Coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

Abstract

The EFSA performs environmental risk assessment (ERA) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives, and for invasive alien species that are harmful to plant health. This ERA focusses primarily on the use or spread of such potential stressors in an agricultural context, but also considers the impact on the wider environment. It is important to realise that the above potential stressors in most cases contribute a minor proportion of the total integrated pressure that ecosystems experience. The World Wildlife Fund listed the relative attribution of threats contributing to the declines in animal populations as follows: 37% from exploitation (fishing, hunting, etc.), 31% habitat degradation and change, 13% from habitat loss, 7% from climate change, and only 5% from invasive species, 4% from pollution and 2% from disease. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the extent of coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes that fall under the remit of EFSA. The legal basis and the relevant ecological and biological features used to classify a species as endangered are investigated. The characteristics that determine vulnerability of endangered species are reviewed. Whether endangered species are more at risk from exposure to potential stressors than other nontarget species is discussed, but specific protection goals for endangered species are not given. Due to a lack of effect and exposure data for the vast majority of endangered species, the reliability of using data from other species is a key issue for their ERA. This issue and other uncertainties are discussed when reviewing the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes. Potential tools, such as population and landscape modelling and trait‐based approaches, for extending the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes, are explored and reported.

EFSA Scientific Colloquium 22 – Epigenetics and Risk Assessment: Where do we stand?

“…For this purpose, EFSA has proposed in its scientific opinion on 'coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA to address sensitivity for both toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) processes with regards to taxa-specific traits, interspecies differences and intertaxa differences (EFSA, 2016). The risk assessment frameworks require a number of toxicological studies to ensure the safety of those compounds, before they reach the market, including acute and chronic toxicity studies in test species such as fish, earth worms and daphnia.…”

“…However, standard test species may not always address the toxicological sensitivity of endangered species. For this purpose, EFSA has proposed in its scientific opinion on 'coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA to address sensitivity for both toxicokinetic (TK) and toxicodynamic (TD) processes with regards to taxa-specific traits, interspecies differences and intertaxa differences (EFSA, 2016).…”

Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment

“…All these questions require (value) judgments. A more detailed discussion on these questions, with a focus on regulatory ERA by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), can be found in EFSA SC (2016aSC ( , 2016bSC ( , 2016c, Boesten (2017), and Rico et al (2016). Laying the problem formulation open will enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the regulatory decision-making process by making the choices and their underlying values explicit and by placing the data and information used into context.…”

Pressure from insect‐resistant maize on protected butterflies and moths

“…The assessment provides protection for human health, animal welfare, and the environment. Conservation issues are part of the environmental risk assessment and include effects on protected species (EFSA, 2016;NRC, 2013). The importance of this aspect is highlighted by reports of drastic insect decline (Brühl & Zaller, 2019;Hallmann et al, 2017).…”