Recovery in environmental risk assessments at EFSA
2016; Wiley; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês
10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4313
ISSN1831-4732
Tópico(s)Insect Resistance and Genetics
ResumoEFSA JournalVolume 14, Issue 2 4313 OpinionOpen Access Recovery in environmental risk assessments at EFSA EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author EFSA Scientific Committee, EFSA Scientific CommitteeSearch for more papers by this author First published: 03 February 2016 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4313Citations: 28 Panel members: Simon More, Alicja Mortensen, Antonia Ricci, Vittorio Silano, Katrine Helle Knutsen, Guido Rychen, Hanspeter Naegeli, Dominique Turck, Michael John Jeger, Colin Ockleford, Diane Benford, Thorhallur Halldorsson, Anthony Hardy, Hubert Noteborn, Josef R. Schlatter, Roland Solecki Correspondence: sc.secretariat@efsa.europa.eu Acknowledgement: The Scientific Committee wishes to thank the members of the working group, chairs* and scientific secretariat# of the working group on the overarching elements of environmental risk assessment (recovery) for drafting this scientific opinion: Franz Bigler, Theo Brock*, Geoff Frampton, Christer Hogstrand, Robert Luttik, Fabrice Martin-Laurent, Christopher John Topping and Wopke Van Der Werf as well as the following EFSA staff members for their support: Angelo Maggiore, Agnes Rortais#, Reinhilde Schoonjans, Franz Streissl, Sara Tramontini, Maria Vittoria Vettori, Sybren Vos and Stefania Volani Adoption date: 11 November 2015 Published date: 3 February 2016 Question number: EFSA-Q-2013-00902 On request from: EFSA AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Abstract EFSA performs environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives and for invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. In this risk assessment domain, the EFSA Scientific Committee recognises the importance of more integrated ERAs considering both the local and landscape scales, as well as the possible co-occurrence of multiple potential stressors that fall under the remit of EFSA, which are important when addressing ecological recovery. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the potential for the recovery of non-target organisms for the further development of ERA. Current EFSA guidance documents and opinions were reviewed on how ecological recovery is addressed in ERA schemes. In addition, this scientific opinion is based on expert knowledge and data retrieved from the literature. Finally, the information presented in this opinion was reviewed by experts from the relevant EFSA Panels, European risk assessment bodies and through an open consultation requesting input from stakeholders. A conceptual framework was developed to address ecological recovery for any assessed products, and invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. This framework proposes an integrative approach based on well-defined specific protection goals, scientific knowledge derived by means of experimentation, modelling and monitoring, and the selection of focal taxa, communities, processes and landscapes to develop environmental scenarios to allow the assessment of recovery of organisms and ecological processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales. References Alvarez T, Frampton GK and Goulson D, 1997. Population dynamics of epigeic Collembola in arable fields: the importance of hedgerow proximity and crop type. Pedobiologia, 41, 110– 114. Arts GHP, Buijse-Bogdan LL, Belgers JDM, van Rhenen-Kersten CH, van Wijngaarden RPA, Roessink I, Maund SJ, van den Brink PJ and Brock TCM, 2006. Ecological impact in ditch mesocosms of simulated spray drift from a crop protection programme for potatoes. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 2, 105– 125. Auber A, Roucate M, Togola A and Caquet T, 2011. Structural and functional effects of conventional and low pesticide input crop-protection programs on benthic macroinvertebrates communities in outdoor pond mesocosms. Ecotoxicology, 20, 20142– 22055. Baird DJ, Brock TCM, De Ruiter PC, Boxall ABA, Culp JM, Eldridge P, Hommen U, Jak RG, Kidd KA, Dewitt T, 2001. The food-web approach in the environmental management of toxic substances. In: DJ Baird and GA Burton (eds.). Ecological Variability: Separating Natural From Anthropogenic Causes of Ecosystem Impairment. SETAC Press, Pensacola, USA, pp 83– 122. Baird DJ, Rubach MN and van den Brink PJ, 2008. Trait-based ecological risk assessment (TERA): the new frontier? Integrated Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 4, 2– 3. Baird DJ, Baker CJ, Brua RB, Hajibabaei M, McNicol K, Pascoe TJ and de Zwart D, 2011. Toward a knowledge infrastructure for traits-based ecological risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7, 209– 215. Barnthouse LW, 2004. Quantifying population recovery rates for ecological risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 23, 500– 508. Baveco JM, Norman S, Roessink I, Galic N and van den Brink PJ, 2014. Comparing population recovery after insecticide exposure for four aquatic invertebrate species using models of different complexity. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 33, 1517– 1528. Becker JM and Liess M, 2015. Biotic interactions govern genetic adaptation to toxicants. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B, 282, 20150071. Beissinger SR and Westphal MI, 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62, 821– 841. Beketov MA and Liess M, 2006. The influence of predation on the chronic response of Artemia sp. populations to a toxicant. Journal of Applied Ecology, 43, 1069– 1074. Beketov MA, Kefford BJ, Schäfer RB and Liess M, 2013. Pesticides reduce regional biodiversity of stream invertebrates. Proceedings of the National Acadamy of Sciences, 110, 11039– 11043. Belden JB, Gilliom RS, Martin JD and Lydy MJ, 2007. Relative toxicity and occurrennce patterns of pesticide mixtures in streams draining agricultural watersheds dominated by corn and soybean production. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 3, 90– 100. Bender EA, Case TJ and Gilpin E, 1984. Perturbation experiments in community ecology - theory and practice. Ecology, 65, 1– 13. Berghahn R, Mohr S, Hübner V, Schmiediche R, Schmiedling I, Svetich-Will E and Schmidt R, 2012. Effects of repeated insecticide pulses on macroinvertebrate drift in indoor stream mesocosms. Aquatic Toxicology, 122– 123, 56–66. Berryman AA and Kindlmann P, 2008. Population Systems: A General Introduction. Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 237 pp. Beynon SA, 2012a. Potential environmental consequences of administration of anthelmintics to sheep. Veterinary Parasitology, 189, 113– 124. Beynon SA, 2012b. Potential environmental consequences of administration of ectoparasiticides to sheep. Veterinary Parasitology, 189, 125– 135. Beynon SA, Peck M, Mann DJ and Lewis OT, 2012. Consequences of alternative and conventional endoparasite control in cattle for dung-associated invertebrates and ecosystem functioning. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 162, 36– 44. Bianchi FJJA, van der Werf W and Honěk A, 2007. Changes in agricultural land use can explain population decline in a ladybeetle species in the Czech Republic; evidence from a process-based spatially explicit model. Landscape Ecology, 22, 1541– 1554. Blanck H, 2002. A critical review of peocedures and approaches used for assessing pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT) in biotic communities. Human anr Ecological Risk Assessment, 8, 1003– 1034. Blanck H, Wangberg SA and Molander S, 1988. Pollution-induced community tolerance (PICT) – a new ecotoxicological tool. In: JP Pratt and J Cairns (eds). Functional Testing for Hazard Evaluation. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia. pp. 219– 230. Blaustein AR and Kiesecker JM, 2002. Complexity in conservation: lessons from the global decline of amphibian populations. Ecology Letters, 5, 597– 608. Boatman ND, Brickle NW, Hart JD, Milsom TP, Morris AJ, Murray AWA, Murray KA and Robertson PA, 2004. Evidence for the indirect effects of pesticides on farmland birds. Ibis, 146, 131– 143. Bright JA, Morris AJ, Winspear R, 2008. A Review of Indirect Effects of Pesticides on Birds and Mitigating Land-Management Practices. RSPB Research Report 28, April 2008. RSPB, Sandy, Bedfordshire, UK. van den Brink PJ, van Wijngaarden RPA, Lucassen WGH, Brock TCM and Leeuwangh P, 1996. Effects of the insecticide Dursban 4E (a.i. chlorpyrifos) in outdoor experimental ditches. II. Invertebrate community responses. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 15, 1143– 1153. van den Brink PJ, Hartgers EM, Fetweis U, Crum SJH, van Donk E and Brock TCM, 1997. Sensitivity of macrophyte-dominated freshwater microcosms to chronic levels of the herbicide Linuron. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 38, 13– 24. van den Brink PJ, Alexander AC, Desrosiers M, Goedkoop W, Goethals PL, Liess M and Dyer SD, 2011. Traits-based approaches in bioassessment and ecological risk assessment: strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7, 198– 208. van den Brink PJ, Baird D, Baveco HJM and Focks A, 2013. The use of traits-based approaches and eco (toxico)logical models to advance the ecological risk assessment framework for chemicals. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9, e47– e57. Brock TCM, 2013. Priorities to improve the ecological risk assessment and management for pesticides in surface water. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 9, e64– e74. Brock TCM and Budde BJ, 1994. On the choice of structural parameters to indicate responses of freshwater ecosystems to pesticide stress. In: IA Hill, F Heimbach, P Leeuwangh and P Matthiesen (eds). Freshwater Field Tests for Hazard Assessment of Chemicals. Lewis Publishers, Michigan. pp. 19– 56. Brock TCM, van den Bogaert M, Bos AR, van Breukelen SWF, Reiche R, Terwoert J, Suykerbuyk REM and Roijackers RMM, 1992. Fate and effects of the insecticide Dursban 4E in indoor Elodea-dominated and macrophyte-free freshwater model ecosystems: II. Secondary effects on community structure. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 23, 391– 409. Brock TCM, Crum SJH, Deneer JW, Heimbach F, Roijackers RMM and Sinkeldam JA, 2004. Comparing aquatic risk assessment methods for the photosynthesis-inhibiting herbicides metribuzin and metamitron. Environmental Pollution, 130, 403– 426. Brock TCM, Arts GHP, Belgers JDM, van Rhenen-Kersten C, 2010a. Ecological characterization of drainage ditches in the Netherlands to evaluate pesticide-stress. In: TCM Brock, A Alix, CD Brown, E Capri, BFF Gottesbüren, F Heimbach, CM Lythgo, R Schulz, E Streloke (eds.). Linking Aquatic Exposure and Effects in the Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products, SETAC Press & CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, London, New York. pp. 269– 287. Brock TCM, Belgers JDM, Roessink I, Cuppen JGM and Maund SJ, 2010b. Macroinvertebrate responses to insecticide application between sprayed and adjacent non-sprayed ditch sections of different sizes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29, 1994– 2008. Brock TCM, Hammers-Wirtz M, Hommen U, Preuss TG, Ratte H-T, Roessink I, Strauss T and van den Brink PJ, 2014. The minimum detectable difference (MDD) and the interpretation of treatment-related effects of pesticides in experimental ecosystems. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, doi:10.1007/s11356-014-3398-2). Brooks KM and Mahnken CV, 2003. Interactions of Atlantic salmon in the Pacific Northwest environment III: Accumulation of zinc and copper. Fisheries Research, 62, 295– 305. Brown AR, Hosken DJ, Balloux F, Bickley LK, LePage G, Owen SF, Hetheride MJ, Tyler CR, 2009. Genetic variation, inbreeding and chemical exposure. combined effects in wildlife and critical considerations for ecotoxicology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 364(1534), 3377– 3390. doi:10.1098/rstb.2009.0126. Bulman CR, Wilson RJ, Holt AR, Bravo LG, Early RI, Warren MS and Thomas CD, 2007. Minimum viable metapopulation size, extinction debt, and the conservation of a declining species. Ecological Applications, 17, 1460– 1473. Bunzel K, Liess M and Kattwinkel M, 2014. Landscape parameters driving aquatic pesticide exposure and effects. Environmental Pollution, 186, 90– 97. Burn AJ, 1992. Interactions between cereal pests and their predators and parasites. In: PW Greig-Smith, G Frampton and A Hardy (eds). Pesticides, Cereal Farming and the Environment. HMSO, London. pp. 110– 131. Butler SJ, Vickery JA and Norris K, 2007. Farmland biodiversity and the footprint of agriculture. Science, 315, 381– 384. Butler SJ, Mattison EHA, Glithero NJ, Robinson LJ, Atkinson PW, Gillings S, Vickery JA and Norris K, 2010. Resource availability and the persistence of seed-eating bird populations in agricultural landscapes: a mechanistic modelling approach. Journal of Applied Ecology, 47, 67– 75. Butler SJ, Freckleton R, Renwick A and Norris K, 2012. An objective, niche-based approach to indicator species selection. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 3, 317– 326. Caffrey JM, Baars J-R, Barbour JH, Boets P, Boon P, Davenport K, Dick JTA, Early J, Edsman L, Gallagher C, Gross J, Heinimaa P, Horrill C, Hudin S, Hulme PE, Hynes S, MacIsaac HJ, McLoone P, Millane M, Moen TL, Moore N, Newman J, O'Conchuir R, O'Farrell M, O'Flynn C, Oidtmann B, Renals T, Ricciardi A, Roy H, Shaw R, Weyl O, Williams F and Lucy FE, 2014. Tackling invasive alien species in Europe: the top 20 issues. Management of Biological Invasions, 5, 1– 20. Caquet T, Hanson ML, Roucaute M, Graham DW and Lagadic L, 2007. Influence of isolation on the recovery of pond mesocosms from the application of an insecticide. II. Benthic macroinvertebrate responses. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 26, 1280– 1290. Cardinale BJ, Matulich KL, Hooper DU, Byrnes JE, Duffy E, Gamfeldt L, Balvanera P, O'Connor MI and Gonzalez A, 2011. The functional role of producer diversity in ecosystems. American Journal of Botany, 98, 572– 592. Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM, Tilman D, Wardle DA, Kinzig AP, Daily GC, Loreau M, Grace JB, Larigauderie A, Srivastava DS and Naeem S, 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature, 486, 59– 67. Carstens KL, Hayter K and Layton RJ, 2010. A perspective of problem formulation and exposure assessment of transgenic crops. IOBC/Wprs Bulletin, 52, 23– 30. Carstens KL, Anderson J, Bachmann P, De Schrijver A, Dively G, Federici B, Hamer M, Gielkens M, Jensen P, Lamp W, Rauschen S, Ridley G, Romeis J and Waggoner A, 2012. Genetically modified crips for environmental risk assessment and non-target organism testing. Transgenic Research, 21, 813– 842. CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity), 2002. Glossary of Terms. Available online: www.cbd.int/invasive/terms.shtml Chalak M, 2009. Economics of Controlling Invasive Species: The Case of Californian Thistle in New Zealand. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University. 152 pp. http://edepot.wur.nl/1994 Chalak M, Hemerik L, van der Werf W, Ruijs A and van Ierland EC, 2010. On the risk of extinction of a wild plant species through spillover of a biological control agent: analysis of an ecosystem compartment model. Ecological Modelling, 221, 1934– 1943. Champeau O, 2013. Literature review of ecological effects of aquaculture. Effects from additives. 19 pp. Available from: http://www.fish.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/68AC7DB7–5E06–4EDB-A6DF-B73BCCA947DF/0/2013chapter10effectsfromadditives.pdf Changey F, Devers-Lamrani M, Rouard N and Martin-Laurent F, 2011. In vitro evolution of an atrazine-degrading population under cyanuric acid selection pressure: evidence for selective loss of a 47 kb region on the plasmid pADP1 containing the atzA, B and C genes. Gene, 490, 18– 25. Comas C, Lumbierres B, Pons X and Albajes R, 2014. No effects of Bacillus thuringiensis maize on nontarget organisms in the field in southern Europe: a meta-analysis of 26 arthropod taxa. Transgenic Research, 23, 135– 143. Cong WF, Hoffland E, Li L, Six J, Sun JH, Bao XG, Zhang FS and van der Werf W, 2014. Intercropping enhances organic carbon and nitrogen in soil. Global Change Biology, 21, 1715– 1726. doi:10.1111/gcb.12738. Connor AJ, Glare TR and Nap JP, 2003. The release of genetically modified crops into the Environment: Part II. Overview of ecological risk assessment. Plant Journal, 33, 19– 46. Culp JM, Armanini DG, Dunbar MJ, Orlofske JM, Poff NL, Pollard AI, Yates AG and Hose GC, 2011. Incorporating traits in aquatic biomonitoring to enhance causal diagnosis and prediction. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 7, 187– 197. Daam MA and van den Brink PJ, 2007. Effects of chlorpyrifos, carbendazim and linuron on the ecology of a small indoor aquatic microcosm. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 53, 22– 35. DAISIE (Delivering Alien Invasive Species Inventories for Europe), 2014. European Invasive Alien Species Gateway. Available from http://www.europe-aliens.org/ Dalkvist T, Topping CJ and Forbes VE, 2009. Population-level impacts of pesticide-induced chronic effects on individuals depend more on ecology than toxicology. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 72, 1663– 1672. Dalkvist T, Sibly R and Topping C, 2013. Landscape structure mediates the effects of a stressor on field vole populations. Landscape Ecology, 28, 1– 14. De Bello F, Lavorel S, Diaz S, Harrington R, Cornelissen JHC, Bardgett RD, Berg MP, Cipriotti P, Feld CK, Hering D, da Silva PM, Potts SG, Sandin L, Sousa JP, Storkey J, Wardle DA and Harrison PA, 2010. Towards an assessment of multiple ecosystem processes and services via functional traits. Biodiversity and Conservation, 19, 2873– 2893. De Laender F, van den Brink PJ and Janssen CR, 2011. Functional redundancy and food-web functioning in linuron-exposed ecosystems. Environmental Pollution, 159, 3009– 3017. De Ruiter P, Wolters W and Moore J, 2005. Dynamic Food-Webs: Multispecies Assemblages. Elsevier Publishers, Ecosystem Development and Environmental Change 608 pp. Devos Y, Hails RS, Messéan A, Perry JN and Squire GR, 2012. Feral genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape from seed import spills: are concerns scientifically justified? Transgenic Research, 21, 1– 21. Devos Y, Aguilera J, Diveki Z, Gomes A, Liu Y, Paoletti C, du Jardin P, Herman L, Perry JN and Waigmann E, 2014. EFSA's scientific activities and achievements on the risk assessment of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) during its first decade of existence – looking back and ahead. Transgenic Research, 23, 1– 25. Devos Y, Romeis J, Luttik R, Maggiore A, Perry JN, Schoonjans R, Streissl F, Tarazona JV and Brock TCM, 2015. Optimising environmental risk assessments – Accounting for biodiversity and ecosystem services helps to translate broad policy protection goals into specific operational ones for environmental risk assessments. EMBO Reports, 16, 1060– 1063. Dick JTA, Alexander ME, Jeschke JM, Ricciardi A, MacIsaac HJ, Robinson TB, Kumschick S, Weyl OLF, Dunn AM, Hatcher MJ, Paterson RA, Farnsworth KD and Richardson DM, 2014. Advancing impact prediction and hypothesis testing in invasion ecology using a comparative functional response approach. Biological Invasions, 16, 735– 753. Didham RK, Watts CH and Norton DA, 2005. Are systems with strong underlying abiotic regimes more likely to exhibit alternative stable states? Oikos, 110, 409– 416. Dietzen C, Edwards PJ, Wolf C, Ludwigs JD and Luttik R, 2014. Focal taxa of birds in European crops for higher tier pesticide risk assessment. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management, 10, 247– 259. Dorigo U, Berard A, Rimet F, Bouchez A and Montuelle B, 2010. In situ assessment of periphyton recovery in a river contaminated by pesticides. Aquatic Toxicology, 98, 396– 406. van Driesche RG, Carruthers RI, Center T, Hoddle MS, Hough-Goldstein J, Morin L, Smith L, Wagner DL, Blossey B, Brancatini V, Casagrande R, Causton CE, Coetzee JA, Cuda J, Ding J, Fowler SV, Frank JH, Fuester R, Goolsby J, Grodowitz M, Heard TA, Hill MP, Hoffmann JH, Huber J, Julien M, Kairo MTK, Kenis M, Mason P, Medal J, Messing R, Miller R, Moore A, Neuenschwander P, Newman R, Norambuena H, Palmer WA, Pemberton R, Perez Panduro A, 2010. Classical biological control for the protection of natural ecosystems. Biological Control, 54, S2– S33, doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.03.003 EEA (European Environment Agency), 2001. Scenarios as tools for international environmental assessments. Environmental Issue Report 24. EEA, Copenhagen, Denmark, 1– 31. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2010. Report on the PPR stakeholder workshop Protection goals for environmental risk assessment of pesticide: what and where to protect? EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7): 1672, 46 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1672 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011. Review of current practices of environmental risk assessment within EFSA. EFSA Supporting Publication 2011:EN-116. Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/supporting/pub/116i EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2012. EFSA Journal Special Issue No 1 – Scientific achievements, challenges and perspectives of the European Food Safety Authority: Taking stock of the 10 years activities and looking ahead. Published online on 18 October 2012. Available at: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/specialissues.htm EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014a. Biodiversity as protection goal in environmental risk assessment for EU agro-ecosystems. Summary Report of the EFSA Scientific Colloquium 19, Parma, Italy, 72 pp. doi: 10.2805/57358 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014b. Guidance on expert knowledge elicitation in food and feed safety risk assessment. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(6): 3734, 278 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734 EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010a. Statement on technical assistance on the format for applications for new alternative methods for animal by-products. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(7): 1680. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1680 EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010b. Revision of the joint AFC/BIOHAZ guidance document on the submission of data for the evaluation of the safety and efficacy of substances for the removal of microbial surface contamination of foods of animal origin intended for human consumption. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(4): 1544. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1544 EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2007. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed on the development of an approach for the environmental risk assessment of additives, products and substances in animal feed. EFSA Journal 2007; 5(8): 529, 73 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2007.529 EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2008. Technical Guidance for assessing the safety of feed additives for the environment prepared by the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed. EFSA Journal 2008; 6(10): 842, 28 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2008.842 EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2014. Scientific opinion on the potential reduction of the currently authorised maximum zinc content in complete feed. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(5): 3668, 77 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3668 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2009. Scientific opinion on applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810) for renewal of authorisation for the continued marketing of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified insect resistant maize MON 810; (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, including the use of seed for cultivation; and of (3) food and feed additives, and feed materials produced from maize MON 810, all under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(6): 1149, 85 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1149 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2010a. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11): 1879, 111 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1879 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2010b. Scientific opinion on the assessment of potential impacts of genetically modified plants on non-target organisms. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(11): 1877, 72 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1877 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms) 2011. Guidance on the Post-Market Environmental Monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(8): 2316, 40 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2316 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2012. Scientific Opinion on an application (EFSAGMO-NL-2005–24) for the placing on the market of the herbicide tolerant genetically modified soybean 40-3-2 for cultivation under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA Journal 2012; 10(6): 2753, 110 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2753 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2013a. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of genetically modified animals. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(5): 3200, 190 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3200 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2013b. Scientific opinion on the annual post-market environmental monitoring (PMEM) report from Monsanto Europe S.A. in the cultivation of genetically modified maize MON 810 in 2011. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(12): 3500, 38 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3500 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2010a. Guidance on a harmonised framework for pest risk assessment and the identification and evaluation of pest risk management options by EFSA. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(2): 1495, 66 pp. doi:10.2093/j.efsa.2010.1495 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2010b. Risk assessment of the oriental chestnut gall wasp, Dryocosmus kuriphilus for the EU territory on request from the European Commission. EFSA Journal 2010; 8(6): 1619. 114 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1619 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2011. Guidance on the environmental risk assessment of plant pests. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(12): 2460, 121 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2460 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2013. Scientific opinion on the assessment of the potential establishment of the apple snail in the EU. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(12): 3487, 49 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3487 EFSA PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2014. Scientific opinion on the environmental risk assessment of the apple snail for the EU. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(4): 3641, 97 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3641 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2009. Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for Birds and Mammals on request from EFSA. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(12): 1438, 139 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1438 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2010. Scientific opinion on the development of specific protection goal options for environmental risk assessment of pesticides, in particular in relation to the revision of the Guidance Documents on Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecotoxicology (SANCO/3268/2001 and SANCO/10329/2002). EFSA Journal 2010; 8(10): 1821, 55 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1821 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2012. scientific opinion of the Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues on the science behind the development of a risk assessment of Plant Protection Products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal 2012; 10(5):2668
Referência(s)