DOCSLIB.ORG

EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.5.2020 SWD(2020) 87 Final

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.5.2020 SWD(2020) 87 Final EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 20.5.2020 SWD(2020) 87 final COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Accompanying the document REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market and of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on maximum residue levels of pesticides {COM(2020) 208 final} EN EN Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Purpose of the evaluation .................................................................................... 2 1.2. Scope of the evaluation ....................................................................................... 2 2. BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 3 2.1. Intervention logic ................................................................................................ 4 2.2. Baseline — the situation before the PPP and MRL Regulation .......................... 8 2.2.1. Plant protection products under Council Directive 91/414/EEC ..................... 8 2.2.2. A patchwork regulatory system for MRLs of pesticides ................................ 12 2.3. Baseline — other points of comparison ............................................................ 14 3. IMPLEMENTATION / STATE OF PLAY .............................................................................................. 16 3.1. Societal and political developments .................................................................. 16 3.2. The PPP market ................................................................................................. 17 3.3. Approval of active substances ........................................................................... 18 3.4. Authorisation of plant protection products ........................................................ 19 3.5. Setting and reviewing MRLs ............................................................................. 19 3.6. Public information, risk communication and transparency ............................... 20 3.7. Enforcement and monitoring ............................................................................. 20 3.8. Court cases and complaints ............................................................................... 21 4. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................... 22 4.1. Data collection ................................................................................................... 22 4.2. Limitations and robustness of findings ............................................................. 23 5. ANALYSIS AND ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ................................................ 24 5.1. Effectiveness ..................................................................................................... 24 5.1.1. Protecting human health ................................................................................. 26 5.1.2. Protecting the environment, including wildlife and water ............................. 37 5.1.3. Minimising animal testing .............................................................................. 41 5.1.4. Improving the functioning of the single market ............................................. 43 5.1.5. Improving agricultural production and competitiveness of EU agriculture ... 47 5.1.6. Facilitating international trade ........................................................................ 52 5.1.7. Enforcement ................................................................................................... 55 5.1.8. Transparency and risk communication ........................................................... 57 5.2. Efficiency .......................................................................................................... 61 5.2.1. Costs for industry, farmers and SMEs ............................................................ 62 5.2.2. Costs for the Member States, the Commission and EFSA ............................. 64 5.2.3. Benefits to human health and to the environment .......................................... 76 5.2.4. Societal and agricultural benefits and costs related to PPPs in the EU .......... 77 5.2.5. Benefits from the single market and international trade ................................ 78 5.3. Coherence .......................................................................................................... 79 5.3.1. Pesticides policy area ..................................................................................... 80 5.3.2. Other EU policy areas .................................................................................... 82 5.3.3. International agreements ................................................................................ 85 5.4. Relevance .......................................................................................................... 86 5.4.1. Sustainability .................................................................................................. 87 5.4.2. Innovation and scientific progress .................................................................. 90 5.5. EU added value ................................................................................................. 92 6. CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................... 96 7. REFERENCE LIST ..................................................................................................... 102 Annex 1. Procedural information Annex 2. Synopsis report on the stakeholder consultation Annex 3. Methods and analytical models Annex 4. Costs and benefits Annex 5. Court cases and complaints to the Ombudsman GLOSSARY AND LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Acceptable daily intake (ADI) ADI is a measure of the amount of a specific substance in food or drinking water that can be ingested (orally) on a daily basis over a lifetime without an appreciable health risk. Active substances An active substance is the active component against pests or plant diseases contained in a plant protection product. Acute reference dose (ARfD) The acute reference dose is an estimate of a daily oral exposure for an acute duration (24 hours or less) to humans that is likely not to have deleterious effects during a lifetime. Adjuvant An adjuvant is a chemical or mixture of chemicals that enhances the efficacy of a plant protection product. Annex I renewal programme (AIR) The Annex I renewal programmes are working programmes for the renewal of approval of active substances. They were drawn up to cover all approved active substances and to balance the workload for the evaluating authorities. ALARA principle As low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) is a safety principle designed to minimise radiation doses and releases of radioactive materials. This principle is also applied to other areas involving safety management in particular for issues where no quantified safety level can be established. Basic substances Basic substances are substances that are not predominantly used for plant protection purposes but that may be useful in plant protection. They can be approved for plant protection use provided they are of no concern to human health or the environment. Some of these substances have traditionally been used by farmers, and they may include foodstuffs. Biopesticides Biopesticides include naturally occurring substances derived from animals, plants or bacteria that control pests, as well as microorganisms that control pests (microbial pesticides) Candidates for substitution (CfS) Candidates for substitution are active substances approved in the EU that meet any of the seven criteria listed in Annex II to the Plant Protection Products (PPP) Regulation. The criteria are based on the active substance’s intrinsic hazardous properties in combination with its use. The approval period of a CfS is limited to 7 years. Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues (CCPR) The CCPR is responsible for establishing Codex MRLs)for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food or feed that move in international trade. Codex Limits (CXLs) These are international standards of maximum residue levels of pesticides set by the Codex Alimentarius Commission. CXLs that are considered safe for consumers by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) are taken over as MRLs in EU legislation to facilitate trade. Commodity Food or feed product of plant or animal origin. Co-formulant Plant protection products may contain one or more active substances as well as other materials such as solvents, carriers, inert material, wetting agents, etc. These other materials are referred to as co-formulants. Cut-off criteria Active substances that meet the cut-off criteria cannot be approved in the EU or can only be approved under restricted conditions. These are active substances that are mutagenic; carcinogenic; toxic for reproduction; have endocrine disrupting properties; are persistent organic pollutants (POPs); are persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT); or are considered to be very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB). Dossier Dossiers are submitted to the rapporteur Member State to support the approval or renewal of approval of an active substance. The dossier contains the required data compiled through
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chemicals Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder
    Chemicals Implicated While research is underway to determine the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), pesticides have emerged as one of the prime suspects. Recent bans in Europe attest to the growing concerns surrounding pesticide use and honeybee decline. Neonicotinoids Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. There is major concern that neonicotinoid pesticides may play a role in recent pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids can also be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants. The potential for these residues to affect bees and other pollinators remain uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, neonicotinoids are beginning to dominate the market place, putting pollinators at risk. The case of the neonicotinoids exemplifies two critical problems with current registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides. • Imidacloprid Used in agriculture as foliar and seed treatments, for indoor and outdoor insect control, home gardening and pet products, imidacloprid is the most popular neonicotinoid, first registered in 1994 under the trade names Merit®, Admire®, Advantage TM.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries
    Historical Perspectives on Apple Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Insecticidal Chemistries. Peter Jentsch Extension Associate Department of Entomology Cornell University's Hudson Valley Lab 3357 Rt. 9W; PO box 727 Highland, NY 12528 email: [email protected] Phone 845-691-7151 Mobile: 845-417-7465 http://www.nysaes.cornell.edu/ent/faculty/jentsch/ 2 Historical Perspectives on Fruit Production: Fruit Tree Pest Management, Regulation and New Chemistries. by Peter Jentsch I. Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 Synthetic Pesticide Development and Use II. Influences Changing the Pest Management Profile in Apple Production Chemical Residues in Early Insect Management Historical Chemical Regulation Recent Regulation Developments Changing Pest Management Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 The Science Behind The Methodology Pesticide Revisions – Requirements For New Registrations III. Resistance of Insect Pests to Insecticides Resistance Pest Management Strategies IV. Reduced Risk Chemistries: New Modes of Action and the Insecticide Treadmill Fermentation Microbial Products Bt’s, Abamectins, Spinosads Juvenile Hormone Analogs Formamidines, Juvenile Hormone Analogs And Mimics Insect Growth Regulators Azadirachtin, Thiadiazine Neonicotinyls Major Reduced Risk Materials: Carboxamides, Carboxylic Acid Esters, Granulosis Viruses, Diphenyloxazolines, Insecticidal Soaps, Benzoyl Urea Growth Regulators, Tetronic Acids, Oxadiazenes , Particle Films, Phenoxypyrazoles, Pyridazinones, Spinosads, Tetrazines , Organotins, Quinolines. 3 I Historical Use of Pesticides in Apple Production Overview of Apple Production and Pest Management Prior to 1940 The apple has a rather ominous origin. Its inception is framed in the biblical text regarding the genesis of mankind. The backdrop appears to be the turbulent setting of what many scholars believe to be present day Iraq.
