The 56th session of the Codex Alimentarius Commit­tee on Pesticides and Pesticide Residues in and on Foods (CCPR56) addressed all topics on its agenda. CCPR56 approved about two hundred new maximum residue limits for various pesticides for final adoption by the next CAC meeting (End November 2025, CAC48). CCPR56 final­ized new guidelines for countries and operators to monitor the purity and stability of reference materials and related stock solutions of pesticides during prolonged storage. CCPR56 discussed short-term approaches to enhance the capacity and operational procedures of the JMPR advis­ing CCPR on risk assessments. CCPR56 reviewed how best managing unsupported compounds without public health concern scheduled for a periodic review. CCPR56 agreed to forward editorial amendments made to the latest version of Section 4.8 of the Codex Alimentarius Commis-sion’s Procedural Manual, on the Risk analysis principles applied by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues for final adoption to CAC48. CCPR56 agreed to suspend working on a national registration database due to slow progress and lack of sufficient contributions.¹

See more information available about CCPR56 work­ing documents quoted in this article², as well as in the official report of the CCPR56 meeting³. Codex standards, guidelines, codes of practices and related miscellaneous texts quoted in this article are readily and freely available.⁴

MRLs APPROVED FOR 27 PESTICIDES IN PLANT COMMODITIES AND ANIMAL TISSUES USED AS FOOD OR STARTING MATERIALS FOR FOOD AND FEED

Revised MRLs for inclusion in the Codex Database⁵ of MRLs in Foods

CCPR56 agreed to send about 200 MRLs for final adop­tion by CAC48 as final Codex standards and for inclu­sion into the Codex database on pesticide residues.⁶ The EU and Switzerland expressed several reservations on some of the proposed MRLs approved by CCPR56 for final adoption by CAC48, due to various rationales (e.g., different residue definitions between plants and animals; EU legislation allowing the substance but in a different set of commodities; on-going EFSA assessments; Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach to be only used for minor metabolites; acute exposure risk (based on EU consump­tion data); lack of adequate data to rule out genotoxicity potential; general toxicity concerns for some metabolites; etc.).

Existing obsolete Codex approved MRLs were proposed for revocation by CAC48 (and subsequent dele­tions from the Codex database on pesticide residues).⁷ CCPR56 also noted that draft MRLs withdrawn for discontinuation (i.e., because not agreed or simply replaced by others) were communicated to CAC48 for information only.⁸ MRLs which have been retained in their draft stage are also included in the CCPR56 report, for information.⁹ CCPR56 requested JMPR to provide further information on several aspects discussed at the session and noted the corrections made to the Codex database.

MRLs for Okra

CCPR56 (i) noted the extensive efforts underway and commitment to generate the necessary data; (ii) recalled that data would need to be submitted once available through the established procedures; (iii) noted that as trials were still underway to generate data, it was prema­ture to establish timelines; and (iv) agreed that the situa­tion regarding data availability should be reviewed again at CCPR57 with a view to establish timelines for the evaluation and reconsideration or the provisional applica­tion of the CXLs for the subgroup pepper.

MRLs in Milk and Milk Fat

CCPR56 (a) requested the CCPR Secretariat to insert the note “for monitoring and regulatory purposes, whole milk is to be analyzed, and the result compared to the MRL for whole milk” to the CXLs for milk fats in the Codex database for MRLs for pesticides in all cases where CXLs are established for fat-soluble pesticides in both milks and milk fats, including those recommended for adoption at further sessions of CCPR; while it confirmed the 31 fat-soluble pesticides (as listed in paragraph 5 in CX/PR 25/56/6,) currently included in the database to which the note should apply. CCPR56 reiterated its request to JMPR to insert this note alongside the MRL for milk fats in all cases where MRLs were established for both milk fats and milks for fat-soluble pesticides; and, it noted that the Codex Secretariat would review the wording and applica­tion of the “F” suffix for outdated content and consistency of application and update CCPR57 accordingly. CAC would be informed about these decisions for transparency reasons.

