National summary reports on pesticide residue analysis performed in 2018

In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, European Union (EU) Member States have to communicate to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the results of their official controls on pesticide residues in food. In the framework of this communication, the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway provided a short summary report outlining the main findings of the control activities during the reference year. This technical report is the compilation of the contributions of the reporting countries.

In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, European Union (EU) Member States provide to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the results of their official controls on pesticide residues in food. In this framework, the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway provided further information in the form of explanatory text outlining main findings of their control activities during the reference year. This Technical report is the compilation of those contributions of the reporting countries.

In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No. 396/2005, European Union (EU) Member States provide to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) the results of their official controls on pesticide residues in food. In this framework, the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway provided further information in the form of explanatory text outlining main findings of their control activities during the reference year. This Technical report is the compilation of those contributions of the reporting countries.

Disharmonization in the Regulation of Transgenic Plants in Europe

Purpose– The purpose of this study is to assess how the recent financial and economic crisis has affected European Union (EU) member states’ ability to attract intellectual capital. The issue was found to be relevant, as one of the key elements of competitiveness today is the ability to attract intellectual capital and the question how the recent financial and economic crisis has changed this ability of EU member states can be asked. The question is relevant in relation to the diversity of effects that the crisis had on EU member states, including, the different levels of real economy adjustment constraints.Design/methodology/approach– The concept of competitiveness applied by the World Economic Forum (WEF) in constructing the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) was used. Based on selected WEF GCI sub-indicators and the WEF’s methodology, we a new index named “Ability to attract intellectual capital” was generated. EU member states’ performance was compared along this indicator for the 2007-2008 (pre-crisis) and the 2013-2014 (post-crisis) periods. In this way, EU member states can be ranked before and after the crisis; their performance can be compared in the two periods, relatively to each other, and in relation to their performance along other relevant indices.Findings– The findings show interesting results. First, many peripheral EU member states, deeply affected by the crisis, could considerably improve their relative positions between 2007 and 2013. Second, the Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) countries show a rather mixed picture, drawing up rather different individual development paths. Third, the advancements in some countries do not imply that overall convergence is proceeding in the EU. Nevertheless, some countries have not wasted the “good” crisis to take those steps of structural reform.Research limitations/implications– Because we only look at two time periods (pre-and post-crisis), the authors are not able to describe the processes that were going on in the EU member states during the years of the crisis; the results can only show the difference between the two periods. Furthermore, there may be other methodological approaches to countries’ abilities to attract intellectual capital that may bring results different from this study’s results. For the countries who, according to our investigations, could improve these abilities, enhanced competitiveness is likely to occur in a few years’ time.Practical implications– For those countries aiming at improving their abilities to attract intellectual capital, or for EU policy design, this research may provide useful results. Moreover, not only this study’s results but also the methodology can be used by others, for other purposes: to compare different years, different sets of countries included in the WEF GCI or even along different dimensions.Social implications– This study’s research findings, the authors believe, will help EU member states and the EU as a whole in getting to know their abilities to attract intellectual capital better. In the introductory part of this paper, the aim was also to collect arguments from the economic theory to explain why such abilities are crucial for future competitiveness of countries.Originality/value– The methodology that was used is the adoption of WEF methodology, and the data are from the WEF GCI dataset. However, to the authors’s knowledge, no other research work has applied this methodology on this set of WEF GCI sub-indicators, with such purposes as to compare EU member states’ abilities to attract intellectual capital before and after the crisis.

