| Crop | Region/indoora | Residue levels observed in the supervised residue trials relevant to the supported GAPs (mg/kg) | Recommendations/comments (OECD calculations) | MRL proposals (mg/kg) | HRMo (mg/kg)b | STMRMo (mg/kg)c | CFd |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Main RD‐enforcement 1: glyphosate Values into parentheses refer to the optional RD‐enforcement: sum of glyphosate, AMPA and N‐acetyl‐glyphosate, expressed as glyphosatee | |||||||
|
Citrus fruits Almonds Chestnuts Hazelnuts/cobnuts Walnuts Pome fruits Stone fruits |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study and southern trials, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. No GAP authorised for limes in northern zone |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU |
Mo: 14× < 0.05 RA: 14 × < 0.125 |
Combined data set on tree nuts (2), apricots (4), peaches (2), kiwi (2) and bananas (4), showing no residue in orchard trees (Germany, 2015, 2017) |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Brazil nuts Cashew nuts Coconuts Macadamias Pecans Pine nut kernels Pistachios |
NEU | – | Soil treatment performed at BBCH 00, i.e. before sowing, transplanting or after harvest; no residues are expected at harvest |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU |
Mo: 14× < 0.05 RA: 14 × < 0.125 |
Combined data set on tree nuts (2), apricots (4), peaches (2), kiwi (2) and bananas (4), showing no residue in orchard trees (Germany, 2015, 2017) |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Table grapes | NEU |
Mo: 3 × < 0.05 RA: 3 × < 0.125 |
Trials on grapes compliant with GAP (considering 25% tolerance on PHI, 10 d instead of 14 d) (Germany, 2015). Single positive finding from NEU disregarded as may be avoided provided that proper equipment is used |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU |
Mo: 8 × < 0.05 RA: 8 × < 0.125 |
Trials on grapes compliant with GAP for table and wine grapes (Germany, 2017) |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Wine grapes | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study and southern trials, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU |
Mo: 8 × < 0.05 RA: 8 × < 0.125 |
Trials on grapes compliant with GAP for table and wine grapes (Germany, 2017) |
0.05* |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Strawberries | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Cane fruits | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Soil treatment performed at BBCH 00, i.e. before sowing, transplanting or after harvest; no residues are expected at harvest. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Other small fruits and berries | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials |
(tentative) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
< 0.05 (< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Table olives | NEU | – | No data available. As olives can be picked from the soil, residue trials compliant with GAP are required | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | Mo: 10 × < 0.05RA: 4 × < 0.125 | Trials on olives compliant with GAP (Germany, 2015; Germany, 2017). Only samples from tree picked olives were considered, as specified in the GAP. Two positive findings (0.05 and 0.23 mg/kg) were disregared as it is considered that they could be avoided if proper equipment is used (as for orchards). Some samples were stored up to 32 months, but no degradation is expected to have occurred. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Figs Kumquats Kiwi fruits (green, red, yellow) Kaki/Japanese persimmons Litchis/lychees Passionfruits/maracujas Avocados Mango Papayas Pomegranates Cherimoyas |
SEU | Mo: 14× < 0.05RA: 14 × < 0.125 | Combined data set on tree nuts (2), apricots (4), peaches (2), kiwi (2) and bananas (4), showing no residue in orchard trees (Germany, 2015, 2017) | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Bananas | SEU | Mo: 14× < 0.05RA: 14 × < 0.125 | Combined data set on tree nuts (2), apricots (4), peaches (2), kiwi (2) and bananas (4), showing no residue in orchard trees (Germany, 2015, 2017) | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Import (US) | – | No data available. Drift contamination cannot be excluded for the authorised GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Potatoes | NEU | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; 0.07; 0.09; 0.21; 0.59RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.145; 0.165; 0.285; 0.665 | Trials on potatoes (Germany, 2017). Last 2 values are derived from trials with residues analysed at a longer PHI of 17–18 days. According to these results, it seems that longer PHIs may have an effect on the residues in tuber. It should be clarified if the northern GAP identified by the RMS can be considered as the most critical authorised.MRLOECD = 0.95 | 1i(1)f , i(tentative) | 0.59(0.71) | 0.07(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Sweet potatoes | SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at early growth stage (BBCH 09). A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Yams Arrowroots Cassava roots/manioc | SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
Beetroots Celeriacs/turnip rooted celeries Horseradishes Salsifies Swedes/rutabagas Turnips roots |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at early growth stage (BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. It is noted that GAP compliant trials were available but could not be considered further since generated by using an analytical method not properly validated (2 × < 0.05; 0.07; Germany, 2015). | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Carrots | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Jerusalem artichokes Parsnips Parsley roots/Hamburg roots Radishes |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Turnip tops | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at BBCH 00. Metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that no traslocation from roots to leaves is expected. A no‐residue situation can be anticipated. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| GarlicOnionsShallots | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at early growth stage (BBCH 09). A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Spring onions/green onions and Welsh onions Leeks | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| TomatoesAubergines/eggplants | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | 1g(1)h | |
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | 1g(1)h | |
| Sweet peppers/bell peppers | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Okra/lady's fingers | SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Cucurbits with edible and inedible peel | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| BroccoliCauliflowers | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Brussels sprouts Head cabbages |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Chinese cabbages/pe‐tsai Kale |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Kohlrabies | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Lamb's lettuces/corn salads | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Lettuces Escaroles/broadleaved endives Cresses and other sprouts and shoots Land cresses Roman rocket/rucola Red mustardsBaby leaf crops (including brassica species) Fresh herbs PurslanesChards/beet leaves |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Spinaches | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Grape leaves and similar species | SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Watercresses | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Witloofs/Belgian endives | NEU | – | Application during the field phase (root production) is not expected to lead to significant residues in harvested roots (based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops and provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift). As only limited transfer from roots to leaves is expected, significant residues in witloof (after forcing phase) are unlikely. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application during the field phase (root production) before seeding (BBCH 00). Significant residues are not expected, neither in roots (at harvest) nor in witloof (after forcing phase). However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Beans (with pods) Beans (without pods) Peas (with pods) Peas (without pods) Lentils (fresh) |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| CardoonsCeleriesFlorence fennelsRhubarbs | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Asparagus | NEU | Mo: < 0.05RA: < 0.125 | Trial on asparagus compliant with GAP (Germany, 2017). A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least one additional trial. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Globe artichokes | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Bamboo shoots | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Palm hearts | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| EU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Cultivated fungi | NEU | – | No data available. Uptake from the soil and/or cross‐contamination cannot be excluded for the authorised GAP (metabolism studies are not representative for fungi). | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available. Uptake from the soil and/or cross contamination cannot be excluded for the authorised GAP (metabolism studies are not representative for fungi). | – | – | – | – | |
| Wild fungi | NEU | – | Authorised GAP is on forestry. A no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP, provided that adequate risk mitigation measures are in place to avoid cross‐contamination in wild fungi. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Authorised GAP is on forestry. A no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP, provided that adequate risk mitigation measures are in place to avoid cross‐contamination in wild fungi. | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Beans (dry)Peas (dry) | NEU | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; 0.06; 0.08; 0.14; 0.23; 2.5; 7.62RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.135; 0.155; 0.215; 0.305; 2.6; 7.79 | Combined data set on beans and peas (Germany, 2017).MRLOECD = 10.76 | 15j(30)f , j(tentative) | 7.62(15.24) | 0.07(< 0.2) |
2.0 (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| EU | – | No data available. However, application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00) is expected to be less critical than the northern outdoor GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Lentils (dry) | NEU | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; 0.06; 0.08; 0.14; 0.23; 2.5; 7.62RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.135; 0.155; 0.215; 0.305; 2.6; 7.79 |
Direct extrapolation from combined data set on beans and peas (Germany, 2017). MRLOECD = 10.76 |
15j(30)f , j(tentative) | 7.62(15.24) | 0.07(< 0.2) |
2.0 (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00) is expected to be less critical than the northern outdoor GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| EU | – | No data available. However, application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00) is expected to be less critical than the northern outdoor GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; 1.4; 3.02RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; 1.48; 3.1 |
Trials on lentils performed in USA/Canada compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2017). Storage stability not covered for AMPA (deemed as minor deficiency). MRLOECD = 6.78 |
7(15)f | 3.02(5.4) | 0.73(1.46) |
1.8 (1)h |
|
| Lupins/lupini beans (dry) | NEU | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; 0.06; 0.08; 0.14; 0.23; 2.5; 7.62RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.135; 0.155; 0.215; 0.305; 2.6; 7.79 |
Direct extrapolation from combined data set on beans and peas (Germany, 2017). MRLOECD = 10.76 |
15j(30)f , j(tentative) | 7.62(15.24) | 0.07(< 0.2) |
2.0 (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available. However, application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00) is expected to be less critical than the northern outdoor GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| EU | – | No data available. However, application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00) is expected to be less critical than the northern outdoor GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Linseeds | NEU | Mo: 0.06; 0.21; 0.23; 0.28; 0.35; 0.40; 0.40; 0.40; 0.48; < 0.5; < 0.5; 0.57; 0.60; 0.60; 0.70; 0.90; 0.96; < 1.0; 1.0; 1.3; 1.5; 2.0; 2.0; 2.0; 2.8; 4.1; 4.6; 8.6; 11.6RA: –; –; 0.29; 0.31; –; –; 0.42; 0.48; –; –; 0.68; 0.68; 0.78; < 0.8; < 0.8; 0.98; 1.0; 1.1; < 1.3; 1.3; 1.4; 1.8; 2.3; 2.5; 3.1; 4.6; 4.7; 8.5; 11.9 | Trials on rapeseed compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2017). Extrapolation from rapeseed to linseed is applicable.MRLOECD = 12.13 | 15(15)f | 11.60(11.94) | 0.70(1.14) |
1.1 (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 0.23; 0.93; 1.4; 5.6RA: 0.31; 1.0; 1.48; 5.7 |
Trials on rapeseed compliant with GAP for desiccation (2) or performed with a shorter PHI of 10 days (2) (Germany, 2015). Extrapolation to linseeds is applicable. AMPA above LOQ was quantified in one sample only (0.07 mg/kg). MRLOECD = 11.73 |
15i(15)f , i(tentative) | 5.60(5.74) | 1.17(1.28) |
1.1 (1)h |
|
| Peanuts/groundnuts | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Poppy seeds | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at early growth stage (BBCH 09). No residues are expected. Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Sunflower seeds | NEU | Mo: 2 × <0.5RA: – | Trials on sunflower seed compliant with GAP for desiccation, but not sufficient to derive an MRL (Germany, 2017). According to the RMS, additional trials are available. However, since study reports were not reported to the RMS, they could not be evaluated. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Mustard seeds | NEU | – | No data compliant with GAP for desiccation. No extrapolation possible from rapeseed as the GAP reported for mustard seed is more critical (PHI 7 days instead of 14 days). | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data compliant with GAP for desiccation. No extrapolation possible from rapeseed as the GAP reported for mustard seed is more critical (PHI 8 days instead of 14 days). | – | – | – | – | |
|
Sesame seeds Pumpkin seedsSafflower seeds Gold of pleasure seedsHemp seedsCastor beans |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Borage seeds | NEU | Mo: 0.06; 0.3; 0.3; 2 × 0.4; 0.04; 0.6; 0.7; 0.9; 1.0; 1.3; 2.8; 5.1; 6.8 RA: 0.11; 0.35; 0.35; 2 × 0.45; 0.045; 0.65; 0.75; 0.95; 1.05; 1.35; 2.85; 5.15; 6.85 | Trials on rapeseeds compliant with the GAP for borage seeds (United Kingdom, 2015).Underlined values: samples with no information on storage conditions. Since results were in the range of the other trials, the lack of information is considered a minor deficiency and accepted. Only five trials analysed for AMPA (5 × < 0.05) which is expected to remain < LOQ.MRLOECD: 9.6 | 10(10)f | 6.80(6.85) | 0.65(0.70) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP and this should be in principle confirmed by at least two residue trials. Nevertheless, as the NEU is clearly more critical, no additional trials supporting the SEU GAP are required. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Olives for oil production | NEU | – | No data available. As olives can be picked from the soil, residue trials compliant with GAP are required. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05; < 0.05; 0.11; 0.14; 0.30; 0.53; 0.93; 1.7; 3.3; 7.2; 16RA: –; –; –; 0.185; 0.215; –; 0.605; 1.0; –; –; –; – |
Trials on olives compliant with GAP for soil applications (Germany, 2015, 2017). Samples from ground picked olives were considered (in accordance with possible practices). In all trials analysing for AMPA, this metabolite is < LOQ. Samples stored for up to 32 months, but no degradation is expected to have occurred. MRLOECD = 21.45 |
30(30)f | 16.00(16.1) | 0.42(0.53) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Oil palms kernels | SEU | – | Residues are not expected in palm oil kernel after soil treatment on this crop (kernel is not directly exposed to possible spray drift and limited translocation has been observed in the metabolism studies). | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Oil palms fruits | SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Kapok | SEU | – | Residues are not expected in fruits after soil treatment on this crop (morphology of kapok trees prevent from drift contaminations). | 0.05*(0.2*)f | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Barley grainsoat grains | NEU | Mo: 1.2; 1.5; 2.0; 2.1; 2.1; 2.2; 2.4; 2.5; 2.6; 2.6; 2.8; 3.95; 4.3; 4.4; 4.5; 4.6; 4.8; 5.1; 5.2; 5.2; 5.2; 5.3; 5.4; 5.5; 5.5; 5.7; 5.9; 5.9; 6.2; 6.5; 6.7; 7.4; 7.7; 7.8; 8.0; 8.1; 8.4; 9.8; 10; 10.3; 12.4; 12.5; 14; 15.5; 16.5; 17; 17.5; 18.4; 21; 21.4RA: 1.3; 1.5; 2.1; 2.2; 2.2; 2.3; 2.5; 2.5; 2.7; 2.9; 3.2; 4.2; 4.4; 4.6; 4.9; 5.0; 5.1; 5.2; 5.3; 5.3; 5.3; 5.5; 5.5; 5.6; 5.8; 5.8; 5.9; 6.2; 6.2; 6.6; 6.9; 7.5; 7.9; 8.0; 8.2; 8.3; 8.4; 10; 10.3; 10.4; 12.4; 12.8; 14.4; 16; 16.6; 17.2; 17.8; 18.4; 21.4; 21.6 |