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of the Nation's Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds
    The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds The Impact of the Nation’s Most Widely Used Insecticides on Birds American Bird Conservancy, March 2013 Grasshopper Sparrow by Luke Seitz Cover photos: Horned Lark and chicks by Middleton Evans; Corn field, stock.xchng, sxc.hu; Calico Pennant dragonfly by David Cappaert, Michigan State University, Bugwood.org 1 Neonicotinoid Insecticides and Birds American Bird Conservancy would like to thank the Turner Foundation, Wallace Genetic Foundation, Jeff and Connie Woodman, Cornell Douglas Foundation and A.W. Berry Foundation for their ongoing support for American Bird Conservancy’s Pesticides Program. Written by Dr. Pierre Mineau and Cynthia Palmer Designed by Stephanie von Blackwood About the Authors Dr. Pierre Mineau began his long and distinguished scientific career studying the effects of persistent organochlorine compounds, like DDT and PCBs, on fish-eating birds. He then became responsible for the Canadian assessment of new and existing pesticides to determine their adverse impacts on wildlife. In 1994 he transitioned from regulatory reviews to full-time research on the environmental impacts of pesticides, achieving the rank of Senior Research Scientist at Environment Canada. Working with international collaborators and graduate students, he works on assessing globally the environmental footprint of pesticides. He also studies how birds are exposed to pesticides and how bird populations respond to pesticide use and agricultural practices. His work includes defining the ecological values of birds in cropland as well as estimating the incidental take of birds from various other human activities. He has written more than 100 peer-reviewed publications and has authored some 200 presentations.
    [Show full text]
  • Neuroactive Insecticides: Targets, Selectivity, Resistance, and Secondary Effects
    EN58CH06-Casida ARI 5 December 2012 8:11 Neuroactive Insecticides: Targets, Selectivity, Resistance, and Secondary Effects John E. Casida1,∗ and Kathleen A. Durkin2 1Environmental Chemistry and Toxicology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management, 2Molecular Graphics and Computational Facility, College of Chemistry, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720; email: [email protected], [email protected] Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013. 58:99–117 Keywords The Annual Review of Entomology is online at acetylcholinesterase, calcium channels, GABAA receptor, nicotinic ento.annualreviews.org receptor, secondary targets, sodium channel This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev-ento-120811-153645 Abstract Copyright c 2013 by Annual Reviews. Neuroactive insecticides are the principal means of protecting crops, people, All rights reserved livestock, and pets from pest insect attack and disease transmission. Cur- ∗ Corresponding author rently, the four major nerve targets are acetylcholinesterase for organophos- phates and methylcarbamates, the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor for neonicotinoids, the γ-aminobutyric acid receptor/chloride channel for by Public Health Information Access Project on 04/29/14. For personal use only. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 2013.58:99-117. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org polychlorocyclohexanes and fiproles, and the voltage-gated sodium channel for pyrethroids and dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane. Species selectivity and acquired resistance are attributable in part to structural differences in binding subsites, receptor subunit interfaces, or transmembrane regions. Additional targets are sites in the sodium channel (indoxacarb and metaflumizone), the glutamate-gated chloride channel (avermectins), the octopamine receptor (amitraz metabolite), and the calcium-activated calcium channel (diamides). Secondary toxic effects in mammals from off-target serine hydrolase inhibi- tion include organophosphate-induced delayed neuropathy and disruption of the cannabinoid system.
