Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing MRLs for isopyrazam in pome fruits, various stone fruits and oilseeds

Isopyrazam, pome and stone fruits, oilseeds, MRL application, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, consumer risk assessment, pyrazole-carboxamide fungicide, syn-/anti-isomers
First published in the EFSA Journal
3 April 2013
22 March 2013
Reasoned Opinion


In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the United Kingdom, hereafter referred to as the evaluating Member State (EMS), received an application from Syngenta Crop Protection UK Ltd to modify the existing MRLs for the active substance isopyrazam in pome fruits, stone fruits and oilseeds. In order to accommodate for the intended uses of isopyrazam, the United Kingdom proposed to raise the existing MRLs from the limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg to 0.7 mg/kg in pome fruits, 1.5 mg/kg in apricots and peaches, including nectarines and 0.4 mg/kg in linseed, poppy seed, mustard seed and rape seed. The United Kingdom drafted an evaluation report in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 which was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA. According to EFSA the data are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal of 0.7 mg/kg for the intended use on pome fruits, 1.5 mg/kg for the intended use on peaches and 0.4 mg/kg for the intended use on rape seed, linseed, mustard seed and poppy seed. The intended use on apricots is not adequately supported by residue data and no MRL proposal can be therefore derived. Adequate analytical enforcement methods are available to control the residues of isopyrazam in the commodities under consideration. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concludes that the proposed use of isopyrazam on pome fruits, peaches, rape seed, linseed, mustard seed and poppy seed will not result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference values and therefore is unlikely to pose a consumer health risk.

European Food Safety Authority
pesticides.mrl [at]
EFSA Journal 2013;11(4):3165
Question Number
On request from
European Commission

Background documents