Search EFSA Journal
Refine your search
Type
All article types
Special Issue Item
Journal Editorial
Scientific opinions of Scientific/Scientific Panel
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Statement of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Guidance of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
Other scientific outputs of EFSA
Statement of EFSA
Guidance of EFSA
Conclusion on pesticides
Reasoned opinion on pesticide
Scientific report of EFSA
Technical Report
Subject
All subjects
Animal health & welfare
Biological hazards
Biological monitoring
Contaminants
Dietary & chemical monitoring
Emerging risks
Feed
Food Ingredients and Packaging
GMO
Nutrition
Pesticides
Plant health
Assessment and methodological support
Scientific Committee
Scientific cooperation
Article ID
Digital Object ID
Sort by:
Publication date
Relevance

Scientific Opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative assessment groups on the basis of their toxicological profile

EFSA Journal 2013;11(7):3293 [131 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3293
  EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) Panel Members Alf Aagaard, Theo Brock, Ettore Capri, Sabine Duquesne, Metka Filipic, Antonio Hernandez-Jerez, Karen Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Michael Klein, Thomas Kuhl, Ryszard Laskowski, Matthias Liess, Alberto Mantovani, Colin Ockleford, Bernadette Ossendorp, Daniel Pickford, Robert Smith, Paulo Sousa, Ingvar Sundh, Aaldrik Tiktak, Ton Van Der Linden Acknowledgment The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Cumulative Assessment Groups of Pesticides Claudia Bolognesi (until June 2012), Alan Boobis (until June 2012), Antonio Hernandez-Jerez, Karen Ildico Hirsch-Ernst, Susanne Hougaard Bennekou, Andreas Kortenkamp, Kyriaki Machera (until June 2012), Alberto Mantovani, Angelo Moretto (until January 2011), Roland Solecki, Maria Tasheva (until June 2012), Christiane Vleminckx (until June 2012) and the EFSA staff members Charlotte Bergkvist, Federica Crivellente, Edgars Felkers (until March 2012), Frédérique Istace, István Sebestyén (until May 2012), Luc Mohimont, Hans Steinkellner, Andrea Terron and Manuela Tiramani for the support provided to this scientific opinion. Contact pesticides.ppr@efsa.europa.eu
Type: Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel On request from: EFSA Question number: EFSA-Q-2009-00860 Adopted: 19 June 2013 Published: 12 July 2013 Affiliation: European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Abstract

The European Food Safety Authority asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues to develop an Opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) on the basis of their toxicological profile. In 2008, the PPR Panel adopted an Opinion on the suitability of existing methodologies for cumulative risk assessment of pesticides and a tiered approach was proposed, which was applied to a selected group of triazole pesticides in 2009. The present Opinion suggests a methodology for grouping of pesticides based on phenomenological effects and provides CAGs for the thyroid and nervous system. This approach can be applied even when the underlying biochemical events mediating the effects are not understood, and is based on a standardised and thorough review of Draft Assessment Reports (DARs) supporting the approval of all pesticides in Europe, and on recommendations from the European Commission. Pesticidal active substances exhibiting neurotoxic properties were allocated to CAGs for acute effects on motor, sensory and autonomic divisions of the nervous system and neurochemical endpoints. Chronic effects across the same divisions/endpoints and neuropathological effects were collated. Active substances having adverse effects on the thyroid system were allocated to CAGs for effects either on C-cells/the calcitonin system or on follicular cells/the T3/T4 system. The PPR Panel notes that the resulting groups encompass many pesticides and also that individual pesticides could appear in several groups and therefore the data entries for performing cumulative risk assessment (CRA) are of considerable magnitude. Although some CAGs contain a large number of pesticides, little indication of cumulative risk may be inferred from the size of CAGs per se. The PPR Panel recommends that the methodology is implemented for all major organ/systems but the approach used should be considered specific for pesticides.

© European Food Safety Authority, 2013

Summary

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) to deliver a scientific Opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) based on their toxicological profile, the aim being to develop cumulative risk assessment (CRA) methodology.

This Opinion was preceded by two previous Opinions (EFSA, 2008, 2009). In the first one, the PPR Panel evaluated existing methodologies on cumulative risk assessment (CRA), and recommended that a tiered approach should be adopted both for hazard and exposure assessments. Criteria for grouping active substances into CAGs were proposed, based on the chemical structure, mechanism of pesticidal action, mode/mechanism of mammalian toxicity and common toxic effects. In the second Opinion an exercise was carried out to test the proposed approach by a worked example of a group of triazole pesticides, a well-defined group in terms of structure, pesticidal mode of action and toxicological effects (EFSA, 2009). Thus, the previous opinions dealt with CRA, encompassing both hazard and exposure assessment. In the Terms of Reference of the current opinion, EFSA has requested for a scientific Opinion on the identification of pesticides to be included in CAGs on the basis of their toxicological profile and deals therefore solely with hazard assessment. The Panel is aware that the conduct of CRA is a process that involves several steps and multiple considerations, many of which go beyond the scope and Terms of Reference of this opinion. CRA has to include the outcome of the current Opinion as well as other critical elements, such as the availability of occurrence data and the scientific and technical capacity of exposure assessment methodologies. Recommendations on the conduct of CRA were outside the scope of the present opinion.

