“We see yet again, in the minutes submitted to EPA by the SAP, that the panelists question EPA’s shift to the use of certain epidemiological study outcomes, rather than toxicological data, in human health risk assessments,” Vroom, said. “In our written comments submitted to the SAP, we specifically asked panelists to examine the question, ‘Can these epidemiological studies be appropriately used for quantitative risk assessment purposes?’ The answer is loud and clear — a resounding ‘不.’ The crop protection industry now calls on EPA to base regulatory decision-making on hard toxicological data, helping farmers get and keep access to highly advanced products and keeping our food production standards high.”
这些评论是对 7 月 20 日 EPA 发布的 分钟 来自联邦杀虫剂、杀真菌剂和灭鼠剂法案 (FIFRA) 科学顾问小组 (SAP)。会议，“毒死蜱：生物监测数据分析，”是 SAP 于 4 月 19 日至 21 日举行的公开会议的一部分。
SAP 会议纪要的要点包括：
- SAP 同意 EPA 的观点，即对现有出发点应用额外的安全系数来说明潜在的新行动模式将是有问题的，因为在证明这种调整的任何特定价值是合理的方面存在挑战；
- 一些 SAP 成员表示，样本量可能限制了 CCCEH 研究检查毒死蜱血液浓度与更脆弱人群神经发育之间关系的能力；和
- 关于胎儿暴露，小组指出，如果提供来自 CCCEH 的原始数据用于重新分析，将消除使用脐带血作为衡量标准的许多不确定性。
“我们对 SAP 的报告表示赞赏，因为该小组的大多数成员不同意该机构使用单一纵向研究的结果来根据使用毒死蜱的脐带血措施来启动风险评估来做出决定，”说CLA 科学与监管事务高级副总裁 Janet Collins 博士。 “这些流行病学研究并非旨在证明任何人类健康影响的原因以及接触单一化合物的影响。
“We further applaud the SAP in its determination the panel did not have confidence that the CCCEH analytical data could accurately be used in quantitative risk assessment as a point of departure, due to the many uncertainties that cannot be clarified, since the raw data are not available for verification or validation of the analytical data,” Collis said. “CLA has maintained for years that epidemiological data have an important role for EPA in decision making, but that the CCCEH study and EPA’s various considered uses of it do not serve a human health purpose.”