One Planet: One Health. A Call to Support the Initiative on a Global Science-Policy Body on Chemicals and Waste

The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health

One planet: one health. A call to support the initiative on a global science–policy body on chemicals and waste

The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health.Projekt DEA

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from Commission related to the appropriate variability factor(s) to be used for acute dietary exposure assessment of pesticide residues in fruit and vegetables

In a batch of food items previously treated with a pesticide, the residue of the pesticide remaining on/in single food items at the time of consumption varies between items, due to a variety of factors. So there is a distribution of residues, with some items containing more pesticide than others. It is important to take account of this variation when assessing the risk to consumers from acute dietary exposure to pesticides in medium and large-sized food items (e.g. apples or melons). Therefore, international assessment procedures are based on the 97.5th percentile of the distribution of residues; i.e. the level that is exceeded by 2.5% of residues in food items (i.e. 1 in 40). This residue level is not measured directly, but estimated by measuring the concentration in a small batch of items and multiplying it by a 'variability factor' to estimate the 97.5th percentile residue. Recently, it has been proposed that a default value of 3 should generally be used for the variability factor, replacing a range of default values for different commodities. The Commission has asked the PPR Panel to advise on the scientific basis for choosing a single default value for the variability factor. The PPR Panel examined the range of variability factors from existing studies where residues were measured separately in individual food items. The PPR Panel excluded from this analysis studies for which the variability factor could not be estimated reliably, i.e. studies with less than 50 items, or where the result was strongly affected by pesticide residues below the level that could be quantified. On average, variability factors estimated from samples collected in the marketplace were higher than those from samples obtained in experimental studies (supervised trials). The PPR Panel therefore recommends that consideration be given to using different variability factors when doing exposure assessments with data from these two types of study. The average variability factor for supervised trials was 2.8. However, the variability factor is itself variable, and the Commission may wish to consider this when choosing an appropriate default value for use in dietary exposure assessments. To assist in this, the PPR Panel provides tables presenting a range of statistics. For example, it is estimated that the variability factors for supervised trials will exceed the proposed default value of 3 in 34% of cases, whereas the previous default value of 7 for mediumsized food items will be exceeded in 0.2% of cases. Similarly, the variability factors for market surveys averaged 3.6, and will exceed 3 in about 65% of cases and 7 in about 1% of cases. The data analysed by the PPR Panel related mostly to medium-sized commodities (between 25 and 250 g, e.g. apples). The PPR Panel concluded there was insufficient evidence to support a real difference between variability factors for medium and largesized commodities, and therefore considered its results applicable to both types. However, the PPR Panel recommends that this should be re-examined when further data on large-sized commodities become available. The results are affected by a number of uncertainties. The PPR Panel calculated confidence intervals to indicate the degree of uncertainty due to limitations in the amounts of data available for the analysis. Other uncertainties, e.g. in extrapolating variability factors between pesticides and between crops, were considered qualitatively. Finally, the PPR Panel noted that the assessment of acute risks from dietary exposure uses conservative assumptions for portion size and the mean residue concentration as well as the variability factor. The combined effect of these conservative assumptions on the overall level of consumer protection may warrant further consideration

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant health, Plant protection products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard to the possibility of lowering the uncertainty factor if additional species were tested

The Scientific Panel on Plant Health, Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) was asked by EFSA for an opinion on the possibility of refining the acute and chronic aquatic risk assessment of pesticides by lowering the assessment factor if additional species were tested. In particular, the PPR Panel was asked how these values could be reduced when additional singlespecies studies are available whilst still maintaining the same level of protection as foreseen in the Directive 91/414/EEC. The current approach for acute and chronic risk assessment to protect the ecosystem against adverse effects of pesticides uses the lowest available toxicity value from laboratory standard toxicity tests, i.e. the most sensitive tested species, and divides this value by a fixed assessment factor. This results in an increase of conservatism when more species are tested and does not reflect the increased certainty that more data provide. To answer this question the PPR Panel reviewed existing literature, guidance documents, and data. Statistical calculations based on species sensitivity distributions were used to develop a range of options for adjusting the risk assessment when more species are tested. The PPR Panel assessed the current level of protection and found that it is not equal for different taxonomic groups and for different substances. On average, the level of protection provided by the current approach is, for example, markedly higher for fish than for crustaceans and insects. The PPR Panel identified a range of possible methods either to maintain at least the current unspecified level of protection, or to achieve any specified level of protection. For taxonomic groups where the legislation requires only one species (e.g. crustaceans), this effectively sets the level of protection in the effects assessment. When additional species are tested, the same average level of protection can be maintained by taking the geometric mean (rather than the lowest value) and dividing by the current assessment factor. For fish, where the legislation requires that at least two species are tested, this implies a higher level of protection in the effects assessment. In this case, a different procedure is required when additional species are tested. The minimum is then replaced by the second or third lowest toxicity value depending on the sample size available, and divided by the current assessment factor. The Panel described three further approaches that allow a particular level of protection to be achieved, provided such a level is specified. These methods involve using a modified assessment factor that incorporates an estimate of the variation between species, which can either be specific to the substance under consideration or derived from existing information on related substances. These three methods relate only to uncertainty due to variation between species. Any other uncertainties that are relevant to the assessment would need to be accounted for separately

One planet: one health. A call to support the initiative on a global science–policy body on chemicals and waste

The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health

One planet: one health. A call to support the initiative on a global science–policy body on chemicals and waste

The chemical pollution crisis severely threatens human and environmental health globally. To tackle this challenge the establishment of an overarching international science–policy body has recently been suggested. We strongly support this initiative based on the awareness that humanity has already likely left the safe operating space within planetary boundaries for novel entities including chemical pollution. Immediate action is essential and needs to be informed by sound scientific knowledge and data compiled and critically evaluated by an overarching science–policy interface body. Major challenges for such a body are (i) to foster global knowledge production on exposure, impacts and governance going beyond data-rich regions (e.g., Europe and North America), (ii) to cover the entirety of hazardous chemicals, mixtures and wastes, (iii) to follow a one-health perspective considering the risks posed by chemicals and waste on ecosystem and human health, and (iv) to strive for solution-oriented assessments based on systems thinking. Based on multiple evidence on urgent action on a global scale, we call scientists and practitioners to mobilize their scientific networks and to intensify science–policy interaction with national governments to support the negotiations on the establishment of an intergovernmental body based on scientific knowledge explaining the anticipated benefit for human and environmental health