Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33294052›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2020

Study of the different evaluation areas in the pesticide risk assessment process.

National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA), Roberto Molteni, José-Luis Alonso-Prados

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

National Institute for Agricultural and Food Research and Technology (INIA)
Roberto Molteni
José-Luis Alonso-Prados

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Approval of active substances and authorisation of plant protection products in the EU is made based on a strict risk assessment of the agronomic use of the plant protection products. Regulation 1107/2009 regulates the procedure in the EU with complex procedures involving many actors. 'The Farm to Fork strategy' and 'The Biodiversity for 2030 strategy', that are the heart of the 'European Green Deal', aiming to make food systems fair, healthy, environmentally friendly and put Europe's biodiversity on the path to recovery by 2030, for the benefit of people, climate and the planet. Therefore, 'The Farm to Fork strategy' and 'The Biodiversity for 2030 strategy' represents a challenge for the evaluation and authorisation of plant protection products in which the risk management will constitute a key element on the approval of active substances and authorisation of plant protection products. The aim of the work was to get knowledge of the large body of EU legislation and guidelines in the plant production products, identifying the most critical points of the pesticide evaluation in each of its areas, analysing the complexity and the interaction between these different areas. This study allowed to have a global and clearer vision of these procedures, with the focus on highlighting inconsistency and to propose speed up alternatives. Finally, this work will also facilitate not only the risk assessment but also the decision-making on the approval of active substances and the authorisation of plant protection products.

Indexed as

active substanceapprovalauthorisationmaximum residue levelpesticideplant protection productsrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID33294052
PMCPMC7691737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.