    [Show full text]
  • Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management
    Manual for Certificate Course on Plant Protection & Pesticide Management (for Pesticide Dealers) For Internal circulation only & has no legal validity Compiled by NIPHM Faculty Department of Agriculture , Cooperation& Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Government of India National Institute of Plant Health Management Hyderabad-500030 TABLE OF CONTENTS Theory Practical CHAPTER Page No. class hours hours I. General Overview and Classification of Pesticides. 1. Introduction to classification based on use, 1 1 2 toxicity, chemistry 2. Insecticides 5 1 0 3. fungicides 9 1 0 4. Herbicides & Plant growth regulators 11 1 0 5. Other Pesticides (Acaricides, Nematicides & 16 1 0 rodenticides) II. Pesticide Act, Rules and Regulations 1. Introduction to Insecticide Act, 1968 and 19 1 0 Insecticide rules, 1971 2. Registration and Licensing of pesticides 23 1 0 3. Insecticide Inspector 26 2 0 4. Insecticide Analyst 30 1 4 5. Importance of packaging and labelling 35 1 0 6. Role and Responsibilities of Pesticide Dealer 37 1 0 under IA,1968 III. Pesticide Application A. Pesticide Formulation 1. Types of pesticide Formulations 39 3 8 2. Approved uses and Compatibility of pesticides 47 1 0 B. Usage Recommendation 1. Major pest and diseases of crops: identification 50 3 3 2. Principles and Strategies of Integrated Pest 80 2 1 Management & The Concept of Economic Threshold Level 3. Biological control and its Importance in Pest 93 1 2 Management C. Pesticide Application 1. Principles of Pesticide Application 117 1 0 2. Types of Sprayers and Dusters 121 1 4 3. Spray Nozzles and Their Classification 130 1 0 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Genetically Modified Baculoviruses for Pest
    INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS This page intentionally left blank INSECT CONTROL BIOLOGICAL AND SYNTHETIC AGENTS EDITED BY LAWRENCE I. GILBERT SARJEET S. GILL Amsterdam • Boston • Heidelberg • London • New York • Oxford Paris • San Diego • San Francisco • Singapore • Sydney • Tokyo Academic Press is an imprint of Elsevier Academic Press, 32 Jamestown Road, London, NW1 7BU, UK 30 Corporate Drive, Suite 400, Burlington, MA 01803, USA 525 B Street, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-4495, USA ª 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved The chapters first appeared in Comprehensive Molecular Insect Science, edited by Lawrence I. Gilbert, Kostas Iatrou, and Sarjeet S. Gill (Elsevier, B.V. 2005). All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Permissions may be sought directly from Elsevier’s Rights Department in Oxford, UK: phone (þ44) 1865 843830, fax (þ44) 1865 853333, e-mail [email protected]. Requests may also be completed on-line via the homepage (http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissions). Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Insect control : biological and synthetic agents / editors-in-chief: Lawrence I. Gilbert, Sarjeet S. Gill. – 1st ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 (alk. paper) 1. Insect pests–Control. 2. Insecticides. I. Gilbert, Lawrence I. (Lawrence Irwin), 1929- II. Gill, Sarjeet S. SB931.I42 2010 632’.7–dc22 2010010547 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-0-12-381449-4 Cover Images: (Top Left) Important pest insect targeted by neonicotinoid insecticides: Sweet-potato whitefly, Bemisia tabaci; (Top Right) Control (bottom) and tebufenozide intoxicated by ingestion (top) larvae of the white tussock moth, from Chapter 4; (Bottom) Mode of action of Cry1A toxins, from Addendum A7.
