Reasoned opinion on the toxicological properties and maximum residue levels for propoxur
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In accordance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the European Commission requested EFSA to prepare a reasoned opinion on the toxicological properties and the existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) set for propoxur. EFSA was requested to assess the toxicological properties of propoxur and derive toxicological reference values, based on the toxicological assessment performed by Health Canada. EFSA was also requested to review the information provided by Member States and the UK on the metabolism of propoxur in plants and animals and on the current MRLs, as well as the limit of quantification (LOQ) that can be achieved with analytical methods used in MRL enforcement. Based on the information available to EFSA, toxicological reference values could not be derived for propoxur. No evidence was provided by Member States and UK that the existing EU MRLs need to be maintained as import tolerances. Information to support the current MRLs or alternative MRLs have not been provided by Member States and the UK. Codex MRLs are not in place. EFSA therefore recommended lowering of all existing EU MRLs for propoxur to the LOQ. According to the EU Reference Laboratories, sufficiently validated analytical methods are available to analyse for propoxur residues in all plant and animal commodities. Lacking toxicological reference values derived at EU level, a conclusion cannot be derived whether the setting of MRLs at the LOQs is sufficiently protective for the European consumers.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.049 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.078 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.016 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".