CODEX SCHEDULES AND PRIORITY LISTS OF PESTICIDES FOR EVALUATION OR RE-EVALUATION BY JMPR.

2026 Schedule for JMPR Evaluations

CCPR56 agreed to (i) endorse the priority list of pesticides for evaluation by the 2026 JMPR and submit it to CAC48 for approval.¹⁰ Two new compounds are foreseen for evaluations: BASF sponsored Fenmeroditiaz (rice, wheat, barley, and oat); and, Sumitomo and BASF co-sponsored Metyltetrapole (cereals, pulses and animal products). Three substances are also foreseen for a periodic review in 2026: FMC sponsored Indoxacarb; Dexel Chemical Group sponsored Maleic hydrazide; and, Adama and UPL co-sponsored Captan.

Substances to be reviewed for new uses or other type of evaluations planned in 2026 were the following(*): Fluopyram (avocado, kiwi fruit, strawberry, dried herbs, spices), Trifloxystrobin (avocado, cumin, eggplants, dried peas, tuberous and corm vegetables, tomatoes), Florylpi-coxamid (cherry, peach/nectarine, plum, broccoli, carrot, onion, potato/sweet-potato, hops, barley, dry beans, peas, cotton, garden beet, lettuce, pea), Metalaxyl and Metal-axyl-M (lemon, mandarin, orange, grapefruit, cucumber, melon, zucchini, tomato, pepper, carrot, radish, sugar beet, potato, cacao bean, avocado, hops), Spiropidion (in citrus and other fruits, eggplants, brassica leafy vegeta­bles), Oxathiapiprolin (in cacao, ginseng root, pome­granate, and strawberry), Cyclobutrifluram (in soybean, potato, tomato, cucumber, zucchini, melon, maize, chay-ote, watermelon, pumpkin, coffee), Flupyradifurone (tea, tomato, date, eggplant, dry beans, peas, tuberous and corm vegetables), Fluoxapiprolin (grapes, lettuce, spinach, mustard green, cauliflower, cabbage, broccoli, summer squash, muskmelon, cucumber, bell pepper, non-bell pepper, celery, kohlrabi, kale, cocoa), Fluazaindolizine (grapes, strawberry, tree nuts, cherry), Sulfoxaflor (kiwi, tea, pistachio, passion fruit, pineapple, dry beans), Fose-tyl-Al (mango, potato), Isotianil (Apple, Banana, Coffee, Grape), Phosphonic acid (avocado), Glyphosate (tree nuts), Tetraniliprole (tea), Flutriafol (rice, hops), Fludi-oxonil (Welsh onion), Etofenprox (Welsh onion), Tebufe-nozin (Welsh onion), Chlorantraniliprole (Thai eggplant, durian).

(*)Nota bene: food categories listed above are not exhaus­tive

CPR56 agreed to re-establish the EWG on schedules and priorities, chaired by Australia to provide a report on the schedules and priority lists for consideration at CCPR57; and referred Carbaryl, Methyl bromide, Disulfoton and Flumethrin to the EWG on unsupported compounds without public health concern, for consideration as poten­tial new work.

The EWG Chair noted that, for the proposed sched­ule for evaluation by JMPR in 2026 (see Appendix A of CCPR56’s CRD02), two compounds were nominated on the “new compound” list, 20 compounds (with two reserve compounds) were nominated on the “new use – other” list, and two compounds on the periodic review list with confirmed support.

Priority lists for 2027 and beyond

The EWG Chair noted that the tentative priority list for new compounds, new uses and other evaluations, and periodic reviews for 2027 and beyond was provided for awareness in Appendix B of CCPR56’s CRD02 but was expected to be subject to more changes prior to CCPR57. CCPR56 noted that the number of new compound nomi­nations for future years was low, with no new compounds currently nominated for 2027, two for 2028, one for 2029 and one for 2031. For new uses and other evaluations, the EWG Chair indicated that there were nineteen nomina­tions for 2027 including three (Propylene oxide, Propi-conazole, Cypermethrin) that were moved from the 2026 schedule, given that this schedule was over-subscribed, and evidence of registration was pending for the three compounds. The EWG Chair also noted that there were fourteen nominations for 2028 and two for 2029.

