Revised guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees)
- PMID: 37179655
- PMCID: PMC10173852
- DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7989
Revised guidance on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees)
Abstract
The European Commission asked EFSA to revise the risk assessment for honey bees, bumble bees and solitary bees. This guidance document describes how to perform risk assessment for bees from plant protection products, in accordance with Regulation (EU) 1107/2009. It is a review of EFSA's existing guidance document, which was published in 2013. The guidance document outlines a tiered approach for exposure estimation in different scenarios and tiers. It includes hazard characterisation and provides risk assessment methodology covering dietary and contact exposure. The document also provides recommendations for higher tier studies, risk from metabolites and plant protection products as mixture.
Keywords: bees; higher tier studies; pesticides; risk assessment.
© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.
Figures
![Figure 1](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g013.gif)
![Figure 2](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g005.gif)
![Figure 3](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g007.gif)
![Figure 4](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g018.gif)
![Figure 5](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g022.gif)
![Figure 6](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g002.gif)
![Figure 7](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g023.gif)
![Figure 8](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g011.gif)
![Figure 9](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g016.gif)
![Figure 10](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g021.gif)
![Figure 11](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g017.gif)
![Figure 12](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g001.gif)
![Figure 13](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g003.gif)
![Figure 14](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g012.gif)
![Figure 15](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g015.gif)
1: Lifespan dose–response is calculated using the selected GUTS model, for both the active period and winter scenario. 2: This part has to be duplicated for the active period and the winter (inactive) period. 3: When an effect > 10% is predicted, either higher tier studies can be performed, or a specific TRT laboratory study can be executed. This second option is only applicable when this conclusion of > 10% effect is reached on the basis of the worst‐case assumption that Haber's exponent = −2.
![Figure 16](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g008.gif)
![Figure 17](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g006.gif)
![Figure 18](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g019.gif)
![Figure 19](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g020.gif)
![Figure 20](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g009.gif)
![Figure 21](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g004.gif)
![Figure 22](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/instance/10173852/bin/EFS2-21-e07989-g010.gif)
Similar articles
-
Risk assessment of pesticides and other stressors in bees: Principles, data gaps and perspectives from the European Food Safety Authority.Sci Total Environ. 2017 Jun 1;587-588:524-537. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.127. Epub 2017 Mar 6. Sci Total Environ. 2017. PMID: 28279532
-
Predicting acute contact toxicity of pesticides in honeybees (Apis mellifera) through a k-nearest neighbor model.Chemosphere. 2017 Jan;166:438-444. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2016.09.092. Epub 2016 Oct 2. Chemosphere. 2017. PMID: 27705831
-
Initial recommendations for higher-tier risk assessment protocols for bumble bees, Bombus spp. (Hymenoptera: Apidae).Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2016 Apr;12(2):222-9. doi: 10.1002/ieam.1675. Epub 2015 Sep 8. Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2016. PMID: 26108565
-
Impact of microorganisms and entomopathogenic nematodes used for plant protection on solitary and social bee pollinators: Host range, specificity, pathogenicity, toxicity, and effects of experimental parameters.Environ Pollut. 2022 Jun 1;302:119051. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2022.119051. Epub 2022 Feb 24. Environ Pollut. 2022. PMID: 35219794 Review.
-
Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Pyriproxyfen on Apis and Non-Apis Bees.Toxics. 2020 Nov 17;8(4):104. doi: 10.3390/toxics8040104. Toxics. 2020. PMID: 33212791 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance 1-methylcyclopropene.EFSA J. 2024 Aug 16;22(8):e8977. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8977. eCollection 2024 Aug. EFSA J. 2024. PMID: 39157006 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance triclopyr (variant triclopyr-butotyl).EFSA J. 2024 Aug 12;22(8):e8177. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8177. eCollection 2024 Aug. EFSA J. 2024. PMID: 39135844 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance mepiquat (evaluated variant mepiquat chloride).EFSA J. 2024 Jul 24;22(7):e8923. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8923. eCollection 2024 Jul. EFSA J. 2024. PMID: 39050024 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance paraffin oil (CAS 8042-47-5, chain lengths C17-C31).EFSA J. 2024 Jul 23;22(7):e8913. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2024.8913. eCollection 2024 Jul. EFSA J. 2024. PMID: 39045513 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparability of comparative toxicity: insect sensitivity to imidacloprid reveals huge variations across species but also within species.Proc Biol Sci. 2024 Jun;291(2024):20232811. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2023.2811. Epub 2024 Jun 12. Proc Biol Sci. 2024. PMID: 38864325 Free PMC article. Review.
References
-
- Alix ABC, Capri E, Goerlitz G, Golla B, Knauer K, Laabs V, Mackay N, Marchis A, Poulsen V, Alonso Prados E, Reinert W, Streloke M, 2017. Mitigating the risks of plant protection products in the environment: MAgPIE. (SETAC) SoETaC (ed.).
-
- Arce AN, David TI, Randall EL, Ramos Rodrigues A, Colgan TJ, Wurm Y and Gill RJ, 2017. Impact of controlled neonicotinoid exposure on bumblebees in a realistic field setting. Journal of Applied Ecology, 54, 1199–1208. 10.1111/13652664.12792 - DOI
-
- Benfenati E, Como F, Manzo M, Gadaleta D, Toropov A and Toropova A, 2017. Developing innovative in silico models with EFSA's OpenFoodTox database. EFSA Supporting Publications, 14, 1206E.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous