ArchitectureDriven Quickly Droplet Transportation without having Bulk Damage

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on selenite triglycerides as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283, their safety when added for nutritional purposes to food supplements as a source of selenium and the bioavailability of selenium from this source, in the context of Directive 2002/46/EC. The proposed NF is the first lipophilic organic form of selenium so far described in the literature. It is composed by a mixture of individual Se-containing lipids which do not occur in nature. The Panel considers that the information provided on the composition of the NF does not allow a complete characterisation of the product. From the data provided to characterise the absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of the NF, it cannot be established in which chemical form Se is systemically available and if it can enter the functional Se body pool to fulfil Se physiological functions. The Panel considers that, since it is not demonstrated that the NF is converted to a known form of Se following ingestion and absorption, the NF is to be treated as a xenobiotic with unknown properties in the body. From a subchronic toxicity study in rats, the Panel derives a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for general toxicity of 2 mg Se/kg body weight (bw) per day based on findings indicating liver as a target organ, as it has been shown for other studies on dietary Se. The Panel concludes that the NF is absorbed and provides Se, but in an unknown form of which the bioavailability has not been determined. The Panel also concludes that the safety of the NF under the intended conditions of use cannot be established.In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the applicants Bayer CropScience AG and Bayer SAS submitted two requests to the competent national authority in the Netherlands to set import tolerances and to modify existing EU maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the active substance flupyradifurone and its metabolite difluoroacetic acid (DFA) in various crops. The application also included the request to evaluate the confirmatory data related to residues that were identified in the framework of the peer review of flupyradifurone under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 as not available. The data submitted in support of intended and authorised uses were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for flupyradifurone and DFA in all crops under consideration except for prickly pear and hops; for grapefruit, pome fruits, grape leaves and witloof, further risk management discussion is recommended to decide on the appropriate MRL. Furthermore, EFSA recommended risk management discussion to examine differents use of flupyradifurone. For the remaining commodities of plant and animal origin, EFSA concludes that the intended EU uses and authorised US and Canadian uses of flupyradifurone and resulting residues of DFA will not result in chronic or acute consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference values and therefore is unlikely to pose a risk to consumers' health.The conclusions of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance 24-epibrassinolide and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. PTX-008 were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of 24-epibrassinolide as an elicitor on grapes, leafy vegetables, sugar beet and as plant activator on grapes and cucurbits. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. No concerns are identified.The food enzyme endo-1,4-β-xylanase (4-β-D-xylan xylanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain RF5427 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and recombinant DNA. It is intended to be used in baking, brewing and cereal-based processes, distilled alcohol production and grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation and during grain treatment, dietary exposure was only calculated for baking, brewing and cereal-based processes. Based on the proposed maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.119 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level at the highest dose tested of 939 mg TOS/kg bw per day in a repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rats, resulting in a margin of exposure of at least 7,890. Similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to those of known allergens was searched and no matches were found. The Panel considered that allergenicity can be excluded for distilled alcohol production. #link# The risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions cannot be excluded for baking, brewing and cereal-based processes, and for grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the removal of TOS during the production of distilled alcohol and grain treatment, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) was requested by the European Commission to review the substances for which a Specific Migration Limit (SML) is not assigned in Regulation (EU) No 10/2011. These substances had been covered by the Generic SML of 60 mg/kg food, but with Regulation (EU) 2016/1416 it was removed, necessitating their re-examination. EFSA was requested to identify those substances requiring an SML to ensure the authorisation is sufficiently protective to health, grouping them in high, medium and low priority to serve as the basis for future re-evaluations of individual substances. The CEP Panel established a stepwise procedure. This took into account existing hazard assessments for each substance on carcinogenicity/mutagenicity/reprotoxicity (CMR), bioaccumulation and endocrine disruptor (ED) properties along with the use of in silico generated predictions on genotoxicity. Molecular weights and boiling points were considered with regard to their effect on potential consumer exposure. This prioritisation procedure was applied to a total of 451 substances, from which 78 substances were eliminated at the outset, as they had previously been evaluated by EFSA as food contact substances. link2 For 89 substances, the Panel concluded that a migration limit should not be needed. These are in the lists 0 and 1 of the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), defined as substances for which an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) does not need to be established, along with substances that are controlled by existing restrictions and/or generic limits. Of the remaining 284 substances, 179 were placed into the low priority group, 102 were placed into the medium priority group and 3 were placed into the high priority group, i.e. salicylic acid (FCM No 121), styrene (FCM No 193) and lauric acid, vinyl ester (FCM No 436).According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance metaflumizone. To assess the occurrence of metaflumizone residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011, the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the European authorisations reported by Member States (including the supporting residues data). Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Some information required by the regulatory framework was missing and a possible acute risk to consumers was identified. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only, some MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers and measures for reduction of the consumer exposure should also be considered.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, the Netherlands, and co-rapporteur Member State, France, for the pesticide active substance Akanthomyces muscarius strain Ve6 formerly Lecanicillium muscarium strain Ve6 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. link3 The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of Akanthomyces muscarius strain Ve6 as an insecticide on fruiting vegetables of cucurbitaceae with edible and inedible peel, fruiting vegetables of solanaceae, strawberries, floriculture crops (except roses), cut roses and tree nursery. 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.The European Commission asked EFSA to undertake a 'repair action' of the FOCUS surface water report after the EFSA Pesticide Steering Network had been consulted. The main request was to introduce into all FOCUS surface water scenarios (both run-off and drainage) a 20-year assessment period instead of the current 12- or 16-month assessment period. Because of the 20-year assessment period, the way application dates are defined needed to be reviewed, reconsidering the functionality of the pesticide application timing currently used. Guidance on how substance parameters should be handled when correlated with soil properties has been provided. Foliar wash-off calculated in MACRO and Pesticide Root Zone Model was aligned and the appropriateness of including rotational crop aspects was discussed. Processing time and how to use the results of the exposure assessment were considered.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, Ireland, and co-rapporteur Member State, Denmark, for the pesticide active substance garlic extract and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 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 use of garlic extract as a repellent, insecticide and nematicide on a wide range of crops in agriculture, horticulture, amenity. 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.