Evaluation of Ecotoxicological Field Studies for Authorization of Plant Protection Products in Europe

Jong, F.M.W. de; Mensink, B. J. W. G. (hans); Smit, C.E.; Montforts, Mark

doi:10.1080/10807030500278644

Cited by 16 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These criteria, however, often are debated because of the high economic consequences of too strict—and the high ecological consequences of too weak— environmental risk assessment procedures. Consequently, the ecological relevance of estimated risk levels is an important item in recent ecotoxicological research with PPPs (see, e.g., Crane and Giddings 2004; De Jong et al 2005).…”

Section: Introduction and Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in european union legislation

Brock

Arts

Maltby

et al. 2006

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This discussion paper presents a framework for spatiotemporal differentiation in ecological protection goals to assess the risks of pesticides in surface waters. It also provides a proposal to harmonize the different scientific approaches for ecotoxicological effect assessment adopted in guidance documents that support different legislative directives in the European Union (Water Framework Directive and Uniform Principles). Decision schemes to derive maximum permissible concentrations in surface water are presented. These schemes are based on approaches recommended in regulatory guidance documents and are scientifically underpinned by critical review papers concerning the impact of pesticides on freshwater organisms and communities. Special attention is given to the approaches based on standard test species, species sensitivity distribution curves, and model ecosystem experiments. The decision schemes presented here may play a role in the “acceptability” debate and can be used as options in the process of communication between risk assessors and risk managers as well as between these risk experts and other stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Introduction and Problem Formulationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in european union legislation

Brock

Arts

Maltby

et al. 2006

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

144

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A standing practice is developing within the EU member states in which scientists decide what effects or effect classes are acceptable. No public debate about these standards or critical effect values has taken place (Crane and Giddings 2004; De Jong et al 2005).…”

Section: Do We Get Answers From Field Studies?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Can we quantify this and apply correction factors? One practical solution to handle this point is the application of an assessment factor depending on the amount of information available (De Jong et al 2005). The question remains: What factor?…”

Section: Consensus On Scientific Deficits and Required Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Field studies in pesticide registration: Questioning the answers

Montforts

Jong

2007

Integr Envir Assess & Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The principal conclusion of a workshop in October 2005 at RIVM (Bilthoven, The Netherlands) on the assessment of field studies with pesticides for authorization is that the lack of a definition of acceptability of effects is recognized as a problem by all stakeholders: Industry, risk assessors, and regulators. Because of this lack of definition in the legislation, it is unclear what critical effect values should be assessed in field studies. Despite the extensive documentation on field study performance, the decision making is not based on justifiable scientific opinions or publicly shared values but on technical limitations of the test design instead. In the workshop, research was identified that should result in a scientific basis for value judgments applied in decision making.

show abstract

“…As another way of ensuring that all responses present in the data set are highlighted is to perform univariate tests at the taxon level and present the responses of all taxa for which consistent significant treatment effects are indicated. This approach is common practice and required in the evaluation of most microcosm and mesocosm studies performed for registration purposes of pesticides in Europe (SANCO 2002; De Jong et al 2005). Such analyses would no doubt also highlight the sensitive responses at the population level as are presented by the SPEAR method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Response to “traits and stress: keys to identify community effects of low levels of toxicants in test systems” by Liess and Beketov (2011)

Brink

Braak

2011

Ecotoxicology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of Ecotoxicological Field Studies for Authorization of Plant Protection Products in Europe

Cited by 16 publications

References 15 publications

Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in european union legislation

Aquatic risks of pesticides, ecological protection goals, and common aims in european union legislation

Field studies in pesticide registration: Questioning the answers

Response to “traits and stress: keys to identify community effects of low levels of toxicants in test systems” by Liess and Beketov (2011)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About