DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Report on the Assessment of Chemical Alternatives to Endo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Report on the Assessment of Chemical Alternatives to Endo UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28 Distr.: General 27 November 2012 English only Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Eighth meeting Geneva, 15–19 October 2012 Agenda item 5 (e) Technical work: assessment of alternatives to endosulfan Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan Note by the Secretariat A report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan was developed by the Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee at its eighth meeting on the basisof the report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT1 referred to in document UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/8. The report is set out in the annex to the present note; it has not been formally edited. 1 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12. K1284079 131212 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28 Annex Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan 19 October 2012 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28 Table of Contents 1. Disclaimer 2. Background and proposed results 3. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 3.3. Experimental information 3.4. QSAR information 3.5. Description of the data sources 3.6. Uncertainties 3.7. Data analysis 3.8. Results 3.9. Comments on selected alternative substances 4. Methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and identification of other hazard indicators for the assessment of chemical alternatives to Endosulfan 4.1. Introduction 4.2. Decision on properties to be considered 4.3. Databases consulted 4.3.1 First line references 4.3.2 Second line references 4.4. Decision on the representation of the information on the endpoints, handling of conflicting results and integration of the data 5. Assessment of the persistent organic pollutant characteristics and other hazard indicators of the selected chemical alternatives to Endosulfan 5.1. Introduction 5.2. Data availability and uncertainties 5.3. Results 5.4. Conclusions of the screening assessment on POPs characteristics of the chemical alternative of Endosulfan 6. Annex I: Workplans and status of the different items for Endosulfan 7. Annex II: Chemical alternatives to Endosulfan for crop-pest complex 8. Annex III: Results of the prioritization of 110 alternatives of Endosulfan 9. Annex IV: Results of the assessment for 26 selected alternatives to Endosulfan 10. Annex V: Abbreviations 3 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28 I. Disclaimer 1. This report provides hazard-based information on the alternatives with respect to the POP criteria in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention and other relevant hazard criteria. It is important to note that the assessment should not be seen as a comprehensive and in depth assessment of all available information as only a limited number of databases have been consulted (as indicated in section IV of the report). 2. The fact sheets (compiled in the background document), on which this report is based, provide an analysis on a screening level as to whether or not an insecticide meets the numerical thresholds in Annex D, but does not analyze monitoring data or other evidence as provided for in Annex D. So failure to meet the thresholds should be considered as a likelihood rather than as evidence that the insecticide is not a POP. 3. Parties may use this report when choosing alternatives to Endosulfan as a primary source of information. It is strongly recommended that further assessment is carried out within their national framework of authorization. In addition, substances which have been identified here as not likely to fulfil the criteria on persistence and bioaccumulation in Annex D, may still exhibit hazardous characteristics that should be assessed by Parties before considering such substances as a suitable alternative. II. Background and proposed results 4. By its decision SC-5/3, the Conference of the Parties to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (COP) decided to amend part I of Annex A to the Convention to list therein technical endosulfan and its related isomers, with specific exemptions. 5. To support the development and deployment of alternatives to endosulfan, the COP decided to undertake a work programme as set out in the annex to decision SC-5/4. Accordingly, Parties were requested and observers were invited to submit information on chemical and non-chemical alternatives to endosulfan. The Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee (POPRC), beginning at its seventh meeting, was requested to assess the alternatives to endosulfan in accordance with the general guidance on considerations related to alternatives and substitutes to listed persistent organic pollutants and candidate chemicals1. 6. At its seventh meeting, the POPRC reviewed the information provided by the Parties and observers on alternatives to endosulfan2 and adopted decision POPRC-7/4 which set out a workplan and terms of reference for the intersessional work related to the assessment of alternatives to endosulfan. Both workplans and the present status of the subsequent steps within these two workplans are provided in Annex I, as well as the relationships between the identified steps and the chapters of this report. 7. This report addresses the various items identified in the agreed workplans with the aim to: a) Prioritize the chemical alternatives to endosulfan relevant to the most important crop- pest complexes against the POP screening criteria, b) Assess the POP characteristics and other hazard indicators of the prioritized chemical alternatives to endosulfan. 9. This report for the consideration of the POPRC at its eighth meeting provides information on the likelihood of substances to be a POP or not to be a POP. 10. It is important to note that the assessment of the POP characteristics and other hazard indicators of the alternatives should not be seen as a comprehensive and in depth assessment of all available information as only a limited number of databases have been consulted as indicated in section III of the report. 