Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713 (formerly Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713)

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713, form...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Maria Anastassiadou, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Alba Brancato, Laszlo Bura, Luis Carrasco Cabrera, Eugenia Chaideftou, Arianna Chiusolo, Federica Crivellente, Chloe De Lentdecker, Mark Egsmose, Gabriella Fait, Luna Greco, Alessio Ippolito, Frederique Istace, Samira Jarrah, Dimitra Kardassi, Renata Leuschner, Alfonso Lostia, Christopher Lythgo, Oriol Magrans, Iris Mangas, Ileana Miron, Tunde Molnar, Laura Padovani, Juan Manuel Parra Morte, Ragnor Pedersen, Hermine Reich, Miguel Santos, Rachel Sharp, Csaba Szentes, Andrea Terron, Manuela Tiramani, Benedicte Vagenende, Laura Villamar‐Bouza
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2021-01-01
Series:EFSA Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6381
Description
Summary:Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713, formerly Bacillus subtilis strain QST 713, are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain QST 713 as a fungicide on strawberry (field and greenhouse uses) and grapes (field use). The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.
ISSN:1831-4732