Extrapolation of approved MRLs to other crops and minor crops

CCPR56 (i) thanked JMPR for its consideration of the work approach and reviewing the specific MRLs proposal regarding the extrapolation of existing CXLs from tomato and pepper to eggplants; (ii) noted that JMPR agreed that this stepwise approach, with appropriate modification, may be suitable for identifying candidate active ingredients, where the extrapolation of existing CXLs to additional commodities, such as a minor crop, may be considered; (iii) welcomed the further exploration of this approach on finding the appropriate candidate, active ingredient and related commodities to support the establishment of MRLs for minor crops; and, (iv) agreed that given the current very limited resources of JMPR, all submissions regarding the candidate active ingredient and related information should be coordinated through the working group on Codex schedules and priorities. CCPR56 finally acknowledged the ongoing efforts of JMPR to enhance and refine its assessment methods to align more closely with real-world field practices, ensuring more scientifically robust evaluation outcomes.

Exposure Assessment Methodologies

CCPR56 reiterated concerns raised at CCPR55 regard­ing JMPR’s dietary exposure assessment recommenda­tions and discussed additional topics that require further consideration by CCPR and JMPR, that are: (a) the trans­parency of the GECDE methodology (Global Estimated Chronic Dietary Exposure using probabilistic distribution curves of residues and food consumptions); (b) the acces­sibility of the proposed model; (c) the characterization of the conservatism of the IEDI methodology (International Estimated Dietary Intake – using the median concentra­tion and a per capita consumption); (d) the representativity and quality of the consumption data; and (e) the implementation of the changes to the risk assessment prin­ciples in the CAC Procedural Manual and in other FAO/ WHO guidance documents. Note: The GECDE model is designed to assess chronic exposure in consumers consum­ing high levels of a food (i.e., a regular high consumption of food during more than one day, but less than a few years), whereas the IEDI methodology is addressing an entire population exposure (as if everyone would be eating such food containing the residue at the median value).

CCPR56 noted that further consultations between CCPR and JMPR were needed before JMPR could make any recommendations on whether it was appropriate to implement changes to the dietary exposure assessment approach. The JMPR Secretariat acknowledged that the concerns raised by CCPR56 would be conveyed to JMPR. CCPR56 noted that JMPR will continue to use the current IEDI model and will also present the results of the calcula­tions carried out with the GECDE-mean and GECDE-high models and provide explanations to support interpreta­tions on the dietary exposure estimates obtained by all the models.

To advance deliberations on JMPR’s dietary exposure assessment methods, CCPR56 requested FAO and WHO to (i) address and respond to comments and concerns raised at CCPR55 and CCPR56 and those submitted in writing in CRDs to CCPR56; (ii) ensure transparency by giving access to the models and data used for the risk assessment; (iii) provide technical information on the dissenting view­points on technical issues (as provided in the Annex 10 of the JMPR 2024 Report) and encouraged JMPR to resolve such dissenting viewpoints; and, (iv) develop a workplan that outlines clear milestones in relation to future sessions of CCPR and JMPR. JMPR secretariat suggested that it may include also other mechanisms, such as workshops and webinars, to facilitate information exchange between risk assessors and risk managers.

GUIDELINES FOR MONITORING THE STABILITY AND PURITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS AND RELATED STOCK SOLUTIONS OF PESTICIDES DURING PROLONGED STORAGE

CCPR56 agreed to forward the Guidelines for monitoring the stability and purity of reference materials and related stock solutions of pesticides during prolonged storage for final adoption by CAC48 as a new Codex Guidelines (CXG). The purpose of these guidelines is to provide a framework for assisting laboratories in charge of monitor­ing the stability and purity of reference materials (RMs) as provided by reference material providers (RMPs) of pesti­cides during prolonged storage; and, to identify expired RMs, as indicated in the reference material document of the RMPs but with a demonstrated continuing stability and purity through robust analytical protocols, so that such materials retain their purity, even after expiry, as stated in the RM document, so that they may continue to be used as valid RMs. The scope of the guidelines was extended to mixed pesticide standard solutions. The guidelines also cover the monitoring of the stability of stock solutions used for pesticide residue analysis, so that those solutions proven to be valid may be used for accurate and reliable determination of pesticide residue levels. The guidelines cover storage conditions that shall be maintained as well as quantitative measurements to be performed to monitor the stability and purity of the RMs and their stock solu­tions, before and beyond their expiration period.

