Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance clove oil.

The conclusions of the EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the competent authority of the rapporteur Member State, Malta, for the pesticide active substance clove oil are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The conclusions for the amendment of approval were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative use of clove oil as a preharvest nematicide on tomatoes and cucumbers (permanent greenhouse use). The representative use evaluated for the renewal of approval of clove oil was as post-harvest fungicide and bactericide on apples, pears and peaches (indoor uses). The reliable endpoints appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment are presented. Endpoints not relevant to the scope of the proposed amendment of approval conditions will be addressed in the context of the renewal of approval procedure of clove oil running in parallel (AIR IV, EFSA Q-2016-00809). Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Risk assessment of pesticides and other stressors in bees: Principles, data gaps and perspectives from the European Food Safety Authority.

Current approaches to risk assessment in bees do not take into account co-exposures from multiple stressors. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is deploying resources and efforts to move towards a holistic risk assessment approach of multiple stressors in bees. This paper describes the general principles of pesticide risk assessment in bees, including recent developments at EFSA dealing with risk assessment of single and multiple pesticide residues and biological hazards. The EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products in bees highlights the need for the inclusion of an uncertainty analysis, other routes of exposures and multiple stressors such as chemical mixtures and biological agents. The EFSA risk assessment on the survival, spread and establishment of the small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, an invasive alien species, is provided with potential insights for other bee pests such as the Asian hornet, Vespa velutina. Furthermore, data gaps are identified at each step of the risk assessment, and recommendations are made for future research that could be supported under the framework of Horizon 2020. Finally, the recent work conducted at EFSA is presented, under the overarching MUST-B project ("EU efforts towards the development of a holistic approach for the risk assessment on MUltiple STressors in Bees") comprising a toolbox for harmonised data collection under field conditions and a mechanistic model to assess effects from pesticides and other stressors such as biological agents and beekeeping management practices, at the colony level and in a spatially complex landscape. Future perspectives at EFSA include the development of a data model to collate high quality data to calibrate and validate the model to be used as a regulatory tool. Finally, the evidence collected within the framework of MUST-B will support EFSA's activities on the development of a holistic approach to the risk assessment of multiple stressors in bees. In conclusion, EFSA calls for collaborative action at the EU level to establish a common and open access database to serve multiple purposes and different stakeholders.

Comparative toxicity of pesticides and environmental contaminants in bees: Are honey bees a useful proxy for wild bee species?

Threats to wild and managed insect pollinators in Europe are cause for both ecological and socio-economic concern. Multiple anthropogenic pressures may be exacerbating pollinator declines. One key pressure is exposure to chemicals including pesticides and other contaminants. Historically the honey bee (Apis mellifera spp.) has been used as an 'indicator' species for 'standard' ecotoxicological testing but it has been suggested that it is not always a good proxy for other types of eusocial and solitary bees because of species differences in autecology and sensitivity to various stressors. We developed a common toxicity test system to conduct acute and chronic exposures of up to 240h of similar doses of seven chemicals, targeting different metabolic pathways, on three bee species (Apis mellifera spp., Bombus terrestris and Osmia bicornis). We compared the relative sensitivity between species in terms of potency between the chemicals and the influence of exposure time on toxicity. While there were significant interspecific differences that varied through time, overall the magnitude of these differences (in terms of treatment effect ratios) was generally comparable (<2 fold) although there were some large divergences from this pattern. Our results suggest that A. mellifera spp. could be used as a proxy for other bee species provided a reasonable assessment factor is used to cover interspecific variation. Perhaps more importantly our results show significant and large time dependency of toxicity across all three tested species that greatly exceeds species differences (>25 fold within test). These are rarely considered in standard regulatory testing but may have severe environmental consequences, especially when coupled with the likelihood of differential species exposures in the wild. These insights indicate that further work is required to understand how differences in toxicokinetics vary between species and mixtures of chemicals.