Trials on barley compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015); covered by RAR representative use, some trials did not involve analysis of AMPA, but its contribution is considered insignificant. Extrapolation to oats is applicable. MRLOECD = 28.57 |
30(30)f | 21.40(21.64) | 5.60(5.84) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 6.0; 7.8; 13.5; 19RA: 6.0;7.9;13.7;19.3 |
Trials on barley compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015). Extrapolation to oats is applicable. MRLOECD = 35.15 |
30i , k(30)f , i(tentative) | 19.00(19.34) | 10.65(10.84) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Barley strawoats straw | NEU | Mo: 4.6; 6.9; 9.6; 10.5; 11; 11.5; 12.8; 12.8; 14.5; 16; 17; 18; 22; 24; 26; 26.3; 26.5; 27; 27.3; 28.4; 32.2; 33.3; 36.9; 37; 41.5; 44; 49.7; 54; 56; 60.5; 69.6; 80.5; 86; 90.2; 109; 115; 117; 136; 140RA: 4.7; 6.9; 10; 10.6; 11.3; 12.1; 13.1; 13.2; 14.6; 16.3; 17.7; 18; 22; 24.5; 26.7; 27.1; 27.6; 28.6; 28.7; 29.3; 29.6; 32.7; 33.9; 37.8; 38; 42.1; 44.4; 51.3; 56;60.8; 61.9; 70.7; 83.6; 89.8; 92; 109; 115; 119; 140; 142 |
Trials on barley compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015); covered by RAR representative use, some trials did not involve analysis of AMPA, but its contribution is considered insignificant. Extrapolation to oats is applicable. MRLOECD = 195.54 |
200l(200)f , l(tentative) | 140.00(142) | 28.40(29.5) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 34; 49.5; 66; 102RA: 34.9; 51; 68.1; 105 |
Trials on barley compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015). Extrapolation to oats is applicable. MRLOECD = 188.62 |
200l(200)f , l(tentative) | 102.00(105) | 57.75(59.5) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Import (US) | – | Cereals straw not relevant for import tolerance GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Buckwheat and other pseudo‐cereal grains | NEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Common millet/proso millet grains | NEU | Mo: 0.229; 0.27; 0.279; 0.319; 0.452; 0.558; 0.7; 0.753RA: 0.72; 0.43; 0.82; 0.48; –; –; –; – |
Trials on maize compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2017). Only four trials analysed for AMPA. Residues of AMPA were reconverted to glyphosate using respective molecular weights, assuming that they were expressed as AMPA in the evaluation report. Applicable extrapolation to millet. MRLOECD = 1.34 |
1.5(3)f | 0.75(1.77) | 0.39(0.94) |
2.3 (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | Mo: < 0.05; < 0.05;< 0.05; < 0.05; 0.058; 0.063; 0.1; 0.11RA: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.19; 0.133; 0.14; 0.18 | Conventional GAP supported by trials performed on EPSPS maize. Although EPSPS modification is not expected to alter the metabolic pathway of glyphosate in plants, the data were not used to derive an MRL since results were considered questionable (lower residue levels were observed in this data set compared to the trials compliant with the NEU GAP which is significantly less critical). Outlier of 3.2 mg/kg was disregarded (Germany, 2017). | – | – | – | – | |
| Common millet straw | NEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | Cereals straw not relevant for import tolerance GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Sorghum grains | NEU | Mo: 0.229; 0.27; 0.279; 0.319; 0.452; 0.558; 0.7; 0.753RA: 0.72; 0.43; 0.82; 0.48; –; –; –; – | Direct extrapolation from common millet grain (Germany, 2017).MRLOECD = 1.34 | 1.5(3)f | 0.75(1.77) | 0.39(0.94) |
2.3 (1)h |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Sorghum stover | NEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | Cereals straw not relevant for import tolerance GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Rice grains | SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| Rice straw | SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
|
Wheat grains Rye grains |
NEU |
Mo: 0.05; 0.11; 0.16; 0.19; 0.22; 0.23; 0.23; 0.26; 0.33; 0.5; 0.5; 0.6; 0.64; 0.67; 0.7; 0.7; 0.7;0.7;0.7; 0.71; 0.74; 0.75; 0.75; 0.77; 0.85; 1.3; 1.4; 1.5; 1.55; 1.6; 1.7; 1.7; 1.75; 2.2; 2.4; 2.9; 3.1; 3.45; 3.5; 3.7; 3.85; 4.7; 4.8; 4.85; 5.4; 9.5; 12.4; 17.5 RA: 0.125; 0.18; 0.24; 0.26; 0.27; 0.27; 0.28; 0.29; 0.36; 1.1; 0.58; 0.64; 0.7; 0.74; 0.74; 0.75; 0.77; 0.78; 0.78; 0.78; 0.78; 0.83; 0.83; 0.84; 0.93; 1.3; 1.5; 1.6; 1.6; 1.6; 1.7; 1.8; 1.9; 2.3; 2.4; 2.9; 3.1; 3.5; 3.6; 3.8; 3.9; 4.9; 5.0; 5.0; 5.4; 9.5; 13.3; 18.1 |
