Health and Safety Executive Ecotoxicology Annex II and III data requirements Mark Clook Chemicals Regulation Directorate Health and Safety Executive UK.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
EPAA Annual Conference Regulatory acceptance and implementation of 3Rs approaches Plant protection products Patricia Brunko European Commission - DG SANCO.
Advertisements

Dra. Argelia Castaño Ministry of Science and Technology National Institute Food and Agrarian Research (INIA) Animal Health Research Center (CISA) Dra.
EFSA development of guidance documents Luc Mohimont Pesticides Unit Brussels Regulatory Conference 12 & 13 March 2014.
Francesca Arena European Commission Health and Consumers Directorate General Future data requirements related to bees for the authorisation of plant protection.
Karin Nienstedt - DG SANTE / E3
WORLDWIDE INTEGRATED ASSESSMENT First meta-analysis of systemic pesticides - neonics 800 peer reviewed publications 29 independent scientists Environmental.
1 Post-UNEP/WHO EDC State of the Science 2012 report Personal reflections by Åke Bergman, coordinator of the above mentioned report, IPCP vice chair and.
PROTECTFP PROTECT: First Proposed Levels for Environmental Protection against Radioactive Substances Definitions, Derivation Methods to Determine.
“International context and response to draft D5b – a conservation agencies view” PROTECT Workshop, Aix en Provence. 14 May 2008.
Cut-Offs and Candidates for Substitution:
1 Office of Pesticide Programs Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division Sheryl K. Reilly, Ph.D. Chief, Biochemical Pesticides Branch
Overview of EFSA’s work on opinions and guidance
1 Plant Protection Products & their Residues (PPR) Panel Presentation to the EFSA Management Board, Lisbon 13 th December 2007 Tony Hardy, Central Science.
Priority-setting for the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program: Pesticide Active Ingredients Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp Office of Pesticide Programs U.S.
Operator exposure – current status and industry experience Alistair Morriss European Crop Protection Regulatory Conference 11 th – 12 th March 2015.
Industry View on EFSA Environmental Guidance Document Development and Recent Experiences with Opinions & Guidance Dr Peter Campbell.
EPA Tier I Screening Process and
Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Plant Effects into Community Level Benchmarks EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.
EDSP Validation Gary E.Timm Senior Technical Advisor Office of Science Coordination and Policy U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Bénédicte Vagenende Pesticides Unit Crop Protection European Regulatory Conference, March 2015 EFSA’s role in the evaluation of active substances 1.
Criteria for Screens— Review of the EDSTAC Recommendations Presentation to the EDMVS July 23, 2002.
Introduction to Ecotoxicology Francesca Tencalla Beltox Seminar, Part 6.1.
Training Session Product File Notes and Registration Reports, 23 October Product File Note Part Ecotoxicology Ilse Pittomvils Federal Public Service.
Health and Safety Executive Feedback from Post-Approval Issues Group Darren Flynn Chemicals Regulation Directorate.
Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) Status of the U.S. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) September
June 2008 Proposal for a Regulation to replace Directive 91/414/EEC July 2008 T Lyall.
PROTECTFP Derivation of Environmental Radiological Protection Benchmarks an overview
GHS CLASSIFICATION ONLINE. Registration: Click on “Register”
Development and application of guidance documents – industry view Dr Martin Schaefer ECCA-ECPA Conference March 2014.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration Notice: Archived Document The content in this document is provided on the FDA’s website for reference purposes only.
Review of the New Substances Notification Regulations (Organisms) – an Update CCAC National Workshop 2010 Crowne Plaza Hotel, Ottawa, ON Presented by:
Second expert group meeting on Draft fiche on delegated act on the European code of conduct on partnership (ECCP) Cohesion Policy
Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,
Advisory group on fruit and vegetables 7 March 2008
Introduction to Session II: Incorporating Existing Data into the EDSP Erik R. Janus Director, Human Health Policy CropLife America.
Setting Standards: The Science of Water Quality Criteria EA Engineering, Science, and Technology ® Presented by: James B. Whitaker Review of Annex 1 of.
Technical Support for the Impact Assessment of the Review of Priority Substances under Directive 2000/60/EC Updated Project Method for WG/E Brussels 22/10/10.
Assessing effects of pesticides on the breakdown of organic matter Geoff Frampton Susan Jones University of Southampton, UK Thomas Knacker Joerg Roembke.
Health and Safety Executive Active Substance Approval Matt Burns Pesticides Branch.
1 State of Play Prioritisation of Substances By modelling Hazard & Exposure Klaus Daginnus Institute for Health & Consumer Protection Joint Research Centre,
Water.europa.eu Draft mandate WGE Chemical Status WG E Priority Substances 8-9 October 2009 Jorge Rodriguez Romero Madalina David DG Environment, European.
MSFD monitoring guidance MSCG proposed amendments Nikolaos ZAMPOUKAS.
Purpose, Scope and Application of the GHS 1. The Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS) is a rational and comprehensive.
1. Consumers, Health, Agriculture and Food Executive Agency Risk assessment with regard to food and feed safety Risk analysis Why risk assessment in the.
Abstract A step-wise or ‘tiered’ approach has been used as a rational procedure to conduct environmental risk assessments in many disciplines. The Technical.
Transforming Our World: Delivering affordable medicines to anyone, anywhere, any day 1 Environmental hazards of substances Annex 1 – Part 4 of CLP Date:
Staff Presentation – Grizly Max
EFSA Trusted science for safe food Guilhem de Sèze
Handling the risk of chemicals in food and feed
Making it more relevant! Higher-tier data and Weight of Evidence Day 2. Adam Peters and Graham Merrington 2017.
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Update on recent developments in the ed regulatory landscape in Europe
Draft Article 8 MSFD assessment guidance
CIS guidance document on E-Flows
Updating of the Reporting Guidance for the Floods Directive: Context
WGC Review of Groundwater Directive Annex I/II
Review of the WFD priority substances list
Review of the list of priority substances (Decision 2455/2001/EC)
on Priority Substances Strategic Coordination Group
Technical guidance for assessment under Article 8 MSFD
on Priority Substances Strategic Coordination Group
Revision of the technical annexes of the BPR
Conclusion and action points 13th meeting of ESA working group October 2015, Brussels MSCG 5th November 2015, Brussels.
Nickel Risk Assessment
Natura 2000: points of information
Update on legal issues Strategic Coordination Group 23 February 2010
EFSA’s Chemical Hazards Database
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
DG Environment, Unit D.2 Marine Environment and Water Industry
Mandate and proposal for working methods
Presentation transcript:

Health and Safety Executive Ecotoxicology Annex II and III data requirements Mark Clook Chemicals Regulation Directorate Health and Safety Executive UK

Outline of presentation History Changes – general Changes – to data requirements

History Drafts developed in 2002 following consultation with the Member States –Mark Lynch of PCS – drew up first draft and chaired first meetings Several rounds of expert meetings –Involved experts from IE, IT, RO, HU, BE, AU, DK, PL, FR, DE, SE, UK, NL, EFSA – comments received from ECPA and other MS

History contd Revision 7 + MS + ECPA comments sent to EFSA PPR Panel in 2006 Comments in PPR opinion Commission asked PSD to revise/update data requirements in light of PPR opinion + MS + ECPA comments EFSA commented on the revised version – then MS+COM+EFSA produced the draft that is being considered today

Changes Update data requirements in light of EFSA opinions, guidance documents and other scientific developments Editorial issues Moving some data requirements from Annex III to Annex II

Changes ECx vs NOEC For new long-term/chronic/reproduction studies the dose or concentration range should be selected to enable the derivation of an EC10 and EC20 along with corresponding 95% confidence intervals and a NOEC value

Changes ECx vs NOEC – existing studies ECx may not be available In these circumstances the study should not be repeated but an attempt should be made to determine EC10 and EC20 along with corresponding 95% confidence interval, as well as the NOEC value An assessment should also be made regarding their statistical robustness

Changes EQS Review of aquatic data required Used to establish environmental quality standards (EQS) for Water Framework Directive

Annex II – Avian dietary study is not a core data requirement, only required if: A short term dietary study should only be conducted for those pesticides where the mode of action and/or results from mammalian studies indicate a potential for the LD50 measured by the short term study to be lower than the LD50 based on an acute oral study. The short-term dietary test should not be conducted for any other purpose than to determine intrinsic toxicity through dietary exposure, unless the necessity can be clearly justified

Annex II – Data have been requested on the effects on terrestrial vertebrate wildlife (birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians) Not a request for more studies – available and relevant data required

Annex II – Potential endocrine disrupting substances Nothing specific in terms of data requirements Need to discuss with MS

Annex II – Acute fish studies – reduced from two species to just one species. Always required – classification and labelling

Annex II – The need for chronic/long-term data is now a core data requirement This was due to concerns raised by EFSA PPR and other MS Two studies are required – an assay (OECD 229 or 230) followed by either a full fish life cycle study or an early life stage study

Annex II – A fish short-term reproduction screening assay should be conducted. If the results indicate the potential for reproductive effects, then a full fish life cycle study is required. If the results do not indicate the potential for reproductive effects, then an early life stage study is required.

Annex II – If the active substance is considered to be a potential endocrine disruptor, then a full fish life cycle study is required. In the specific case that the endocrine disrupting effect is known to be based on aromatase inhibition e.g. in certain ergosterolsynthesis- inhibiting fungicides a Fish Sexual Development Test (FSDT) is sufficient. In this case, the sex- ratio is the most sensitive endpoint, which is fully covered by the FSDT.

Annex II – Requirement for a study on Mysid shrimp – insecticides only New requirement to address concerns of MS and EFSA regarding diversity of aquatic inverts Relevance of Mysid noted

Annex II – Long-term and chronic toxicity to aquatic invertebrates Carried out on the either Daphnia magna or Mysid shrimp – depending which is more sensitive Role of chironomid? IGR?

Annex II – Amphibian metamorphosis assay OECD 231 requested to address the endocrine issue and cover amphibians as well

Annex II – Honeybee brood feeding test Study requested to address long-term risk to honeybees

Annex II – Earthworm – sub-lethal effects Addresses issues regarding long- term/reproductive effects on earthworms. Dropped acute study.

Annex II – Effects on non-target soil mesofauna (other than earthworms) Change from function/structure mix to structure Studies on Hypoaspis aculeifer and Foslomia candida are now required. However the need is dependant upon the toxicity/risk to non-target arthropods.

Annex II – 8.5 Effects on soil nitrogen transformation No change, however there has been the removal of the carbon mineralisation study

Annex III – Higher tier testing for non-target soil mesofauna (other than earthworms) Removal of requirement for the litter bag, replaced with species/structure based studies (e.g. Terrestrial model ecosystem)

Annex II – 10.6 As for active substance Effects on soil nitrogen transformation No change, however there has been the removal of the carbon mineralisation study