Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products

This guidance is designed to assist risk assessors and applicants when quantifying potential non‐dietary, systemic exposures as part of regulatory risk assessment for plant protection products (PPPs). It is based on the Scientific Opinion on ‘Preparation of a Guidance Document on Pesticide Exposure Assessment for Workers, Operators, Residents and Bystanders’ developed by the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residue (PPR) in 2010. Highlighting some inconsistencies between the approaches adopted by regulatory authorities, the PPR Panel proposed a number of changes to the practices in use (i.e. use of deterministic methods for individual PPPs; need to perform an acute risk assessment for PPPs that are acutely toxic; use of appropriate percentile for acute or longer term risk assessments). In the first version of the guidance, issued in 2014, several scenarios for outdoor uses were included, with an annexed calculator, as well as recommendations for further research. The guidance has been updated in 2021 with the inclusion of additional scenarios and revision of default values, on the basis of the evaluation of additional evidence. To support users in performing the assessment of exposure and risk, an online calculator, reflecting the guidance content, has been further developed

Statement of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies supporting groundwater exposure assessments of pesticides

Abstract Groundwater monitoring is the highest tier in the leaching assessment of plant protection products in the EU. The European Commission requested EFSA for a review by the PPR Panel of the scientific paper of Gimsing et al. (2019) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies. The Panel concludes that this paper provides many recommendations; however, specific guidance on how to design, conduct and evaluate groundwater monitoring studies for regulatory purposes is missing. The Panel notes that there is no agreed specific protection goal (SPG) at EU level. Also, the SPG has not yet been operationalised in an agreed exposure assessment goal (ExAG). The ExAG describes which groundwater needs to be protected, where and when. Because the design and interpretation of monitoring studies depends on the ExAG, development of harmonised guidance is not yet possible. The development of an agreed ExAG must therefore be given priority. A central question in the design and interpretation of groundwater monitoring studies is that of groundwater vulnerability. Applicants must demonstrate that the selected monitoring sites represent realistic worst‐case conditions as specified in the ExAG. Guidance and models are needed to support this step. A prerequisite for the regulatory use of monitoring data is the availability of complete data on the use history of the products containing the respective active substances. Applicants must further demonstrate that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the fields where the active substance has been applied. Modelling in combination with (pseudo)tracer experiments would be the preferred option. The Panel concludes that well‐conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload

Statement of the PPR Panel on a framework for conducting the environmental exposure and risk assessment for transition metals when used as active substances in plant protection products (PPP)

Abstract The European Commission asked the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to prepare a statement on a framework for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of transition metals (e.g. iron and copper) used as active substances in plant protection products (PPPs). Non‐degradability, essentiality and specific conditions affecting fate and behaviour as well as their toxicity are distinctive characteristics possibly not covered in current guidance for PPPs. The proposed risk assessment framework starts with a preliminary phase, in which monitoring data on transition metals in relevant environmental compartments are provided. They deliver the metal natural background and anthropogenic residue levels to be considered in the exposure calculations. A first assessment step is then performed assuming fully bioavailable residues. Should the first step fail, refined ERA can, in principle, consider bioavailability issues; however, non‐equilibrium conditions need to be taken into account. Simple models that are fit for purpose should be employed in order to avoid unnecessary complexity. Exposure models and scenarios would need to be adapted to address environmental processes and parameters relevant to the fate and behaviour of transition metals in water, sediment and soils (e.g. speciation). All developments should follow current EFSA guidance documents. If refined approaches have been used in the risk assessment of PPPs containing metals, post‐registration monitoring and controlled long‐term studies should be conducted and assessed. Utilisation of the same transition metal in other PPPs or for other uses will lead to accumulation in environmental compartments acting as sinks. In general, it has to be considered that the prospective risk assessment of metal‐containing PPPs can only cover a defined period as there are limitations in the long‐term hazard assessment due to issues of non‐degradability. It is therefore recommended to consider these aspects in any risk management decisions and to align the ERA with the goals of other overarching legislative frameworks

Scientific statement on the coverage of bats by the current pesticide risk assessment for birds and mammals

Abstract Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test‐species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat‐specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food. Calculations of potential dermal exposure for bats foraging during spraying operations suggest that this may be a very important exposure route. Dermal routes of exposure should be combined with inhalation and oral exposure. Based on the evidence compiled, the Panel concludes that bats are not adequately covered by the current risk assessment approach, and that there is a need to develop a bat‐specific risk assessment scheme. In general, there was scarcity of data to assess the risks for bat exposed to pesticides. Recommendations for research are made, including identification of alternatives to laboratory testing of bats to assess toxicological effects

Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies

EFSA asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues to deliver a Scientific Opinion on testing and interpretation of comparative in vitro metabolism studies for both new active substances and existing ones. The main aim of comparative in vitro metabolism studies of pesticide active substances is to evaluate whether all significant metabolites formed in the human in vitro test system, as a surrogate of the in vivo situation, are also present at comparable level in animal species tested in toxicological studies and, therefore, if their potential toxicity has been appropriately covered by animal studies. The studies may also help to decide which animal model, with regard to a particular compound, is the most relevant for humans. In the experimental strategy, primary hepatocytes in suspension or culture are recommended since hepatocytes are considered the most representative in vitro system for prediction of in vivo metabolites. The experimental design of 3 × 3 × 3 (concentrations, time points, technical replicates, on pooled hepatocytes) will maximise the chance to identify unique (UHM) and disproportionate (DHM) human metabolites. When DHM and UHM are being assessed, test item‐related radioactivity recovery and metabolite profile are the most important parameters. Subsequently, structural characterisation of the assigned metabolites is performed with appropriate analytical techniques. In toxicological assessment of metabolites, the uncertainty factor approach is the first alternative to testing option, followed by new approach methodologies (QSAR, read‐across, in vitro methods), and only if these fail, in vivo animal toxicity studies may be performed. Knowledge of in vitro metabolites in human and animal hepatocytes would enable toxicological evaluation of all metabolites of concern, and, furthermore, add useful pieces of information for detection and evaluation of metabolites in different matrices (crops, livestock, environment), improve biomonitoring efforts via better toxicokinetic understanding, and ultimately, develop regulatory schemes employing physiologically based or physiology‐mimicking in silico and/or in vitro test systems to anticipate the exposure of humans to potentially hazardous substances in plant protection products

Development of Integrated Approaches to Testing and Assessment (IATA) case studies on developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) risk assessment

International audienc