Trials on wheat compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015); covered by RAR representative use. Applicable extrapolation to rye. MRLOECD = 17.5 |
20(20)f | 17.50(18.14) | 0.81(1.06) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU |
Mo: 0.07; 0.38; 0.4; 0.4; 0.47; 0.6; 0.95; 1.2; 2.8 RA: 0.15; 0.45; 0.48; 0.48; 0.55; 0.68; 1.0; 1.3; 3.0 |
Trials on wheat compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015). Applicable extrapolation to rye. MRLOECD = 4.08 |
4(4)f | 2.80(3.04) | 0.47(0.59) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
|
Wheat straw Rye straw |
NEU |
Mo: 1.4; 5.3; 8.4; 9.5; 10.3; 10.6; 11.4; 14.7; 14.9; 17.3; 18.5; 19.1; 19.7; 21.5; 24.8; 26.9; 27.4; 27.5; 29.6; 31.4; 34.8; 42; 43.2; 43.8; 44.5; 46; 52.8; 63.3; 68; 70.5; 84.5; 85; 95.3; 95.5; 95.7; 96.5; 99; 175 RA: 1.5; 5.4; 9.3; 10.5; 10.9; 11; 12.6; 15.7; 15.7; 17.6; 19.2; 19.4; 19.9; 22.1; 25.5; 28; 28.2; 28.9; 29.6; 31.8; 35.9; 42.6; 43.2; 44.2; 45.4; 46; 52.8; 64.3; 68; 71.4; 87.5; 88.5; 96.5; 97.3; 97.6; 98; 103; 179 |
Trials on wheat compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015); covered by RAR representative use. Applicable extrapolation to rye. MRLOECD = 193.56 |
200l(200)f , l(tentative) | 175(179) | 30.5(30.7) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 3.4; 15.5; 16; 20; 22; 28; 28.5; 55.5; 98RA: 3.5; 16.9; 18.6; 20.9; 23.2; 29.6; 29.7; 56.5; 99 |
Trials on wheat compliant with GAP for desiccation (Germany, 2015). Applicable extrapolation to rye. MRLOECD = 146.13 |
150l(150)f , l(tentative) | 98(99) | 22(23.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Import (US) | – | Cereals straw not relevant for import tolerance GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Teas | SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Import (US) | – | No residue trials on tea available. Moreover, relevant GAP parameters are missing (growth stage at last treatment or PHI). | – | – | – | – | |
| Coffee beans | SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. | 0.05*, m(0.2*)f , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
Herbal infusions (from flowers Herbal infusions (from leaves and herbs) |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Soil treatment performed at BBCH 00, i.e. before sowing, transplanting or after harvest; Studies on rotational crops indicate that no residues uptake occurs in leafy and in roots crops. No residues are expected at harvest. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Herbal infusions (from roots) | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. It is noted that GAP compliant trials were available but could not be considered further since generated by using an analytical method not properly validated (2 × < 0.05; 0.07; Germany, 2015). | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Carobs/Saint John's breads | SEU | –– | Residues are not expected in fruits after soil treatment on this crop (morphology of carob trees prevent from drift contaminations). | 0.05*, m(0.2*)f , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Hops | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
|
Seed spices Fruit spices |
NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Root and rhizome spices | NEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Bark spicesBud spicesFlower pistil spicesAril spices | SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , m(0.2*)f , i , m(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Sugar canes | SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| Import (US) | – | No data available. | – | – | – | – | |
| Chicory roots | NEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i(0.2*)f , i(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Alfalfa forage | NEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , l(0.2*)f , i , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , l(0.2*)f , i , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Clover forage | NEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , l(0.2*)f , i , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , l(0.2*)f , i , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Grass forage | NEU |
