Explore the vast range of titles available.

Characterization of potential chemical-induced developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) hazard is considered for risk assessment purposes by many regulatory sectors. However, due to test complexity, difficulty in interpreting results and need of substantial resources, the use of the in vivo DNT test guidelines has been limited and animal data on DNT are scarce. To address challenging endpoints such as DNT, the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) chemical safety program has been working lately toward the development of integrated approaches for testing and assessment (IATA) that rely on a combination of multiple layers of data (e.g., in vitro, in silico and non-mammalian in vivo models) that are supported by mechanistic knowledge organized according to the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. In 2017, the OECD convened a dedicated OECD expert group to develop a guidance document on the application and interpretation of data derived from a DNT testing battery that relies on key neurodevelopmental processes and is complemented by zebrafish assays. This review will provide a brief overview of the OECD DNT project and summarize various achievements of relevance to the project. The review also presents an opportunity to describe considerations for uptake of the DNT in an in vitro battery in a regulatory context.

Adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) are a recent toxicological construct that connects, in a formalized, transparent and quality-controlled way, mechanistic information to apical endpoints for regulatory purposes. AOP links a molecular initiating event (MIE) to the adverse outcome (AO) via key events (KE), in a way specified by key event relationships (KER). Although this approach to formalize mechanistic toxicological information only started in 2010, over 200 AOPs have already been established. At this stage, new requirements arise, such as the need for harmonization and re-assessment, for continuous updating, as well as for alerting about pitfalls, misuses and limits of applicability. In this review, the history of the AOP concept and its most prominent strengths are discussed, including the advantages of a formalized approach, the systematic collection of weight of evidence, the linkage of mechanisms to apical end points, the examination of the plausibility of epidemiological data, the identification of critical knowledge gaps and the design of mechanistic test methods. To prepare the ground for a broadened and appropriate use of AOPs, some widespread misconceptions are explained. Moreover, potential weaknesses and shortcomings of the current AOP rule set are addressed (1) to facilitate the discussion on its further evolution and (2) to better define appropriate vs. less suitable application areas. Exemplary toxicological studies are presented to discuss the linearity assumptions of AOP, the management of event modifiers and compensatory mechanisms, and whether a separation of toxicodynamics from toxicokinetics including metabolism is possible in the framework of pathway plasticity. Suggestions on how to compromise between different needs of AOP stakeholders have been added. A clear definition of open questions and limitations is provided to encourage further progress in the field.

This Guidance describes how to perform hazard identification for endocrine‐disrupting properties by following the scientific criteria which are outlined in Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2017/2100 and Commission Regulation (EU) 2018/605 for biocidal products and plant protection products, respectively. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1447/full

Cumulative assessment groups of pesticides have been established for two specific effects on the thyroid: firstly hypothyroidism, and secondly parafollicular cell (C‐cell) hypertrophy, hyperplasia and neoplasia. Sources of uncertainties resulting from the methodological approach and from the limitations in available data and scientific knowledge have been identified and considered. This report supports the publication of a scientific report on cumulative risk assessment to pesticides affecting the thyroid, in which all uncertainties identified for either the exposure assessment or the establishment of the cumulative assessment groups are incorporated into a consolidated risk characterisation. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1703/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1707/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5763/full

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), consisting of the competent authorities of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary, acting jointly as rapporteur Member State for the pesticide active substance glyphosate are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of glyphosate as a herbicide as proposed by the applicants, covering uses pre‐sowing, pre‐planting and pre‐emergence plus post‐harvest in vegetables and sugar beet; post‐emergence of weeds in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, railway tracks against emerged annual, biennial and perennial weeds. Moreover, uses as spot treatment against invasive species in agricultural and non‐agricultural areas, and in vegetables and sugar beet against couch grass are also included. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

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.

Cumulative assessment groups of pesticides have been established for five effects on the nervous system: brain and/or erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase inhibition, functional alterations of the motor, sensory and autonomic divisions, and histological neuropathological changes in neural tissue. Sources of uncertainties resulting from the methodological approach and from the limitations in available data and scientific knowledge have been identified and considered. This report supports the publication of a scientific report on cumulative risk assessment to pesticides affecting the nervous system, in which all uncertainties identified for either the exposure assessment or the establishment of the cumulative assessment groups are incorporated into a consolidated risk characterisation. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1702/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1708/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5764/full

The adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework serves as a practical tool for organising scientific knowledge that can be used to infer cause–effect relationships between stressor events and toxicity outcomes in intact organisms. However, a major challenge in the broader application of the AOP concept within regulatory toxicology is the development of a robust AOPs that can withstand peer review and acceptance. This is mainly due to the considerable amount of work required to substantiate the modular units of a complete AOP, which can take years from inception to completion. The methodology used here consisted of an initial assessment of a single chemical hazard using the Integrated Approach to Testing and Assessment (IATA) framework. An evidence‐based approach was then used to gather empirical evidence combining systematic literature review methods with expert knowledge to ensure the effectiveness of the AOP development methodology. The structured framework used assured transparency, objectivity and comprehensiveness, and included expert knowledge elicitation for the evaluation of key event relationships (KERs). This stepwise approach led to the development of an AOP that begins with binding of chemicals to Voltage Gate Sodium Channels (VGSC/Nav) during mammalian development leading to adverse consequences in neurodevelopment evidenced as deficits in cognitive functions. Disruption of the formation of precise neural circuits by alterations in VGSC kinetics during the perinatal stages of brain development may also underlie neurodevelopmental disorders. Gaps in our understanding include the specific critical developmental windows and the quantitative relationship of binding to VGSC and subsequent disruption and cognitive function. Despite the limited quantitative information at all KER levels, regulatory applications of this AOP for DNT assessment have been identified.

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