The present Opinion presents a general methodology and criteria specifically developed for establishment of CAGs for pesticides. The methodology has been applied to establish CAGs for pesticides having effects on the thyroid and nervous system, and has been developed on the basis of datasets of oral toxicity studies evaluated in draft assessment reports (DARs). The methodology was developed in order to take cumulative effects into account in the decision on applications concerning maximum residue levels (MRLs) of pesticides in or on food and feed of plant and animal origin. The CAGs derived from this methodology could in principle be used to support CRA resulting from non-dietary exposures (i.e. operator, worker, bystander and resident exposure).

The allocation of pesticide active substances into CAGs requires a standardised and thorough review of the DARs for effects on individual organs and organ systems of all approved pesticides relevant for dietary exposure. Therefore, two preparatory projects for collecting toxicological data from pesticides were initiated. In the first project, all pesticides authorised prior to 31st of May 2009 were evaluated. The contractors proposed a grouping approach starting from identifying toxicological target organs and organ systems and then subsequently refining the grouping by identifying a specific phenomenological effect. If data allowed, the grouping was further refined by identifying a common mode or mechanism of action. The data collection and approach proposed by the contractor was scrutinised and partly consolidated by the PPR Working Group. It was decided that the data collection needed to be re-evaluated and, hence, a second project was launched specifically consolidating identified pesticides having effects on the nervous system, the liver and the reproductive and developmental system. In addition, pesticides approved from 31st of May 2009 until 1st of January 2012 were included in the scope of the second project.

The PPR Panel acknowledges that EU residue monitoring programmes indicate that there is some consumer exposure to residues of non-approved pesticides which should also be included in CAGs.

Following the work undertaken by the PPR Working Group for the current Opinion on reviewing pesticides for inclusion in various CAGs, it became apparent that there are often few or no data available on mode of action, but that many compounds affect the same target organ and/or cell population. On this basis, the proposed methodology follows a phenomenological approach based on organ or system toxicity, consisting in including in a CAG for a specific effect all pesticides causing this effect, even if the underlying mode of action (MoA) is unknown. Interactions (synergisms or antagonisms) are not expected to occur at the low exposure levels of residues that are observed in monitoring programs. Thus, the PPR Panel considers that mainly dose additive effects of substances are normally relevant to CAGs that may be used in the context of MRL setting (EFSA, 2008; Boobis et a., 2008).

As there may be limited opportunity for refinement of CAGs on the basis of available information on mode/mechanism of action, the proposed grouping methodology makes a sufficient precautionary approach, which is agreed upon by the European Commission and EFSA: when insufficient or no information is available, it is assumed that chemicals with the same effects may have a similar mode of action, even though they exhibit a wide range of chemical structural features. This view is based on empirical evidence that chemically unrelated substances may have a common effect in target organs/organ systems, which can be well approximated by dose addition (Kortenkamp et al., 2009). This has to be considered within the context of pesticide evaluations by EFSA and hence the approach recommended in the present Opinion differs from the approach tentatively used by the PPR Panel in its previous work.

The stepwise methodology for grouping has been elaborated to address acute and chronic dietary efects.

The methodology comprises four main steps as follows:

  • Identification of the specific effects by:
    • exclusion of local effects
    • exclusion of non-adverse effects
    • exclusion of effects not relevant to humans
    • evaluation of the unambiguous nature of the effect
    • identification of non-specific effects
  • Characterisation of the specific effects
  • Data collection
  • Grouping of pesticides into CAGs

The PPR Panel recommends that the implementation of the methodology based on specific effects should be supported by expert judgement in order to identify the effects relevant for grouping according to the criteria laid down in the opinion. In particular, expert judgement is required to identify and characterise substances that can trigger different outcomes of the same toxicity pathway (e.g. different effects on motor division of the nervous system) or that may cause toxic effects at multiple sites by a single mode of action (e.g. acetylcholinesterase inhibition).

The CAG methodology in the current Opinion has been applied to the nervous system and the thyroid system.

For the identification and characterisation of the potential neurotoxicity of pesticide active substances, the functional divisions of the nervous system (motor, sensory and autonomic) along with the cognitive domain, neurochemistry and neuropathology parameters were considered as potential targets. Indicators of specific neurotoxic effects were identified and applied to characterise the CAGs for the nervous system.

A total of 68 active substances, were identified as having specific effects on the nervous system. Additional four substances were excluded from grouping because the methodological criteria were not met and/or the exposure to these substances by the oral route was highly unlikely following their authorised use.

The CAGs of substances identified as neurotoxic are presented in two separate tables for acute and chronic effects, respectively. Data were tabulated according to the level of organisation of the nervous system, the indicator of the specific neurotoxic effect, the active substance, its mode of action and the lowest NOAELs and/or LOAELs for each indicator. Non-specific or secondary effects, as well as effects that occur after administration of high doses, resulting in severe systemic toxicity, were not included in these CAGs according to the criteria for identification of specific effects listed above.

