scholarly journals Adaptation of the European Union risk assessment protocol for the pre-inventory of Walloon mining waste deposits

Author(s):  
Christophe Frippiat ◽  
Nathalie Stéphenne ◽  
Mathieu Veschkens ◽  
Daniel Pacyna
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Hadjigeorgiou ◽  
Elpidoforos S. Soteriades ◽  
Anastasios Philalithis ◽  
Anna Psaroulaki ◽  
Yiannis Tselentis ◽  
...  

This paper is a comparative survey of the National Food Safety Systems (NFSS) of the European Union (EU) Member-States (MS) and the Central EU level. The main organizational structures of the NFSS, their legal frameworks, their responsibilities, their experiences, and challenges relating to food safety are discussed. Growing concerns about food safety have led the EU itself, its MS and non-EU countries, which are EU trade-partners, to review and modify their food safety systems. Our study suggests that the EU and 22 out of 27 Member States (MS) have reorganized their NFSS by establishing a single food safety authority or a similar organization on the national or central level. In addition, the study analyzes different approaches towards the establishment of such agencies. Areas where marked differences in approaches were seen included the division of responsibilities for risk assessment (RA), risk management (RM), and risk communication (RC). We found that in 12 Member States, all three areas of activity (RA, RM, and RC) are kept together, whereas in 10 Member States, risk management is functionally or institutionally separate from risk assessment and risk communication. No single ideal model for others to follow for the organization of a food safety authority was observed; however, revised NFSS, either in EU member states or at the EU central level, may be more effective from the previous arrangements, because they provide central supervision, give priority to food control programs, and maintain comprehensive risk analysis as part of their activities.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (7) ◽  
pp. 1459-1464
Author(s):  
Tatyana O. Yastrub ◽  
Sergii T. Omelchuk ◽  
Andrii M. Yastrub

The aim: The toxicological-hygienic assessment of dermal absorption of diquat in terms of potential risk of its bioavailability in professional use. Materials and methods: The object of the study was cutaneous exposure of diquat, determined in toxicological experiments of different duration (data of scientific literature) and at the stage of state testing of pesticide preparations based on diquat dibromide (data of a full-scale hygiene experiment, prognostic model of risk assessment), the technical concentrate of diquat dibromide (active substance content not less than 377 g / kg) contains relevant supplements, the content of which is regulated by the Food and Agriculture Organization. Results and conclusions: Due to the high risk of the diquat adverse effects affecting the personnel, general public and environment, the European Union has introduced administrative decisions to forbid plant protection products containing the diquat. Fulfillment of the conditions of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the European Union indicates the need to develop common regulations and risk assessment methods aimed at ensuring high level of protection of human health and the environment.


Author(s):  
Rômulo Júnior ◽  
Renê Rigitano ◽  
Jos Boesten

The use of Pesticide Leaching Models (PLM) for risk assessment may be an efficient and attractive way of assessing solutions to some agricultural and environmental problems. Many countries of the European Union and the USA have been using PLM for risk assessment already for a few decades. This chapter has the aim to present a successful application of two PLM (i.e. MACRO and PEARL) in a Brazilian very intensive agricultural area to simulate moisture profiles and the leaching of a water flow tracer (i.e. bromide) and the pesticides cyproconazole and thiamethoxam. Also attempts to summarize the available knowledge about the processes governing pesticide behavior in soil, types and classifications of PLM, the use of PLM for risk assessment at European Union, a theoretical description of PEARL and MACRO models and their testing in a Brazilian agricultural field scenario.


2020 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 111120 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Czaja ◽  
Paweł Struciński ◽  
Wojciech Korcz ◽  
Maria Minorczyk ◽  
Agnieszka Hernik ◽  
...  

2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Combes ◽  
Jennifer Dandrea ◽  
Michael Balls

In May, 2003, the European Commission published detailed proposals relating to its 2001 White Paper – Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy. The White Paper described a new registration system called the REACH (Registration, Evaluation and Authorisation of Chemicals) system, for both new and existing chemicals. Subsequently, these detailed proposals were available for an eight-week consultation period for stakeholders to voice their views and concerns. In this paper, we describe our reactions to the Commission's more-detailed proposals. These include the creation of a European Chemicals Agency to implement the REACH system in conjunction with Competent Authorities (CAs) in Member States and the Commission itself. Unfortunately, many of our concerns and suggestions, previously voiced and shared with several other key stakeholders, remain unanswered, but are as relevant as when the White Paper was published. In particular, we are concerned about the lack of a clear and coherent strategy. There is no guidance for registrants on intelligent testing to maximise the use of non-animal approaches to safety testing, based on a combination of factors for estimating exposure levels, rather than mainly on production volumes. We are also concerned about the absence of a clear programme for the development, improvement and validation of new alternative methods, in conjunction with the Commission's own unit, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, as well as other organisations with relevant expertise and experience, including FRAME. Finally, we explain why such measures should be introduced, together with clearer guidelines for the respective roles of the Agency, the CAs and the Commission in implementing and harmonising the REACH system at the European Union and Member State levels. A series of recommendations are made, to improve the situation and to improve the risk assessment process.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document