Mo: 3.2; 3.9; 7.4; 8.7; 9.6; 15; 16; 21; 29; 40; 42; 45; 139 RA: 3.5; –; –; 9; –; 15; –; 22; –; –; 43; 46; – |
Trials on grass/pasture compliant with GAP for desiccation (within the 25% deviation). Means of analytical replicates were considered (Germany, 2017). MRLOECD = 178.56 |
200l(200)l(tentative) | 139(139) | 16(16) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | – | Application on soil before seedling, transplanting and after harvest (i.e. BBCH 00). Available metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops indicate that a no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP. However this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.05*, i , l(0.2*)f , i , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Fodder beet roots | NEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*, l(0.2*)f , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 2 × < 0.05RA: 2 × < 0.125 | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP (application on soil at BBCH 00), which is confirmed by 2 southern residue trials performed on sugar beet and performed with a more critical GAP (Germany, 2017). | 0.05*, l(0.2*)f , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| Fodder beet tops | NEU | – | No data available. However, for local treatments by dabbing and rubbing, a no‐residue situation can be anticipated. | 0.05*, l(0.2*)f , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
| SEU | Mo: 2 × < 0.05RA: 2 × < 0.125 | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated for this GAP (application on soil at BBCH 00), which is confirmed by 2 southern residue trials performed on sugar beet and performed with a more critical GAP (Germany, 2017). | 0.05*, l(0.2*)f , l(tentative) | < 0.05(< 0.2) | < 0.05(< 0.2) |
1g (1)h |
|
| RD‐enforcement main = RD‐enforcement optional: sum of glyphosate, AMPA and N‐acetyl‐glyphosate, expressed as glyphosate | |||||||
| Sweet corn | NEU | Mo: 4 × < 0.2RA: – | Trials on maize (sampling on immature maize, 30 days before maturity) (Germany, 2017). Glyphosate and AMPA are below LOQ. N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crops. | 0.2*, f(tentative) | < 0.2 | < 0.2 | 1n |
| SEU | – | A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism studies in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. However, this should be confirmed by at least two residue trials. | 0.2*, i , f(tentative) | < 0.2 | < 0.2 | 1n | |
| Cotton seeds | NEU | – | No data available, but this GAP is expected to be less critical than the southern outdoor GAP (dessication). A no‐residue situation can be anticipated based on metabolism study in primary and rotational crops, provided that proper equipment is used to avoid spray drift. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | Mo: 0.14; 0.30; 0.34; 0.38; 0.49; 0.58; 0.92RA: – | Trials on cotton seeds compliant with GAP for desiccation, with 25% tolerance on the application rate (Germany, 2017). Residue levels are expressed for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA, expressed as glyphosate (AMPA < LOQ). N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crop.MRLOECD = 1.45 | 1.5f(tentative) | 0.92 | 0.38 | 1n | |
| Rapeseed/ canola seed | NEU | Mo: 0.29; 0.31; 0.42; 0.48; 0.68; 0.68; 0.78; < 0.8; < 0.8; 0.98; 1.0; 1.1; < 1.3; 1.3; 1.4; 1.8; 2.3; 2.5; 3.1; 4.6; 4.7; 8.5; 11.9RA: – | Trials on rapeseed compliant GAP (Germany, 2017). Residue levels are expressed for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA, expressed as glyphosate. N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crop.MRLOECD = 13.6 | 15f(tentative) | 11.9 | 1.10 | 1n |
| SEU | Mo: 0.31; 1.0; 1.48; 5.7RA: – | Trials on rapeseed compliant with GAP (2) or performed with a shorter PHI of 10 days (2) (Germany, 2015). Residue levels are expressed for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA, expressed as glyphosate. N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crop.MRLOECD = 11.9 | 15i , f(tentative) | 5.70 | 1.24 | 1n | |
| Soybeans | NEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Maize/corn grain | NEU |
Mo: Trials analysing for sum of glyphosate and AMPA, expressed as glyphosate: 0.43; 0.48; 0.72; 0.82 Trials analysing for glyphosate, recalculated for the sum of glyphosate and AMPA, expressed as glyphosate considering a CF of 2.3: 1.04; 1.28; 1.61; 1.73 RA: – |
Trials on maize compliant with GAP (Germany, 2017). Four trials analysed for glyphosate and AMPA (AMPA residues were reconverted to glyphosate using respective molecular weights, assuming that they were expressed as AMPA in the evaluation report). Four other trials analysed for glyphosate only (0.45; 0.56; 0.7; 0.75) were reconverted to the sum of glyphosate and AMPA, using the CF of 2.3. MRLOECD = 3.0 |
3i , f(tentative) | 1.73 | 0.93 | 1n |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | Mo: < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; < 0.125; 0.19; 0.133; 0.14; 0.18RA: – | Conventional GAP supported by trials performed on EPSPS maize. Although EPSPS modification is not expected to alter the metabolic pathway of glyphosate in plants, the data were not used to derive an MRL since results were considered questionable (lower residue levels were observed in this data set compared to the trials compliant with the NEU GAP which is significantly less critical). Outlier of 3.2 mg/kg was disregarded (Germany, 2017). | – | – | – | – | |
| Maize/corn stover | NEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – |
| SEU | – | No data available to support the GAP for desiccation. | – | – | – | – | |
| Import (US) | – | Cereals straw not relevant for import tolerance GAP. | – | – | – | – | |
| Sugar beet roots | NEU | Mo: 8 × < 0.2RA: – | Trials on sugar beets compliant with GAP (Germany, 2017). Glyphosate and AMPA are below LOQ. N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crops. | 0.2*, f(tentative) | < 0.2 | < 0.2 | 1n |
| SEU | – | No data available. | – | – | – | – | |
| Sugar beet tops | NEU | Mo: 8 × < 0.2RA: – | Trials on sugar beets compliant with GAP (Germany, 2017). Glyphosate and AMPA are below LOQ. N‐acetyl‐glyphosate is not expected in conventional crops. | 0.2*, f , l(tentative) | < 0.2 | < 0.2 | 1n |
| SEU | – | No data available. | – | – | – | – | |
GAP: Good Agricultural Practice; OECD: Organisation for Economic Co‐operation and Development; MRL: maximum residue level.
*Indicates that the MRL is proposed at the limit of quantification.
a
NEU: Outdoor trials conducted in northern Europe, SEU: Outdoor trials conducted in southern Europe, Indoor: indoor EU trials or Country code: if non‐EU trials.
b
Highest residue according to the residue definition for monitoring.
c
Supervised trials median residue according to the residue definition for monitoring.
d
Conversion factor for risk assessment; median of the individual conversion factors at the supported PHI for each residues trial (unless otherwise specified).
e
Values calculated for the optional residue definition correspond to the value calculated for glyphosate, plus residue levels of AMPA (from the trials), plus the LOQ of N‐acetyl‐glyphoste, expressed as glyphosate (i.e. 0.9*0.05=0.04 mg/kg). When metabolite AMPA is below the LOQ, the LOQ was expressed as glyphosate (1.5*0.05 = 0.075 mg/kg).
f
MRLs referring to the residue definition for enforcement ‘sum of glyphosate, AMPA and N‐acetyl‐glyphosate, expressed as glyphosate’ are tentative because confirmatory methods for analysis of N‐acetyl‐glyphosate and AMPA are still required.
g
A conversion factor of 1 was derived since AMPA (or both glyphosate and AMPA) is expected to remain ≤ LOQ. N‐acetyl‐AMPA and N‐acetyl‐glyphosate are not expected in conventional crops.
h
As metabolite N‐acetyl‐AMPA is not expected in conventional crops, a CF of 1 is applicable for all MRLs and risk assessment values derived under the optional residue definition.
i
Tentative MRL is derived because additional trials are required.
j
Tentative MRL is derived because the complete summary of the residue trials (including full assessment of the studies) is still required; moreover, storage stability of AMPA in high protein content commodities is not covered.
k
Considering that the MRL is derived from a lower number of trials compared to the northern data set and that for straw, the same MRL was derived for NEU and SEU datasets, the calculated MRL of 40 may be overestimated. Therefore, a lower MRL of 30 is proposed based on the available data set.
l
Tentative MRL is derived in view of the future MRL setting in feed items.
m
Tentative MRL is derived as a fully validated analytical method for enforcement in complex matrices is still required.
n
A conversion factor of 1 was derived since N‐acetyl‐AMPA is not expected in conventional crops.