1 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.5/10/Add.1 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/11/Rev.1 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.7/INF/12. 4 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/28 11. Parties may use this report when choosing alternatives to endosulfan as a primary source of information. This report provides hazard-based information on the alternatives with respect to the POP criteria in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention and other relevant hazard criteria. The fact sheets, on which this report is based, provide an analysis on a screening level as to whether or not an substance meets the numerical thresholds in Annex D of the Stockholm Convention, but does not analyse monitoring data or other evidence as provided for in Annex D. So failure to meet the thresholds should not be taken as evidence that the insecticide is not a POP. In addition, substances which in this report are not likely to fulfil the criteria on persistence and bioaccumulation in Annex D may still exhibit hazardous characteristics that should be assessed by Parties before considering such substances as a suitable alternative. 12. In summary Parties and observers submitted 110 alternative substances for Endosulfan. 13. One substance was considered to meet all Annex D criteria in the screening assessment. Nine substances assessed in the screening assessment might meet all of the Annex D criteria but this remains undetermined due to equivocal or insufficient data. One hundred substances were considered not likely to fulfil the criteria on persistence and bioaccumulation in Annex D in the screening assessment. III. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1 Introduction 13. At its seventh meeting, the POPRC decided to gather further information on alternatives to endosulfan for the exemptions listed in Part IV of Decision SC 5/3. Therefore Decision POPRC-7/4 set out a workplan and terms of reference for the intersessional work related to the assessment of alternatives to endosulfan. 14. This chapter addresses item 6 of the agreed workplan (cf. Annex I): Prioritize the chemical alternatives relevant to the most important crop-pest complexes against the POP screening criteria. 15. The Secretariat collected additional information from Parties and Observers and compiled a list by 1th May 2012 of 114 alternative substances for endosulfan that are applied for crop-pest complexes specified in Part IV of Decision SC 5/3 (cf. Annex II). Of these 114 substances 1 entry (Chromafenozide) was mentioned twice and entry 110 Tricloprid was considered to be equal to entry 103 Thiacloprid. Of the remaining 112 entries DDT was not considered as legal alternative and entry 101, Sulphur was not considered for screening since it is not possible to apply all Annex D criteria to an inorganic chemical. 110 substances were considered further in the screening process (cf. Annex III). 16. The screening process ranked the 110 chemical alternative substances with respect to their POP characteristics. 3.2 Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 17. To obtain a reliable database for prioritisation, experimental as well as QSARs/modelled information were collected for each substance to address in a first step bioaccumulation (B) and persistence (P) (i.e., criteria (b) and (c) of Annex D of the Stockholm Convention). The two criteria were selected as their suitability for ranking was considered prior to toxicity, since all reported substances act as insecticides implying high toxicity. 18. Substances for which monitoring data (AMAP, 2009) 3 are available and which are present in remote areas are highlighted and depending on their profile considered as candidates for further assessment (cf. section 4). 3 AMAP Assessment 2009 - Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) in the Arctic. Science of the Total Environment Special Issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chemicals Implicated in Colony Collapse Disorder
    Chemicals Implicated While research is underway to determine the cause of Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), pesticides have emerged as one of the prime suspects. Recent bans in Europe attest to the growing concerns surrounding pesticide use and honeybee decline. Neonicotinoids Neonicotinoids are a relatively new class of insecticides that share a common mode of action that affect the central nervous system of insects, resulting in paralysis and death. They include imidacloprid, acetamiprid, clothianidin, dinotefuran, nithiazine, thiacloprid and thiamethoxam. According to the EPA, uncertainties have been identified since their initial registration regarding the potential environmental fate and effects of neonicotinoid pesticides, particularly as they relate to pollinators. Studies conducted in the late 1990s suggest that neonicotinic residues can accumulate in pollen and nectar of treated plants and represent a potential risk to pollinators. There is major concern that neonicotinoid pesticides may play a role in recent pollinator declines. Neonicotinoids can also be persistent in the environment, and when used as seed treatments, translocate to residues in pollen and nectar of treated plants. The potential for these residues to affect bees and other pollinators remain uncertain. Despite these uncertainties, neonicotinoids are beginning to dominate the market place, putting pollinators at risk. The case of the neonicotinoids exemplifies two critical problems with current registration procedures and risk assessment methods for pesticides: the reliance on industry-funded science that contradicts peer-reviewed studies and the insufficiency of current risk assessment procedures to account for sublethal effects of pesticides. • Imidacloprid Used in agriculture as foliar and seed treatments, for indoor and outdoor insect control, home gardening and pet products, imidacloprid is the most popular neonicotinoid, first registered in 1994 under the trade names Merit®, Admire®, Advantage TM.
