Resource Library

The EFSA guidance document on non-dietary exposure 1 identified a key need for additional data on transfer coefficients (TCs) and dislodgeable foliar residue (DFR) values to produce more realistic exposure assessments for situations in which workers re-enter treated crops. For grapes in particular, there is currently a lack of TC information and, in the absence of European data, the EFSA guidance recommends the use of US TC values (which are incomplete and lacking in transparency). CropLife Europe (The European Crop Protection Association ECPA) has identified that this data gap may result in the failure of EU registrations for crop protection products for grapes. The BROV re-entry project aims to establish (and to propose to EFSA) a set of European TC values for regulatory use in worker re-entry exposure assessments for relevant activities in vineyards.

The BREAM2 model and calculator resulted in an improved model for exposure to bystanders to spray drift compared with the original BREAM model. This has resulted in a reduced level of predicted exposure for bystanders, but there is a need to reduce this further still by the introduction of mitigation. This paper investigates that further.

This is the second analysis of the impact of the EFSA Bee Guidance Document (2013) on the outcome of the risk assessment on bee larvae attempting to determine the pass rates at the screening step and Tier 1 risk assessment.

Models recently developed for assessing the potential exposure of residents and by- standers to pesticides through spray drift have highlighted the need for mitigation stra- tegies to reduce exposure of members of the public. Drift-reducing equipment is readily available in many countries and is accepted as mitigation for the exposure of surface water to drifting pesticide sprays but there is concern that the drift-reduction measurement methods used to define the exposure of surface water might not be relevant to bystanders. Airborne spray is an important component in bystander exposure. Two wind tunnel ex- periments were undertaken to evaluate whether reductions in airborne spray are as great as the reductions in measured spray drift that occur using protocols designed to classify nozzles for protecting surface water.

The BREAM (Bystander and Resident Exposure Assessment Model) (Kennedy et al., 2012) for bystander and resident exposure to spray drift from boom spray- ers has recently been incorporated into the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) guidance for determining non-dietary exposures of humans to plant protection products (EFSA, 2014). This paper investigates new approaches for characterizing the ‘Collection Efficiency’ of the human body

M. Clare Butler Ellis (1), Marc C. Kennedy (2), Christian J. Kuster (3) , Rafael Alanis (1) and Clive R. Tuck (1)

(1)Silsoe Spray Applications Unit, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HP, UK;

(2) Fera Science Ltd (Fera) National Agri-Food Innovation Campus, Sand Hutton, York, YO41 1LZ, UK;

(3)Occupational and Residential Exposure, Bayer AG Crop Science Division, 40789 Monheim, Alfred Nobel Straße 50, Germany

Marc C. Kennedy (a),⇑, M. Clare Butler Ellis (b), Paul C.H. Miller (b)

(a) The Food and Environment Research Agency, Sand Hutton, York YO41 1LZ, UK

(b) Silsoe Spray Applications Unit, Building 42, Wrest Park, Silsoe, Bedford MK45 4HP, UK

Croplife Europe’s (formerly known as European Crop Protection Association) position paper on European Commission’s Action Plan for the development of organic agriculture.