Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: In 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 r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Mie, Axel, Rudén, Christina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10234068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37259092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-023-00994-9
_version_ 1785052400494575616
author Mie, Axel
Rudén, Christina
author_facet Mie, Axel
Rudén, Christina
author_sort Mie, Axel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: In 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. METHODS: For 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10234068
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-102340682023-06-02 Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union Mie, Axel Rudén, Christina Environ Health Research BACKGROUND: In 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. METHODS: For 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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. BioMed Central 2023-06-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10234068/ /pubmed/37259092 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-023-00994-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Mie, Axel
Rudén, Christina
Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title_full Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title_fullStr Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title_full_unstemmed Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title_short Non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the European Union
title_sort non-disclosure of developmental neurotoxicity studies obstructs the safety assessment of pesticides in the european union
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10234068/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37259092
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12940-023-00994-9
work_keys_str_mv AT mieaxel nondisclosureofdevelopmentalneurotoxicitystudiesobstructsthesafetyassessmentofpesticidesintheeuropeanunion
AT rudenchristina nondisclosureofdevelopmentalneurotoxicitystudiesobstructsthesafetyassessmentofpesticidesintheeuropeanunion