Current ecotoxicity testing needs among selected U.S. federal agencies.

U.S. regulatory and research agencies use ecotoxicity test data to assess the hazards associated with substances that may be released into the environment, including but not limited to industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, pesticides, food additives, and color additives. These data are used to conduct hazard assessments and evaluate potential risks to aquatic life (e.g., invertebrates, fish), birds, wildlife species, or the environment. To identify opportunities for regulatory uses of non-animal replacements for ecotoxicity tests, the needs and uses for data from tests utilizing animals must first be clarified. Accordingly, the objective of this review was to identify the ecotoxicity test data relied upon by U.S. federal agencies. The standards, test guidelines, guidance documents, and/or endpoints that are used to address each of the agencies' regulatory and research needs regarding ecotoxicity testing are described in the context of their application to decision-making. Testing and information use, needs, and/or requirements relevant to the regulatory or programmatic mandates of the agencies taking part in the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of Alternative Methods Ecotoxicology Workgroup are captured. This information will be useful for coordinating efforts to develop and implement alternative test methods to reduce, refine, or replace animal use in chemical safety evaluations.

A retrospective analysis of honey bee (Apis mellifera) pesticide toxicity data.

Current USEPA ecological risk assessments for pesticide registration include a determination of potential risks to bees. Toxicity data are submitted to support these assessments and the USEPA maintains a large database containing acute and chronic toxicity data on adult and larval honey bees (Apis mellifera), which USEPA considers a surrogate for Apis and non-Apis bees. We compared these toxicity data to explore possible trends. This analysis indicated a significant correlation between acute contact and oral median lethal dose (LD50) values for adult honey bees (ρ = 0.74, p <0.0001). Using default EPA modeling assumptions, where exposure for an individual bee is roughly 12x lower through contact than through ingestion, the analysis indicates that the oral LD50 is similarly if not more protective of the contact LD50 for the majority of pesticides and modes of action evaluated. The analysis also provided evidence that compounds with a lower acute toxicity for adults through contact and oral exposure pathways may still be acutely toxic for larvae. The acute toxicity of herbicides and fungicides was higher for larvae relative to oral and contact toxicity for adult honey bees for the same compounds and the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from chronic toxicity studies were lower for larvae relative to adults, indicating increased sensitivity of larvae. When comparing 8-day LD50 values between single dose larval acute studies to those derived from repeat dose 22-day larval chronic toxicity studies, the LD50 values derived from chronic studies were significantly lower than those from acute toxicity tests (Z = -37, p = 0.03).

Overview of the testing and assessment of effects of microbial pesticides on bees: strengths, challenges and perspectives.

Currently, there is a growing interest in developing biopesticides and increasing their share in the plant protection market as sustainable tools in integrated pest management (IPM). Therefore, it is important that regulatory requirements are consistent and thorough in consideration of biopesticides' unique properties. While microbial pesticides generally have a lower risk profile, they present special challenges in non-target organism testing and risk assessment since, in contrast to chemical pesticides, their modes of action include infectivity and pathogenicity rather than toxicity alone. For this reason, non-target organism testing guidelines designed for conventional chemical pesticides are not necessarily directly applicable to microbial pesticides. Many stakeholders have recognised the need for improvements in the guidance available for testing microbial pesticides with honey bees, particularly given the increasing interest in development and registration of microbial pesticides and concerns over risks to pollinators. This paper provides an overview of the challenges with testing and assessment of the effects of microbial pesticides on honey bees (Apis mellifera), which have served as a surrogate for both Apis and non-Apis bees, and provides a foundation toward developing improved testing methods.

When Are Adverse Outcome Pathways and Associated Assays "Fit for Purpose" for Regulatory Decision-Making and Management of Chemicals?

There have been increasing demands for chemical hazard and risk assessments in recent years. Chemical companies have expanded internal product stewardship initiatives, and jurisdictions have increased the regulatory requirements for the manufacture and sale of chemicals. There has also been a shift in chemical toxicity evaluations within the same time frame, with new methodologies being developed to improve chemical safety assessments for both human health and the environment. With increased needs for chemical assessments coupled with more diverse data streams from new technologies, regulators and others tasked with chemical management activities are faced with increasing workloads and more diverse types of data to consider. The Adverse Outcome Pathway (AOP) framework can be applied in different scenarios to integrate data and guide chemical assessment and management activities. In this paper, scenarios of how AOPs can be used to guide chemical management decisions during research and development, chemical registration, and subsequent regulatory activities such as prioritization and risk assessment are considered. Furthermore, specific criteria (e.g., the type and level of AOP complexity, confidence in the AOP, as well as external review and assay validation) are proposed to examine whether AOPs and associated tools are fit for purpose when applied in different contexts. Certain toxicity pathways are recommended as priority areas for AOP research and development, and the continued use of AOPs and defined approaches in regulatory activities are recommended. Furthermore, a call for increased outreach, education, and enhanced use of AOP databases is proposed to increase their utility in chemicals management. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2019;15:633-647. © 2019 The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC).

Workshop on Pesticide Exposure Assessment Paradigm for Non-Apis Bees: Foundation and Summaries.

Current pesticide risk assessment practices use the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., as a surrogate to characterize the likelihood of chemical exposure of a candidate pesticide for all bee species. Bees make up a diverse insect group that provides critical pollination services to both managed and wild ecosystems. Accordingly, they display a diversity of behaviors and vary greatly in their lifestyles and phenologies, such as their timing of emergence, degree of sociality, and foraging and nesting behaviors. Some of these factors may lead to disparate or variable routes of exposure when compared to honey bees. For those that possess life histories that are distinct from A. mellifera, further risk assessments may be warranted. In January 2017, 40 bee researchers, representative of regulatory agencies, academia, and agrochemical industries, gathered to discuss the current state of science on pesticide exposure to non-Apis bees and to determine how well honey bee exposure estimates, implemented by different regulatory agencies, may be protective for non-Apis bees. Workshop participants determined that although current risk assessment procedures for honey bees are largely conservative, several routes of exposure are unique to non-Apis bees and warranted further investigation. In this forum article, we discuss these key routes of exposure relevant to non-Apis bees and identify important research gaps that can help inform future bee risk assessment decisions.

Collaboration between monitoring authorities, regulatory authorities and test facilities on GLP principles provides confidence in data quality with an emphasis on sound science. GLP: an example of a focused effort that paid off.

The herbicide atrazine has been the subject of numerous studies investigating its potential effects on amphibians. The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the atrazine registrant to conduct a tiered study approach. Tier I of the studies involved laboratory studies to determine whether atrazine affects amphibian gonadal development. Several good laboratory practice (GLP) inspections were conducted during the Tier 1 atrazine amphibian study entitled "Response of larval Xenopus laevis to atrazine exposure: assessment of metamorphosis and gonadal morphology". These inspections were conducted on each of the in-life (Phase 1) test facilities (TF), i.e., Wildlife International (WLI) Ltd. (Easton, Md, USA) and the Leibniz Institute of Freshwater Ecology and Inland Fisheries (IGB) (Berlin, Germany). All of the inspections were conducted in conjunction with the EPA GLP monitoring authority (MA), the Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Assurance (OECA) as well as auditors from the regulatory authority (RA) Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP). The inspection of the German facility also included representatives of the German equivalent of OECA. In Phase II of the Tier 1 study, tissue samples collected by both IGB and WLI during Phase I were prepared for histology and reviewed by a veterinary pathologist at the Experimental Pathology Laboratory (Vienna, Virginia, USA). The cooperation between the MA, RA and the TF allowed OPP to ensure the GLP principles were being followed as well as allowing everyone involved to bring up some higher level science issues associated with the study execution.