Pasar al contenido principal

Evaluation of the emergency authorisations granted by Member State France for plant protection products containing imidacloprid 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 2021 by the competent national authority in France for plant protection products containing the neonicotinoid active substances (a.s.) clothianidin, imidacloprid or thiamethoxam for uses on sugar beet which were restricted when all outdoor uses were prohibited in May 2018. EFSA was asked to assess whether the granting of this emergency authorisation and its 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 and thiamethoxam in France 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. The current technical report summarises the outcome of the evaluation of four crop/pest combinations considered in France in 2021.The evaluation demonstrated that for the examined pests (Aphis fabae, Aulacorthum solani, Macrosiphum euphorbiae, Myzus ascalonicus and Myzus persicae) vectors of the quarantine virus BYV (beet yellows virus) no alternative active substance to neonicotinoids is currently authorised in France on sugar beet for seed treatment. Foliar spraying applications against the aphid vectors of BYV can’t be considered as sufficient alternative method to the seed treatment, because they can't control the early proliferation of aphids. The evaluation included an assessment of non‐insecticide alternatives for the presented uses. Seven non‐chemical methods are available, but they are only moderately effective. For this reason, EFSA concluded when considering the methodology of the EFSA Article 4(7) insecticide protocol, that the emergency authorisations were scientifically supported.

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-6962/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-6969/full

Tema(s) relacionado(s)