    [Show full text]
  • 4-Cyano-3-Benzoylamino-N
    (19) TZZ _T (11) EP 2 427 427 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: C07C 255/60 (2006.01) 25.12.2013 Bulletin 2013/52 (86) International application number: (21) Application number: 10713937.0 PCT/EP2010/054862 (22) Date of filing: 14.04.2010 (87) International publication number: WO 2010/127926 (11.11.2010 Gazette 2010/45) (54) 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHENYL-BENZAMIDES FOR USE IN PEST CONTROL 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHENYL-BENZAMIDE ZUR VERWENDUNG IN DER SCHÄDLINGSBEKÄMPFUNG 4-CYANO-3-BENZOYLAMINO-N-PHÉNYL-BENZAMIDES DESTINÉS À ÊTRE UTILISÉS DANS LA LUTTE ANTIPARASITAIRE (84) Designated Contracting States: • HUETER, Ottmar Franz AT BE BG CH CY CZ DE DK EE ES FI FR GB GR CH-4332 Stein (CH) HR HU IE IS IT LI LT LU LV MC MK MT NL NO PL • MAIENFISCH, Peter PT RO SE SI SK SM TR CH-4332 Stein (CH) (30) Priority: 06.05.2009 GB 0907822 (74) Representative: Herrmann, Jörg et al 18.12.2009 GB 0922234 Syngenta Crop Protection Münchwilen AG (43) Date of publication of application: Intellectual Property Department 14.03.2012 Bulletin 2012/11 Schaffhauserstrasse CH-4332 Stein (CH) (73) Proprietor: Syngenta Participations AG 4058 Basel (CH) (56) References cited: EP-A1- 1 714 958 WO-A1-2008/000438 (72) Inventors: WO-A1-2008/074427 • JUNG, Pierre Joseph Marcel CH-4332 Stein (CH) Remarks: • GODFREY, Christopher Richard Ayles Thefile contains technical information submitted after CH-4332 Stein (CH) the application was filed and not included in this specification Note: Within nine months of the publication of the mention of the grant of the European patent in the European Patent Bulletin, any person may give notice to the European Patent Office of opposition to that patent, in accordance with the Implementing Regulations.
    [Show full text]
  • (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,900,554 B2 Tamarkin Et Al
    US0089.00554B2 (12) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 8,900,554 B2 Tamarkin et al. (45) Date of Patent: *Dec. 2, 2014 (54) FOAMABLE COMPOSITION AND USES 3,062,715. A 1 1/1962 Reese et al. THEREOF 3,067,784 A 12/1962 Gorman 3,092.255. A 6, 1963 Hohman 3,092,555 A 6, 1963 Horn (75) Inventors: Dov Tamarkin, Maccbim (IL); Doron 3,141,821 A 7, 1964 Compeau Friedman, Karmei Yosef (IL); Meir 3,142,420 A 7/1964 Gawthrop Eini, Ness Ziona (IL) 3: A S3; sistenbackaa. (73) Assignee: Foamix Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Rehovot 3:33 A 1943: Sir (IL) 3.236,457 A 2/1966 Kennedy et al. 3,244,589 A 4, 1966 Sunnen (*) Notice: Subject to any disclaimer, the term of this 3,252,859 A 5, 1966 Silver patent is extended or adjusted under 35 3.333 A 3. Siskiewicz U.S.C. 154(b) by 0 days. 3,263,8694- W - A 8, 1966 Corsetteea spent is Subject to a terminal disis- 3,301,4443,298.919 A 1/19671, 1967 WittkeBishop et al. 3,303,970 A 2f1967 Breslau et al. 3,330,730 A 7, 1967 Hernandez (21) Appl. No.: 13/400,330 3,333,333 A 8, 1967 Noack 3,334,147 A 8, 1967 Brunelle et al. (22) Filed: Feb. 20, 2012 3,346,451 A 10, 1967 Collins et al. (Continued) (65) Prior Publication Data US 2012/0148503 A1 Jun. 14, 2012 FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS AU 19878O257 9, 1986 AU 7825.15 12/2005 Related U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Acute Toxicity of Selected Insecticides and Their Safety to Honey Bee (Apis Mellifera L.) Workers Under Laboratory Conditions
    Open Access Austin Environmental Sciences Special Article - Pesticides Acute Toxicity of Selected Insecticides and Their Safety to Honey Bee (Apis mellifera L.) Workers Under Laboratory Conditions Abbassy MA1*, Nasr HM1, Abo-yousef HM2 and Dawood RR1 Abstract 1 Department of Plant Protection, Damanhur University, Objectives: The honey bee, Apis mellifera L., is widely used for the Egypt production of honey, wax, pollen, propolis, royal jelly and venom and crop 2Central Laboratory of Pesticides, Ministry of Agriculture pollination. Since honey bees can be exposed to insecticides in sprayed flowering and Land Reclamation, Egypt crops, therefore, this study aimed to assess the acute toxicity and safety index *Corresponding author: Moustafa A Abbassy, of five commonly used insecticides to honey bee workers in laboratory. Department