據歐盟食品安全局（EFSA）消息，2022年3月28日，歐盟食品安全局就活性物質heptamaloxyloglucan的農藥風險評估發布同行評審。
經過評估，將heptamaloxyloglucan作為植物誘導抗病激活劑用在葡萄藤上（田間使用）保護免受霜凍損害的基礎上，歐盟食品安全局提出了適用于監管風險評估的可靠端點，問題未確定。部分原文報道如下：
The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co-rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance heptamaloxyloglucan and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of heptamaloxyloglucan as a plant elicitor on grapevines for protection against frost damage (field use). 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 not identified.
經過評估，將heptamaloxyloglucan作為植物誘導抗病激活劑用在葡萄藤上（田間使用）保護免受霜凍損害的基礎上，歐盟食品安全局提出了適用于監管風險評估的可靠端點，問題未確定。部分原文報道如下：
The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, France, and co-rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance heptamaloxyloglucan and the considerations as regards the inclusion of the substance in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012, as amended by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 2018/1659. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of heptamaloxyloglucan as a plant elicitor on grapevines for protection against frost damage (field use). 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 not identified.