Three analytical approaches are proposed for moni­toring the stability and purity of individual RMs, of the RM stock solutions, and of the mixed pesticide standard solutions of RMs for the purpose of extending their use beyond the expiry date provided that their purity is proven acceptable. Approach 1: Comparing the stability of old (or expired) and new (or unexpired) pesticide reference stand­ards (applicable to neat standards of reference materials and related stock solutions). Approach 2: Verification of purity of neat standards of pesticide reference materials during prolonged storage (not suitable for verification of stock solutions). Approach 3: Verification of stability of mixed pesticide standard solutions during prolonged stor­age. One method (Method 3.3) was added to Approach 3, for the verification of stability of mixed pesticide standard solutions of reference materials (RMs) procured from reference material providers (RMPs), in accordance with ISO 33405; and, (b) a clarification was brought to Method 3.1 and 3.2 to state that the verification of the stability of mixed pesticide standard solutions of the RMs during prolonged storage were also applicable to mixed pesticide standard solutions of RMs purchased from RMPs, as well as to mixed pesticide standard solutions of RMs prepared by laboratories using individual RMs procured by the laboratories from the RMPs.¹¹

MANAGEMENT OF UNSUPPORTED COMPOUNDS WITHOUT PUBLIC HEALTH CONCERNS SCHEDULED FOR PERIODIC REVIEW

CCPR56 agreed to (i) request CAC48 to revoke all CXLs for Fenthion, Methyl Parathion, Dinocap, Amitraz, and Bitertanol and the CXLs for Methamidophos for cotton­seed, fodder beet, potato, and sugar (noting the reservation of Thailand); (ii) retain the CXLs for Methamidophos for which there was a corresponding CXL for Acephate, until the JMPR conducts a periodic review of Acephate; and (iii) recommend that JMPR revises the residue definition for Acephate to include Methamidophos when conducting the periodic review of Acephate.

CCPR56 agreed to re-establish an EWG on the Management of unsupported compounds without public health concerns scheduled for periodic review and continue implementing the internal approach; chaired by Chile and co-chaired by Australia, Costa Rica, India and Kenya with the aims to: (a) examine Carbaryl; Methyl bromide; Disul-foton; Flumethrin, which were unsupported compounds identified under the agenda item on the Establishment of Codex schedules and priority lists of pesticides for evaluation/re-evaluation by JMPR; (b) examine Ethoxyquin iden­tified under agenda item on draft MRLs for pesticides in food and feed; (c) review the Management of unsupported compounds without public health concern scheduled for periodic review (See Appendix XII of CCPR54’s report in REP23/PR54), with the aim of improving clarity on its implementation and scope, taking into account discus­sions held during CCPR56, with input from the JMPR and Codex Secretariats as necessary; and (d) present the outcomes of above considerations and proposed actions for consideration by CCPR57.¹²

AMENDMENT TO THE CODEX PROCEDURAL MANUAL ON RISK ANALYSIS PRINCPLES AND DEFINITION OF FAT IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF FOOD AND FEED

CCPR56 agreed to forward the amendments to Section 4.8 (Risk analysis principles applied by the Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues) in the Codex Procedural Manual (as presented in CCPR26 report’s Appendix II – Part 1) and the correction to the definition for “fat” in the Clas­sification of food and feed (included in Codex miscellane­ous text CXA 4) to CAC48 for adoption (as presented in CCPR26 report’s Appendix II – Part 2). The new descrip­tor for fat would then read “Fat is the food lipid-based tissue that is trimmable from an animal carcass or cuts from an animal carcass. It may include subcutaneous, omental, or perirenal fat. It does not include interstitial or intramuscular carcass fat or milk fat.”¹³

