Explore the vast range of titles available.

Aquatic ecosystems are affected by man-made pressures, often causing combined impacts. The analysis of the impacts of chemical pollution is however commonly separate from that of other pressures and their impacts. This evolved from differences in the data available for applied ecology vis-à-vis applied ecotoxicology, which are field gradients and laboratory toxicity tests, respectively. With this study, we demonstrate that the current approach of chemical impact assessment, consisting of comparing measured concentrations to protective environmental quality standards for individual chemicals, is not optimal. In reply, and preparing for a method that would enable the comprehensive assessment and management of water quality pressures, we evaluate various quantitative chemical pollution pressure metrics for mixtures of chemicals in a case study with 24 priority substances of Europe-wide concern. We demonstrate why current methods are sub-optimal for water quality management prioritization and that chemical pollution currently imposes limitations to the ecological status of European surface waters. We discuss why management efforts may currently fail to restore a good ecological status, given that to date only 0.2% of the compounds in trade are considered in European water quality assessment and management.

The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-7981/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-7982/full

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action whose approval was renewed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/113. In January 2022, the EFSA PPR Panel published a statement following a request from the European Commission to advise on human health or the environment based on new scientific evidence presented by France during the decision‐making phase. In July 2022, by means of a further mandate received from the European Commission, EFSA was requested to provide advice if new information and any other scientific evidence that has become available since the assessment conducted for the renewal in 2018 warrant re‐evaluation of (i) toxicological parameters used for the risk assessment of acetamiprid during the renewal process, including toxicological endpoints; (ii) the residue definition for acetamiprid in products of plant origin; and (iii) the safety of existing maximum residue levels (MRLs). Meanwhile, the applicant of acetamiprid in the EU submitted new toxicology studies regarding the toxicological profile of the metabolite IM‐2‐1. Furthermore, the European Commission was made aware that several recent publications in scientific literature were made available after the literature searches conducted by EFSA. As the new data could affect the advice that EFSA was expected to deliver through the 2022 mandate, EFSA was further requested to consider this information by means of a revised mandate received in September 2023. As regards re‐evaluation of point (i) in this statement, this was addressed by an EFSA Working Group integrating all the available evidence. The results of the weight of evidence indicated that there are major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid and further data are therefore needed to come to a more robust mechanistic understanding to enable appropriate hazard and risk assessment. In view of these uncertainties, the EFSA WG proposed to lower the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) from 0.025 to 0.005 mg/kg body weight (per day). A revised residue definition for risk assessment was proposed for leafy and fruit crops as sum of acetamiprid and N‐desmethyl‐acetamiprid (IM‐2‐1), expressed as acetamiprid. Regarding pulses/oilseeds, root crops and cereals, the new data received did not indicate a need to modify the existing residue definition for risk assessment, which therefore remains as parent acetamiprid. Regarding the residue definition for enforcement, the available data did not indicate a need to modify the existing definition because acetamiprid is still a sufficient marker of the residues in all crop groups. Considering the new health‐based guidance values derived in the present statement, a risk for consumer has been identified for 38 MRLs currently in place in the EU Regulation. Consequently, EFSA recommended to lower the existing MRLs for 38 commodities based on the assessment of fall‐back Good Agricultural Practices received within an ad hoc data call. Some fall‐back MRLs proposals require further risk management considerations.

Following a request from EFSA, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) developed an opinion on the state of the art of Toxicokinetic/Toxicodynamic (TKTD) models and their use in prospective environmental risk assessment (ERA) for pesticides and aquatic organisms. TKTD models are species‐ and compound‐specific and can be used to predict (sub)lethal effects of pesticides under untested (time‐variable) exposure conditions. Three different types of TKTD models are described, viz., (i) the ‘General Unified Threshold models of Survival’ (GUTS), (ii) those based on the Dynamic Energy Budget theory (DEBtox models), and (iii) models for primary producers. All these TKTD models follow the principle that the processes influencing internal exposure of an organism, (TK), are separated from the processes that lead to damage and effects/mortality (TD). GUTS models can be used to predict survival rate under untested exposure conditions. DEBtox models explore the effects on growth and reproduction of toxicants over time, even over the entire life cycle. TKTD model for primary producers and pesticides have been developed for algae, Lemna and Myriophyllum. For all TKTD model calibration, both toxicity data on standard test species and/or additional species can be used. For validation, substance and species‐specific data sets from independent refined‐exposure experiments are required. Based on the current state of the art (e.g. lack of documented and evaluated examples), the DEBtox modelling approach is currently limited to research applications. However, its great potential for future use in prospective ERA for pesticides is recognised. The GUTS model and the Lemna model are considered ready to be used in risk assessment.

