據(jù)歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）消息，2025年8月6日，歐盟食品安全局就活性物質(zhì)乙膦酸（fosetyl）的農(nóng)藥風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估發(fā)布同行評(píng)審。
經(jīng)過評(píng)估，將乙膦酸作為殺菌劑用在葡萄、柑橘和梨果的基礎(chǔ)上，歐盟食品安全局提出了適用于監(jiān)管風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估的可靠端點(diǎn)，列出了監(jiān)管框架要求的缺失信息，關(guān)注點(diǎn)已確定。部分原文報(bào)道如下：
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co-rapporteur Member State, Estonia, for the pesticide active substance fosetyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of fosetyl as a fungicide on grapes, citrus and pome fruits. The conclusions from 2018 were updated with regard to the endocrine-disrupting properties following a mandate received from the European Commission in October 2019. 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.
經(jīng)過評(píng)估，將乙膦酸作為殺菌劑用在葡萄、柑橘和梨果的基礎(chǔ)上，歐盟食品安全局提出了適用于監(jiān)管風(fēng)險(xiǎn)評(píng)估的可靠端點(diǎn)，列出了監(jiān)管框架要求的缺失信息，關(guān)注點(diǎn)已確定。部分原文報(bào)道如下：
The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co-rapporteur Member State, Estonia, for the pesticide active substance fosetyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of fosetyl as a fungicide on grapes, citrus and pome fruits. The conclusions from 2018 were updated with regard to the endocrine-disrupting properties following a mandate received from the European Commission in October 2019. 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.