ENHANCEMENT OF THE OPERATIONAL PROCEDURES OF THE CCPR AND JMPR AND FURTHER COORDINATION OF WORK BETWEEN CCPR AND CCRVDF

CCPR/JMPR procedures

With the goal of enhancing efficiency and maximizing use of existing resources, CCPR56 agreed to:

• request JMPR (a) to ensure guidance on data submis-
  sion was up-to-date, available and accessible; and, (b) to assess and communicate gaps in dossiers submitted in response to calls for data to promote high quality dossier submission;
• include prioritization approaches that support JMPR efficiency, as part of its discussions on priorities, in particular within the priorities working group, for example, by prioritizing compounds with multiple uses, or grouping requests for evaluation; and,
• request JMPR to provide inputs to the priority work­ing group on the reasons why work on scheduled compounds could not proceed as planned to better inform and improve the prioritization approach; and to apply its procedures consistently.

CCPR56 (i) reaffirmed the need to enhance the operational procedures of CCPR and JMPR to address concerns related to both JMPR current workload and future demand for compound evaluations; (ii) reiterated the need for a multi-pronged approach and their support for both short-term and longer-term approaches; and, (iii) noted that no mech­anism had been identified to provide funding or human resource support to implement short-term measures, and therefore, requested the CAC to reiterate to the FAO and the WHO and their respective governing bodies the critical importance of JMPR to support science-based establish­ment of pesticide MRLs in a timely and efficient manner, and to encourage them to ensure that JMPR would have adequate resources to undertake its work, as assigned by CCPR. CCPR56 agreed that the EWG had completed its work at this time, without prejudice to be re-established in the future to support the coordination of enhancement activities as needed.

CCPR/CCRVDF workload coordination for compounds used for dual uses (as a plant protection product and as a veterinary medicine / sanitizer / other uses)

CCPR56 (i) indicated its continued support for the joint CCPR/CCRVDF EWG; (ii) endorsed scheduling a virtual session of the joint EWG that precedes a virtual joint session of CCPR and CCRVDF, and agreed to inform CAC accordingly; (iii) encouraged Codex Members and Observers to participate in the possible virtual session of the joint EWG and possible virtual joint session of CCPR and CCRVDF; and, (iv) encouraged Codex Members and Observers to liaise with their veterinary (animal health) service counterparts to coordinate positions and actively participate to the work of the joint EWG, including providing replies to the circular letters on harmonization of food descriptors and harmonization of MRLs for dual-use compounds when they became available.¹⁴

DATABASE OF NATIONAL REGISTRATION OF PESTICIDES

CCPR56 agreed (i) to suspend the work on the database of national registration of pesticides (undertaken by the EWG on unsupported compounds without public health concern scheduled for periodic review), until it would become necessary to support specific requests for infor­mation on unsupported compounds with no public health concern; and (ii) that the EWG would need to progress work more efficiently, should it be reactivated in the future. A Member indicated that in general, across all EWGs, low participation could be partially attributed to the opera­tional dynamics of the Codex Online Forum. It noted that EWG members needed to log into the forum frequently and proactively to check whether any new documents or comments were made available. In response to the Member’s suggestion, the Codex Secretariat explained that this functionality of an automated notification was already available in the Codex online forum, although it might not be immediately or easily visible. The Codex Secretariat further indicated it was exploring how notifications could be enabled by default for all EWGs in the future.¹⁵

The publication will be posted to World Food Regulation Review soon. Find the full WFRR library here.