Understanding factors driving the ecology of N cycling microbial communities is of central importance for sustainable land use. In this study we report changes of abundance of denitrifiers, nitrifiers and nitrogen-fixing microorganisms (based on qPCR data for selected functional genes) in response to different land use intensity levels and the consequences for potential turnover rates. We investigated selected grassland sites being comparable with respect to soil type and climatic conditions, which have been continuously treated for many years as intensely used meadows (IM), intensely used mown pastures (IP) and extensively used pastures (EP), respectively. The obtained data were linked to above ground biodiversity pattern as well as water extractable fractions of nitrogen and carbon in soil. Shifts in land use intensity changed plant community composition from systems dominated by s-strategists in extensive managed grasslands to c-strategist dominated communities in intensive managed grasslands. Along the different types of land use intensity, the availability of inorganic nitrogen regulated the abundance of bacterial and archaeal ammonia oxidizers. In contrast, the amount of dissolved organic nitrogen determined the abundance of denitrifiers (nirS and nirK). The high abundance of nifH carrying bacteria at intensive managed sites gave evidence that the amounts of substrates as energy source outcompete the high availability of inorganic nitrogen in these sites. Overall, we revealed that abundance and function of microorganisms involved in key processes of inorganic N cycling (nitrification, denitrification and N fixation) might be independently regulated by different abiotic and biotic factors in response to land use intensity.

The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) has developed, as a self‐task mandate (EFSA‐Q‐2019‐00100), two adverse outcome pathway (AOP)‐informed integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) case studies to answer a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) hazard identification and characterisation problem formulation that could support the regulatory decisions for the pesticide active substances deltamethrin and flufenacet. The IATA were developed to assess the applicability of the DNT in vitro testing battery (IVB), designed to explore fundamental neurodevelopmental processes, in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticides. For this purpose, an evidence‐based‐approach methodology was applied: 1) systematic literature review and critical appraisal of all the evidence i.e. human observational studies, in vivo data from rodent models and new approach methodologies (NAMs, i.e. in vitro studies including high‐throughput testing from IVB and zebrafish studies from the literature) for both case studies; 2) a quantitative uncertainty analysis of all the evidence using expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) and a probabilistic approach; 3) integration of all the evidence using the AOP conceptual framework. This stepwise approach resulted in the postulation of an evidence‐based AOP network for one of the case studies. A probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence (WoE) using Bayesian network analysis allowed the assessment and the quantification of the uncertainty in the postulated AOP. The approach taken allowed conclusions to be drawn with an acceptable level of certainty in DNT hazard identification and characterisation of deltamethrin and that flufenacet is not a developmental neurotoxicant, supporting the relevance of the mechanistic understanding. The case studies show the applicability of the DNT‐IVB for hazard identification and characterisation and illustrate the usefulness of an AOP‐informed IATA for regulatory decision making. The overall activity led to improved interpretation of human data by providing a plausible mechanistic link to adverse outcomes, which would support their contextualisation in the risk assessment process. This Scientific Opinion allows the PPR Panel to draft several recommendations for the implementation of the AOP‐informed IATA methodology and of the DNT‐IVB in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticides.

The aim of the European Water Framework Directive is to ensure good ecological status for all European surface waters. However, although current monitoring strategies aim to identify the presence and magnitude of ecological impacts, they provide little information on the causes of an ecosystem impairment. In fact, approaches to establish causal links between chemical pollution and impacts on the ecological status of exposed aquatic systems are largely lacking or poorly described and established. This is, however, crucial for developing and implementing appropriately targeted water management strategies. In order to identify the role of chemical pollution on the ecological status of an aquatic ecosystem, we suggest to systematically combine four lines of evidence (LOEs) that provide complementary evidence on the presence and potential ecological impact of complex chemical pollution: (1) component-based methods that allow a predictive mixture risk modeling; (2) effect-based methods; (3) in situ tests; (4) field-derived species inventories. These LOEs differ systematically in their specificity for chemical pollution, data demands, resources required and ecological relevance. They complement each other and, in their combination, allow to assess the contribution of chemical pollution pressure to impacts on ecological structure and function. Data from all LOEs are not always available and the information they provide is not necessarily consistent. We therefore propose a systematic, robust and transparent approach to combine the information available for a given study, in order to ensure that consensual conclusions are drawn from a given dataset. This allows to identify critical data gaps and needs for future testing and/or options for targeted and efficient water management.

