1997 JMPR
1998 JMPR
18. The Committee supported the proposal made by the 1997 JMPR for establishment of the term ‘MRLM’ (maximum residue level for monitoring) as a useful instrument for intake calculations and risk management decisions on pesticide residues for which the available information was insufficient to conclude that their intake would be below the ADI. However, the Committee invited the JMPR to reconsider the term ‘MRLM’ as the term ‘monitoring’ was confusing. The Committee concluded that MRLMs would be treated as normal MRLs, which would be footnoted indicating that assurance could not be provided that intake would not exceed the ADI. These MRLs should not be advanced to Step 8 until intake concerns were solved.
19. Comments on the extrapolation of residue data to minor crops had been received from developed countries only which were in support of the recommendations and data requirements specified in the 1997 JMPR report.
20. The Committee took note of the general items in the 1998 JMPR report, namely the capacity of the JMPR to undertake periodic reviews; use of data from biomedical testing involving human subjects in hazard evaluation; issues related to aggregate and cumulative risk assessment; progress on development of International Estimated Short-term Intakes (IESTIs); worked examples of the estimation of STMRs and maximum residue levels for commodities of animal origin; use of OECD guidance documents; the development of minimum residue data requirements through the OECD pesticide Forum; data requirements for the validation of analytical procedures; residue data reflecting the GAP of developing countries; the format that will be used for summarizing toxicological data; the definition of independent supervised residue trials; use of the framework for the assessment of carcinogenicity being developed by the International Programme on Chemical Safety; procedures for estimating an acute reference dose; and interpretation of cholinesterase inhibition. It also noted that dietary risk assessments were performed on all pesticides that were evaluated at the Meeting.
21. The Committee recognized problems associated with the increasing workload of the JMPR. Most participants (who serve in their individual capacities as experts) were employees of national regulatory agencies. In many cases they were not provided sufficient time during working hours by their employers to undertake the extensive and time-consuming reviews necessary for preparing their residue and toxicological working papers, requiring that they devote their personal time to this activity. In addition, their work sometimes was not recognized as being pivotal to the work of the CCPR in establishing international food standards. On the other hand, it was noted that the submission of dossiers using the OECD standardized format and use of national documents might increase the efficiency of the JMPR. The Committee requested the JMPR Secretariat to prepare a short paper for consideration at the next Session that provides practical proposals to address this issue.
22. The JMPR was encouraged by some delegates and observers to move forward as quickly as possible with the development of procedures for assessment of aggregate exposure (exposure to a single pesticide from various sources) and cumulative exposure (exposure to several pesticides with a common mechanism of toxicity or that produce similar toxic effects). The Committee noted that effort should be concentrated on issues that could be dealt with more easily. For a number of reasons aggregate exposure was extremely difficult to assess at the international level. Although a number of issues were still to be resolved on cumulative risk assessment before it could be performed routinely, the JMPR should concentrate on this area. The development of procedures for assessment of cumulative exposure at the national or regional level would be useful for the development of procedures for cumulative exposure by WHO. (see para. 37)
23. The Committee appreciated the progress that the JMPR had made in developing procedures for establishing Acute Reference Doses, and encouraged the JMPR to make use of work in this area by national governments and the European Community in the future.
24. The 1998 JMPR concluded that it would be premature to undertake IESTI calculations, particularly as data on 97.5 percentile food consumption and median commodity weights had not been received from many governments. The WHO Representative reported that in response to CL 1998/29-PR, information on 97.5 percentile consumption (eaters only) for the general population and among children aged 6 and under had been received from Australia, France, Japan, Netherlands, United Kingdom and USA. However, the data provided by the six countries were not entirely consistent and further information was required before the databases could be used for acute hazard exposure assessment. The Delegations of Canada and South Africa indicated that appropriate data would be available in 2000. Data on median commodity weights have been received from France, United Kingdom and USA. However, these data also needed further clarification before a consolidated database could be prepared.
25. The Committee agreed to discuss the methods used to calculate the IESTI at its next Session when worked examples would be available to assess its usefulness as a screening tool at the international level. The Committee encouraged all governments that have such information to provide it to WHO as soon as possible to assure that their consumption patterns and unit weights are taken into account. A reminder to governments would be sent in a circular letter.
26. Noting the lack of opportunity to discuss all general consideration issues covered in the report of the 1998 JMPR, the Committee agreed to include the report on the agenda of the next Session.
