Guidance on the assessment of exposure of operators, workers, residents and bystanders in risk assessment of plant protection products.

This guidance is designed to assist risk assessors and applicants when quantifying potential non-dietary, systemic exposures as part of regulatory risk assessment for plant protection products (PPPs). It is based on the Scientific Opinion on 'Preparation of a Guidance Document on Pesticide Exposure Assessment for Workers, Operators, Residents and Bystanders' developed by the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residue (PPR) in 2010. Highlighting some inconsistencies between the approaches adopted by regulatory authorities, the PPR Panel proposed a number of changes to the practices in use (i.e. use of deterministic methods for individual PPPs; need to perform an acute risk assessment for PPPs that are acutely toxic; use of appropriate percentile for acute or longer term risk assessments). In the first version of the guidance, issued in 2014, several scenarios for outdoor uses were included, with an annexed calculator, as well as recommendations for further research. The guidance has been updated in 2021 with the inclusion of additional scenarios and revision of default values, on the basis of the evaluation of additional evidence. To support users in performing the assessment of exposure and risk, an online calculator, reflecting the guidance content, has been further developed.

Effect of individual parameter changes on the outcome of the estimated short-term dietary exposure to pesticides.

In 2015 a scientific workshop was held in Geneva, where updating the International Estimate of Short-Term Intake (IESTI) equations was suggested. This paper studies the effects of the proposed changes in residue inputs, large portions, variability factors and unit weights on the overall short-term dietary exposure estimate. Depending on the IESTI case equation, a median increase in estimated overall exposure by a factor of 1.0-6.8 was observed when the current IESTI equations are replaced by the proposed IESTI equations. The highest increase in the estimated exposure arises from the replacement of the median residue (STMR) by the maximum residue limit (MRL) for bulked and blended commodities (case 3 equations). The change in large portion parameter does not have a significant impact on the estimated exposure. The use of large portions derived from the general population covering all age groups and bodyweights should be avoided when large portions are not expressed on an individual bodyweight basis. Replacement of the highest residue (HR) by the MRL and removal of the unit weight each increase the estimated exposure for small-, medium- and large-sized commodities (case 1, case 2a or case 2b equations). However, within the EU framework lowering of the variability factor from 7 or 5 to 3 counterbalances the effect of changes in other parameters, resulting in an estimated overall exposure change for the EU situation of a factor of 0.87-1.7 and 0.6-1.4 for IESTI case 2a and case 2b equations, respectively.

Scientific Opinion of the PPR Panel on 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.

A European model and case studies for aggregate exposure assessment of pesticides.

Exposures to plant protection products (PPPs) are assessed using risk analysis methods to protect public health. Traditionally, single sources, such as food or individual occupational sources, have been addressed. In reality, individuals can be exposed simultaneously to multiple sources. Improved regulation therefore requires the development of new tools for estimating the population distribution of exposures aggregated within an individual. A new aggregate model is described, which allows individual users to include as much, or as little, information as is available or relevant for their particular scenario. Depending on the inputs provided by the user, the outputs can range from simple deterministic values through to probabilistic analyses including characterisations of variability and uncertainty. Exposures can be calculated for multiple compounds, routes and sources of exposure. The aggregate model links to the cumulative dietary exposure model developed in parallel and is implemented in the web-based software tool MCRA. Case studies are presented to illustrate the potential of this model, with inputs drawn from existing European data sources and models. These cover exposures to UK arable spray operators, Italian vineyard spray operators, Netherlands users of a consumer spray and UK bystanders/residents. The model could also be adapted to handle non-PPP compounds.

Cumulative dietary exposure to a selected group of pesticides of the triazole group in different European countries according to the EFSA guidance on probabilistic modelling.

The practicality was examined of performing a cumulative dietary exposure assessment according to the requirements of the EFSA guidance on probabilistic modelling. For this the acute and chronic cumulative exposure to triazole pesticides was estimated using national food consumption and monitoring data of eight European countries. Both the acute and chronic cumulative dietary exposures were calculated according to two model runs (optimistic and pessimistic) as recommended in the EFSA guidance. The exposures obtained with these model runs differed substantially for all countries, with the highest exposures obtained with the pessimistic model run. In this model run, animal commodities including cattle milk and different meat types, entered in the exposure calculations at the level of the maximum residue limit (MRL), contributed most to the exposure. We conclude that application of the optimistic model run on a routine basis for cumulative assessments is feasible. The pessimistic model run is laborious and the exposure results could be too far from reality. More experience with this approach is needed to stimulate the discussion of the feasibility of all the requirements, especially the inclusion of MRLs of animal commodities which seem to result in unrealistic conclusions regarding their contribution to the dietary exposure.

Cumulative risk assessment of pesticide residues in food.

There is increasing need to address the potential risks of combined exposures to multiple residues from pesticides in the diet. The available evidence suggests that the main concern is from dose addition of those compounds that act by the same mode of action. The possibility of synergy needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis, where there is a biologically plausible hypothesis that it may occur at the levels of residues occurring in the diet. Cumulative risk assessment is a resource-intense activity and hence a tiered approach to both toxicological evaluation and intake estimation is recommended, and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has recently published such a proposal. Where assessments have already been undertaken by some other authority, full advantage should be taken of these, subject of course to considerations of quality and relevance. Inclusion of compounds in a cumulative assessment group (CAG) should be based on defined criteria, which allow for refinement in a tiered approach. These criteria should include chemical structure, mechanism of pesticidal action, target organ and toxic mode of action. A number of methods are available for cumulating toxicity. These are all inter-related, but some are mathematically more complex than others. The most useful methods, in increasing levels of complexity and refinement, are the hazard index, the reference point index, the Relative Potency Factor method and physiologically based toxicokinetic modelling, although this last method would only be considered should a highly refined assessment be necessary. Four possible exposure scenarios are of relevance for cumulative risk assessment, acute and chronic exposure in the context of maximum residue level (MRL)-setting, and in relation to exposures from the actual use patterns, respectively. Each can be addressed either deterministically or probabilistically. Strategies for dealing with residues below the limit of detection, limit of quantification or limit of reporting need to be agreed. A number of probabilistic models are available, but some of there are geographically constrained due to the underlying datasets used in their construction. Guidance on probabilistic modelling needs to be finalised. Cumulative risk assessments have been performed in a number of countries, on organophosphate insecticides alone (USA) or together with carbamates (UK, DK, NL), triazines, chloroacetanilides, carbamates alone (USA), and all pesticides (DE). All identifiable assumptions and uncertainties should be tabulated and evaluated, at least qualitatively. Those likely to have a major impact on the outcome of the assessment should be examined quantitatively. In cumulative risk assessment, it is necessary, as in other risk assessments, for risk managers to consider what level of risk would be considered "acceptable", for example what percentile of the population should be below the reference value. Criteria for prioritising CAGs for cumulative risk assessment include frequency of detection in monitoring programmes, high usage, high exposure relative to the reference value, large number of compounds (e.g. five or more) in a group.