ENDNOTES

1. The Codex Alimentarius Committee for Pesticide Residues (‘CCPR’) is the specialised body of the Codex Alimentarius Commission Food Standard Program dealing with pesticide active matters and their related maximum residue limits (MRLs) in and on foods. CCPR is to establish maximum limits for pesticide residues in specific food items or in groups of food, as well as in certain animal feeding stuffs moving in international trade where this is justified for reasons of protection of human health. CCPR sets priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). CCPR is in charge to consider recommended methods of sampling and analysis for the determination of pesticide residues in food and feed and any other matters in relation to the safety of food and feed containing pesticide residues. Finally, CCPR may establish maximum limits also for environmental and industrial contaminants showing chemical or other similarity to pesticides, in specific food items or groups of food. As the CCPR56 session was held in Chile, it was chaired by Dr Weili Shan (China, as statutory host country) and co-chaired by Mr Eduardo Aylwin (Chile, as the 56th session’s hosting country). It was also vice-chaired by Dr Lifang Duan (China). The CCPR56 session was attended by 46 Member Countries, one Member Organization (the EU) and nine observer organizations (including one intergovernmental one, IICA). The next plenary session (CCPR57) was tentatively scheduled during the second half of 2026 and is expected to be held in Beijing (China), 2026 marking the 60th calendar anniversary of the Committee. CCPR56 recognized the expertise and dedicated service of Dr Warren Hughes (New Zealand) and honored his 30+ years to CCPR’s work and successes. See also Codex website news page about CCPR56 outcome at https://www.fao.org/ fao-who-codexalimentarius/news-and-events/news-details/ en/c/1742347/. ↩︎
2. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/detail/en/?meeting=CCPR&session=56& ↩︎
3. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/ meetings/en/ ↩︎
4. See https://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/en/ ↩︎
5. See Codex Database on Pesticides Residues at https:// www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/codex-texts/dbs/ pestres/en/ ↩︎
6. CCPR56 indeed approved MRLs for: (a) Chlormequat, with a notable 5mg/kg (thereafter ‘ppm’) in barley, (b) Folpet, with a notable 2 ppm for banana and a 40 ppm on a dry basis for hay and/or straw of barley, but a 1.5 ppm for barley itself; and a 40 ppm on a dry weight basis for hay and/or straw of wheat, but 0.04 ppm for wheat itself; a notable 20 ppm in dried grape pomace; and a 15 ppm in wine grapes, as well as analytical LODs in food producing animal tissues; (c) Phosmet, with a notable 3 ppm in cranberry; (d) Prochloraz, with a notable 5 ppm for avocado (with note “Po”, i.e., “Compatible with post-harvest treatment”) and a 40 ppm on a dried weight basis in straw and hay of cereal grains (excluding subgroup of pseudocereals); (e) Methoprene, with a notable 3 ppm for tree nuts (with note “Po”); (f) Propiconazole, with a notable 3 ppm in polished rice; (g) Hexythiazox, with a notable 4 ppm in cane berries (subgroup), and 20 ppm in dried hops; (h) Etofenprox, with a notable 9 ppm in rice (but a 0.3 ppm in husked rice and a 0.04 ppm in polished rice) and a 3 ppm in the group of mammalian fats (except milk fats); (i) Tebuconazole, with a 0.9 ppm in cumin seed; (j) Fenpyroximate, with a notable 25 ppm in mandarin oil as well as in edible orange oil (but 0.15 ppm in subgroup of sweet, sour and orange-like hybrids of oranges and 0.6 ppm in peeled (fresh) Satsuma mandarin) and 1 ppm on dry weight basis in dried apple pomace; (k) Tebufenozide, with a notable 15 ppm in rice but 0.6 ppm in husked rice and 0.3 ppm in polished rice; (l) Fipronil, with a notable low 0.04 ppm in group of eggs and 0.3 ppm in the group of milk fats, but 0.15 ppm in other types of mammalian fats; (m) Spinosad, with a notable 10 ppm in green and black (black, fermented and dried) tea, a 9 ppm in cattle milk fat, a 3 ppm in cattle fat, a 1 ppm in cattle milk, a 2 ppm in milk fats, a 2 ppm in other mammalian fats, but a 0,2 ppm in milks; (n) Novaluron, with a notable 15 ppm in Almond hulls but 0.08 ppm in tree nuts, a 5 ppm in rice but a 0.15 ppm in polished rice, 3 ppm in all mammalian