Voltar
Artigo Acesso aberto Revisado por pares
BIBTEX RIS

Coverage of endangered species in environmental risk assessments at EFSA

2016; Wiley; Volume: 14; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4312

ISSN

1831-4732

Tópico(s)

Forest Insect Ecology and Management

Resumo

EFSA JournalVolume 14, Issue 2 4312 OpinionOpen Access Coverage of endangered species 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.2016.4312Citations: 17 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 following members, chairs* and scientific secretariat# of the working group on overarching elements of environmental risk assessment (coverage of endangered species) for drafting this scientific opinion: Michael Bonsall, Theo Brock*, Gianni Gilioli, Christer Hogstrand, Jonathan Jeschke, Mira Kattwinkel, Robert Luttik*, Ad Ragas, Paulo Sousa and Claus Svendsen, as well as the following EFSA staff members for their support: Fernando Alvarez, Yann Devos, Jean-Lou Dorne, Angelo Maggiore, Agnes Rortais, Reinhilde Schoonjans#, FranzStreissl, José Tarazona, Sara Tramontini and Maria Vittoria Vettori Adoption date: 11 November 2015 Published date: 3 February 2016 Question number: EFSA-Q-2013-00901 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 The EFSA performs environmental risk assessment (ERA) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives, and for invasive alien species that are harmful to plant health. This ERA focusses primarily on the use or spread of such potential stressors in an agricultural context, but also considers the impact on the wider environment. It is important to realise that the above potential stressors in most cases contribute a minor proportion of the total integrated pressure that ecosystems experience. The World Wildlife Fund listed the relative attribution of threats contributing to the declines in animal populations as follows: 37% from exploitation (fishing, hunting, etc.), 31% habitat degradation and change, 13% from habitat loss, 7% from climate change, and only 5% from invasive species, 4% from pollution and 2% from disease. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the extent of coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes that fall under the remit of EFSA. The legal basis and the relevant ecological and biological features used to classify a species as endangered are investigated. The characteristics that determine vulnerability of endangered species are reviewed. Whether endangered species are more at risk from exposure to potential stressors than other nontarget species is discussed, but specific protection goals for endangered species are not given. Due to a lack of effect and exposure data for the vast majority of endangered species, the reliability of using data from other species is a key issue for their ERA. This issue and other uncertainties are discussed when reviewing the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes. Potential tools, such as population and landscape modelling and trait-based approaches, for extending the coverage of endangered species in current ERA schemes, are explored and reported. References Aldenberg T and Jaworska JS, 2000. Uncertainty of the hazardous concentration and fraction affected for normal species sensitivity distributions. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 46, 1– 18. doi:10.1006/eesa.1999.1869 Aldrich AP, 2009. Empfindlichkeit von Amphibien gegenüber Pflanzenschutzmitteln. AGRARForschung, 16(11–12), 466– 471. Available online: https://cymcdn.com/sites/www.setac.org/resource/collection/8CE861BC-03D3–42CF-9563–27452EE2E791/Umw_Aldrich.pdf Andow DA, Lövei GL and Arpaia S, 2006. Ecological risk assessment for Bt crops. Nature Biotechnology, 24, 749– 751. doi:10.1038/nbt0706-749 Ankley GT, Bennett RS, Erickson RJ, Hoff DJ, Hornung MW, Johnson RD, Mount DR, Nichols JW, Russom CL, Schmieder PK, Serrrano JA, Tietge JE and Villeneuve DL, 2010. Adverse outcome pathways: a conceptual framework to support ecotoxicology research and risk assessment. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29 (3), 730– 741. doi:10.1002/etc.34 Arpaia S, 2010. Genetically modified plants and 'non-target' organisms: analysing the functioning of the agroecosystem. Collection of Biosafety Reviews, 5, 12– 80. Available online: http://biosafety.icgeb.org/sites/default/files/Arpaia.pdf Axelsson EP, Hjältén J, LeRoy CJ, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Wennström A and Pilate G, 2010. Can leaf litter from genetically modified trees affect aquatic ecosystems? Ecosystems, 13, 1049– 1059. doi:10.1007/s10021-010-9373-y Axelsson EP, Hjältén J, Whitham T, Julkunen-Tiitto R, Pilate G and Wennström A, 2011. Leaf ontogeny interacts with Bt modification to affect innate resistance in GM aspens. Chemoecology, 21, 161– 169. doi:10.1007/s00049-011-0080-8 Baas J, Jager T and Kooijman B, 2010. A review of DEB theory in assessing toxic effects of mixtures. Science of the Total Environment, 408(18), 3740– 3745. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.09.037 Banks JE, Ackleh AS and Stark JD, 2010. The use of surrogate species in risk assessment: using life history data to safeguard against false negatives. Risk Analysis, 30(2), 2010. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01349.x Banks JE, Stark JD, Vargas RI and Ackleh AS, 2014. Deconstructing the surrogate species concept: a life history approach to the protection of ecosystem services. Ecological Applications, 24, 770– 778. doi:10.1890/13-0937.1 Barney JN and Whitlow TH, 2008. A unifying framework for biological invasions: the state factor model. Biological Invasions, 10, 259– 272. doi:10.1007/s10530-007-9127-8 Bartsch D, 2010. Gene flow in sugar beet. Sugar Technology, 12, 201– 206. doi:10.1007/s12355-010-0053-1 Begon M, Harper JL and Townsend CR, 1996. Ecology: individuals, populations and communities. 3rd Edition, Blackwell, Oxford. SR Beissinger and DR McCullough (eds.), 2002. Population viability analysis. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Illinois. Beissinger SR and Westphal MI, 1998. On the use of demographic models of population viability in endangered species management. Journal of Wildlife Management, 62(3), 821– 841. doi:10.2307/3802534 Besser JM, Wang N, Dwyer FJ, Mayer FL Jr and Ingersoll CG, 2005. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: part II. Chronic toxicity of copper and pentachlorophenol to two endangered species and two surrogate species. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 48 (2), 155– 165. doi:10.1007/s00244-003-0039-z Biga LM and Blaustein AR, 2013. Variations in lethal and sublethal effects of cypermethrin among aquatic stages and species of anuran amphibians. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 32(12), 2855– 2860. doi:10.1002/etc.2379 Billeter R, Liira J, Bailey D, Bugter R, Arens P, Augenstein I, Aviron S, Baudry J, Bukacek R, Burel F, Cerny M, De Blust G, De Cock R, Diekötter T, Dietz H, Dirksen J, Dormann C, Durka W, Frenzel M, Hamersky R, Hendrickx F, Herzog F, Klotz S, Koolstra B, Lausch A, Le Coeur D, Maelfait JP, Opdam P, Roubalova M, Schermann S, Schermann N, Schmidt T, Schweiger O, Smulders MJM, Speelmans M, Simova P, Verboom J, Van Wingerden WKRE, Zobel M and Edwards PJ, 2008. Indicators for biodiversity in agricultural landscapes: a pan-European study. Journal of Applied Ecology, 45, 141– 150. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2664.2007.01393.x Bilz M, Kell SP, Maxted N and Lansdown RV, 2011. European red list of vascular plants. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available online: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/conservation/species/redlist/downloads/European_vascular_plants.pdf Blossey B and Nötzold R, 1995. Evolution of increased competitive ability in invasive nonindigenous plants: a hypothesis. Journal of Ecology, 83(5), 887– 889. doi:10.2307/2261425 Boobis AR, Cohen SM, Dellarco V, McGregor D, Meek ME, Vickers C, Willcocks D and Farland W, 2006. IPCS framework for analyzing the relevance of a cancer mode of action for humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 36(10), 781– 792. doi: 10.1080/10408440600977677 Boyles JG and Storm JJ, 2007. The perils of picky eating: dietary breadth is related to extinction risk in insectivorous bats. PLoS ONE, 2(7), e672. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000672 Brock TCM, Belgers DM, Roessink I, Cuppen JGM and Maund SJ, 2010. Macroinvertebrate responses to insecticide application between sprayed and adjacent nonsprayed ditch sections of different sizes. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 29, 1994– 2008. doi:10.1002/etc.238 Brühl CA, Pieper S and Weber B, 2011. Amphibians at risk? Susceptibility of terrestrial amphibian life stages to pesticides. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 30(11), 2465– 2472. doi:10.1002/etc.650 Brühl CA, Schmidt T, Pieper S and Alscher A, 2013. Terrestrial pesticide exposure of amphibians: An underestimated cause of global decline?. Scientific Reports, 3 Article number, 1135, doi:10.1038/srep01135 Buss DS and Callaghan A, 2008. Interaction of pesticides with p-glycoprotein and other ABC proteins: a survey of the possible importance to insecticide, herbicide and fungicide resistance. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology, 90(3), 141– 153. doi:10.1016/j.pestbp.2007.12.001 Callaway RM and Aschehoug ET, 2000. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbours: a mechanism for exotic invasion. Science, 290, 521– 523. doi:10.1126/science.290.5491.521 Callicott JB, Crowder LB and Mumford K, 1999. Current normative concepts in conservation. Conservation Biology, 13(1), 22– 35. doi:10.1046/j.1523-1739.1999.97333.x Campbell A, 2007. Veterinary Poisons information Service (VPIS) manager. Available online: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-492519/Hundreds-cats-killed-flea-treatment-dogs.html Carlsson NOL, 2006. Invasive golden apple snails are threatening natural ecosystems in Southeast Asia. In: RC Joshi and LS Sebastian (eds.). Global advances in ecology and management of golden apple snails. Philippine Rice Research Institute, Maligaya. pp. 61– 72. Carlsson NOL, Brönmark C and Hansson LA, 2004. Invading herbivory: the golden apple snail alters ecosystem functioning in Asian wetlands. Ecology 85, 1575– 1580. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/03–3146 Carstens K, Cayabyab B, De Schrijver A, Gadaleta PG, Hellmich RL, Romeis J, Storer N, Valicente FH and Wach M, 2014. Surrogate species selection for assessing potential adverse environmental impacts of genetically engineered insect-resistant plants on non-target organisms. GM Crops and Food: Biotechnology in Agriculture and the Food Chain, 5(1), 1– 5. doi:10.4161/gmcr.26560 Caswell H, 2000. Matrix population models: construction, analysis and interpretation. 2nd Edition, Sinauer Associates Inc., Sunderland, MA, 328 pp. Causton HC, Ren B, Koh SS, Harbison CT, Kanin E, Jennings EG, Lee TI, True HL, Lander ES and Young RA, 2001. Remodeling of yeast genome expression in response to environmental changes. Molecular Biology of the Cell, 12(2), 323– 337. Available online: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC30946/ Chambers CP, Whiles MR, Rosi-Marshall EJ, Tank JL, Royer TV, Griffiths NA, Evans-White MA and Stojak AR, 2010. Responses of stream macroinvertebrates to Bt maize leaf detritus. Ecological Applications, 20, 1949– 1960. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/09–0598.1 Chelinho S, Sautter KD, Cachada A, Abrantes I, Brown G, Duarte AC and Sousa JP, 2011. Carbofuran effects in soil nematode communities: using trait and taxonomic based approaches. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety, 74(7), 2002– 2012. doi:10.1016/j.ecoenv.2011.07.015 Chelinho S, Domene X, Andrés P, Natal-da-Luz T, Norte C, Rufino C, Lopes I, Cachada A, Espíndola E, Ribeiro R, Duarte AC and Sousa JP, 2014. Soil microarthropod community testing: a new approach to increase the ecological relevance of effect data for pesticide risk assessment. Applied Soil Ecology, 83, 200– 209. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.06.009 Chen D, Hale RC, Watts BD, La Guardia MJ, Harvey E and Mojica EK, 2010. Species-specific accumulation of polybrominated diphenyl ether flame retardants in birds of prey from the Chesapeake Bay region, USA. Environmental Pollution, 158(5), 1883– 1889. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2009.10.042 Chèvre AM, Ammitzbøll H, Breckling B, Dietz-Pfeilstetter A, Eber F, Fargue A, Gomez-Campo C, Jenczewski E, Jørgensen R, Lavigne C, Meier M, den Nijs H, Pascher K, Seguin-Swartz G, Sweet J, Stewart N and Warwick S, 2004. A review on interspecific gene flow from oilseed rape to wild relatives. In: HCM Nijs, D Bartsch and J Sweet (eds.). Introgression from genetically modified plants into wild relatives. CABI Publishing, New York. pp. 235– 251. Claudianos C, Ranson H, Johnson RM, Biswas S, Schuler MA, Berenbaum MR, Feyereisen R and Oakeshott JG, 2006. A deficit of detoxification enzymes: pesticide sensitivity and environmental response in the honeybee. Insect Molecular Biology, 15(5), 615– 636. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2583.2006.00672.x B Collen, M Böhm, R Kemp and JEM Baillie (eds.), 2012. Spineless: status and trends of the world's invertebrates. Zoological Society of London. Available online: http://static.zsl.org/secure/files/spineless-report-online-9mb-2027.pdf Craig PS, Hickey GL, Luttik R and Hart A, 2012. On species non-exchangeability in probabilistic ecological risk assessment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 175, 243– 262. doi:10.1111/j.1467-985X.2011.00716.x Crawley MJ, Hails RS, Rees M, Kohn D and Buxton J, 1993. Ecology of transgenic oilseed rape in natural habitats. Nature, 363, 620– 623. doi:10.1038/363620a0 Crosse JD, Shore RF, Jones KC and Pereira MG, 2012. Long term trends in PBDE concentrations in gannet (Morus bassanus) eggs from two UK colonies. Environmental Pollution, 161, 93– 100. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2011.10.003 Dauber J, Hirsch M, Simmering D, Waldhardt R, Otte A and Wolters V, 2003. Landscape structure as an indicator of biodiversity: matrix effects on species richness. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 98(1–3), 321– 329. doi:10.1016/S0167-8809(03)00092-6 Davidson C and Knapp RA, 2007. Multiple stressors and amphibian declines: dual impacts of pesticides and fish on yellow-legged frogs. Ecological Applications, 17(2), 587– 597. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/06–0181 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. doi:10.1007/s10531-010-9850-9 De Boer J, Dao QT, van Leeuwen SPJ, Kotterman MJJ and Schobben JHM, 2010. Thirty year monitoring of PCBs, organochlorine pesticides and tetrabromodiphenylether in eel from The Netherlands. Environmental Pollution, 158, 5, 1228– 1236. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.01.026 De Lange HJ, Lahr J, Van der Pol JJC, Wessels Y and Faber JH, 2009. Ecological vulnerability in wildlife: an expert judgment and multicriteria analysis tool using ecological traits to assess relative impact of pollutants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 28(10), 2233– 2240. doi:10.1897/08-626.1 De Lange HJ, Sala S, Vighi M and Faber JH, 2010. Ecological vulnerability in risk assessment - a review and perspectives. Science of the Total Environment, 408, 3871– 3879. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2009.11.009 De Man F, 2014. Explaining species sensitivity to toxic chemicals - A preliminary study on linking species traits to toxicological sensitivity. Bachelor Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen, The Netherlands. De Zwart D, 2002. Observed regularities in SSDs for aquatic species. In: TP Traas, L Posthuma, GW Suter (eds.). Species sensitivity distributions in ecotoxicology. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton. pp. 133– 154. DeAngelis DL and Gross LJ, 1992. Individual-based models and approaches in ecology. Chapman and Hall, London. 525 pp. Delano LS, Cuda JP and Stevens BR, 2011. A novel biorational pesticide: efficacy of methionine against Heraclides (Papilio) cresphontes, a surrogate of the invasive Princeps (Papilio) demoleus (Lepidoptera: Papilionidae). Journal of Economic Entomology, 104, 1986– 1990. doi:10.1603/EC11132 Devos Y, De Schrijver A and Reheul D, 2009. Quantifying the introgressive hybridisation propensity between transgenic oilseed rape and its wild/weedy relatives. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 149, 303– 322. doi:10.1007/s10661-008-0204-y Diehl S, 1988. Foraging efficiency of three freshwater fish: effects of structural complexity and light. Oikos, 53, 203– 214. doi:10.2307/3566064 Diehl S, 1992. Fish predation and benthic community structure: the role of omnivory and habitat complexity. Ecology, 73, 1646– 1661. doi:10.2307/1940017 Diekötter T, Wamser S, Wolters V and Birkhofer K, 2010. Landscape and management effects on structure and function of soil arthropod communities in winter wheat. Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 137, 108– 112. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2010.01.008 Dietz R, Born EW, Riget F, Aubail A, Sonne C, Drimmie R and Basu N, 2011. Temporal trends and future predictions of mercury concentrations in Northwest Greenland Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Hair. Environmental Science and Technology, 45(4), 1458– 1465. doi:10.1021/es1028734 Driver CJ, Ligotke MW, Van Voris P, McVeety BD, Greenspan BJ and Drown DB, 1991. Routes of uptake and their relative contribution to the toxicological response of northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) to an organophosphate pesticide. Enviromental Toxicology and Chemistry, 10(1), 21– 33. doi:10.1002/etc.5620100104 Dueck THA, Ernst WHO, Faber J and Pasman F, 1984. Heavy metal immission and genetic constitution of plant populations in the vicinity of two metal emission sources. Angewandte Botanik, 58, 47– 59. Dwyer FJ, Mayer FL, Sappington LC, Buckler DR, Bridges CM, Greer IE, Hardesty DK, Henke CE, Ingersoll CG, Kunz JL, Whites DW, Augspurger T, Mount DR, Hattala K and Neuderfer GN, 2005. Assessing contaminant sensitivity of endangered and threatened aquatic species: part I. Acute toxicity of five chemicals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology, 48(2), 143– 154. doi:10.1007/s00244-003-3038-1 Easterling MR, Ellner SP and Dixon PM, 2000. Size-specific sensitivity: applying a new structured population model. Ecology, 81, 3, 2000, pp 694– 708. Available online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/0012–9658(2000)081[0694:SSSAAN]2.0.CO;2 Ebner BC, Lintermans M, Jekabsons M, Dunford M and Andrews W, 2009. A cautionary tale: surrogates for radio-tagging practice do not always simulate the responses of closely related species. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60(4), 371– 378. doi:10.1071/MF08159 ECORYS for The Netherlands Ministry of VROM (Ministry of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment), 2007. Green-blue veining: agro-biodiversity as innovation for sustainable agriculture. Developed by Alterra (in cooperation with different stakeholders) in the Hoeksche Waald area in The Netherlands. Available online: http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/2/2/0/425999d4-ba0f-4b85–87d0f189c341e6dd_Greenblueveininginnovationforsustainableagricultur.pdf Edmonds ST, Evers DC, Cristol DA, Mettke-Hofmann C, Powell LL, McGann AJ, Armiger JW, Lane OP, Tessler DF, Newell P, Heyden K and O'Driscoll NJ, 2010. The Geographic and seasonal variation in mercury exposure of the declining Rusty Blackbird. Condor, 112(4), 789– 799. doi:10.1525/cond.2010.100145 Edmonds ST, O'Driscoll NJ, Hillier NK, Atwood JL and Evers DC, 2012. Factors regulating the bioavailability of methylmercury to breeding rusty blackbirds in northeastern wetlands. Environmental Pollution, 171, 148– 154. doi:10.1016/j.envpol.2012.07.044 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2011. Review of current practices of environmental risk assessment within EFSA. EFSA supporting publication 2011:EN-116. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/search/doc/116i.pdf 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. Available online: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/specialissues.htm EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013a. EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products on bees (Apis mellifera, Bombus spp. and solitary bees). EFSA Journal 2013; 11(7): 3295, 268 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3295 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013b. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance clothianidin. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(1): 3066, 58 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3066 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013c. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance imidacloprid. EFSA Journal 2013; 11(1): 3068, 55 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3068 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013d. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment for bees for the active substance thiamethoxam: EFSA Journal 2013; 11(1): 3067, 68 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3067 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2013e. EFSA Scientific Colloquium Summary Report: Towards holistic approaches to the risk assessment of multiple stressors in bees. 15–16 May 2013, Parma, Italy. doi:10.2805/53269 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014a. EFSA Scientific Colloquium Summary Report: Biodiversity as Protection Goal in Environmental Risk Assessment for EU agro-ecosystems. 27–28 November 2013, Parma, Italy. 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. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3734 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014c. Modern methodologies and tools for human hazard assessment of chemicals. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(4): 3638, 87 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3638 EFSA (European Food Safety Authority), 2014d. Towards an integrated environmental risk assessment of multiple stressors on bees: review of research projects in Europe, knowledge gaps and recommendations. EFSA Journal 2014; 12(3): 3594, 102 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3594 EFSA BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010a. 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 BIOHAZ Panel (EFSA Panel on Biological Hazards), 2010b. 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 FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed), 2007. Opinion on the development of an approach for the environmental risk assessment of additives, products and substances used 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. 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), 2011. Guidance on the assessment of additives intended to be used in pets and other non food-producing animals. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(2): 2012. 3 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2012 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2009. Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms on applications (EFSA-GMO-RX-MON810) for the renewal of authorisation for the continued marketing of (1) existing food and food ingredients produced from genetically modified insect resistant maize MON810; (2) feed consisting of and/or containing maize MON810, and maize MON810 for feed use (including cultivation); and of (3) food additives and feed materials produced from maize MON810, all under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto. EFSA Journal 2009; 7(6): 1149, 84 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1149 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2010. 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), 2011a. Scientific Opinion on guidance on the risk assessment of genetically modified microorganisms and their products intended for food and feed use. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(6): 2193, 54 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2193 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2011b. 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), 2011c. Scientific Opinion on Guidance for risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. EFSA Journal 2011; 9(5): 2150, 37 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2150 EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms), 2013. 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 PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2010. 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), 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), 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 PLH Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Health), 2015. Risk to plant health in the EU territory of the intentional release of the bud-galling wasp Trichilogaster acaciaelongifoliae for the control of the invasive alien plant Acacia longifolia. EFSA Journal 2015; 13(4): 4079, 48 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4079 EFSA PPR Panel (EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues), 2005. Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Plant Health, Plant Protection Products and their Residues on a request from EFSA related to the assessment of the acute and chronic risk to aquatic organisms with regard to the possibility of lowering the uncertainty factor if additional species were tested. EFSA Journal 2006; 4(1): 301, 45 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2006.301 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. 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).

Referência(s)