首页> 外文期刊>Food Safety >Evaluation of Necessity of 1-year Toxicity Study in Dogs - development of the New Tiered Approach for Toxicity Studies of Pesticide Considering Species Difference in “toxicity profile” and “toxicity dose-response”
【24h】

Evaluation of Necessity of 1-year Toxicity Study in Dogs - development of the New Tiered Approach for Toxicity Studies of Pesticide Considering Species Difference in “toxicity profile” and “toxicity dose-response”

机译:评估狗一年毒性研究的必要性-考虑“物种毒性”和“毒性剂量反应”物种差异的新型农药毒性研究分层方法的开发

获取原文
           

摘要

Recently, a long-term (1-year) dog toxicity study has not been a mandatory toxicity study for application of agricultural chemical in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU). This study was conducted to propose a guide for making science-based judgement on the necessity of long-term dog toxicity study, which is one of required toxicity studies at toxicological evaluation in Japanese pesticide regulation system. In order to carry out the proposal we analyzed the results of toxicity studies including subacute (3-month) toxicity study in dogs or toxicity studies in other species in the pesticide evaluation reports published by the Food Safety Commission of Japan (FSCJ), the responsible regulatory body for toxicological evaluation of pesticides in food. In the analysis of evaluation reports of 286 pesticides ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 93 pesticides (32.5%) were established based on dog studies. The ADIs of 74 pesticides among them, however were not considered to have a big influence if the long-term dog toxicity study was omitted. With regard to the other four agents the possibility that the long-term dog study becomes unnecessary was considered by adding detailed examination. With respect to the remaining 15 agents, we could not judge that long-term dog study were unnecessary. The analysis indicated that the dog long term test could be omitted in most cases. On the other hand, it should be considered carefully necessity of the long-term dog study when the toxicological profiles observed in dogs and rats were different, when the toxicity susceptibility in dogs was considered high, when no no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) is specified in subacute toxicity study in dogs or when bioaccumulation in dogs is concerned. We also noted that the studies already conducted for pesticide registered previously should be used for their hazard evaluation.
机译:最近,长期(1年)狗毒性研究尚未成为在美国(US)和欧盟(EU)使用农药的强制性毒性研究。进行这项研究的目的是为长期的狗毒性研究的必要性提供科学依据的判断指南,这是日本农药法规体系进行毒理学评估时必需的毒性研究之一。为了执行该提议,我们在负责人日本食品安全委员会(FSCJ)发布的农药评估报告中分析了毒性研究的结果,包括犬的亚急性(3个月)毒性研究或其他物种的毒性研究。食品中农药毒理学评估的监管机构。在对286种农药的评估报告的分析中,基于狗的研究,建立了93种农药(32.5%)的ADI(每日可接受摄入量)。其中74种农药的ADIs,如果省略了长期狗毒性研究,则认为不会产生很大影响。关于其他四种药物,通过增加详细检查,考虑了无需进行长期狗研究的可能性。至于其余的15名特工,我们无法断定长期的狗研究是不必要的。分析表明,在大多数情况下可以省略狗的长期测试。另一方面,当在犬和大鼠中观察到的毒理学特征不同,当认为在犬中的毒性易感性高,在没有未观察到的不利影响水平时,应仔细考虑长期狗研究的必要性(NOAEL)在犬亚急性毒性研究中或在涉及犬的生物蓄积性时指定。我们还注意到,先前已经对农药进行的研究已经用于危险评估。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号