Outcome of the pesticides peer review meeting on general recurring issues in ecotoxicology

Abstract

EFSA Supporting PublicationsVolume 12, Issue 12 924E Technical reportOpen Access Outcome of the pesticides peer review meeting on general recurring issues in ecotoxicology European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority, European Food Safety AuthoritySearch for more papers by this author First published: 23 December 2015 https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2015.EN-924Citations: 7 Published date: 23 December 2015 Question number: EFSA-Q-2015-00720 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat References Aupinel P., Medrzycki P., Fortini D., Michaud B., Tasei J.N., Odoux J. F. (2007). A new larval in vitro rearing method to test effects of pesticides on honey bee brood. Redia, 90, 91– 94. Azimonti et al., 2015. Comparison of NOEC values to EC10/EC20 values, including confidence intervals, in aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicological risk assessment. EFSA supporting publication 2015:EN-906. 274 pp. Collins B.T., 1994. The Avian Reproduction Study: Distribution of the Control Data and Statistical Power Analyses. (Technical Report Series no. 214) Toronto Ontario Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2009. Guidance on Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals on request from EFSA. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(12): 1438, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1438 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011. Submission of scientific peer-reviewed open literature for the approval of pesticide active substances under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(2): 2092, doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2092 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012. Peer Review Report to the conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance penflufen. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013. Guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7):3295, 266 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014. EFSA Guidance Document on clustering and ranking of emissions of active substances of plant protection products and transformation products of these active substances from protected crops (greenhouses and crops grown under cover) to relevant environmental compartments. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(3):3615, 48 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3615 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015a. Peer Review Report to the conclusion regarding the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance imidacloprid, considering all uses other than seed treatments and granules. Available online: www.efsa.europa.eu EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2015b. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glyphosate. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(11):4302, 62 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4302 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2009. Scientific Opinion updating the opinion related to Annex II & III: Ecotoxicological studies. EFSA Journal 2009, 1165, 1– 25. EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2012. Scientific Opinion on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal 2012; 10(5).2668. 275 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2668 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2013. Guidance on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7):3290. 268 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3290 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2014. Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(7):3800, 163 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.380 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2015. Scientific Opinion on the effect assessment for pesticides on sediment organisms in edge-of-field surface water. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(7):4176, 145 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4176 European Commission, 2002a. Guidance Document on Aquatic Ecotoxicology in the context of the Directive 91/414/EEC. SANCO/3268/2001 rev.4 (final), 17 October 2002 European Commission, 2002b. Guidance Document on Terrestrial Ecotoxicology Under Council Directive 91/414/EEC. SANCO/10329/2002 rev 2 (final), 17 October 2002 European Commission, 2015a, Guidance Document on tiered risk assessment for plant protection products for aquatic organisms in edge-of-field surface waters in the context of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, SANTE-2015-00080, 15 January 2015 European Commission, 2015b, Guidance Document on clustering and ranking of emissions of plant protection products and transformation products of these active substances from protected crops (greenhouses and crops grown under cover) to relevant environmental compartments, SANCO/12184/2014 – rev. 5.1, 14 July 2015 FOCUS (Forum for the Co-ordination of Pesticide Fate Models and their Use), 2006. Guidance document on estimating persistence and degradation kinetics from environmental fate studies on pesticides in EU Registration Report of the FOCUS Work Group on Degradation Kinetics. EC Document Reference SANCO/10058/2005-v. 2.0, 434 pp. Hoenig J.M., Heisey D.M., 2001. The Abuse of Power: The Pervasive Fallacy of Power Calculations for Data Analysis. The American Statistician, 55(1): 19– 24. ISO 11268-1:1993(E), Soil quality – Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) – Part 1: Determination of acute toxicity using artificial soil Substrate, First edition 1993-12-15 ISO 11268-2:1998(E), Soil quality — Effects of pollutants on earthworms (Eisenia fetida) – Part 2: Determination of effects on reproduction, First edition 1998-07-01 Jager, T., 2012. Bad habits die hard; the NOEC's persistence reflects poorly on ecotoxicology. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 31(2): 228– 229. Laskowski, R., 1995. Some Good Reasons to Ban the Use of NOEC, LOEC and Related Concepts in Ecotoxicology. Oikos, 73(1): 140– 144. Landis, W.G. and Chapman, P.M., 2011. Well Past Time to Stop Using NOELs and LOELs. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management 7(4): vi– viii. Maltby L., Arnold D., Arts G., Davies J., Heimbach F., Pickl C., Poulsen V. (2010). Aquatic Macrophyte Risk Assessment for pesticides (AMRAP). SETAC Press & CRC Press, Taylor & -Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, New York, p. 46– 56 Mineau P, Harding KM, Whiteside M, Fletcher MR, Garthwaite D and Knopper LD, 2008. Using reports of bee mortality in the field to calibrate laboratory-derived pesticide risk indices. Environmental Entomology, 37, 546– 554. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1984a. Test No. 205: Avian Dietary Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1984b Test No. 207: Earthworm, Acute Toxicity Tests, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1992. Test No. 203: Fish, Acute Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1998a. Test No. 213: Honeybees, Acute Oral Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 1998b. Test No. 408: Repeated Dose 90-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2001a. Test No. 416: Two-Generation Reproduction Toxicity, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2001b. Test No. 414: Prenatal Development Toxicity Study, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2002a. Test No. 23: Guidance Document on Aquatic Toxicity Testing of Difficult Substances and Mixtures, OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2002b. Report of the SETAC/OECD Workshop on Avian Toxicity Testing. OECD Series on Testing and Assessment, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004a. Test No. 202: Daphnia sp. Acute Immobilisation Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004b. Test No. 218: Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using Spiked Sediment, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004c. Test No. 219: Sediment-Water Chironomid Toxicity Using Spiked Water, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004d. Test No. 220: Enchytraeid Reproduction Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2004e. Test No. 222: Earthworm Reproduction Test (Eisenia fetida/Eisenia andrei), OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2008a. Test No. 226: Predatory mite (Hypoaspis (Geolaelaps) aculeifer reproduction tests in soil, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2008b. Test No. 407: Repeated Dose 28-day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 4, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2009. Test No. 232: Collembolan Reproduction Test in Soil, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2010a. Test No. 233: Sediment-Water Chironomid Life-Cycle Toxicity Test Using Spiked Water or Spiked Sediment, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2010b. Test No. 223: Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2010c. Test No. 317: Bioaccumulation in Terrestrial Oligochaetes, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 3, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), 2011. Test No. 201: Freshwater Alga and Cyanobacteria, Growth Inhibition Test, OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals, Section 2, OECD Publishing, Paris. O'Keefe D.J., 2007. Post Hoc Power, Observed Power, A Priori Power, Retrospective Power, Prospective Power, Achieved Power: Sorting Out Appropriate Uses of Statistical Power Analyses. Communication Methods and Measures, 1(4): 291– 299. Oomen P.A., de Ruijter A., van der Steen J. (1992). Method for honeybee brood feeding tests with insect growth – regulating insecticides. OEPP/EPPO Bulletin 22(4): 613– 616. Smith A.H., Bates M.N., 1992. Confidence Limit Analyses Should Replace Power Calculations in the Interpretation of Epidemiologic Studies. Epidemiology, 3(5): 449– 452. Swarowsky, K., Duquesne, S., Hönemann, L., Matezki, S., Kühnen, U., Aagard, A., Aldrich, A., Berchtold, J., Poulsen, V., van Vliet, P., Virtanen, V., Wogram, J., 2015. Aquatic primary producers in pesticide risk assessment:: endpoints and level of protection. Poster presentation at the 25th SETAC Europe Annual Meeting – 6-9 May 2015 – Barcelona. Szentes Cs., Lackó L. 2006, A földigiliszták expozíciójának és növényvédő szer felvételének vizsgálata néhány lipofill hatóanyag esetében, összefüggésben a környezeti kockázatbecsléssel, Annual Congress of the Union of Hungarian Toxicologists, Galyatető, Hungary, 2006 Szentes Cs., Lackó L. 2007, A talajlakó makró-szervezetek expozíciója és növényvédő szer felvétele a hatóanyag lipofill jellegének tükrében, összefüggésben a növényvédő szerek környezeti kockázatbecslésével, Növényvédelmi Tudományos Napok, Budapest, 2007 Thompson HM and Thorbahn D, 2009. Review of honeybee pesticide poisoning incidents in Europe – evaluation of the hazard quotient approach for risk assessment. Julius-Kühn Archiv, 423, 103– 108. Zumbo, B. D., Hubley A. M., 1998. A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D: The Statistician, 47, 385– 388. Citing Literature Volume12, Issue12December 2015924E ReferencesRelatedInformation