The Advisory Committee on Pesticides provides independent advice to Ministers on matters relating to the regulation and use of pesticides, including applications for approval of new products and reviews of existing approvals. It usually meets in closed session (because of intellectual property and commercial secrecy considerations) approximately six times a year in York.
Those present:
Chairman: Dr A Leake
Members: Prof C Brown; Dr J Cocker; Dr C Harris; Prof G M Hawksworth; Mr P Jackson; Dr G M McPherson; Prof P Matthiessen; Prof C Ockleford; Dr W Parker; Dr A Povey; Dr H Rees; Dr S Waring.
Apologies: Prof J G Ayres; Ms J Dean; Prof R Smith.
Written comments received from: Ms J Dean; Prof R Smith.
Representatives from the following Departments and other organisations were present: The Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD); Food Standards Agency (FSA); Science & Advice for Scottish Agriculture (SASA); Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute (AFBINI); Health & Safety Executive (HSE); Health Protection Agency (HPA).
In opening the Meeting, The Chairman congratulated Prof Ayres, ACP Chairman, on receiving an OBE in the Queen’s Birthday Honours List.
At its meeting on 5 July 2011, the Committee discussed the following issues:
1. Agenda Item 1: Minutes and Detailed record of discussion
1.1 a) 348th Meeting: Minutes [ACP 1 (350/2011)]
1.1.1 Agreed as drafted subject to one minor amendment. (minutes of 348th meeting)
1.2 b) 348th Meeting: Detailed record of discussion [ACP 2 (350/2011)]
1.2.1 Agreed as drafted subject to one minor amendment.
2. Agenda Item 2: Secretary’s Report [ACP 3 (350/2011)]
2.1 The Secretary to the Committee reported on the recommendations made at previous meetings.
3. Agenda Item 3: Matters arising
3.1 b) Penflufen [ACP 5/2 (350/2011)]
3.1.1 Two Members declared a non-personal, non-specific interest, in this item.
3.1.2 Following ACP 347 and 348, and subsequent discussion with toxicology Members, the Committee considered further studies submitted by the applicant. Members welcomed the study, which confirmed a rodent specific non-genotoxic mode of action.
3.1.3 The ACP agreed to advise that provisional authorisation should be granted, with reference doses as originally proposed.
3.2 b) Outdoor use of rodenticides approved for indoor use [ACP 5/3 (350/2011)]
3.2.1 Members received a redrafted paper following consideration at ACP 348. They asked CRD to consider some additional drafting points and comments from another environmental Member.
3.2.2 The Secretariat would take this forward with CRD, and arrange for a revised paper to be published.
3.3 c) Member Recruitment [ACP 5/2 (350/2011)]
3.3.1 The Secretariat reported that the recent recruitment exercise had resulted in recommendations on appointments to the Minister.
3.3.2 Unfortunately not all posts had been able to be filled and some posts would be re-advertised in the autumn.
3.4 d) Other Matters Arising [ACP 5 (350/2011)]
3.4.1 The Secretary reported on matters arising from previous meetings.
3.4.2 Members heard that a consultation process on the reconstitution of the ACP would commence shortly. The draft would be circulated to Members before publication.
3.4.3 A revised Conduct for Members of Scientific Advisory Committees had been published, and would be circulated to Members.
3.4.4 Members heard that the toxicology group of the National Centre for 3Rs (Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of animals in research) has shown an interest in the safety assessments for biological pesticides. CRD would contact the organisation to provide an update.
4. Agenda Item 4: Application for UK provisional approval (PPPR) for ‘Property 180SC’ containing pyriofenone [ACP 16 (350/2011)]
4.1 One Member declared a non-personal, non-specific interest in this item.
4.2 One Member provided written comments.
4.3 Members considered an application for provisional UK approval (PPPR) of Pyriofenone (IKF-309), a new fungicide formulated as ‘Property 180SC’, a suspension concentrate for use on cereal crops. They heard that UK are also the Rapporteur Member State (RMS) for the Annex I assessment of pyriofenone (cereals and grapes are the EU representative uses).
