A conceptual framework for landscape-based environmental risk assessment (ERA) of pesticides.

While pesticide use is subject to strict regulatory oversight worldwide, it remains a main concern for environmental protection, including biodiversity conservation. This is partly due to the current regulatory approach that relies on separate assessments for each single pesticide, crop use, and non-target organism group at local scales. Such assessments tend to overlook the combined effects of overall pesticide usage at larger spatial scales. Integrative landscape-based approaches are emerging, enabling the consideration of agricultural management, the environmental characteristics, and the combined effects of pesticides applied in a same or in different crops within an area. These developments offer the opportunity to deliver informative risk predictions relevant for different decision contexts including their connection to larger spatial scales and to combine environmental risks of pesticides, with those from other environmental stressors. We discuss the needs, challenges, opportunities and available tools for implementing landscape-based approaches for prospective and retrospective pesticide Environmental Risk Assessments (ERA). A set of "building blocks" that emerged from the discussions have been integrated into a conceptual framework. The framework includes elements to facilitate its implementation, in particular: flexibility to address the needs of relevant users and stakeholders; means to address the inherent complexity of environmental systems; connections to make use of and integrate data derived from monitoring programs; and options for validation and approaches to facilitate future use in a regulatory context. The conceptual model can be applied to existing ERA methodologies, facilitating its comparability, and highlighting interoperability drivers at landscape level. The benefits of landscape-based pesticide ERA extend beyond regulation. Linking and validating risk predictions with relevant environmental impacts under a solid science-based approach will support the setting of protection goals and the formulation of sustainable agricultural strategies. Moreover, landscape ERA offers a communication tool on realistic pesticide impacts in a multistressors environment for stakeholders and citizens.

A systems-based analysis to rethink the European environmental risk assessment of regulated chemicals using pesticides as a pilot case.

A growing body of scientific literature stresses the need to advance current environmental risk assessment (ERA) methodologies and associated regulatory frameworks to better address the landscape-scale and long-term impact of pesticide use on biodiversity and the ecosystem. Moreover, more collaborative and integrative approaches are needed to meet sustainability goals. The One Health approach is increasingly applied by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) to support the transition towards safer, healthier and more sustainable food. To this end, EFSA commissioned the development of a roadmap for action to establish a European Partnership for next-generation, systems-based Environmental Risk Assessment (PERA). Here, we summarise the main conclusions and recommendations reported in the 2022 PERA Roadmap. This roadmap highlights that fragmentation of data, knowledge and expertise across regulatory sectors results in suboptimal processes and hinders the implementation of integrative ERA approaches needed to better protect the environment. To advance ERA, we revisited the underlying assumptions of the current ERA paradigm; that chemical risks are generally assessed and managed in isolation with a substance-by-substance, realistic worst-case and tiered approach. We suggest optimising the use of the vast amount of information and expertise available with pesticides as a pilot area. It is recommended to as soon as possible adopt a systems-based approach, i.e. within the current regulatory framework, to spark a step-wise transition towards an ERA framed at a system level of ecological and societal relevance. Tangible systems-based and integrative steps are available. For instance, the rich sources of existing data for prospective and retrospective ERA of pesticides could be used to reality-benchmark existing and new ERA methods. To achieve these goals, collaboration among stakeholders across scientific disciplines and regulatory sectors must be strengthened.

Statement of the Scientific Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies supporting groundwater exposure assessments of pesticides.

Groundwater monitoring is the highest tier in the leaching assessment of plant protection products in the EU. The European Commission requested EFSA for a review by the PPR Panel of the scientific paper of Gimsing et al. (2019) on the design and conduct of groundwater monitoring studies. The Panel concludes that this paper provides many recommendations; however, specific guidance on how to design, conduct and evaluate groundwater monitoring studies for regulatory purposes is missing. The Panel notes that there is no agreed specific protection goal (SPG) at EU level. Also, the SPG has not yet been operationalised in an agreed exposure assessment goal (ExAG). The ExAG describes which groundwater needs to be protected, where and when. Because the design and interpretation of monitoring studies depends on the ExAG, development of harmonised guidance is not yet possible. The development of an agreed ExAG must therefore be given priority. A central question in the design and interpretation of groundwater monitoring studies is that of groundwater vulnerability. Applicants must demonstrate that the selected monitoring sites represent realistic worst-case conditions as specified in the ExAG. Guidance and models are needed to support this step. A prerequisite for the regulatory use of monitoring data is the availability of complete data on the use history of the products containing the respective active substances. Applicants must further demonstrate that monitoring wells are hydrologically connected to the fields where the active substance has been applied. Modelling in combination with (pseudo)tracer experiments would be the preferred option. The Panel concludes that well-conducted monitoring studies provide more realistic exposure assessments and can therefore overrule results from lower tier studies. Groundwater monitoring studies involve a high workload for both regulators and applicants. Standardised procedures and monitoring networks could help to reduce this workload.

Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome.

Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA-ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.