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 12, Issue 12 918E External scientific reportOpen Access Use of the EFSA Standard Sample Description ver. 2.0 (SSD2) for the reporting of data on the control of pesticide residues in food and feed according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA), National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA) National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA)Search for more papers by this author National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA), National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA) National Sanitary Veterinary and for Food Safety Authority of Romania (ANSVSA)Search for more papers by this author First published: 17 December 2015 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-918 The present document has been produced and adopted by the bodies identified above as author(s). This task has been carried out exclusively by the author(s) in the context of a contract between the European Food Safety Authority and the author(s), awarded following a tender procedure. The present document is published complying with the transparency principle to which the Authority is subject. It may not be considered as an output adopted by the Authority. The European Food Safety Authority reserves its rights, view and position as regards the issues addressed and the conclusions reached in the present document, without prejudice to the rights of the authors. Published date: 17 December 2015 Question number: EFSA-Q-2014-00487 AboutReferencesRelatedInformationPDFPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessClose modalShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL References EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010. Standard sample description for food and feed. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(1):1457, 54 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1457 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014a. Use of the EFSA Standard Sample Description for the reporting of data on the control of pesticide residues in food and feed according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (2013 Data Collection). EFSA Journal 2014; 12(1):3545 60 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3545 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014b. Guidance on the data exchange version 2.0. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(12):3945, 173 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3945 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015a. The EFSA Data Warehouse access rules. EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-76, 18 pp. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015b. The 2013 European Union report on pesticide residues in food. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(3):4038, 169 pp, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4105 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015c. Guidelines for reporting data on residues of veterinary medicinal products. EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-783. 77 pp. European Commission, 2013. Guidance document on analytical quality control and validation procedures for pesticide residues analysis in food and feed. SANCO/12571/2013. Volume12, Issue12December 2015918E ReferencesRelatedInformation RecommendedUse of the EFSA Standard Sample Description for the reporting of data on the control of pesticide residues in food and feed according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005European Food Safety Authority, EFSA JournalUse of the EFSA Standard Sample Description for the reporting of data on the control of pesticide residues in food and feed according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (revision 1)European Food Safety Authority, EFSA JournalUse of the EFSA Standard Sample Description (SSD) for the reporting of data on the control of pesticide residues in food and feed according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 (Version: 2013 Data Collection)European Food Safety Authority, EFSA JournalStandard Sample Description ver. 2.0European Food Safety Authority, EFSA JournalEFSA Catalogue browser User GuideEuropean Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Sofia Ioannidou, EFSA Supporting Publications

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), by request of the European Commission, develops pest survey cards for pests of relevance for the European Union (EU) member states, summarizing key biological, epidemiological and diagnostic information relevant for the detection and identification of these pests by inspectors and laboratory technicians in the EU member states. For three pilot pests, including emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis), detailed guidelines are being prepared for the survey planners in the EU member states. Interaction with experts on the relevant organisms and the member states is needed before and after implementation of the surveys to ensure they are fit for purpose and can be harmonized across the EU. An important feature of the survey cards is the identification of risk factors, to focus the surveys on the most likely areas to find the pest if it is present and thus being able to apply a risk-based surveillance. Since 2014, ash wood and bark (from countries where A. planipennis is known to occur) are subjected to specific requirements laid down in Council Directive 2000/29/EC, the beetle is unlikely to enter the EU via this pathway. However, it cannot fully be excluded that introductions have happened before these requirements came into force, without being detected until now. In addition, the beetle could already be present in new third countries without being noticed yet and thus not regulated. Furthermore, firewood from countries adjacent to Russia (Belarus, Ukraine) is not restricted. The beetle could also hitch-hike to the EU by various means of transport, in particular via highways and railroads. Given the above, surveys should focus on these areas.

EFSA JournalVolume 10, Issue 6 2763 Reasoned OpinionOpen Access Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for amitrole according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author First published: 12 June 2012 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2763 Correspondence: pesticides.mrl@efsa.europa.eu Acknowledgement: EFSA wishes to thank the rapporteur Member State France for the preparatory work on this scientific output. Approval date: 9 June 2012 Published date: 12 June 2012 Question number: EFSA-Q-2008-488 On request from: EFSA AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References EC (European Commission), 1996. Appendix G. Livestock Feeding Studies. 7031/VI/95 rev.4. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997a. Appendix A. Metabolism and distribution in plants. 7028/IV/95-rev.3. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997b. Appendix B. General recommendations for the design, preparation and realization of residue trials. Annex 2. Classification of (minor) crops not listed in the Appendix of Council Directive 90/642/EEC. 7029/VI/95-rev.6. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997c. Appendix C. Testing of plant protection products in rotational crops. 7524/VI/95-rev.2. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997d. Appendix E. Processing studies. 7035/VI/95-rev.5. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997e. Appendix F. Metabolism and distribution in domestic animals. 7030/VI/95-rev.3. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997f. Appendix H. Storage stability of residue samples. 7032/VI/95-rev.5. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 1997g. Appendix I. Calculation of maximum residue level and safety intervals. 7039/VI/95. As amended by the document: classes to be used for the setting of EU pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs). SANCO 10634/2010. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 2000. Residue analytical methods. For pre-registration data requirement for Annex II (part A, section 4) and Annex III (part A, section 5 of Directive 91/414. SANCO/3029/99-rev.4. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 2001. Review report for the active substance amitrole. Finalised in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at its meeting on 12 December 2000 in view of the inclusion of amitrole in Annex I of Council Directive 91/414/EEC. SANCO 6839/VI/97 Final, 22 March 2001. Available online: ec.europa.eu/sanco_pesticides/public/index.cfm?event=tctivesubstance.selection EC (European Commission), 2010a. Classes to be used for the setting of EU pesticide Maximum Residue Levels (MRLs). SANCO 10634/2010 Rev. 0, finalized in the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health at its meeting of 23–24 March 2010. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 2010b. Residue analytical methods. For post-registration control. SANCO/825/00-rev.8-1. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EC (European Commission), 2011. Appendix D. Guidelines on comparability, extrapolation, group tolerances and data requirements for setting MRLs. 7525/VI/95-rev.9. Available online: ec.europa.eu/food/plant/protection/resources/publications_en.htm EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2007. Reasoned opinion on the potential chronic and acute risk to consumers' health arising from proposed temporary EU MRLs according to Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 on Maximum Residue Levels of Pesticides in Food and Feed of Plant and Animal Origin. 15 March 2007. EURL (European Union Reference Laboratories for Pesticide Residues), 2012. Data pool on method validation for pesticide residues. Status on 31 May 2012. Available online: www.crl-pesticides-datapool.eu FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), 1974. amitrole. In: Pesticide residues in food – 1974. Report of the Joint Meeting of the FAO Panel of Experts on Pesticide Residues in Food and the Environment and the WHO Expert Group on Pesticide Residues. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), 1993. Amitrole. In: Pesticide residues in food – 1993. Evaluations. Part I. Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 117. Available online: www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/pm/jmpr/jmpr-rep/en/ FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), 1998. Amitrole. In: Pesticide residues in food – 1998. Evaluations. Part I. Residues. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 079. Available online: www.fao.org/agriculture/crops/core-themes/theme/pests/pm/jmpr/jmpr-rep/en/ FAO (Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations), 2009. Submission and evaluation of pesticide residues data for the estimation of Maximum Residue Levels in food and feed. Pesticide Residues. 2nd Ed. FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper 197, 264 pp. France, 1996. Draft assessment report on the active substance amitrole prepared by the rapporteur Member State France in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, June 1996. France, 2000. Addendum to the draft assessment report on the active substance amitrole prepared by the rapporteur Member State France in the framework of Council Directive 91/414/EEC, March 2000. Volume10, Issue6June 20122763 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Modification of the existing MRLs for kresoxim-methyl in blueberries and cranberries.

<p>Harmonisation of monitoring and reporting of biological hazards in the European Union (EU) Member States is crucial to enable proper analyses and interpretation of the information at EU level. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has issued technical specifications for the monitoring and reporting that together with the relevant EU legislation and reports deriving from EFSA’s grant projects have importantly improved the comparability and quality of the data submitted by EU Member States on zoonoses, antimicrobial resistance and foodborne outbreaks. EFSA’s published technical specifications cover the monitoring of verotoxigenic <em>Escherichia coli</em>, <em>Yersinia enterocolitica</em> and antimicrobial resistance in food and animals as well as reporting on foodborne outbreaks. The grant project reports submitted to EFSA provide recommendations on the monitoring of foodborne parasites, Q fever and rabies as well as on the conduct of national surveys on zoonotic agents in food. These specification and reports guide the Member States in the implementation of risk-based monitoring and designing surveys in animals and food. EFSA will continue the gradual harmonisation of the monitoring of zoonotic agents in the coming years.</p>

