An example of population-level risk assessments for small mammals using individual-based population models

A meta-analysis of ecotoxicological models used for plant protection product risk assessment before their placing on the market

Before their placing on the market, the safety of plant protection products (PPP) towards both human and animal health, and the environment has to be assessed using experimental and modelling approaches. Models are crucial tools for PPP risk assessment and some even help to avoid animal testing. This review investigated the use of modelling approaches in the ecotoxicology section of PPP active substance assessment reports prepared by the authorities and opened to consultation from 2011 to 2021 in the European Union. Seven categories of models (Structure-Activity, ToxicoKinetic, ToxicoKinetic-ToxicoDynamic, Species Sensitivity Distribution, population, community, and mixture) were searched for into the reports of 317 active substances. At least one model category was found for 44 % of the investigated active substances. The most detected models were Species Sensitivity Distribution, Structure-Activity and ToxicoKinetic for 27, 21 and 15 % of the active substances, respectively. The use of modelling was of particular importance for conventional active substances such as sulfonylurea or carbamates contrary to microorganisms and plant derived substances. This review also highlighted a strong imbalance in model usage among the biological groups considered in the European Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. For example, models were more often used for aquatic than for terrestrial organisms (e.g., birds, mammals). Finally, a gap between the set of models used in reports and those existing in the literature was observed highlighting the need for the implementation of more sophisticated models into PPP regulation.

A systems-based approach to the environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Assessing the population relevance of endocrine-disrupting effects for nontarget vertebrates exposed to plant protection products

The European Commission intends to protect vertebrate wildlife populations by regulating plant protection product (PPP) active substances that have endocrine-disrupting properties with a hazard-based approach. In this paper we consider how the Commission's hazard-based regulation and accompanying guidance can be operationalized to ensure that a technically robust process is used to distinguish between substances with adverse population-level effects and those for which it can be demonstrated that adverse effects observed (typically in the laboratory) do not translate into adverse effects at the population level. Our approach is to use population models within the adverse outcome pathway framework to link the nonlinear relationship between adverse effects at the individual and population levels in the following way: (1) use specific protection goals for focal wildlife populations within an ecosystem services framework; (2) model the effects of changes in population-related inputs on focal species populations with individual-based population models to determine thresholds between negligible and nonnegligible (i.e., adverse) population-level effects; (3) compare these thresholds with the relevant endpoints from laboratory toxicity tests to determine whether they are likely to be exceeded at hazard-based limits or the maximum tolerated dose/concentration from the experimental studies. If the population threshold is not exceeded, then the substance should not be classified as an endocrine disruptor with population-relevant adversity unless there are other lines of evidence within a weight-of-evidence approach to challenge this. We believe this approach is scientifically robust and still addresses the political and legal requirement for a hazard-based assessment. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:278-291. © 2018 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Linking pesticide marketing authorisations with environmental impact assessments through realistic landscape risk assessment paradigms

Each year, the European Food Safety Authority, supported by a network of experts in the EU Member States, assesses and publishes the environmental risks of 30-40 pesticides active substances. The assessments support hundreds of national risk evaluations for marketing (re-)authorisations of Plant Protection Products. These prospective regulatory evaluations are based on worst-case scenarios in order to provide the high level of protection required by the EU legislations, and establishes the conditions for a correct use of the products including risk mitigations options. However, recent publications suggest that the desired high level of protection may not be achieved with the current risk assessment paradigm. The consideration of larger spatial scales and multiple stressors, including different pesticide uses, could improve the risk assessment process. A next step is the use of these larger spatial scales for evidence-based assessments, evaluating the overall impact of pesticide use on the European environment and biodiversity. Reaching this level would provide science-based support to the National Plans on sustainable use of pesticides and to the broader EU policies defined in the EU Environmental Action Programmes. Recent technological developments, as well as policy efforts, have solved two of the key issues blocking this progress in the past. Data availability and technical capacity for handling Big Data are no longer an unaffordable obstacle. The current proposal presents an alternative environmental risk assessment paradigm, integrating use patterns and pesticides properties with landscape ecotypes and eco-regions, covering the variability of the European agro-environmental conditions. The paradigm is suggested to be implemented in a spatially explicit conceptual model, using the ecosystem services approach and vulnerable key driver species to represent the service providing units. This approach would allow mapping the likelihood and magnitude of the impact of pesticide use on ecosystems functions, environmental resources, and biodiversity at the EU scale.

How to use mechanistic effect models in environmental risk assessment of pesticides: Case studies and recommendations from the SETAC workshop MODELINK

Mechanistic effect models (MEMs) are useful tools for ecological risk assessment of chemicals to complement experimentation. However, currently no recommendations exist for how to use them in risk assessments. Therefore, the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) MODELINK workshop aimed at providing guidance for when and how to apply MEMs in regulatory risk assessments. The workshop focused on risk assessment of plant protection products under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 using MEMs at the organism and population levels. Realistic applications of MEMs were demonstrated in 6 case studies covering assessments for plants, invertebrates, and vertebrates in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. From the case studies and their evaluation, 12 recommendations on the future use of MEMs were formulated, addressing the issues of how to translate specific protection goals into workable questions, how to select species and scenarios to be modeled, and where and how to fit MEMs into current and future risk assessment schemes. The most important recommendations are that protection goals should be made more quantitative; the species to be modeled must be vulnerable not only regarding toxic effects but also regarding their life history and dispersal traits; the models should be as realistic as possible for a specific risk assessment question, and the level of conservatism required for a specific risk assessment should be reached by designing appropriately conservative environmental and exposure scenarios; scenarios should include different regions of the European Union (EU) and different crops; in the long run, generic MEMs covering relevant species based on representative scenarios should be developed, which will require EU-level joint initiatives of all stakeholders involved. The main conclusion from the MODELINK workshop is that the considerable effort required for making MEMs an integral part of environmental risk assessment of pesticides is worthwhile, because it will make risk assessments not only more ecologically relevant and less uncertain but also more comprehensive, coherent, and cost effective.