    [Show full text]
  • Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae
    insects Article Efficacy of Chemicals for the Potential Management of the Queensland Fruit Fly Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt) (Diptera: Tephritidae) Olivia L. Reynolds 1,2,*, Terrence J. Osborne 2 and Idris Barchia 3 1 Graham Centre for Agricultural Innovation (New South Wales Department of Primary Industries and Charles Sturt University), Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, NSW 2567, Australia 2 New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Biosecurity and Food Safety, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, NSW 2567, Australia; [email protected] 3 New South Wales Department of Primary Industries, Chief Scientist’s Branch, Elizabeth Macarthur Agricultural Institute, Private Bag 4008, Narellan, NSW 2567, Australia; [email protected] * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +61-246-406-200 Academic Editors: Michael J. Stout, Jeff Davis, Rodrigo Diaz and Julien M. Beuzelin Received: 2 February 2017; Accepted: 2 May 2017; Published: 9 May 2017 Abstract: This study investigated alternative in-field chemical controls against Bactrocera tryoni (Froggatt). Bioassay 1 tested the mortality of adults exposed to fruit and filter paper dipped in insecticide, and the topical application of insecticide to adults/fruit. Bioassay 2 measured the mortality of adults permitted to oviposit on fruit dipped in insecticide and aged 0, 1, 3, or 5 days, plus the production of offspring. Bioassay 3 tested infested fruit sprayed with insecticide. The field bioassay trialed the mortality of adults exposed to one- and five-day insecticide residues on peaches, and subsequent offspring. Abamectin, alpha-cypermethrin, clothianidin, dimethoate (half-label rate), emamectin benzoate, fenthion (half- and full-label rate), and trichlorfon were the most efficacious in bioassay 1, across 18 tested insecticide treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • Immunosuppression in Honeybee Queens by the Neonicotinoids Thiacloprid and Clothianidin
    www.nature.com/scientificreports OPEN Immunosuppression in Honeybee Queens by the Neonicotinoids Thiacloprid and Clothianidin Received: 24 November 2016 Annely Brandt1, Katharina Grikscheit2, Reinhold Siede1, Robert Grosse2, Marina Doris Accepted: 19 May 2017 Meixner 1 & Ralph Büchler1 Published: xx xx xxxx Queen health is crucial to colony survival of honeybees, since reproduction and colony growth rely solely on the queen. Queen failure is considered a relevant cause of colony losses, yet few data exist concerning effects of environmental stressors on queens. Here we demonstrate for the first time that exposure to field-realistic concentrations of neonicotinoid pesticides can severely affect the immunocompetence of queens of western honeybees (Apis mellifera L.). In young queens exposed to thiacloprid (200 µg/l or 2000 µg/l) or clothianidin (10 µg/l or 50 µg/l), the total hemocyte number and the proportion of active, differentiated hemocytes was significantly reduced. Moreover, functional aspects of the immune defence namely the wound healing/melanisation response, as well as the antimicrobial activity of the hemolymph were impaired. Our results demonstrate that neonicotinoid insecticides can negatively affect the immunocompetence of queens, possibly leading to an impaired disease resistance capacity. Honeybees are highly eusocial insects that build colonies of several thousand individuals which contain only one fertile female, the queen1. This queen is responsible for all egg laying and brood production within the colony; consequently, her integrity and health is crucial for the colony’s performance and survival, and any impairment can result in adverse effects on colony fitness. In the worst case, if the workers are unable to replace a failing queen, the colony will perish2–4.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of a CEN Standardised Method for Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Accurate Mass Spectrometry