fats (including milk fats) but 0.2 ppm in milk, (o) Azoxystrobin, with a notable 40 ppm in dried hops, 5 ppm in melons and watermelon, 2 ppm in pineapple, 1.5 ppm in avocado, 1 ppm in cucurbits fruiting vegetables; (p) Cyproconazole, with a notable 0.5 ppm in mammalian edible offal, and 0.3 ppm in hay of legume feeds with low water (<20%) content (except soya bean and lentil); (q) Flubendiamide, with notable 5 ppm in milk fats, but 0.1 ppm in milks, 4 ppm in rice, but 0.1 ppm for husked rice, and at or near the LOD (0.01 ppm) for polished rice, 2 ppm for mammalian fats other than milk fats and 1 ppm for mammalian edible offal; (r) Acetamiprid, at 0.4 ppm in dry mung bean, but 0.2 ppm fore dry beans and dry peas; (s) Cyantraniliprole, at 1 ppm for table olives and olives for oil production; (t) Flupyradifurone, with a notable 5 ppm in table olives as well as in olives for oil production; 1.5 ppm in muscle from mammals other than marine mammals, (u) Acibenzolar-S-methyl; (v) Fosetyl Al; (w) Pydiflumetofen; (x) Tetraniliprole; with a notable 9 ppm on a dry basis in hay and/or straw of rice and a 1 ppm in mammalian edible offal (y) Cyclobutrifluram, with a MRL at the LOD (0.01 ppm) in banana; (z) Fenpropidin, with a notable 30 ppm on a dry weight basis for dry leaves or tops of sugar beet as well as the same for fodder, a 9 ppm in banana and 4 ppm on a dry weight basis for feed products made of hay and/ or straw from cereal grains (including pseudocereals) with a low water (<20%) content and lower levels for example in wheat at 0.05 ppm; (aa) Florpyrauxifen-benzyl, with a notable 5 ppm on a dried weight basis in hay and/or straw of grasses for animal feed, a 2 ppm on a dry basis for hay and/ or straw of rice but a 0.01 ppm in husked rice and 0.3 ppm in rice in general, the other being close or at the LOD; (ab) Fluoxapiprolin, with a notable 0.6 ppm in dried tomato, but 0,1 ppm in tomato and in cherry tomato; 0.5 ppm in dried grapes (i.e., currants, raisins and sultanas), but 0,15 ppm in grapes. See Appendix III of the CCPR56 report. ↩︎
7. See Appendix IV of the CCPR56 report. ↩︎
8. The provisions withdrawn relate to draft MRLs for Phosmet (blueberries), Iprodione (culls potatoes), Carbosulfan (eggplant and mango), Propiconazole (polished rice), Fenpyroximate (edible offal, eggplant, beans with pods), Fipronil (many food categories), and Pydiflumentofen (leaf of Lettuce). See Appendix V of the CCPR56 report. ↩︎
9. The draft provisions retained for further discussion relate to Metalaxyl (sweet peppers), Dimethoate (dried pulp of orange and all types of oranges), Methyl bromide (in various foods such cereals, cocoa beans and products, and several nuts), Omethoate (dried pulp of orange and all types of oranges), Guazatine (cereal grains and citrus fruits), Metalaxyl (all types of orange and orange oils), Flutriafol (all types of rice). See Appendix VI of the CCPR56 report. ↩︎
10. Australia, as Chair of the EWG on the Priority List, introduced the item on Codex schedules and priorities. The schedules and priority lists of pesticides for evaluation by JMPR were prepared following consultation in the EWG with Members and Observers, consideration of the comments in reply to CL 2024/89-PR and CL 2025/44-PR, and discussions at CCPR56. The EWG Chair explained that CRD2 had been prepared to facilitate discussions and contained the schedules and priority lists for 2026, 2027 and beyond. The EWG Chair advised that some amendments had been made to the proposed schedule and priority lists for evaluation by JMPR in 2026, 2027 and beyond to reflect comments made by Members and Observers, including those made in plenary discussions at CCPR56 and in CRDs. This included the addition of extrapolation nominations made by the Global Pulse Confederation for four compounds which were already included on the ‘2026 new use – other’ list (Fluopyram, Flupyradifurone, Sulfoxaflor, and Trifloxystrobin). See appendix VIII of CCPR56 report. ↩︎
11. See the text of the approved Guidelines in Appendix VII of CCPR56 report. CCPR56 considered the text of the revised guidelines, as presented in CCPR56’s CRD04. ↩︎
