Analysis of the evidence to support the definition of specific protection goals for terrestrial organisms—Part 1: Proposed strategy

IF 3.3 3区 农林科学 Q2 FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Pauline Adriaanse, Gertie Arts, Sandra Boline Lassen, Pierre-François Chaton, Matthias Fuerst, Brecht Ingels, Silvia Pieper, Maj Rundlof, Jose Paulo Sousa, Renske Van Eekelen, Maria Arena, Gabriella Fait, Alessio Ippolito, Laura Padovani, Rachel Sharp, Domenica Auteri
{"title":"Analysis of the evidence to support the definition of specific protection goals for terrestrial organisms—Part 1: Proposed strategy","authors":"European Food Safety Authority (EFSA),&nbsp;Pauline Adriaanse,&nbsp;Gertie Arts,&nbsp;Sandra Boline Lassen,&nbsp;Pierre-François Chaton,&nbsp;Matthias Fuerst,&nbsp;Brecht Ingels,&nbsp;Silvia Pieper,&nbsp;Maj Rundlof,&nbsp;Jose Paulo Sousa,&nbsp;Renske Van Eekelen,&nbsp;Maria Arena,&nbsp;Gabriella Fait,&nbsp;Alessio Ippolito,&nbsp;Laura Padovani,&nbsp;Rachel Sharp,&nbsp;Domenica Auteri","doi":"10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9501","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The review of the Terrestrial Ecotoxicology Guidance concerns three groups of non-target organisms (NTOs): non-target arthropods other than bees, in-soil organisms and non-target terrestrial plants. Thus, specific protection goals (SPGs) would need to be defined for all these groups. In view of the link between direct and indirect effects, the need to include considerations of indirect effects via trophic interactions when setting SPGs was recognised. This document serves to illustrate the strategy proposed by the Working Group for supporting Risk Managers in the definition of the SPGs. The methodology uses as a starting point previous Scientific Opinions of the PPR Panel where SPG options were comprehensively explored. Following an analysis and synthesis of such Opinions, the Working Group has elaborated further the various options and has identified key aspects requiring further consideration, mainly pertaining to the definition of the magnitude of acceptable effects and the related timescale. To address those aspects a methodology for building multiple lines of evidence is presented.</p>","PeriodicalId":11657,"journal":{"name":"EFSA Journal","volume":"23 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9501","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EFSA Journal","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2025.9501","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The review of the Terrestrial Ecotoxicology Guidance concerns three groups of non-target organisms (NTOs): non-target arthropods other than bees, in-soil organisms and non-target terrestrial plants. Thus, specific protection goals (SPGs) would need to be defined for all these groups. In view of the link between direct and indirect effects, the need to include considerations of indirect effects via trophic interactions when setting SPGs was recognised. This document serves to illustrate the strategy proposed by the Working Group for supporting Risk Managers in the definition of the SPGs. The methodology uses as a starting point previous Scientific Opinions of the PPR Panel where SPG options were comprehensively explored. Following an analysis and synthesis of such Opinions, the Working Group has elaborated further the various options and has identified key aspects requiring further consideration, mainly pertaining to the definition of the magnitude of acceptable effects and the related timescale. To address those aspects a methodology for building multiple lines of evidence is presented.

Abstract Image

支持陆生生物具体保护目标定义的证据分析——第1部分:建议的策略
陆地生态毒理学指南的审查涉及三组非目标生物(NTOs):蜜蜂以外的非目标节肢动物,土壤生物和非目标陆生植物。因此,需要为所有这些群体定义特定的保护目标(spg)。考虑到直接效应和间接效应之间的联系,在设定spg时需要考虑通过营养相互作用产生的间接效应。本文件旨在说明工作组为支持风险管理者定义特殊目标而提出的战略。该方法采用了先前PPR小组的科学意见作为起点,其中对火炮方案进行了全面探索。在对这些意见进行分析和综合之后,工作组进一步阐述了各种备选办法,并确定了需要进一步审议的关键方面,主要涉及可接受影响的程度的定义和有关的时间表。为了解决这些问题,提出了一种建立多条证据线的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal Veterinary-Veterinary (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
21.20%
发文量
422
审稿时长
5 weeks
期刊介绍: The EFSA Journal covers methods of risk assessment, reports on data collected, and risk assessments in the individual areas of plant health, plant protection products and their residues, genetically modified organisms, additives and products or substances used in animal feed, animal health and welfare, biological hazards including BSE/TSE, contaminants in the food chain, food contact materials, enzymes, flavourings and processing aids, food additives and nutrient sources added to food, dietetic products, nutrition and allergies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信