Scientific Opinion addressing the state of the science on risk assessment of plant protection products for non-target terrestrial plants

Abstract

Following a request from the European Food Safety Authority, the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues developed an opinion on the science to support the development of a risk assessment scheme of plant (crop) protection products on non-target terrestrial plants (NTTPs). This scientific opinion is largely a literature review on the most up-to-date knowledge of factors influencing phytotoxicity testing and risk assessment of NTTPs. Specific protection goals (SPGs) were defined for off-field, in-field and endangered species. SPGs are closely linked to ecosystem services and functions, and include maintaining provision of water regulation, food web support, aesthetic values, genetic resources and biodiversity. Gaps were identified in standard guidelines currently used in lower tier testing (tier I/II). In these guidelines, tests are conducted at the seedling/juvenile stage using mostly annual crops, and effects are recorded at the juvenile/vegetative stage under greenhouse conditions with plants grown individually or in monoculture. Endpoints measured do not include the overall effect on the whole life cycle (germinating seeds, seedling, juvenile stages, flowering, and seed production and germinability). It is also noted that it is unknown whether the following groups of organisms are covered by the plant risk assessment as it is carried out now: ferns, mosses, liverworts, hornworts, horsetails, lichens or woody species. In terms of exposure, droplet drift is considered to be the most important factor for off-field emissions to non-target areas. Models are available to calculate loadings from spray drift. Higher tier assessment is not required if the risk based on the tier II level can be managed by risk mitigation measures. When required, higher tier tests should be conducted under more realistic conditions. They may include additional laboratory/greenhouse tests (e.g. to measure reproductive endpoints or species interactions), microcosms or field experiments with experimentally or already established species. Other issues were considered, including exposure to mixtures, adjuvants, co-formulants and metabolites. Recommendations for the improvement of current guidelines and the elaboration of new guidelines and risk assessment schemes are provided

Effects of the Herbicide Metsulfuron-Methyl on a Plant Community, Including Seed Germination Success in the F1 Generation

“…For example, in the field study by Kjaer et al (2006), exposure of Hawthorn (Crateaegus monogyna) to metsulfuron-methyl resulted in 100% losses of berries at a field application rate of 0.05 g a.i./ha, while the vegetative endpoints (leaves) remained unaffected. Findings of other studies Blackburn and Boutin, 2003;Olszyk et al, 2004;Carpenter and Boutin, 2010;Pfleeger et al, 2012;EFSA PPR Panel, 2014;Schmitz et al, 2014Schmitz et al, , 2015 also suggest that reproductive endpoints are more sensitive than vegetative endpoints, especially in comparison with biomass as a vegetative endpoint.…”

“…To assess the risks of herbicides for NTTPs, two guidelines are available, focusing on tests in laboratory and greenhouse environments (OECD 208, 2006;OECD 227, 2006). However, there is almost no guidance or information available on how to study herbicide impact on NTTPs in the field (OECD 208, 2006;OECD 227, 2006;EFSA PPR Panel, 2014;Schmitz et al, 2015). Spray drift is considered to be the most important source of pollution for NTTPs adjacent to crop fields (EFSA PPR Panel, 2014;Arts et al, 2015).…”

“…However, fractions of the herbicide may end up in adjacent terrestrial sites, where weed control is not intended (Boutin and Rogers, 2000), e.g., due to spray drift. The plants occurring at these sites, called non-target terrestrial plants (NTTPs), need to be protected in view of their important functions in ecosystems, as described in the plant protection goals published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA PPR Panel, 2014). To assess the risks of herbicides for NTTPs, two guidelines are available, focusing on tests in laboratory and greenhouse environments (OECD 208, 2006;OECD 227, 2006).…”

“…Endpoints are plant characteristics that are sensitive to the mode of action of the chemical being used (EFSA PPR Panel, 2014). Risk estimates have been based on ED50 (the dosage at which the specific endpoint value decreases by 50%) for the various endpoints selected.…”

Scientific Opinion on the effect assessment for pesticides on sediment organisms in edge‐of‐field surface water

“… For the chronic ERA of chemical mixtures, this opinion proposes to follow also the approach described in the AGD (EFSA PPR Panel, 2013) as well as the further developments and recommendations of the scientific opinion (EFSA PPR Panel, 2014). It is acknowledged that more information is needed on the presence and bioavailability of historical pollution and more recent pollution in sediments not only by the product under evaluation but also by other products applied simultaneously or successively in order to take account of possible consequences of multiple stressors in the prospective sediment ERA for PPPs.…”