Search

The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues was requested by the European Commission, to conclude based upon available evidence if metabolites 3‐phenoxybenzoic acid (PBA) and 3‐(4′‐hydroxyphenoxy)benzoic acid (PBA(OH)), common to several pyrethroid compounds, have genotoxic properties, if they share the (neuro)toxicity profile of their parent compounds, and if evidence allows to conclude on their health‐based guidance values. Available body of evidence consisted of studies from regulatory dossiers submissions, as well as from public literature. In addition, the data gap for short‐term toxicity profile of PBA was addressed by read‐across. Assessment revealed that PBA and PBA(OH) do not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. As regards general toxicity, PBA and PBA(OH) have different qualitative (no neurotoxic mechanism) and quantitative (higher NOAELs) toxicity compared to the parent pyrethroid compounds. For both metabolites, acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) values were derived at 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and 1 mg/kg bw, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A retrospective cumulative risk assessment of dietary exposure to pesticide residues was conducted for chronic inhibition of acetylcholinesterase. The pesticides considered in this assessment were identified and characterised in a previous scientific report on the establishment of cumulative assessment groups of pesticides for their effects on the nervous system. The exposure assessments used monitoring data collected by Member States under their official pesticide monitoring programmes in 2016, 2017 and 2018, and individual food consumption data from 10 populations of consumers from different countries and from different age groups. Exposure estimates were obtained by means of a two‐dimensional probabilistic model, which was implemented in SAS® software. The characterisation of cumulative risk was supported by an uncertainty analysis based on expert knowledge elicitation. For each of the 10 populations, it is concluded with varying degrees of certainty that cumulative exposure to pesticides contributing to the chronic inhibition of acetylcholinesterase does not exceed the threshold for regulatory consideration established by risk managers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bats are an important group of mammals, frequently foraging in farmland and potentially exposed to pesticides. This statement considers whether the current risk assessment performed for birds and ground dwelling mammals exposed to pesticides is also protective of bats. Three main issues were addressed. Firstly, whether bats are toxicologically more or less sensitive than the most sensitive birds and mammals. Secondly, whether oral exposure of bats to pesticides is greater or lower than in ground dwelling mammals and birds. Thirdly, whether there are other important exposure routes relevant to bats. A large variation in toxicological sensitivity and no relationship between sensitivity of bats and bird or mammal test‐species to pesticides could be found. In addition, bats have unique traits, such as echolocation and torpor which can be adversely affected by exposure to pesticides and which are not covered by the endpoints currently selected for wild mammal risk assessment. The current exposure assessment methodology was used for oral exposure and adapted to bats using bat‐specific parameters. For oral exposure, it was concluded that for most standard risk assessment scenarios the current approach did not cover exposure of bats to pesticide residues in food. Calculations of potential dermal exposure for bats foraging during spraying operations suggest that this may be a very important exposure route. Dermal routes of exposure should be combined with inhalation and oral exposure. Based on the evidence compiled, the Panel concludes that bats are not adequately covered by the current risk assessment approach, and that there is a need to develop a bat‐specific risk assessment scheme. In general, there was scarcity of data to assess the risks for bat exposed to pesticides. Recommendations for research are made, including identification of alternatives to laboratory testing of bats to assess toxicological effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EAT-Lancet diet was created to support dietary transition towards sustainable diets. Current evidence indicates that adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet may reduce mortality risk, yet how adherence may impact dietary exposure to food contaminants remains unexplored. We aimed to estimate the association between adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet and i) all-cause, cardiovascular-, and cancer-mortality and ii) predicted dietary exposure to the following food contaminants: cadmium, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and pesticide residues. We used self-reported dietary data from a 96-item food frequency questionnaire of two population-based cohorts – the Cohort of Swedish Men (n = 35,687) and the Swedish Mammography Cohort (n = 32,488). The EAT-Lancet Adherence Index (EAI) was created by scoring consumption of the 14 dietary components included in the EAT-Lancet diet (totalling 0–14 points). Cox proportional hazards regression models were applied to assess the association between EAI and mortality outcomes, presented as multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI). Descriptive statistics were used to characterise predicted exposure to food contaminants, and the correlations between EAI and food contaminants assessed using Spearman's rank correlation. Increased adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (per 3-point increase in EAI: HR = 0.93; CI:0.90,0.97 and HR = 0.91; CI:0.87,0.95 for men and women, respectively) and cardiovascular-mortality (corresponding HR = 0.94; CI:0.88,1.00 and HR = 0.93; CI:0.87,1.00). No clear association was found with cancer-mortality. Increasing EAI was correlated with increased predicted dietary exposure to cadmium, methylmercury, PCBs, and pesticide residues and their median predicted dietary exposures were greater in the high adherence group, compared to the low adherence group. High adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet is associated with a reduction in risk of all-cause and cardiovascular-mortality, but also increased dietary exposure to food contaminants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There is a concern that pesticide residues, regularly detected in foods, might pose a health risk to the consumer, but epidemiological evidence is limited. We assessed the associations between dietary exposure to a mixture of pesticide residues and mortality. Food consumption was assessed in 68,844 participants from the Swedish Mammography Cohort and the Cohort of Swedish Men, 45–83 years at baseline (1997). Concentrations of pesticide residues detected in foods on the Swedish market (1996–1998), mainly fruits and vegetables, were obtained via monitoring programs. To assess mixture effects, we summed per food item the ratios of each single pesticide mean residue concentration divided by its acceptable daily intake to create for each participant a Dietary Pesticide Hazard Index (adjusted for energy intake and expressed per kilogram of body weight). Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate hazard ratios (HR) and 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI). During 15 years of follow-up (1998–2014), a total of 16,527 deaths occurred, of which 6,238 were caused by cardiovascular disease (CVD) and 5,364 by cancer. Comparing extreme quintiles of Dietary Pesticide Hazard Index, the highest category was inversely associated with CVD mortality HR, 0.82 (95 % CI, 0.75–0.90) and with cancer mortality HR 0.82 (95 % CI 0.75–0.91). In analyses stratified by high/low Dietary Pesticide Hazard Index, similar inverse associations were observed by increasing fruit and vegetable consumption. We observed no indications that dietary exposure to pesticide residue mixtures was associated with increased mortality, nor any clear indications that the benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption on mortality was compromised. Yet, our results need to be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]