of Plant Protection, Damanhur University, Methods: Bees were exposed to the insecticides: Imidacloprid, Pesticide Chemistry and Toxicology, Egypt Thiamethoxam, Esfenvalerate, Indoxacarb and Chlorantraniliprole by two Received: May 03, 2020; Accepted: May 25, 2020; methods of exposure: topical application and feeding techniques. LD50 and LC50 Published: June 01, 2020 values for each insecticide to honey bees were determined after 24 and 48 h from treatment. Results: The LD50 values in µg per bee were 0.0018 (indoxacarb), 0.019 (esfenvalerate), 0.024 (thiamethoxam), 0.029 (imidacloprid) and 107.12 -1 (chlorantraniliprole). The LC50 values (mg L ), for each insecticide, were as follows: indoxacarb, 0.091; esfenvalerate, 0.014; thiamethoxam, 0.009; imidacloprid, 0.003 and chlorantraniliprole, 0.026, after 24 h from exposure. In general, the neonicotinoid insecticides were the most toxic to bees by feeding technique, and indoxacarb, esfenvalerate were the most toxic by contact method while chlorantraniliprole had slightly or non- toxic effect by the two methods.
    [Show full text]
  • Rep12/Pr Joint Fao/Who Food Standards Programme
    E REP12/PR JOINT FAO/WHO FOOD STANDARDS PROGRAMME CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION 35th Session Geneva, Switzerland, 2 – 7 July 2012 REPORT OF THE 44th SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES Shanghai, China, 23 - 28 April 2012 Note: This report includes Codex Circular Letter CL 2012/10-PR. E CX 4/40.2 CL 2012/10-PR May 2012 To: - Codex Contact Points - Interested International Organizations From: Secretariat, Codex Alimentarius Commission, Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, E-mail: [email protected], Fax: +39 06 57054593) Viale delle Terme di Caracalla, 00153 Rome, Italy SUBJECT: DISTRIBUTION OF THE REPORT OF THE 44TH SESSION OF THE CODEX COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDE RESIDUES (REP11/PR) The report of the 44th Session of the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues will be considered by the 35th Session of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (Rome, Italy, 2 – 7 July 2012). PART A: MATTERS FOR ADOPTION BY THE 35TH SESSION OF THE CODEX ALIMENTARIUS COMMISSION: 1. Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides at Step 8 (paras. 28 - 85 and Appendix II); 2. Draft Revision to the Codex Classification of Food and Animal Feed (fruit commodity groups) at Step 8 (para. 107 and Appendix VIII); 3. Draft Principles and Guidance for the Selection of Representative Commodities for the Extrapolation of Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides to Commodity Groups (including Table 1: Examples of the selection of representative commodities - fruit commodity groups) at Step 8 (para. 127 and Appendix XI); and 4. Proposed Draft Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides at Step 5/8 (with omission of Steps 6/7) (paras.
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2012/080415 Al 21 June 2012 (21.06.2012) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2012/080415 Al 21 June 2012 (21.06.2012) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: (74) Agent: THWAITE, Jonathan; Syngenta Crop Protection, A 43/36 (2006.01) A01N 47/06 (2006.01) Munchwilen AG, Schaffhauserstrasse, CH-4332 Stein A 43/40 (2006.01) A01N 51/00 (2006.01) (CH). A 43/90 (2006.01) A01P 9/00 (2006.01) (81) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every A01N 57/ (2006.01) A01P 7/04 (2006.01) kind of national protection available): AE, AG, AL, AM, A0 43/56 (2006.01) A01P 7/02 (2006.01) AO, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BH, BR, BW, BY, BZ, A0 53/00 (2006.01) A01P 7/00 (2006.01) CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, A0 43/707 (2006.01) A01P 5/00 (2006.01) DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, (21) International Application Number: HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, KR, PCT/EP20 11/072946 KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, (22) International Filing Date: OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SC, SD, 15 December 201 1 (15. 12.201 1) SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, (25) Filing Language: English TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]