Montforts Mark H M M
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), Antonie van Leeuwenhoeklaan 9, PO Box 1, NL-3720BA Bilthoven, The Netherlands.
Integr Environ Assess Manag. 2006 Jan;2(1):13-21.
This article describes the results of a survey conducted in 2003 on methods used by different member countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) to evaluate persistent and bioaccumulative pesticides. The objectives were to establish the differences in taking persistence (P) and bioaccumulation (B) into account in the decision-making process and to establish the influence of the assessors' subjectivity to data interpretation and data selection. Fifteen countries participated in the survey, which generated a vast amount of information on decision making, risk assessment, risk classification, and data treatment. Survey results indicated clear differences in approaches to the use of P, B, and toxicity (T) information in scientific risk assessment. Using the same data for 2 different pesticides, several OECD member countries responded differently in classifying both substances as P, B, and T. Differences in regulatory decision-making were also apparent because, based on identical classifications, several OECD member countries adopted different decisions on pesticide registration; recommendations were based, with respect to technical guidance, on data handling, training of assessors, and handling of uncertainty in risk assessment.
本文介绍了2003年针对经济合作与发展组织（OECD）不同成员国用于评估持久性和生物累积性农药的方法所开展的一项调查结果。目标是确定在决策过程中考虑持久性（P）和生物累积性（B）方面的差异，并确定评估者主观性对数据解读和数据选择的影响。15个国家参与了此次调查，调查产生了大量关于决策、风险评估、风险分类和数据处理的信息。调查结果表明，在科学风险评估中使用P、B和毒性（T）信息的方法存在明显差异。对于两种不同的农药使用相同的数据，几个经合组织成员国在将这两种物质归类为P、B和T时给出了不同的回应。监管决策方面的差异也很明显，因为基于相同的分类，几个经合组织成员国在农药注册问题上做出了不同的决策；在技术指导、数据处理、评估者培训以及风险评估中不确定性的处理方面给出了相关建议。