12. Chile, as Chair of the EWG and the VWG convened prior to CCPR56, speaking also on behalf of the co-Chairs Australia, Ecuador and Kenya, introduced the item, sum marized the background and the terms of reference of the EWG (i.e. to examine Amitraz, Dinocap/Meptyldinocap, Meth-amidophos/Acephate, Bitertanol, Fenthion, and Methyl Parathion, according to the internal management approach as included in Appendix XII of CCPR54’s report in REP23/ PR54). CCPR56 recalled CCPR55’s decision to recommend systematically the revocation of already adopted MRLs, when there is a sustained and continued lack submission of the suitable data package for reevaluation. CCPR56 considered (a) the recommendations from the EWG on management of unsupported compounds without public health concerns scheduled for periodic review (CX/PR 25/56/9); (b) the outstanding and future work for the EWG following the recommendations from the priority list; and (c) the issues pertaining to compounds Folpet and Prochloraz to determine whether it was appropriate for these compounds to be considered under the management of unsupported compounds without public health concerns for periodic review. Thailand expressed support for the retention of the CXLs for Amitraz because the compound was registered and used in their country and the substance did not pose any public health concerns for consumers. However, understanding the decision of CCPR55 that the CXLs would be revoked unless scientific data could be supported by Members and sponsors, Thailand indicated that it would express its reservation if CCPR56 were to decide to revoke the CXLs. Furthermore, were the CXLs be recommended for revocation, Thailand proposed to retain the substances in the Codex pesticide database to clarify that the revocation was not a result of safety concerns, and therefore new MRLs could still be set for the compound once scientific data became available. See Appendix IV of CCPR56 report. ↩︎
13. See Appendix II of CCPR56 report. ↩︎
14. The joint EWG Chair noted that to operate the joint EWG entirely within the Codex online forum and to present the recommendations to CCPR and CCVDF separately might not be the most effective approach to address all issues in the joint EWG. It was rather recommended to convene a joint virtual session of the joint WG, which would precede a possible future joint session of the CCPR and the CCRVDF. CCPR56 generally supported such recommendations. CCPR56 noted that a virtual joint session of the joint EWG would strengthen collaboration, improve efficiency in addressing dual-use compounds, and help advance harmonized science-based outcomes. Attendance of a Joint WG session by both JECFA and JMPR Secretariats would be warranted to enable sound scientific advice to risk managers. It was noted that exploring a joint session of the two committees (CCPR and CCRVDF20) was agreed in principle by CAC47, noting that organizing such joint virtual session could serve as a pilot to new innovative approaches, that could inform future updates to the Procedural Manual, if warranted, provided that the decision should be taken by the CAC to offer a maximum of transparency and an occasion for all Members and Observers to express their views on this way forward. ↩︎
15. Chile, as Chair of the EWG, speaking also on behalf of the co-chairs Australia, Ecuador, India, and Kenya, introduced the item and noted that the work on the national registration database (NRD) had been transferred to the EWG on unsupported compounds without public health concerns scheduled for periodic review by a decision of CCPR55 (2024). The EWG Chair further explained that the work on the NRD was associated with compounds placed in Table 2B of the priority list (i.e., pesticides that have been last evaluated 15 years ago or more, but not yet scheduled or listed) and clarified that the NRD was not meant to be a global database of national registrations of pesticides. The EWG restricted its analysis on only compounds with the most recent toxicological evaluation by JMPR in 2008 and 2009. Overall participation within the EWG remained low, not guaranteeing a fair and global representation of existing national registers, and therefore the work related to this NRD should be suspended until it became necessary to support specific requests for information on unsupported compounds without public health concern. It was noted that information about national registers could always be provided as an input, to support the work of the EWG on unsupported compounds without public health concern scheduled for periodic review. ↩︎