Before a plant protection product is approved for placement on the market, an assessment of the overall acceptability of negative effects on non-target species in arable land and adjacent areas has to be performed according to European guidelines. The guideline for the risk assessment of non-target terrestrial plants (NTTP) is currently revised by the European Food Safety authority (EFSA) to integrate the current state of scientific knowledge and the new requirements of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 to protect biodiversity. In the view of this revision, this report has been conducted to evaluate the actual scientific state of knowledge on effect- and risk assessment for non-target terrestrial plants and to recommend amendments of the current practice in testing and subsequent risk assessment of NTTP. The authors conclude that fundamental issues like the representativeness of the species tested (mostly crop species) and the ecotoxicological endpoints currently used (growth effects in juveniles) are associated with a high degree of uncertainty. These uncertainties must be taken into account in the risk assessment to ensure an adequate level of protection. Also, the analysis of data available would indicate, among other things, that the current risk assessment, limited to growth effects, might not be sufficient to ensure protection of non-target terrestrial plants. Therefore, as a simple risk management measure for PPP causing negative effects on NTTP communities, the authors propose to implement an obligatory in-field no-spray buffer zone, notably without herbicide application. Furthermore, the authors stress the importance of wild arable plants as natural life-support system for many other arable species. They highlight the key position of NTTP in the food chain with birds and mammals on the top. Based on their own research, the authors show indirect effects that PPP, such as herbicides, can have on food availability in agricultural landscapes. In the authors opinion further applied research is needed to implement all this present information into a scheme for risk assessment and risk management which adequately protects biodiversity in agricultural landscapes, as well as ecosystem services based thereupon.<BR>Quelle: https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/
Based on the animal welfare concept (Art. 13, Art. 25), the REACh Regulation (EC 1907/2006) provides several options to avoid the long term fish toxicity test. About 240 substances from the ECHA and ICS database including 73 pesticides are analysed for species sensitivity differences and acute to chronic ratios to evaluate whether and when chronic fish toxicity tests can be avoided without underestimating environmental risk. Only studies that have been conducted in line with guidelines recommended in the EU guidance documents are used for this study. Sensitivity comparison of fish and Daphnia toxicity indicates that none of both trophic levels is generally more sensitive in acute or long term testing. Based on the finding that the sensitivity in chronic testing is associated with sensitivity in acute testing a classification scheme for acute sensitivity comparison was proposed to contribute the integrated testing strategy.
Das Projekt "Pilotstudie zur medizinischen Versorgungslage chronisch kranker Patienten mit MCS (Multiple Chemical Sensitivity)" wird vom Umweltbundesamt gefördert und von Fachkliniken Nordfriesland gGmbH durchgeführt. Access to health care in persons with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS): A pilot study. Background: The aim of this pilot study was to investigate the access to health care in persons with multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) and to examine the feasibility of an online-questionnaire based study including members of self-help groups. Methods: The study design is that of a case series for a pilot study. A questionnaire containing questions with respect to access to health care services and satisfaction or problems with them, was send per email to the chairmen/ chairwomen of three self-help groups (SHG) in northern, western and southern Germany with the request to forward the questionnaire online to all members with email. Results are descriptive and given as means (diameter) and frequencies (percent). Results: Response rates were only sufficient for evaluation in the northern SHG (48 percent), where n=25 questionnaires were included into analysis. Of all members of the northern SHG only 24 percent were accessible per email. Time between onset of symptoms and first diagnosis of MCS were 12.8 years. The mean age at onset of symptoms was 34.2 years. Before first diagnosis of MCS the participants had had diameter=74.8 visits at doctors and diameter=2.2 inpatient stays at clinics to find a cause for their symptoms. At the time of the inquiry only 40percentof the participants were in the care of practitioners with a specialization in environmental medicine. The waiting periods for an appointment with a specialist for environmental medicine were long (diameter=7 weeks) and the distances far (diameter=333 km). The understanding of health care personnel in other than environmental medicine care units for intolerance reactions as regards fragrances, pharmaceuticals and foods, respectively, seems poor. The satisfaction of the participants with their access to health care on a scale of 0-10 was diameter=2.6. Of the participants 60 percent had low grade satisfaction (0-3), 24 percent had medium grade satisfaction (4-6) and 8percent had high grade satisfaction with their access to health care. Conclusion: The access to health care in members of a SHG with MCS is characterized by severe undertreatment due to long periods of time between onset of symptoms and diagnosis, poor understanding of intolerance reactions in health care personnel and restricted availability of environmental medicine care units. The satisfaction of participants with their medicinal treatment is understandably low. In respect to the feasibility of a large online study to investigate the access to health care with members of self-help groups we conclude that this is not possible, because of low percentage of members accessible per email in addition to low response rates.
Das Projekt "Duftstoff - Sensitivität: Prävalenz, Symptomatik, Risikofaktoren und Folgen" wird vom Umweltbundesamt gefördert und von Fachkliniken Nordfriesland gGmbH durchgeführt. Allergien gegenüber Duftstoffen sind häufig, zwischen 1 Prozent und 8 Prozent der Bevölkerung reagieren meist mit Kontaktekzemen auf Duftstoffe, die auf die Haut aufgetragen werden. Mit ca. 11 Prozent der Bevölkerung reagieren weiterhin etwa 9 Mio. Betroffene auf inhalative Duftstoff-Expositionen mit Symptomen wie Kopfschmerzen, Müdigkeit, Benommenheit und Übelkeit, aber auch Kurzatmigkeit, asthmaähnlichen Symptomen und Schleimhautreizungen. Diese Unverträglichkeitsreaktionen bezeichnen wir als Duftstoff-Sensitivität. Das Risiko, empfindlich auf inhalative Duftstoff-Expositionen zu reagieren, ist insbesondere bei Personen erhöht, die bereits andere Überempfindlichkeiten aufweisen. Dies betrifft Personen mit Duftstoff-Allergien und anderen Allergien, Asthma, hyperreagiblem Bronchialsystem, Nahrungsmittel- oder Medikamentenunverträglichkeiten sowie Sensitivität gegenüber Chemikalien. Frauen sind öfter betroffen als Männer. Die Auswirkungen einer inhalativen Duftstoff-Sensitivität betrifft nicht nur die Gesundheit, vielmehr ist die Teilhabe am Arbeitsleben und am gesellschaftlichen Leben aufgrund der ubiquitären Beduftung' der modernen Umwelt bei vielen Betroffenen ganz erheblich eingeschränkt.