Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41210515›Full record

ReviewEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2025

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance phenmedipham.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Fernando Álvarez, Maria Arena, Domenica Auteri, Sofia Batista Leite, Marco Binaglia, Anna Federica Castoldi, Arianna Chiusolo, Angelo Colagiorgi, Mathilde Colas and 38 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

What it found

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

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

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

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

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

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

48 authors.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)
Fernando Álvarez
Maria Arena
Domenica Auteri
Sofia Batista Leite
Marco Binaglia
Anna Federica Castoldi
Arianna Chiusolo
Angelo Colagiorgi
Mathilde Colas
Federica Crivellente
Chloe De Lentdecker
Isabella De Magistris
Mark Egsmose
Gabriella Fait
Franco Ferilli
Monica Fittipaldi Broussard
German Giner Santonja
Varvara Gouliarmou
Katrin Halling
Alessio Ippolito
Frederique Istace
Dimitra Kardassi
Aude Kienzler
Anna Lanzoni
Roberto Lava
Renata Leuschner
Alberto Linguadoca
Jochem Louisse
Christopher Lythgo
Oriol Magrans
Iris Mangas
Andrea Mioč
Ileana Miron
Tunde Molnar
Laura Padovani
Vincenzo Padricello
Martina Panzarea
Juan Manuel Parra Morte
Simone Rizzuto
Miguel Santos
Rositsa Serafimova
Rachel Sharp
Csaba Szentes
Anne Theobald
Manuela Tiramani
Giorgia Vianello
Laura Villamar-Bouza

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Finland and co-rapporteur Member State Denmark for the pesticide active substance phenmedipham are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of phenmedipham as a herbicide on sugar beet/fodder beet. The conclusions were updated with regard to the endocrine disrupting properties and the genotoxicity assessment following a mandate received from the European Commission in January 2019 and its update in January 2024, respectively. 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.

Indexed as

herbicidepeer reviewpesticidephenmediphamrisk assessment

Identifiers

PMID41210515
PMCPMC12593531

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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