    Development of a CEN standardised method for liquid chromatography coupled to accurate mass spectrometry CONTENTS 1. Aim and scope ................................................................................................................. 2 2. Short description ................................................................................................................ 2 3. Apparatus and consumables ......................................................................................... 2 4. Chemicals ........................................................................................................................... 2 5. Procedure ........................................................................................................................... 3 5.1. Sample preparation ................................................................................................... 3 5.2. Recovery experiments for method validation ...................................................... 3 5.3. Extraction method ...................................................................................................... 3 5.4. Measurement .............................................................................................................. 3 5.5. Instrumentation and analytical conditions ............................................................ 4 5.5.1. Dionex Ultimate 3000 .......................................................................................... 4 5.5.2. QExactive Focus HESI source parameters .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Evidence for the Effects of Neonicotinoids Used in Arable Crop
    James et al. Environ Evid (2016) 5:22 DOI 10.1186/s13750-016-0072-9 Environmental Evidence SYSTEMATIC MAP PROTOCOL Open Access Evidence for the effects of neonicotinoids used in arable crop production on non‑target organisms and concentrations of residues in relevant matrices: a systematic map protocol Katy L. James1, Nicola P. Randall1* , Keith F. A. Walters1, Neal R. Haddaway2 and Magnus Land2 Abstract Background: Neonicotinoid insecticides (NNIs) have been routinely used in arable crop protection since their devel- opment in the early 1990s. These insecticides have been subject to the same registration procedures as other groups of pesticides, thus meet the same environmental hazard standards as all crop protection products. However, during the last 10 years the debate regarding their possible detrimental impact on non-target organisms, particularly pollina- tors, has become increasingly contentious and widely debated. Against this background, legislators and politicians in some countries, have been faced with a need to make decisions on the future registration of some or all of this class of insecticides, based on published evidence that in some areas is incomplete or limited in extent. This has created much concern in agricultural communities that consider that the withdrawal of these insecticides is likely to have significant negative economic, socio-economic and environmental consequences. Methods: The proposed systematic map aims to address the following primary question: What is the available evidence for the effects of neonicotinoids used in arable crop production on non-target organisms and concentra- tions of residues in relevant matrices? The primary question will be divided into two sub-questions to gather research literature for (1) the effect of NNIs on non-target organisms (2) the occurrence of concentrations of NNIs in matrices of relevance to non-target organisms (i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • The More I Learned About the Use of Pesticides, the More
    PESTICIDE P.3 ACTION WELCOME NETWORK “The more I learned about 1 2 EUROPE P.7 WHO WE ARE & WHAT WE DO 2 0 the use of pesticides, the POLITICAL 3 1 9 UPDATES ON EU P.11 ANNUAL PESTICIDE POLICY REVIEW more appalled I became... OUR HISTORY 4 & ACTION ON P.14 5 THE SUD What I discovered was that P.16 AGRICULTURE PESTICIDE RISK6 ASSESSMENT everything which meant most P.18 REFORM ENDOCRINE 7 DISRUPTING to me as a naturalist was P.20 CHEMICALS 8 SAVE BEES being threatened, and that P.23 & FARMERS! EU NETWORK 9 OF PESTICIDE- FREE TOWNS P.25 nothing I could do would COURT CASES10 & CONFLICT P.28 OF INTEREST be more important.” OTHER RELEVANT11 WORK AREAS & INSIDE Rachel Carson, 1962 Biologist & Author of Silent Spring RESULTS IN 2019 PAN EUROPE12 eflecting on our work as was evident upon the accession of in 2019, it has been an the new European Commission and WELCOME incredible and challenging publication of its flagship Green Deal. year. The key issues we have been working at PAN As PAN, we have been on the frontline Europe have come under of civil society action, working on EU Message from the President Rthe spotlight at national, EU and even pesticide-related policies. We have strived world level. Mounting scientific evidence to achieve a higher level of protection Francois Veillerette1 keeps revealing the severe effects of from pesticides and at the same time PAN Europe President pesticides on human health and the we showed that working with nature & Director of Générations Futures environment, with insect “Armageddon” is the way forward.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED NATIONS Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic
    UNITED NATIONS SC UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Distr.: General 14 August 2012 English only Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants Persistent Organic Pollutants Review Committee Eighth meeting Geneva, 15–19 October 2012 Item 5 (e) and (f) of the provisional agenda* Technical work: assessment of alternatives to endosulfan; assessment of alternatives to DDT Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Note by the Secretariat As referred to in documents UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/8 and UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/9, the report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT is set out in the annex to the present note; it has not been formally edited. * UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/1. K1282318 040912 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Annex Report on the assessment of chemical alternatives to endosulfan and DDT Draft prepared by the ad hoc working group on assessment of alternatives to endosulfan and DDT under the POPs Review Committee of the Stockholm Convention July 2012 2 UNEP/POPS/POPRC.8/INF/12 Table of Content 1. Disclaimer 2. Background and proposed results 3. Prioritization of Chemical Alternatives for Endosulfan with respect to the Persistent Organic Pollutant (POP) Characteristics (Annex D) 3.1. Introduction 3.2. Endpoint and data selection for prioritisation 3.3. Experimental information 3.4. QSAR information 3.5. Description of the data sources 3.6. Uncertainties 3.7. Data analysis 3.8. Results 3.9. Comments on selected alternative substances 4. Methodology for the assessment of persistent organic pollutant characteristics and identification of other hazard indicators for the assessment of chemical alternatives to Endosulfan and DDT 4.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • How Do Pesticides Influence Gut Microbiota? a Review
    International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health Review Toxicology and Microbiota: How Do Pesticides Influence Gut Microbiota? A Review Federica Giambò 1,†, Michele Teodoro 1,† , Chiara Costa 2,* and Concettina Fenga 1 1 Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences and Morphofunctional Imaging, Occupational Medicine Section, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy; [email protected] (F.G.); [email protected] (M.T.); [email protected] (C.F.) 2 Clinical and Experimental Medicine Department, University of Messina, 98125 Messina, Italy * Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-090-2212052 † Equally contributed. Abstract: In recent years, new targets have been included between the health outcomes induced by pesticide exposure. The gastrointestinal tract is a key physical and biological barrier and it represents a primary site of exposure to toxic agents. Recently, the intestinal microbiota has emerged as a notable factor regulating pesticides’ toxicity. However, the specific mechanisms related to this interaction are not well known. In this review, we discuss the influence of pesticide exposure on the gut microbiota, discussing the factors influencing gut microbial diversity, and we summarize the updated literature. In conclusion, more studies are needed to clarify the host–microbial relationship concerning pesticide exposure and to define new prevention interventions, such as the identification of biomarkers of mucosal barrier function. Keywords: gut microbiota; microbial community; pesticides; occupational exposure; dysbiosis Citation: Giambò, F.; Teodoro, M.; Costa, C.; Fenga, C. Toxicology and Microbiota: How Do Pesticides Influence Gut Microbiota? A Review. 1. Introduction Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5510. https://doi.org/10.3390/ In recent years, the demand for food has risen significantly in relation to the world ijerph18115510 population’s increase.
