Ono Atsushi, Yoshizawa Takahiro, Matsumoto Kiyoshi
Okayama University, 1-1-1 Tsushima-naka, Kita-ku, Okayama 700-8530, Japan.
Shinshu University, 3-1-1 Asahi, Matsumoto, Nagano 390-8621, Japan.
Food Saf (Tokyo). 2018 May 31;6(3):109-117. doi: 10.14252/foodsafetyfscj.2017023. eCollection 2018 Sep.
Recently, a long-term (1-year) dog toxicity study has not been a mandatory toxicity study for application of agricultural chemical in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). This study was conducted to propose a guide for making science-based judgement on the necessity of long-term dog toxicity study, which is one of required toxicity studies at toxicological evaluation in Japanese pesticide regulation system. In order to carry out the proposal we analyzed the results of toxicity studies including subacute (3-month) toxicity study in dogs or toxicity studies in other species in the pesticide evaluation reports published by the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ), the responsible regulatory body for toxicological evaluation of pesticides in food. In the analysis of evaluation reports of 286 pesticides ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 93 pesticides (32.5%) were established based on dog studies. The ADIs of 74 pesticides among them, however were not considered to have a big influence if the long-term dog toxicity study was omitted. With regard to the other four agents the possibility that the long-term dog study becomes unnecessary was considered by adding detailed examination. With respect to the remaining 15 agents, we could not judge that long-term dog study were unnecessary. The analysis indicated that the dog long term test could be omitted in most cases. On the other hand, it should be considered carefully necessity of the long-term dog study when the toxicological profiles observed in dogs and rats were different, when the toxicity susceptibility in dogs was considered high, when no no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) is specified in subacute toxicity study in dogs or when bioaccumulation in dogs is concerned. We also noted that the studies already conducted for pesticide registered previously should be used for their hazard evaluation.
最近,长期(1年)犬类毒性研究在美国和欧盟已不再是农用化学品注册所需的强制性毒性研究。开展本研究是为了提出一份指南,以便对长期犬类毒性研究的必要性做出基于科学的判断,长期犬类毒性研究是日本农药监管体系毒理学评估中要求进行的毒性研究之一。为了落实该指南,我们分析了日本食品安全委员会(FSCJ,负责食品中农药毒理学评估的监管机构)发布的农药评估报告中的毒性研究结果,包括犬类亚急性(3个月)毒性研究或其他物种的毒性研究。在对286种农药评估报告的分析中,93种农药(32.5%)的每日允许摄入量(ADI)是根据犬类研究确定的。然而,其中74种农药的ADI,如果省略长期犬类毒性研究,预计不会产生重大影响。对于另外4种药剂,通过增加详细检查,认为有可能无需进行长期犬类研究。对于其余15种药剂,我们无法判定无需进行长期犬类研究。分析表明,在大多数情况下可以省略犬类长期试验。另一方面,当犬类和大鼠的毒理学特征不同、犬类的毒性易感性较高、犬类亚急性毒性研究中未规定无观察到不良反应水平(NOAEL)或涉及犬类生物蓄积时,应仔细考虑长期犬类研究的必要性。我们还指出,先前已注册农药的现有研究应用于其危害评估。