4.4 As further data were required to complete the risk assessment, the ACP agreed that provisional authorisation could not be granted at this stage.
5. Agenda Item 5: 120 day emergency application for No Scald DPA 31 (contains 319 g / l diphenylamine) for use on stored apples [ACP 6(350/2011)]
5.1 One Member declared a non-personal, non-specific interest in this item.
5.2 One Member provided written comments.
5.3 Members considered a 120 day emergency application for No Scald DPA 31 (contains 319 g / l diphenylamine) to treat this year’s apples going into store. They heard that, in particular, Bramley apples cannot be successfully stored without treatment.
5.4 In a wide ranging discussion, Members noted some data gaps that would need to be filled before annex I listing, but agreed that a 120 day emergency authorization could be granted for this year only, with operators restricted to three hours application per day, and with the additional requirement of eye protection to be worn. It should be made clear to the applicant that it would be unlikely that emergency authorization would be granted in future years.
6. Agenda Item 6: Combined Risk Assessment [ACP 13 (350/2011)]
6.1 Members discussed a request from the Committee on Toxicity to consider any regulatory implications of an FSA commissioned paper (Estimation of human intake of pesticides from all potential pathways).
6.2 The Committee considered that there were some significant data gaps, and identified some areas where there appeared to be a lack of transparency as to what had been assumed in the modelling. It was noted that the modelling had not been validated. A number of assumptions have been made, and there were concerns over accuracy.
6.3 Members agreed to respond to COT that the research was interesting, but clarification is required on a number of points. The ACP considered there were too many data gaps to enable a similar approach to be adopted for regulatory use. [Statement on IOM Research]
6.4 CRD reported on the on-going EU work to develop aggregate and cumulative risk assessments.
7. Agenda Item 7: Verbal update on the work of the Bystander Risk Assessment Working Group (BRAWG) and the Pesticides Adverse Health Effects Working Group
7.1 The Secretary reported that both the Working Groups were preparing their reports, and aim to reach their conclusions before the end of the year.
8. Agenda Item 8: Environmental Panel Response to ACP comments on the Buglife Report [ACP 12 (350/2011)]
8.1 Members received a response from the Environmental Panel identifying some data gaps in the current regulatory package, specifically on non-target arthropods rather than bees. These issues will be discussed further in the EU.
9. Agenda Item 9: The Open Meeting 2011 [ACP 11 (350/2011)]
9.1 Members considered a variety of topics for the agenda of the 2011 ACP Open Meeting. The Secretariat would work with the Chairman to agree suitable issues for discussion.
9.2 The Committee agreed to return to a meeting format with breakout groups for the 2011 Meeting.
10. Agenda Item 10: FERA Lessons learned correspondence – Japanese Knotweed [ACP 22 (350/2011)]
10.1 Members commented on correspondence received from the Food & Environment Research Agency (FERA). They requested further information on the progress on the release of non native species, and whether further evidence on its benefit was available.
11. Agenda Item 11: Date of next meeting
11.1 ACP 351 on Tuesday 20 September 2011, commencing 11.00am, at Foss House, York.
12. Agenda Item 12: Any other business
12.1 The Committee considered items for information received since the last Meeting.
12.2 Members agreed to send comments to the Secretariat regarding the Operator Cohort Study [ACP 23 (350/2011)].
12.3 Position paper on the First UK Approval for the use of folpet [ACP 8 (350/2011)].
12.3.1 One member declared a personal, specific interest in this item and left the meeting for the duration of the discussion.
12.3.2 Members raised a number of points, and asked CRD to review the structure of such documents to provide more transparency.
12.4 Members commended a paper on revised EU procedures, and agreed it should be published on the ACP website for stakeholder reference.
A Leake
