Daniele Court Marques

Guidance on dermal absorption

Abstract 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.

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 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 for the triazole derivative metabolites in light of confirmatory data submitted

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide risk assessment for the triazole derivative metabolites are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory data in relation to mammalian toxicology, metabolism and residue data. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of various uses for a number of triazole fungicides. Recommendations are proposed. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

Peer review of the targeted hazard assessment of the pesticide active substance quinoxyfen

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Austria, for the pesticide active substance quinoxyfen 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 information targeted at the assessment of the potential persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT), very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB) and persistent organic pollutant (POP) properties of quinoxyfen according to Article 11(2) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in these regulatory hazard cut off assessments are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. The concern is identified that quinoxyfen may be considered to exhibit the hazard properties of both a PBT and vPvB substance considering the triggers specified in Annex II of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009.

Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance pethoxamid

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, Austria, and co‐rapporteur Member State, the Czech Republic, for the pesticide active substance pethoxamid 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 pethoxamid as a herbicide on maize and soya bean. 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 mepanipyrim

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, Belgium, and co‐rapporteur Member State, Greece, for the pesticide active substance mepanipyrim 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 mepanipyrim as a fungicide on table and wine grapes, and in field and protected strawberries and tomatoes. 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 for the active substance terbuthylazine in light of confirmatory data submitted

Abstract The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessment carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, the United Kingdom, for the pesticide active substance metazachlor are reported. The context of the peer review was that requested by the European Commission following the submission and evaluation of confirmatory data regarding the groundwater exposure of metabolites and their toxicological relevance triggering an assessment. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of metazachlor as a herbicide on winter and spring rapeseed and on ornamental trees and shrubs. The reliable endpoints concluded as being appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, derived from the available studies and literature in the dossier peer reviewed, are presented. Concerns are identified.

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 Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03

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 the Netherlands, for the pesticide active substance Bacillus subtilis strain IAB/BS03 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 B. subtilis strain IAB/BS03 as a fungicide on field lettuce, orchards and protected cucurbits. 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.