The purpose of this chapter is to analyze a particular aspect of the so-called Dublin Regulation, whose aim is to determine the European Union (EU) Member State responsible for examining an asylum application, that is, the presumption that the EU Member States are “safe countries.” Although the notion of “safe country” is on the base of the Dublin Regulation functioning mechanism, as it implies that any EU Member States can transfer an asylum seeker to any other EU country which is responsible, the authors contend that the safety of an EU Member State can be given as presumed for the purpose of asylum seekers. The analysis of the present work starts, firstly, with the examination of the notion of “safe country” under the Dublin Regulation. In the second part, relying on the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECHR) case-law, it will be discussed to what extent the Court of Strasbourg clarifies the notion of “safe countries” and the test it applies to it. Finally, the Commission’s proposal for a recasting of the Dublin Regulation will be analysed with the aim of foresee possible future developments of the EU law mechanisms to rebut such a presumption as applied to the EU Member States. It will emerge that in order to assess the safety of an EU Member State, attention has to be given to the prohibition of both direct and indirect refoulement as well as to the effective remedy at the EU Member State’s domestic level.

In this paper, I address the issue of European Union (EU) Member States' participation in the World Trade Organization (WTO) after the EU Reform Treaty enters into force. In Giuliano Amato's view, no member of the EU is powerful enough to be taken seriously on its own in the international arena. Thus, in order to play an effective role in the world, the EU must join together. In this sense, coordinating its foreign trade policies and streamlining the process was one of Amato's major ambitions during the Convention on the future of Europe. If Amato's ambitions were to materialize, it would therefore be correct to interpret that EU Member States will no longer participate in the WTO forum because the EU Constitutional and Reform Treaties give exclusive competence to the EU in all areas of trade policy. However, how do we reconcile the fact that the EC and its Member States are currently members of the WTO, but after the EU Constitutional Treaty or its successor, the Reform Treaty, the EU will have exclusive competence in all trade matters? Aren't EU Member States sovereign states? Once the EU Reform Treaty is in force, how will the current polycephalous physiognomy of the EU in the WTO change? Will it make a difference? Will the EU become monocephalous in international trade negotiations, i.e., a sole trade actor? What will its implications be? Will EU Member States disappear from international trade fora? Is the EU becoming a federation of States when it comes to trade policy?

The most powerful European Union (EU) member states have suffered devastating terrorist attacks in the past decades and identify Islamist terrorism as one of the most pressing threats to their national security. They recognize that instability in the southern neighbourhood has exacerbated the threat Islamist terrorism poses to their national security. Adopting an intergovernmental approach, I argue that member states’ southern strategies are a product of threat perceptions and policy response preferences. This article creates a typology of security strategies through using content analysis to categorize EU member states’ threat perceptions and policy response preferences as indicated in national security strategies produced in 2009–2018 period. Based on my analysis of member states’ threat perceptions and policy response preferences to threats emanating in the southern neighbourhood, I conceptualize three southern security strategies: restraint, preventative engagement, and selective intervention. Based on this typology, I identify the EU member states’ southern security strategy. Focusing particularly on the most powerful EU member states, namely the EU-5 , I then apply this typology to make some tentative predictions on the shifts in the EU’s southern strategy post-Brexit. I expect the EU’s southern security strategy to shift towards one of selective intervention in the post-Brexit period.

In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, European Union Member States provide the European Food Safety Authority with the results of their official controls on pesticide residues in food. The Member States, Iceland and Norway provided further information in the form of explanatory text outlining the main findings of their control activities during the reference year. This technical report is a compilation of those contributions.

In accordance with Article 31 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, European Union Member States provide the European Food Safety Authority with the results of their official controls on pesticide residues in food. The Member States, Iceland and Norway provided further information in the form of explanatory text outlining the main findings of their control activities during the reference year. This technical report is a compilation of those contributions.