5.1 Work sharing
The Meeting emphasized that it is critical that JMPR continues to perform an independent evaluation and expert review of the evaluation that ensures consistency, and results in an international consensus evaluation. In this context, the JMPR monographs can be described in three parts:
(1) the description of the actual studies;
(2) the interpretation and evaluation of the studies; and
(3) the final evaluation/appraisal of the compound
Part 1 is most practicable for work sharing, provided there is sufficient harmonization between monograph formats used by different authorities. By using study descriptions and data tables from existing evaluations, the JMPR expert may be able to save time in the preparation of the JMPR monograph. Part 2 could be taken directly or modified or rewritten from existing national/regional evaluations after a review by the JMPR experts. Part 3 should represent an independent JMPR evaluation and review.
The main criterion for a new pesticide to be evaluated via work sharing (toxicological and residue evaluations) is that it has been reviewed by at least three national/regional agencies. If the findings are similar, relevant parts of national/regional reviews should be used in the preparation of JMPR documents. An independent appraisal that represents international consensus should be prepared and approved by JMPR.
5.2 Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on Pesticide Specifications (JMPS)
The Meeting considered that it is important to coordinate the activities of the JMPR and the JMPS as far as possible. The conclusions of the 1999 Meeting were reiterated that new and existing pesticide specifications for the technical material should be developed before a pesticide is evaluated within the periodic review programme of the CCPR and that this should not delay evaluation of pesticides by the JMPR.
The Meeting suggested there should be clear indication whether the sections "Hazard summary" and "Appraisal", (which include toxicological information and an appraisal of the hazard potential of the compound), are based on existing national/regional or international evaluations.
The Meeting recommended that if JMPR evaluations exist for a particular pesticide, toxicological information from the summary tables and toxicological evaluations of the JMPR report should be used as the only entry in the relevant parts of the specifications.
The 2005 JMPR agreed to refer to available JMPS specifications in the JMPR report. However, this reference is not an endorsement of the toxicological information therein (except for JMPR hazard assessments).
5.3 Crop classification systems
The Meeting encourages the collaboration initiatives being made by the two workgroups to bring the strength of the two systems the Codex Crop Classification and the US Crop Grouping Scheme together in a harmonized classification system. This would facilitate the work of JMPR and CCPR, and would benefit participating countries in residue research, risk assessment, and MRL setting.
5.4. Processing factors
The Meeting agreed that in the evaluation of processing studies, the median would generally provide the best estimate for the processing factor, and decided to use it instead of the average value.
5.5. Fat solubility
The Meeting recommended that in determining "fat solubility" for a residue, the following factors should be considered:
When available, it is the partitioning of the residue (as defined) in muscle versus fat in the metabolism studies and livestock feeding studies that determines whether a residue is designated "fat soluble".
In the absence of useful information on the distribution of residues in muscle and fat, residues with log Pow > 3 are likely to be "fat soluble".
The Meeting noted that in the design of animal feeding studies, account should be taken of the likely fat solubility of residues with log Pow > 3
The Meeting also recommended that the FAO Manual be amended accordingly (see section 2.10 of this Report).
5.6 Animal forage
In the past, JMPR has recommended MRLs for forage crops and has used information on their residue status in estimating farm animal dietary burden. Codex MRLs are used as standards for commodities in international trade. The Meeting was of the opinion that forage was not an item of international trade requiring Codex MRLs and decided not to recommend further forage MRLs. Fodder MRLs would continue to be evaluated and recommended as before. Forage residue data would continue to be evaluated and used in the estimation of farm animal dietary burden.
5.7 Acute dietary exposure
The Meeting recommended that GEMS/Food and Codex Members put more effort into refinement of the short-term consumption database currently used by JMPR, since anomalies and missing data often cause problems for the IESTI calculations.
5.8 Variability factor for the use for calculation of short-term intake
The JMPR agreed to continue using the default variability factor of 3 for calculation of IESTI, which will be expressed with one significant figure corresponding to its uncertainty.
It is emphasized that the deterministic IESTI calculation used by JMPR should only be applied for residue data derived from supervised trials and from single lots. It is not applicable for mixed lots.
