Anthony Hardy

Development of a framework based on an ecosystem services approach for deriving specific protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticides

General protection goals for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) of plant protection products are stated in European legislation but specific protection goals (SPGs) are often not precisely defined. These are however crucial for designing appropriate risk assessment schemes. The process followed by the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) as well as examples of resulting SPGs obtained so far for environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides is presented. The ecosystem services approach was used as an overarching concept for the development of SPGs, which will likely facilitate communication with stakeholders in general and risk managers in particular. It is proposed to develop SPG options for 7 key drivers for ecosystem services (microbes, algae, non target plants (aquatic and terrestrial), aquatic invertebrates, terrestrial non target arthropods including honeybees, terrestrial non-arthropod invertebrates, and vertebrates), covering the ecosystem services that could potentially be affected by the use of pesticides. These SPGs need to be defined in 6 dimensions: biological entity, attribute, magnitude, temporal and geographical scale of the effect, and the degree of certainty that the specified level of effect will not be exceeded. In general, to ensure ecosystem services, taxa representative for the key drivers identified need to be protected at the population level. However, for some vertebrates and species that have a protection status in legislation, protection may be at the individual level. To protect the provisioning and supporting services provided by microbes it may be sufficient to protect them at the functional group level. To protect biodiversity impacts need to be assessed at least at the scale of the watershed/landscape.

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.

Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments

Abstract EFSA requested the Scientific Committee to develop a guidance document on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments for use in all areas under EFSAs remit. The guidance document addresses the use of weight of evidence approaches in scientific assessments using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Several case studies covering the various areas under EFSAs remit are annexed to the guidance document to illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach. Weight of evidence assessment is defined in this guidance as a process in which evidence is integrated to determine the relative support for possible answers to a question. This document considers the weight of evidence assessment as comprising three basic steps: (1) assembling the evidence into lines of evidence of similar type, (2) weighing the evidence, (3) integrating the evidence. The present document identifies reliability, relevance and consistency as three basic considerations for weighing evidence.

Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments

Abstract Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSAs scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision‐making. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail.

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.

Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments

Abstract EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered.

Scientific motivations and criteria to consider updating EFSA scientific assessments

Abstract EFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re‐assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self‐tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSAs remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSAs mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments.

Clarification of some aspects related to genotoxicity assessment

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to provide advice on the following: (1) the suitability of the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in vivo assay to follow‐up positive results in in vitro gene mutation tests; (2) the adequacy to demonstrate target tissue exposure in in vivo studies, particularly in the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; (3) the use of data in a weight‐of‐evidence approach to conclude on the genotoxic potential of substances and the consequent setting of health‐based guidance values. The Scientific Committee concluded that the first question should be addressed in both a retrospective and a prospective way: for future assessments, it is recommended no longer performing the UDS test. For re‐assessments, if the outcome of the UDS is negative, the reliability and significance of results should be carefully evaluated in a weight‐of‐evidence approach, before deciding whether more sensitive tests such as transgenic assay or in vivo comet assay would be needed to complete the assessment. Regarding the second question, the Scientific Committee concluded that it should be addressed in lines of evidence of bone marrow exposure: toxicity to the bone marrow in itself provides sufficient evidence to allow concluding on the validity of a negative outcome of a study. All other lines of evidence of target tissue exposure should be assessed within a weight‐of‐evidence approach. Regarding the third question, the Scientific Committee concluded that any available data that may assist in reducing the uncertainty in the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a substance should be taken into consideration. If the overall evaluation leaves no concerns for genotoxicity, health‐based guidance values may be established. However, if concerns for genotoxicity remain, establishing health‐based guidance values is not considered appropriate.