157. Before considering the proposed priority list the Chairperson reminded the Committee that while JMPR provides scientific support to the Codex, it is an independent FAO/WHO scientific body and is not a subsidiary body of the Codex Alimentarius Commission. The responsibility of the CCPR is to recommend priorities to be endorsed by the Commission, while the Joint Secretaries of JMPR schedule pesticides for evaluation by JMPR.
158. Four new compounds were proposed for addition to the priority list: acibenzolar-S-methyl (Switzerland), famoxadone (France), gentamicin (Mexico), and oxytetracycline (Mexico). The Committee agreed to add acibenzolar-S-methyl, which was tentatively scheduled for toxicological and residues evaluation in 2003, and famoxadone, which was tentatively scheduled for toxicological and residues evaluation in 2004, to the priority list.
159. Considerable discussion ensued about gentamicin and oxytetracycline. The Observer from the EC stated that while the use of antimicrobial agents in agriculture is negligible, such use is discouraged within the Community. A number of other delegations and the Observer from CI expressed the view that because of the importance of antibiotics in human medicine, it would not be appropriate to develop international standards for their use in agriculture. On the other hand, some delegations pointed out that both substances apparently met the criteria for inclusion on the priority list and that there was no international scientific consensus relating to risks to humans posed by antimicrobial agents used in agriculture. It was noted that a drafting group established by the CCRVDF would prepare a paper addressing the issue of the development of antimicrobial resistance in relation to the use of antimicrobials in animal production; the Task Force on Animal Feeding would consider the use of antimicrobials in feeds in June 2000; and WHO, in collaboration with OIE and FAO, has several activities underway relating to microbial resistance. The Committee deferred the decision on the inclusion of gentamicin and oxytetracycline until its next Session to give the Delegation of Mexico a chance to further consider, in light of the discussion, whether to request that these antimicrobial agents be placed on the priority list, and to give other delegations a chance to consider the issue in more detail.
160. The Committee noted that Chlorfenvinphos, flucythrinate, and vamidothion were not supported for periodic reevaluation and that there was support for the following compounds: glyphosate, tentatively scheduled for both toxicological and residues reevaluation in 2003; paraquat, tentatively scheduled for both toxicological and residues reevaluation in 2002; phorate, tentatively scheduled for toxicological reevaluation in 2003 and residues reevaluation in 2004; triadimenol, tentatively scheduled (along with the closely related substance triadimefon) for toxicological reevaluation in 2003 and residues reevaluation in 2004; and triforine, tentatively scheduled for residues reevaluation in 2004. The Committee noted that one manufacturer of permethrin would not support it, but that it would be informed whether permethrin would be supported by other manufacturers. Several compounds were added to the candidate compounds for periodic reevaluation. In accordance with the periodic review procedure, the Committee confirmed that commitments for support by data submitters must be provided by 1 November 2000.
161. Several compounds had been identified by JMPR and CCPR as requiring assessments of acute toxicity, but had not yet been scheduled. Information on when relevant data can be submitted should be provided to the WHO Joint Secretary of JMPR by 1 November 2000 so that the compounds can be scheduled as soon as possible. Several delegations expressed the view that the potential for high acute toxicity should be a criterion to be used in selecting compounds for periodic review and that acute dietary risk assessments should be performed as a matter of urgency.
162. The Delegation of Chile noted that most resources of JMPR were devoted to the reevaluation of compounds undergoing periodic review and that this impacted on the ability to evaluate new compounds. This was acknowledged by the Committee as a problem that should be addressed in view of the limited resources available to JMPR (see para. 164 below).
163. The question arose as to whether CXLs should be maintained for pesticides composed of unresolved enantiomers/isomers that are no longer supported while awaiting evaluations of corresponding products consisting of resolved enantiomers/isomers. The Committee agreed that a general policy should be developed and that a circular letter would be prepared asking for approaches taken by national authorities.
164. The Committee thanked the informal group on priorities under the chairmanship of Dr T. Doust (Australia) for proposing the priority list[38] and agreed that an ad hoc Working Group on Priorities should be convened at its next Session under the chairmanship of Dr Doust of Australia. It would consider: establishment of priority lists; the appropriate role of acute toxicity in establishing priorities; consideration of a policy relating to the maintenance of CXLs for isomeric mixtures of pesticides while awaiting evaluations of resolved isomers; and the relative priority that should be given to the evaluation of new pesticides vis-à-vis reevaluations of older pesticides. A drafting group (Australia, Canada, Chile, Israel, New Zealand, USA, the JMPR Secretariat, EC, CI and GCPF) led by Australia would prepare a document addressing these issues.
