Glyphosate is the most widely used herbicide worldwide. It is a broad spectrum herbicide and its agricultural uses increased considerably after the development of glyphosate-resistant genetically modified (GM) varieties. Since glyphosate was introduced in 1974, all regulatory assessments have established that glyphosate has low hazard potential to mammals, however, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) concluded in March 2015 that it is probably carcinogenic. The IARC conclusion was not confirmed by the EU assessment or the recent joint WHO/FAO evaluation, both using additional evidence. Glyphosate is not the first topic of disagreement between IARC and regulatory evaluations, but has received greater attention. This review presents the scientific basis of the glyphosate health assessment conducted within the European Union (EU) renewal process, and explains the differences in the carcinogenicity assessment with IARC. Use of different data sets, particularly on long-term toxicity/carcinogenicity in rodents, could partially explain the divergent views; but methodological differences in the evaluation of the available evidence have been identified. The EU assessment did not identify a carcinogenicity hazard, revised the toxicological profile proposing new toxicological reference values, and conducted a risk assessment for some representatives uses. Two complementary exposure assessments, human-biomonitoring and food-residues-monitoring, suggests that actual exposure levels are below these reference values and do not represent a public concern.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00204-017-1962-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A major problem in developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) risk assessment is the lack of toxicological hazard information for most compounds. Therefore, new approaches are being considered to provide adequate experimental data that allow regulatory decisions. This process requires a matching of regulatory needs on the one hand and the opportunities provided by new test systems and methods on the other hand. Alignment of academically and industrially driven assay development with regulatory needs in the field of DNT is a core mission of the International STakeholder NETwork (ISTNET) in DNT testing. The first meeting of ISTNET was held in Zurich on 23–24 January 2014 in order to explore the concept of adverse outcome pathway (AOP) to practical DNT testing. AOPs were considered promising tools to promote test systems development according to regulatory needs. Moreover, the AOP concept was identified as an important guiding principle to assemble predictive integrated testing strategies (ITSs) for DNT. The recommendations on a road map towards AOP-based DNT testing is considered a stepwise approach, operating initially with incomplete AOPs for compound grouping, and focussing on key events of neurodevelopment. Next steps to be considered in follow-up activities are the use of case studies to further apply the AOP concept in regulatory DNT testing, making use of AOP intersections (common key events) for economic development of screening assays, and addressing the transition from qualitative descriptions to quantitative network modelling.

No abstract

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authorities of the rapporteur Member State the Netherlands and co-rapporteur Member State Spain for the pesticide active substance pyriproxyfen and the assessment of applications for maximum residue levels (MRLs) 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 pyriproxyfen as an insecticide on citrus fruit, pome fruit (apple, pears), tomatoes, ornamentals (field use) and tomatoes, ornamentals (greenhouse application). MRLs were assessed in citrus fruits. The reliable end points, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment and the proposed MRLs, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are identified.

No abstract