13. The Committee noted the general consideration items in the 2000 JMPR: the progress on estimation of IESTI; the relevance of food processing questionnaires for JMPR evaluations; measures to be taken when estimated dietary intake exceeds the ADI; the feasibility of establishing maximum residue limits for genetically modified crops and for residues of metabolites; minimum data required for establishing maximum residue limits, including import tolerances; periodic review of data on residues of compounds currently being re-registered nationally; maintaining the independence of the JMPR decision-making process; information required for Good Agricultural Practice; harmonisation between JECFA and JMPR; the establishment of acute reference doses; and summaries of critical end-points. Discussion of most of these items was deferred to other agenda items.
14. The Committee noted that JMPR is still improving the method of estimation of IESTI in the light of experience gained in its application. For example, the STMR/STMR-P in case 2a was changed to HR/HR-P as the previous calculation might not reflect the actual situation, in which the commodity available for consumption is likely to be derived from a single lot. Also, for the first time, the JMPR applied the calculation of the IESTI from data on animal commodities.
15. The Committee discussed the relevance of food processing questionnaires to JMPR evaluations. It recognized that the questionnaire serves as a basis for defining appropriate processed commodities and recommended that GEMS/Food use the information from the questionnaire to revise or develop data on food consumption for assessing short-term and long-term dietary intake. The JMPR will continue to evaluate processing data as described in the FAO Manual. No default factors will be applied and no new requirements will be imposed upon the data submitters.
16. The Committee noted the conclusion of JMPR on the proposal of some governments and manufacturers at the 32nd Session of CCPR on measures to be taken when estimated dietary intake exceeds the acceptable daily intake. The JMPR concluded that national determinations of dietary intake are useful only at the national level and can be used at that level to refine the estimates made by JMPR. It explained that the dietary intake calculations performed by manufacturers in support of compounds under periodic review or newly evaluated are of little relevance.
17. The Committee noted the comments of JMPR on Canada’s paper that no single approach is applicable in establishing maximum residue limits for genetically modified crops and for the residues of its metabolites and that a case-by-case approach should be used at present.
18. The Committee agreed on the recommendation of JMPR regarding GCPF’s proposal that the requirements on GAP information (labels) be modified. The JMPR indicated that the original labels (and if necessary the translations) be provided only for those uses that are adequately supported by residue data according to FAO requirements. A full summary of information on GAP should still be submitted as the company may not always have a clear view of which extrapolations are valid. In such cases, the JMPR might be unable to propose an MRL for a commodity for lack of relevant GAP information, although such information exists but was not provided by the company.
19. The Committee noted that JMPR agreed to consider the report of the OECD workshop on minimum data requirements when they were finalized. The JMPR was particularly interested in the OECD/FAO project in validating geographical zones where residue data can be extrapolated within the same zone. Several delegations expressed concerns on the parameters considered in the climate-based zoning. The Observer from EC expressed concern about the limited participation of JMPR in this activity and would like JMPR to be more responsible to the issues of minimum data requirements, extrapolation and zoning. The delegation of Chile explained that there are other factors to be considered aside from climates, e.g., GAPs. The Committee expressed its interest in the outcome of the project and recommended that JMPR should participate actively and make use of the results of the project.
20. In regard to the periodic review of data on residues of compounds currently being re-registered nationally, the JMPR decided that, as of 2001, reviews of compounds should focus on new or amended uses or current uses that will be supported with data, giving full details of the evaluation. MRLs would be recommended for current uses but will be recommended for new and amended uses only when those uses have become GAP. Moreover, the JMPR recommended that periodic review of compounds be postponed until such time as national authorities can reasonably have finished their re-registration process. The Committee concurred with this recommendation.
21. The section in the JMPR 2000 Report on maintaining the independence of the JMPR decisionmaking process discusses the document Tobacco company strategies to undermine tobacco control activities of the World Health Organization, Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents, which was released in August 2000. The document alleged improper influence on the outcome of the toxicological evaluations of the ethylenebisdithiocarbamates (EBDCs) and ethylenethiourea (ETU) by the 1993 JMPR through the involvement of a scientist who served as a WHO Temporary Adviser who had been receiving consulting fees from the tobacco industry at that time. After reviewing the document and the previous evaluations, the 2000 Joint Meeting concluded that the 1993 evaluations of these substances were appropriate and had not been influenced by the tobacco industry. The Meeting made a number of recommendations, most of which relate to increasing the transparency and integrity of the process. The WHO Joint Secretary also informed the Committee that a Working Group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer evaluated ETU along with a number of other thyrotropic agents in October 2000. The Working Group concluded that ETU is not genotoxic and that ETU would not be expected to produce thyroid cancer in humans exposed to concentrations that do not alter thyroid hormone homeostatisis. This is a similar conclusion to that reached by the 1993 JMPR.
22. Several delegations and organizations expressed the importance of improving the transparency and accountability of FAO, WHO and Codex in their work including participation of all stakeholders. The Committee supported the recommendations in the report on procedures to increase the transparency and credibility of the process in the JMPR. It also supported the recommendation to review new data on these substances as they become available. The Committee also agreed with the 2000 JMPR that the evaluations of the EBDCs and ETU by the 1993 JMPR are valid and no action was required on Codex MRLs for dithiocarbamate.
23. The Committee was of the opinion that the general issues could be better dealt by the Commission. The Committee noted of and supported the conclusions relating to information required for Good Agricultural Practice in section 2.8 of the 2000 JMPR Report.
24. Since 1995 the Joint Meeting has been including in its toxicological evaluations a table identifying the end-points relevant for setting guidance values for dietary and non-dietary exposure. The 2000 JMPR requested feedback on the usefulness of this table. Several delegations indicated that these tables are very useful, and the Committee encouraged JMPR to continue including them in its evaluations.
25. The Committee noted that JECFA and JMPR will continue harmonization of issues related to compounds used both as pesticides and veterinary drugs. In the 2000 JMPR, the definition of abamectin for animal commodity was considered among others.
26. Following the request of the 32nd Session of the CCPR on the recommendation of the 1999 JMPR that pesticide specifications be developed before a compound is evaluated by the JMPR, the Joint Secretaries informed the Committee that this process will be initiated in 2003. The schedule will be arranged in such a way that during the initial phase priority is given to compounds under the periodic review programme. The Committee was also informed that based on a recent Memorandum of Understanding FAO and WHO will develop pesticide specifications jointly leading to a Joint Meeting on Specification (JMPS) that should start in the year 2002. The new cooperation between the two organizations will enhance further the coordination and appropriate scheduling of compounds undergoing the JMPS and JMPR review process.
27. The Committee noted the initiative and the new developments.
