PETA International Science Consortium Ltd, London, UK.
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA(1).
Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2019 Jul;105:30-35. doi: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2019.03.013. Epub 2019 Mar 25.
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), as well as other international regulatory agencies, require pesticide registrants to submit toxicity data that are used to conduct ecological risk assessments. While the USEPA has required both an acute oral and sub-acute dietary test in birds, trends in the use of data from these tests over the past 20 years have suggested that the avian sub-acute dietary test generally does not contribute to risk assessment conclusions. To address this question, a retrospective analysis was conducted to evaluate 119 pesticides with publicly available ecological risk assessments that were registered into commerce between 1998 and 2017. New pesticides (i.e., registered in the United States within the past 20 years) were chosen for the retrospective analysis to show utility of these tests for modern pesticide chemistries. Risk quotient (RQ) values (a point estimate of exposure divided by a deterministic toxicity endpoint) from the avian acute oral and dietary tests, as well as risk assessment conclusions, were compared to determine which test(s) drove the risk assessment findings. The RQ values were chosen as the data point for comparison in order to assess total risk (i.e., exposure and toxicity). After comparing RQ values from avian acute oral versus sub-acute dietary tests, there was only one case in which an avian sub-acute dietary RQ was greater than the acute oral RQ. Thus, the sub-acute dietary test did not identify risk in greater than 99% (118 out of 119) of chemicals based on results that either the acute oral RQ was higher than the sub-acute dietary RQ, or both the acute oral and the subacute dietary tests did not generate an RQ value of concern. For the one exception, both the oral and sub-acute RQ values were greater than the USEPA's level of concern for endangered species. Based on the results of the retrospective analysis, it is concluded that in most cases avian risk can confidently be assessed without conducting the sub-acute dietary test.
美国环境保护署（USEPA）和其他国际监管机构要求农药注册人提交用于进行生态风险评估的毒性数据。尽管 USEPA 要求在鸟类中进行急性口服和亚急性饮食测试，但过去 20 年中这些测试数据的使用趋势表明，鸟类亚急性饮食测试通常不会对风险评估结论做出贡献。为了解决这个问题，进行了一项回顾性分析，以评估 1998 年至 2017 年间在商业上注册的 119 种具有公开可得的生态风险评估的农药。选择新的农药（即在过去 20 年内在美国注册的农药）进行回顾性分析，以展示这些测试对于现代农药化学物质的实用性。将鸟类急性口服和饮食测试的风险商（RQ）值（暴露的点估计值除以确定性毒性终点）与风险评估结论进行比较，以确定哪个测试（多个）驱动了风险评估结果。选择 RQ 值作为比较的数据点，以评估总风险（即暴露和毒性）。在比较鸟类急性口服与亚急性饮食测试的 RQ 值后，只有一种情况是鸟类亚急性饮食 RQ 值大于急性口服 RQ 值。因此，根据急性口服 RQ 值高于亚急性饮食 RQ 值或急性口服和亚急性饮食测试均未产生 RQ 值的结果，亚急性饮食测试在 99%以上的化学物质（118 种中的 119 种）中未识别出风险，对于一个例外，口服和亚急性 RQ 值都大于 USEPA 对濒危物种的关注水平。基于回顾性分析的结果，得出的结论是，在大多数情况下，无需进行亚急性饮食测试即可有信心地评估鸟类风险。
