Precision requirements in pesticide risk assessments: Contrasting value-of-information recommendations with the regulatory practice in the EU

Precision requirements in pesticide risk assessments: Contrasting value-of-information recommendations with the regulatory practice in the EU
复制标题

农药风险评估的精确度要求:信息价值建议与欧盟监管实践的对比

DOI:
10.11588/heidok.00020214
复制
发表时间:
2016
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Goeschl
Goeschl
中科院分区:
--
文献类型:
--
作者:
Goeschl

文献摘要

参考文献

相似文献

农药在带来巨大农业效益的同时,也可能给人类健康和环境带来风险。为了限制这些风险,农药的市场批准通常以广泛的风险评估证明其安全性为条件。然而,相关的测试程序往往涉及大量动物,不仅成本高昂;从最近关于活性物质草甘膦的讨论中可以明显看出,检测通常无法就人类致癌性等问题提供明确的答案。因此,一项重要的监管任务,无论是否得到明确承认,都是在做出最终的市场批准决定时,决定剩余不确定性的程度是可以接受的。经济学原理建议采用信息价值(VoI)方法来完成这一信息任务。在介绍了VoI框架的基础知识之后,本文分析了欧盟农药批准过程中的实际监管实践,指出了影响欧洲食品安全局(EFSA)风险评估准确性的默认和特定物质程序,从而影响了欧盟委员会决定批准物质的知识水平。理论与实践之间的比较揭示了实质性的偏差,为重新构建风险评估指南提供了有价值的见解。
Pesticides, while rendering immense agricultural benefits, potentially entail risks to human health and the environment. To limit these risks, market approval of a pesticide is typically conditional on an extensive risk assessment demonstrating its safety. The associated testing procedures, often involving significant numbers of animals, however are not only costly; as has become apparent from recent discussions about the active substance glyphosate, testing is often incapable of providing definitive answers on concerns like human carcinogenicity. An important regulatory task, whether explicitly acknowledged or not, is hence to decide what level of remaining uncertainty is deemed acceptable in making the final market approval decision. Economic principles suggest a value-of-information (VoI) approach for this informational task. After presenting the basics of the VoI framework, this paper analyzes the actual regulatory practice in the EU's pesticide approval process, pointing out the defaults and substance-specific procedures that shape the precision of the European Food Safety Authority's (EFSA) risk assessment and hence the level of knowledge under which the European Commission decides on the approval of substances. The comparison between theory and practice uncovers substantial deviations, providing valuable insights for restructuring the risk assessment guidelines.
模糊性下的风险评估:预防性学习与研究悲观主义
DOI: 10.11588/heidok.00019999
发表时间: 2015
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
Goeschl;Wiesenfarth
通讯作者: Wiesenfarth
模糊性下的风险评估:预防性学习与
DOI: --
发表时间: 2015
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
Daniel Heyen
通讯作者: Daniel Heyen
风险评估和风险管理:他们的分居并不意味着离婚
DOI: --
发表时间: 1991
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
R. Wilson;W. C. Clark
通讯作者: W. C. Clark
DOI: --
发表时间: 1990
期刊:
影响因子: --
作者:
Lars J. Olson
通讯作者: Lars J. Olson
值得深思的……动物试验。
DOI: --
发表时间: 2008
期刊: ALTEX
影响因子: --
作者:
T. Hartung
通讯作者: T. Hartung