11. The Committee noted the general consideration items in the 1999 JMPR report, namely the increasing workload of JMPR participants, the use of the term “maximum residue limits for monitoring”, consideration of recommendations arising from an informal JECFA/JMPR Harmonization Meeting, progress on acute dietary intake estimations, comments on an OECD Workshop on developing minimum residue data requirements for estimating MRLs and import tolerances, issues affecting studies of the effects of processing on residues, sensitivity of infants and children to pesticides, relevance of pesticide specifications for JMPR evaluations, statistical evaluation of residues data, and issues relating to the periodic review of residue data for compounds currently under national re-registration. Discussion on some of these issues was deferred to later agenda items.
12. The Committee took note of the recommendations relating to the workload of JMPR participants and encouraged governments to formally recognize the work done by scientists for JMPR as a national contribution to the Codex/FAO/WHO system and to ensure that they are given sufficient time and resources to complete the work that they are doing for JMPR.
13. The Committee supported the approach taken by JMPR to replace the term “MRLM” with a footnote to flag those pesticides for which the estimated dietary intakes in one or more regional diets might exceed the ADI.
14. The observer from CI raised several issues relating to the sensitivity of infants and children to pesticides, expressing the view that the JMPR consideration of this item was very cursory, in contrast to a 1993 report from the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), Pesticides in the diets of infants and children. In the view of CI, the JMPR opinion contradicted the conclusions of this report and other sound scientific analyses of this issue. There was a lack of transparency in producing the statement, with the report providing no basis for its conclusions. The JMPR assumption that “the routine use of safety factors in addition to those currently used is not justified on the basis of current information” was also questioned, because it was considered that this was a matter for risk managers to decide, not risk assessors. CI believed that the conclusions of JMPR lacked the authority and scientific merit to serve as the basis for decisions by the CCPR on the sensitivity of infants and children to pesticide exposures.
15. The WHO Joint Secretary responded that the JMPR agreed with the conclusions of the NAS report that infants and children have the potential to process chemicals differently than adults and therefore this issue should be considered carefully, and that had JMPR conducted comparable review it probably would have reached similar conclusion. However, JMPR evaluates individual pesticides, which is a different activity than that of the group that produced the NAS report, and transparency in the JMPR process is found in the evaluations of the individual pesticides, where studies are reviewed and references are provided. JMPR concluded that, based on information available on the many pesticides that have been evaluated, there is no need from a scientific point of view to apply routinely an additional safety factor. The ADI is always based on the most sensitive relevant endpoint, and in some cases it is based on developmental effects. Increased safety factors are applied when necessary. The Joint Secretary agreed that the addition of factors for extra precaution would be a risk management tool, and is not the responsibility of JMPR. As is usual practice, JMPR will keep this issue under review and will review new relevant data as they become available to ensure that appropriate safety factors are applied to ensure that the ADI represents ‘no appreciable risk’. The Chairperson reminded the Committee that the usual JMPR practice when developing new methods and principles is to make incremental progress from year-to-year in an iterative process with CCPR, citing the development of the acute reference dose as an example.
16. On the progress with methods for estimating acute dietary intake, the FAO Joint Secretary explained that 1999 was the first time JMPR had considered the International Estimate of Short Term Intake (IESTI). She also advised that the IESTI calculations in Annex IV of the 1999 JMPR Report would be corrected and would be attached as a corrigendum to the 2000 JMPR Report, and that the FAO website would be updated as soon as possible.
17. The Committee approved in principle the recommendation of the 1999 JMPR that pesticide specifications be developed before a compound is evaluated by JMPR. The FAO Joint Secretary clarified that the timing of evaluation was not independent to each other. The Committee recognized that it would take some time before this recommendation was fully implemented. Nevertheless, practical concern was raised by GCPF on potential delays in MRL establishment due to technical specifications often being developed later in the process and expressed concern about compounds supported for JMPR review, but for which there was no commitment to support the development of an FAO specification.
18. The Committee noted the request from JMPR for guidance on how to address proposed or amended GAP when conducting periodic reviews. Recognising the current JMPR procedure of estimating MRLs on the basis of approved GAP (as reflected on labels), the Committee agreed that this procedure should be maintained, but that countries should provide detailed information on the registration status at the time of proposing a compound for inclusion in priority lists and again when the compound is scheduled for JMPR review.
19. The Committee noted that the 1999 JMPR had already used statistical calculations on relevant residues to assist in the estimation of the maximum residue levels. However, JMPR indicated that estimation of the maximum residue level by identifying the highest residues arising from the use of pesticide according to GAP had been and still was effective in deciding a suitable MRL, but the introduction of the STMRs for estimating chronic dietary intake and the development of procedures for determining STMRs mean that the set of residue data for inclusion is much clearer.
