Skip to main content

Evaluation of the emergency authorisations granted by Member State Poland for plant protection products containing imidacloprid, thiacloprid or thiamethoxam

on the Wiley Online Library

Metadata

Abstract

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested by the European Commission to provide technical assistance in accordance with Article 53(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to examine the emergency authorisations granted in 2020 by the competent national authority in Poland for plant protection products containing the neonicotinoid active substances (a.s.) clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiamethoxam or thiacloprid for uses on sugar beet which were restricted when all outdoor uses were prohibited either in May 2018 or in the case of thiacloprid a decision on its non‐renewal of approval coming into force in August 2020. EFSA was asked to assess whether the granting of these emergency authorisations and their wide scope was necessary because of danger which cannot be contained by any other reasonable means. In this context, EFSA collected and evaluated the information in relation to the emergency authorisation for imidacloprid thiacloprid and thiamethoxam in Poland in line with the EFSA insecticide protocol developed in the framework of a mandate concerning the application of Article 4(7) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. This technical report summarises the outcome of the evaluation of two crop/pest combinations considered in Poland in 2020. The evaluation demonstrated that for both tested pests of sugar beet (Agrotis spp. & Bothynoderes punctiventris) no sufficient alternative active substances to neonicotinoids are currently authorised in Poland, in order to provide alternative modes of action (MoA). The evaluation included an assessment of non‐insecticide alternatives for the presented uses. Cultural methods (soil tillage, isolation between fields, early sowing date, sowing rate increase, weeding out including field bounds, keeping higher soil moisture) are considered as of low to moderate efficacy and not always feasible. These methods are used in a small scale (i.e. applied on less than 10% of the acreage of the crop). Biocontrol with parasitic nematodes is considered as moderately effective.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6958/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6959/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6960/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6961/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6963/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6964/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6965/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6966/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6967/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6968/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6969/full

Related topic(s)