Among its objectives, the European Food Safety Authority working group on effect models in environmental risk assessment has worked towards the development and maintenance of a framework to facilitate the assessment of effect models within the scope of the European Food Safety Authority's activities. To fulfil this objective, the working group self‐tasked to lay the groundwork for interpreting the FAIR (i.e. Findability, Accessibility, Interoperability, Reproducibility) guiding principles – originally developed for scientific data management and stewardship – for mechanistic effect models in the regulatory environmental risk assessment of pesticides. The working group identified three main areas in which the FAIR guiding principles may be applied, namely: (I) the data underlying a particular model (or model use), (II) the computer model and (III) the model assessment. The document explores existing resources that may support the implementation of the FAIR guiding principles and provides a specific interpretation of the principles for each of the areas relevant to mechanistic effect models. Important challenges and potential blockers are identified, but the working group argues that working towards more ‘FAIRness’ would ultimately lead to a more efficient review process and better integration of mechanistic effect models in the regulatory environmental risk assessment of pesticides, with benefits for all stakeholders. While the aim of the present exercise is to stimulate discussion within the modelling community and avoid being overly prescriptive, recommendations for future action are given to address some of the challenges.

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action currently under the third renewal (AIR3) of the Commission implementing regulation (EU) No 844/2012. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to advise on the likelihood that body of evidence would constitute proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments.A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) the data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) the weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) the uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For human health, no conclusive evidence of higher hazards compared to previous assessment was found for genotoxicity, developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity including developmental neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity. However, due to the lack of adequate assessment of the current data set, the PPR Panel recommends conducting an assessment of endocrine disrupting properties for acetamiprid in line with EFSA/ECHA guidance document for the identification of endocrine disruptors. For environment, no conclusive, robust evidence of higher hazards compared to the previous assessment was found for birds, aquatic organisms, bees and soil organisms. However, the potential of high inter‐species sensitivity of birds and bees towards acetamiprid requires further consideration. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7030/full

Flupyradifurone is a novel butenolide insecticide, first approved as an active substance for use in plant protection products by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2084. Following concerns that this substance may pose high risks to humans and the environment, the French authorities, in November 2020, asked the Commission to restrict its uses under Article 69 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. To support this request, competent Authorities from France cited a series of literature papers investigating its hazards and/or exposure to humans and the environment. In addition, in June 2020, the Dutch Authorities notified the Commission, under Article 56 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, of new information on flupyradifurone on the wild bee species Megachile rotundata. This notification is also referred to in the French notification on flupyradifurone. Consequently, the EFSA PPR Panel was mandated to quantify the likelihood of this body of evidence constituting proof of serious risks to humans or the environment. Therefore, the EFSA PPR Panel evaluated the likelihood of these studies indicating new or higher hazards and exposure to humans and the environment compared to previous EU assessments. A stepwise methodology was designed, including: (i) the initial screening; (ii) data extraction and critical appraisal based on the principles of OHAT/NTP; (iii) weight of evidence, including consideration of the previous EU assessments; (iv) uncertainty analysis, followed, whenever relevant, by an expert knowledge elicitation process. For the human health, only one study was considered relevant for the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone in vitro. These data did not provide sufficient information to overrule the EU assessment, as in vivo studies already addressed the genotoxic potential of flupyradifurone. Environment: All available data investigated hazards in bee species. For honey bees, the likelihood of the new data indicating higher hazards than the previous EU assessment was considered low or moderate, with some uncertainties. However, among solitary bee species – which were not addressed in the previous EU assessment – there was evidence that Megachile rotundata may be disproportionately sensitive to flupyradifurone. This sensitivity, which may partially be explained by the low bodyweight of this species, was mechanistically linked to inadequate bodily metabolisation processes. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7031/full