Guidance on dermal absorption

This guidance on the assessment of dermal absorption has been developed to assist notifiers, users of test facilities and Member State authorities on critical aspects related to the setting of dermal absorption values to be used in risk assessments of active substances in Plant Protection Products (PPPs). It is based on the ‘scientific opinion on the science behind the revision of the guidance document on dermal absorption’ issued in 2011 by the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). The guidance refers to the EFSA PPR opinion in many instances. In addition, the first version of this guidance, issued in 2012 by the EFSA PPR Panel, has been revised in 2017 on the basis of new available data on human in vitro dermal absorption for PPPs and wherever clarifications were needed. Basic details of experimental design, available in the respective test guidelines and accompanying guidance for the conduct of studies, have not been addressed but recommendations specific to performing and interpreting dermal absorption studies with PPPs are given. Issues discussed include a brief description of the skin and its properties affecting dermal absorption. To facilitate use of the guidance, flow charts are included. Guidance is also provided, for example, when there are no data on dermal absorption for the product under evaluation. Elements for a tiered approach are presented including use of default values, data on closely related products, in vitro studies with human skin (regarded to provide the best estimate), data from experimental animals (rats) in vitro and in vivo, and the so called ‘triple pack’ approach. Various elements of study design and reporting that reduce experimental variation and aid consistent interpretation are presented. A proposal for reporting data for assessment reports is also provided. The issue of nanoparticles in PPPs is not addressed. Data from volunteer studies have not been discussed since their use is not allowed in EU for risk assessment of PPPs

Guidance document on the impact of water treatment processes on residues of active substances or their metabolites in water abstracted for the production of drinking water

Abstract This guidance document provides a tiered framework for risk assessors and facilitates risk managers in making decisions concerning the approval of active substances (AS) that are chemicals in plant protection products (PPPs) and biocidal products, and authorisation of the products. Based on the approaches presented in this document, a conclusion can be drawn on the impact of water treatment processes on residues of the AS or its metabolites in surface water and/or groundwater abstracted for the production of drinking water, i.e. the formation of transformation products (TPs). This guidance enables the identification of actual public health concerns from exposure to harmful compounds generated during the processing of water for the production of drinking water, and it focuses on water treatment methods commonly used in the European Union (EU). The tiered framework determines whether residues from PPP use or residues from biocidal product use can be present in water at water abstraction locations. Approaches, including experimental methods, are described that can be used to assess whether harmful TPs may form during water treatment and, if so, how to assess the impact of exposure to these water treatment TPs (tTPs) and other residues including environmental TPs (eTPs) on human and domesticated animal health through the consumption of TPs via drinking water. The types of studies or information that would be required are described while avoiding vertebrate testing as much as possible. The framework integrates the use of weight‐of‐evidence and, when possible alternative (new approach) methods to avoid as far as possible the need for additional testing

Update: use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment

Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log-likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose?response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose?response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panelon the follow-up of the findings of the External Scientific Report "Literature review of epidemiological studies linking exposure to pesticides and health effects'

In 2013, EFSA published a comprehensive systematic review of epidemiological studies published from 2006 to 2012 investigating the association between pesticide exposure and many health outcomes. Despite the considerable amount of epidemiological information available, the quality of much of this evidence was rather low and many limitations likely affect the results so firm conclusions cannot be drawn. Studies that do not meet the ‘recognised standards’ mentioned in the Regulation (EU) No 1107/2009 are thus not suited for risk assessment. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their residues (PPR Panel) was requested to assess the methodological limitations of pesticide epidemiology studies and found that poor exposure characterisation primarily defined the major limitation. Frequent use of case–control studies as opposed to prospective studies was considered another limitation. Inadequate definition or deficiencies in health outcomes need to be avoided and reporting of findings could be improved in some cases. The PPR Panel proposed recommendations on how to improve the quality and reliability of pesticide epidemiology studies to overcome these limitations and to facilitate an appropriate use for risk assessment. The Panel recommended the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analysis, where appropriate, of pesticide observational studies as useful methodology to understand the potential hazards of pesticides, exposure scenarios and methods for assessing exposure, exposure–response characterisation and risk characterisation. Finally, the PPR Panel proposed a methodological approach to integrate and weight multiple lines of evidence, including epidemiological data, for pesticide risk assessment. Biological plausibility can contribute to establishing causation

Guidance on the risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission to EFSA, the EFSA Scientific Committee (SC) prepared a guidance for the risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. In its approach to develop this guidance, the EFSA SC took into account, among others, (i) an exposure assessment based on infant formula as the only source of nutrition; (ii) knowledge of organ development in human infants, including the development of the gut, metabolic and excretory capacities, the brain and brain barriers, the immune system, the endocrine and reproductive systems; (iii) the overall toxicological profile of the substance identified through the standard toxicological tests, including critical effects; (iv) the relevance for the human infant of the neonatal experimental animal models used. The EFSA SC notes that during the period from birth up to 16 weeks, infants are expected to be exclusively fed on breast milk and/or infant formula. The EFSA SC views this period as the time where health-based guidance values for the general population do not apply without further considerations. High infant formula consumption per body weight is derived from 95th percentile consumption. The first weeks of life is the time of the highest relative consumption on a body weight basis. Therefore, when performing an exposure assessment, the EFSA SC proposes to use the high consumption value of 260 mL/kg bw per day. A decision tree approach is proposed that enables a risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. The additional information needed when testing substances present in food for infants below 16 weeks of age and the approach to be taken for the risk assessment are on a case-by-case basis, depending on whether the substance is added intentionally to food and is systemically available

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance azadirachtin (Margosa extract)

Abstract The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Germany, for the pesticide active substance azadirachtin are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the additional representative use of azadirachtin as an acaricide on greenhouse ornamentals. Conclusions are also represented for the representative use evaluated for the approval of azadirachtin, which was as an insecticide on potatoes. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance carvone (substance evaluated d‐carvone)

Abstract 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, the Netherlands and co‐rapporteur Member State, Sweden, for the pesticide active substance carvone are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of carvone (substance evaluated d‐carvone) as a plant growth regulator on seed potatoes. 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

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance (EZ)‐1,3‐dichloropropene

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Spain, for the pesticide active substance (EZ)‐1,3‐dichloropropene are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of (EZ)‐1,3‐dichloropropene as a nematicide in fruiting vegetables (tomato, pepper, eggplant, cucumber, zucchini, melon and watermelon). The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clodinafop (variant evaluated clodinafop‐propargyl)

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State Greece and co‐rapporteur Member State Germany for the pesticide active substance clodinafop‐propargyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of clodinafop‐propargyl as a herbicide on wheat, rye and triticale. 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 identified

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance tribenuron‐methyl

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, Sweden, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Latvia, for the pesticide active substance tribenuron‐methyl are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of tribenuron‐methyl as a herbicide on winter and spring cereals (wheat, barley, oat, rye, triticale, durum, spelt), pasture, sunflower (tribenuron‐methyl‐tolerant varieties) and olive. 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 identified