The following groups were proposed (number of pesticides in each group):

  • Acute exposure (49)
    • Motor division (45)
    • Sensory division (21)
    • Autonomic division (29)
  • Chronic exposure (65)
    • Motor division (53)
    • Sensory division (22)
    • Autonomic division (24)
    • Neuropathological changes (21)

The Panel recognises that the neurochemical parameters, i.e. brain or erythrocyte AChE inhibition, represent a level of grouping for neurotoxic substances based on mechanism of action rather than on phenomenological effect. However, AChE inhibitors play a prominent role in the risk assessment that would result in an increased sensitivity for some substances. For this reason, and to keep consistency in the grouping approach, the neurochemical parameters should be used for further refinement when this mechanism of action is recognised. In addition, neuropathological changes were considered relevant only for chronic CAGs since some pesticide active substances induced morphological changes as the only adverse effect or they were found to be the most sensitive ones.

Despite the effects of pesticides on the cognitive domain e.g. learning and memory, which are relevant for assessment of neurotoxicity, the information available in the DARs failed to identify these effects. This is very likely because these effects correspond to a higher tier of assessment that was not performed on a routine basis during the toxicological assessment of pesticides.

Owing to the lack of specific requirements for Developmental Neurotoxicity (DNT) testing of pesticides in the European Union, results from such tests, even when in certain instances available (e.g. for dimethoate, fenamiphos, fipronil, malathion and molinate), have not been considered for CAGs in the present opinion.

Since the thyroid functions as a gland that produces systemically acting hormones (calcitonin, thyroxin (T4) and triiodothyronine (T3)), the most conservative level of grouping (CAG 1) was defined by effects occurring on the organ (thyroid) or organ system (hypothalamic-pituitary-thyroid axis) e.g. through thyroid hormone levels (in total 103 of 287 screened substances were identified as affecting the thyroid or thyroid hormone systems). Identification of specific effects concerning two different thyroidal cell populations/hormone systems formed the basis for further refinement, yielding two sub-groups at the second level (CAG2A and CAG2B).

Substances affecting C-cells of the calcitonin system were allocated to CAG2A (25 substances). Owing to interrelationship of the specific effects between C-cell hyperplasia and neoplasms, and absence of information on underlying mechanisms, further sub-grouping of thyroid CAG2A was not possible.

Substances affecting the thyroid follicular cells and the T3/T4 system, i.e. displaying changes in circulating T3/T4 or TSH levels, follicular cell hypertrophy/hyperplasia or follicular cell neoplasia, were allocated to CAG2B (in total 98 substances). The specific effects that were used to define the CAG2B sub-group were apparently interrelated or connected to one another by a chain of events. While the precise mechanism of action is currently unknown for many substances within CAG2B, several different mechanisms of action are expected to contribute to a final deleterious common effect (i.e. decrease in T3/T4 action). For these reasons and based on the information available in DARs, further refinement of grouping is currently not possible. In exceptional cases, where there is convincing evidence for substance-dependent direct stimulation of the thyroid or hyperthyroidism, exclusion of substances from this sub-group might be considered.  

The application of grouping methodology has yielded CAGs with sometimes large numbers of pesticides.The Panel notes that although some CAGs contain a large number of pesticides, little indication of cumulative risk may be inferred from the size of CAGs per se. The Panel further notes that, even within large CAGs, the majority of pesticides might not contribute significantly to a given combination effect, either because exposure is very low, and/or because potency in relation to the effect considered is weak. Instead, cumulative effects are likely to be driven mainly by a few active substances within the group.

Comprehensive preliminary work has been done on effects on the liver, adrenals, eye and developmental and reproductive system and provides a starting point for developing CAGs also for these systems in the future.

The PPR Panel identified a number of uncertainties and limitations in grouping of pesticides according to a common or shared toxic effect. In particular, a grouping based on toxic effects rather than on mode of action will lead to more uncertainties in predicting possible combination effects. However, the Panel acknowledges that when limiting CAGs to known common mode of action, thereby excluding pesticides for which information on mode of action is not available to enable their inclusion in relevant CAGs, the degree of uncertainty in CRA would also increase. Thus, a higher level of protection can be afforded by considering a wider range of pesticides and until information on precise modes of action becomes available, the cost of this is to use an effect-based approach that introduces some uncertainties around combination effects. Additional uncertainties considered by the Panel included the levels of details of the toxicological assessments in the DARs, changes occurring over the years in regard to data requirements and study protocols of the toxicological assessments, and inconsistency and variability in terminology of the DARs.

The PPR Panel also makes recommendations for the implementation of CAG grouping methodology in CRA to support MRL setting. The PPR Panel also notes that further refinement of grouping maybe achieved when data on the precise toxicological mode of action are available. However, information that justifies any deviation from dose-addition might also be necessary to consider for such a refinement. In addition, non-approved pesticides detected in food commodities should be included in CAGs, and a sound and consistent procedure for data retrieval should be developed for both the methodology and the inclusion of new substances into the relevant groups.

Keywords

Cumulative risk assessment, toxicological profile, methodology, cumulative assessment grouping, thyroid, nervous system