    [Show full text]
  • Epigenetic Effects Promoted by Neonicotinoid Thiacloprid Exposure
    fcell-09-691060 July 5, 2021 Time: 12:15 # 1 ORIGINAL RESEARCH published: 06 July 2021 doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.691060 Epigenetic Effects Promoted by Neonicotinoid Thiacloprid Exposure Colin Hartman1†, Louis Legoff1†, Martina Capriati1†, Gwendoline Lecuyer1, Pierre-Yves Kernanec1, Sergei Tevosian2, Shereen Cynthia D’Cruz1* and Fatima Smagulova1* 1 EHESP, Inserm, Institut de Recherche en Santé, Environnement et Travail – UMR_S 1085, Université de Rennes 1, Rennes, France, 2 Department of Physiological Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States Background: Neonicotinoids, a widely used class of insecticide, have attracted much attention because of their widespread use that has resulted in the decline of the bee population. Accumulating evidence suggests potential animal and human exposure to neonicotinoids, which is a cause of public concern. Objectives: In this study, we examined the effects of a neonicotinoid, thiacloprid (thia), Edited by: Neil A. Youngson, on the male reproductive system. Foundation for Liver Research, United Kingdom Methods: The pregnant outbred Swiss female mice were exposed to thia at embryonic Reviewed by: days E6.5 to E15.5 using “0,” “0.06,” “0.6,” and “6” mg/kg/day doses. Adult male Ian R. Adams, progeny was analyzed for morphological and cytological defects in the testes using University of Edinburgh, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E) staining. We also used immunofluorescence, Western United Kingdom Cristina Tufarelli, blotting, RT-qPCR and RNA-seq techniques for the analyses of the effects of University of Leicester, thia on testis. United Kingdom *Correspondence: Results: We found that exposure to thia causes a decrease in spermatozoa at doses Shereen Cynthia D’Cruz “0.6” and “6” and leads to telomere defects at all tested doses.
    [Show full text]
  • The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968)
    The Insecticides Act, 1968 (Act No.46 of 1968) An Act to regulate the import, manufactures, sale, transport, distribution and use of insecticides with a view to prevent risk to human beings or animals and for matters connected therewith. [2 nd September 1968] Be it enacted by Parliament in the Nineteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows: 1. Short title, extent and commencement. * a. This Act may be called the Insecticides Act, 1968. b. It extends to the whole of India. c. It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint and different dates may be appointed for different States and for different provisions of Act. 2. Application of other laws not barred * The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of, any other law for the time being in force. 3. Definitions- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- a. "animals" means animals useful to human beings and includes fish and fowl, and such kinds of wild life as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, specify, being kinds which in its opinion, it is desirable to protect or preserve; b. "Board" means the Central Insecticides Board constituted under Sec.4; c. "Central Insecticides Laboratory" means the Central Insecticides Laboratory established, or as the case may be, the institution specified under Sec.16; d. "Import" means bringing into any place within the territories to which this Act extends from a place outside those territories; e. "Insecticide" means- i.
    [Show full text]
  • The 2018 European Union Report on Pesticide Residues in Food
    SCIENTIFIC REPORT ADOPTED: 24 February 2020 doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6057 The 2018 European Union report on pesticide residues in food European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Paula Medina-Pastor and Giuseppe Triacchini Abstract Under EU legislation (Article 32, Regulation (EC) No 396/2005), EFSA provides an annual report which analyses pesticide residue levels in foods on the European market. The analysis is based on data from the official national control activities carried out by EU Member States, Iceland and Norway and includes a subset of data from the EU-coordinated control programme which uses a randomised sampling strategy. For 2018, 95.5% of the overall 91,015 samples analysed fell below the maximum residue level (MRL), 4.5% exceeded this level, of which 2.7% were non-compliant, i.e. samples exceeding the MRL after taking into account the measurement uncertainty. For the subset of 11,679 samples analysed as part of the EU-coordinated control programme, 1.4% exceeded the MRL and 0.9% were non-compliant. Table grapes and sweet peppers/bell peppers were among the food products that most frequently exceeded the MRLs. To assess acute and chronic risk to consumer health, dietary exposure to pesticide residues was estimated and compared with health-based guidance values. The findings suggest that the assessed levels for the food commodities analysed are unlikely to pose concern for consumer health. However, a number of recommendations are proposed to increase the efficiency of European control systems (e.g. optimising traceability), thereby continuing to ensure a high level of consumer protection.
    [Show full text]