Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing maximum residue level (MRL) for picloram in borage and corn gromwell seeds

picloram, borage, corn gromwell seeds, MRL application, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, picolinic acid, herbicides
First published in the EFSA Journal
31 March 2015
20 March 2015
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 Technology Crops Limited to modify the existing maximum residue level (MRL) for the active substance picloram in borage and corn gromwell seeds. In order to accommodate for the intended use of picloram, the United Kingdom proposed to raise the existing MRL from the limit of quantification (LOQ) of 0.01 mg/kg to the proposed MRL of 0.03 mg/kg. 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 on rape seed are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal of 0.03 mg/kg extrapolated to borage and corn gromwell seeds. Although the rape seed samples were analysed for picloram and its conjugates, expressed as picloram, EFSA is of the opinion that the trials can be used to derive a MRL according to the current enforcement residue definition limited to picloram. This MRL proposal might slightly overestimate the actual magnitude of picloram residues. However, since the total residues in rape seed are very low, this discrepancy is considered of low relevance. Although the chronic and acute dietary intake for borage and corn gromwell seeds could not be calculated since there is no reported consumption data for these crops, EFSA concludes that the intended use of picloram on borage and corn gromwell seeds will not result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference values and therefore is unlikely to pose a public health concern.

European Food Safety Authority
pesticides.mrl [at]
EFSA Journal 2015;13(3):4062
Question Number
On request from
European Commission

Background documents