manageable level.
    [Show full text]
  • Toxicity of Sediment-Bound Lufenuron to Benthic Arthropods in Laboratory Bioassays
    Toxicity of sediment-bound lufenuron to benthic arthropods in laboratory bioassays Brock, T. C. M., Belgers, J. D. M., Boerwinkel, M. C., Jollie, L., Kraak, M. H. S., Papo, M. J., ... Roessink, I. This is a "Post-Print" accepted manuscript, which has been published in "Aquatic Toxicology" This version is distributed under a non-commercial no derivatives Creative Commons (CC-BY-NC-ND) user license, which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and not used for commercial purposes. Further, the restriction applies that if you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Please cite this publication as follows: Brock, T. C. M., Belgers, J. D. M., Boerwinkel, M. C., Jollie, L., Kraak, M. H. S., Papo, M. J., ... Roessink, I. (2018). Toxicity of sediment-bound lufenuron to benthic arthropods in laboratory bioassays. Aquatic Toxicology, 198, 118-128. DOI: 10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.03.005 You can download the published version at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2018.03.005 Toxicity of sediment-bound lufenuron to benthic arthropods in laboratory bioassays T.C.M. Brocka,#, J.D.M. Belgersa, M-C. Boerwinkela, L. Jollieb, M.H.S. Kraakb, M.J. Papob, J.A. Vonkb, I. Roessinka a Wageningen Environmental Research (Alterra), Wageningen University and Research, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands b Institute for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Dynamics (IBED), University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands # Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (T.C.M. Brock) Key words: Sediment ecotoxicology Benzoylurea insecticide Sediment-spiked laboratory toxicity tests Benthic macroinvertebrates Species Sensitivity Distributions Regulatory Acceptable Concentration 2 ABSTRACT This paper deals with species sensitivity distributions (SSDs) for the lipophilic insecticide lufenuron and benthic arthropods based on sediment-spiked laboratory toxicity tests.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Review of Pesticide Evaluation Report and Safe Use and Action Plan (Persuap) for Usaid Funded Feed the Future Ghana Agricultural
    REVIEW OF PESTICIDE EVALUATION REPORT AND SAFE USE AND ACTION PLAN (PERSUAP) FOR USAID FUNDED FEED THE FUTURE GHANA AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AND VALUE CHAIN ENHANCEMENT PROJECT (FTF ADVANCE II) NOVEMBER 2019 PROJECT/ACTIVITY DATA Project/Activity Name: Feed The Future Ghana Agricultural Development and Value Chain Enhancement Activity (FTF ADVANCE II) Amendment (Y/N): Y Geographic Location(s) Ghana, Northern Region, Tamale / West Africa (Country/Region): Implementation Start/End: February 2014 to April 2020 Organizational/Administrative Data Implementing Operating Unit USAID Ghana Feed the Future Program Funding Amount: $39,556,780 Prepared by: Gerald Asare MANTEY, Environmental and Plant Health Specialist with assistance from Daniel Kofi Agyare and Michael Afranie. Date Prepared: August, 2019 ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION RECOMMENDED (Place X where applicable) Categorical Exclusion: N/A Negative Determination: X Positive Determination: N/A Deferral: N/A ADDITIONAL ELEMENTS: (Place X where applicable) CONDITIONS: X PVO/NGO: X EMMP (SUAP): X ERR: Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 7 PART 1: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8 1.1 Project Background .......................................................................................................... 8 1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides In
    GB 2763-2016 THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 3/31/2017 GAIN Report Number: CH17016 China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report Approved By: Lisa Anderson Prepared By: FAS Staff Report Highlights: On December 18, 2016, the Chinese National Health and Family Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, China Food and Drug Administration released the National Food Safety Standard - Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Foods (GB 2763-2016). The standard will replace the current MRL Standard (GB 2763-2014) and will be implemented on June 18, 2017. This report provides an unofficial translation of the standard. Editors’ Note: The asterisk appearing in the MRL column means that the limit is a temporary MRL. A temporary MRL is usually set under the following four conditions: 1. The dietary risk assessment data is incomplete; 2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is temporary (ADI is used as the basis for MRL setting); 3. There is no surveillance or analysis method for the MRL that complies with the standard requirements; 4. In emergency situations, the pesticide is approved to be used on un-registered crops. I GB 2763-2016 General Information: BEGIN TRANSLATION ICS 65.100 G 25 GB National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GB 2763—2016 Replacing GB 2763 - 2014 National food safety standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food General Information: National Health and Family Planning Commission Issued by: Ministry of Agriculture China Food and Drug Administration Issued on: 2016-12-18 Implementation:2017-06-18 II GB 2763-2016 Table of Content Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Reflection Paper on Resistance in Ectoparasites
    1 13 September 2018 2 EMA/CVMP/EWP/310225/2014 3 Committee for Medicinal Products for Veterinary Use (CVMP) 4 Reflection paper on resistance in ectoparasites 5 Draft Draft agreed by Efficacy Working Party (EWP-V) May 2018 Adopted by CVMP for release for consultation September 2018 Start of public consultation 21 September 2018 End of consultation (deadline for comments) 31 August 2019 6 Comments should be provided using this template. The completed comments form should be sent to [email protected] 7 Keywords Ectoparasites, resistance to ectoparasiticides 30 Churchill Place ● Canary Wharf ● London E14 5EU ● United Kingdom Telephone +44 (0)20 3660 6000 Facsimile +44 (0)20 3660 5555 Send a question via our website www.ema.europa.eu/contact An agency of the European Union © European Medicines Agency, 2018. Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged. 8 Reflection paper on resistance in ectoparasites 9 Table of contents 10 1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 4 11 2. Definition of resistance ...................................................................................................... 4 12 3. Current state of ectoparasite resistance ............................................................................ 4 13 3.1. Ticks .............................................................................................................................. 4 14 3.2. Mites .............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]