Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union

被引:9
作者
Mie, Axel [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ruden, Christina [1 ]
机构
[1] Stockholm Univ, Dept Environm Sci, S-10691 Stockholm, Sweden
[2] Soder Sjukhuset, Karolinska Inst, Dept Clin Sci & Educ, S-11883 Stockholm, Sweden
[3] Swedish Univ Agr Sci SLU, Ctr Organ Food & Farming EPOK, Uppsala, Sweden
关键词
Developmental neurotoxicity; Non-disclosure; Pesticides; Plant protection products; Regulatory assessment; Reporting bias; QUANTITATIVE COMPARABILITY; GUIDELINE; WORKSHOP; EXPOSURE;
D O I
10.1186/s12940-023-00994-9
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
BackgroundIn the European Union (EU), the safety assessment of plant protection products relies to a large extent on toxicity studies commissioned by the companies producing them. By law, all performed studies must be included in the dossier submitted to authorities when applying for approval or renewal of the active substance.MethodsFor one type of toxicity, i.e. developmental neurotoxicity (DNT), we evaluated if studies submitted to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had also been disclosed to EU authorities.ResultsWe identified 35 DNT studies submitted to the U.S. EPA and with the corresponding EU dossiers available. Of these, 9 DNT studies (26%) were not disclosed by the pesticide company to EU authorities. For 7 of these studies, we have identified an actual or potential regulatory impact.ConclusionsWe conclude that (1) non-disclosure of DNT studies to EU authorities, in spite of clear legal requirements, seems to be a recurring phenomenon, (2) the non-disclosure may introduce a bias in the regulatory risk assessment, and (3) without full access to all performed toxicity studies, there can be no reliable safety evaluation of pesticides by EU authorities. We suggest that EU authorities should cross-check their data sets with their counterparts in other jurisdictions. In addition, applications for pesticide approval should be cross-checked against lists of studies performed at test facilities operating under Good Laboratory Practice (GLP), to ensure that all studies have been submitted to authorities. Furthermore, rules should be amended so that future studies should be commissioned by authorities rather than companies. This ensures the authorities' knowledge of existing studies and prevents the economic interest of the company from influencing the design, performance, reporting and dissemination of studies. The rules or practices should also be revised to ensure that non-disclosure of toxicity studies carries a significant legal risk for pesticide companies.
引用
收藏
页数:21
相关论文
共 76 条
  • [71] United States: The Environmental Protection Agency and the regulation of pesticides, 1976, STAFF REP SUBC ADM P
  • [72] US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017, US
  • [73] US Environmental Protection Agency, 1998, Health Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 870.6300
  • [74] ToxRefDB version 2.0: Improved utility for predictive and retrospective toxicology analyses
    Watford, Sean
    Ly Ly Pham
    Wignall, Jessica
    Shin, Robert
    Martin, Matthew T.
    Friedman, Katie Paul
    [J]. REPRODUCTIVE TOXICOLOGY, 2019, 89 : 145 - 158
  • [75] WATSON JAMES D., 1968
  • [76] White J., 2010, Stanford Law Policy Rev, V21, P105