ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2013
Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance maltodextrin.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for potassium phosphonates in various crops.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for acequinocyl in celeries, Florence fennel and rhubarb.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance maltodextrin.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Review
- Modification of the existing maximum residue levels for potassium phosphonates in apricots and cherries.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Pesticide active substances that do not require a review of the existing maximum residue levels under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2020Article
- The Efficacy of Alternative, Environmentally Friendly Plant Protection Measures for Control of Fall Armyworm,Insects · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance maltodextrin are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Regulation (EU) No 188/2011. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of maltodextrin as an insecticide on non-edible plants, soft fruit, cane fruit, bush fruit, brassicae and top fruit. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.