Toxicology tolerances, establishing

It should be recognized that US pesticide tolerances established by the aforementioned process, in combination with regulatory monitoring programs, serve important roles as enforcement tools that provide economic disincentives for pesticide users to misuse pesticides. At the same time, the tolerances should not be considered as safety standards since violative residues rarely represent residues of toxicological concern (Winter, 1992a). 

In addition to the need for scientific improvements to allow probabilistic risk assessments to be properly performed and interpreted, there also exists a need to educate stakeholders about what the US system for tolerance establishment and monitoring does and does not do. In simplest terms, the US system can be described as a food quality system but not necessarily a food safety system. This results from the fact that the pesticide tolerances are not safety standards but rather exist as enforcement tools that allow an assessment of how well pesticide application regulations are adhered to. Violative residues demonstrate the likelihood of pesticide misuse but should not be considered, in the vast majority of cases, to represent unsafe residues. Safety considerations govern whether or not the use of pesticides on specified commodities will be permitted tolerances, when granted, serve as indicators of good agricultural practices rather than as toxicological benchmarks. 

NADA methods should be capable of reliably measuring an analyte (i.e., the marker residue) that has a defined quantifative relationship to the total residues of toxicological concern in the tissues of interest, namely the target tissue and muscle. The target tissue is generally the last tissue in which total residues deplete to the permitted maximum safe concentration. When the marker residue is at the tolerance, a defined unique concentration, the total residues have depleted to the respectively established safe concentrations in the target tissue and muscle. 

Technology providers use quantitative immunoassays to determine expression data of field material for regulatory submissions. Regulatory authorities require that expression levels of introduced proteins in various plant parts be determined by quantitative, validated methods. Immunoassays are also used to generate product characterization data, to assess food, feed and environmental characteristics, to calculate concentrations for toxicology studies and to obtain tolerance exemption or establish tolerances for pesticidal proteins. 

Chloramphenicol (CAP) is a broad-spectrum antibiotic that was widely used in veterinary medicine. Since 1994 the use of CAP is banned in the EU because of certain toxicological problems (i.e., aplastic anemia and the grey baby syndrome ) observed in its administration to humans [ 107] that have prompted the establishment of a zero tolerance for the presence of these residues in meat and animal products. As a consequence, many efforts have been made to develop sensitive methodologies capable of detecting CAP residues or its metabolites. 

It is critical to realize that pesticide tolerances themselves are not safety standards but rather enforcement tools for indicating whether pesticides have been applied according to directions. Violative residues result when residue levels exceed the tolerance due to the misapplication of a pesticide, or when residues at any level are found on a commodity for which a tolerance was not established (which could result from product misuse). While a few isolated cases of violative residues have resulted in human harm, the vast majority of violative residues are of little or no toxicological consequence. 

The assessment factors generally apphed in the estabhshment of a tolerable intake from the NOAEL, or LOAEL, for the critical effect(s) are apphed in order to compensate for rmcertainties inherent to extrapolation of experimental animals data to a given human situation, and for rmcertainties in the toxicological database, i.e., in cases where the substance-specific knowledge required for risk assessment is not available. As a consequence of the variabihty in the extent and nature of different databases for chemical substances, the range of assessment factors apphed in the establishment of a tolerable intake has been wide (1-10,000), although a value of 100 has been used most often. An overview of different approaches in using assessment factors, historically and currently, is provided in Section 5.2. 

The outputs from risk assessment will normally include information about the relationship between dose and risk and estimates of levels of doses and thus risks in the population. For contaminants that have a toxicological threshold the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) might be defined and the number of consumers who have the potential to exceed this level of intake quantified. If a PTWI cannot be established (such as for genotoxic carcinogens) then it may be possible to quantify the proportion of a population exposed to a given level of risk by using QRA methods. If QRA methods cannot be applied then a qualitative assessment can be made such as to reduce intake levels to as low as is reasonably practicable. In either case it is the function of risk management to identify an optimal course of action to minimise the risk to consumers. 

The processes EPA uses to assess the risks from pesticides are complicated and constantly changing to meet the needs of new regulations and evolving toxicological and computational methods. The provisions of FQPA, passed in 1996, are likely to have significant impacts upon the establishment of tolerances for new pesticides as well as the reevaluation of existing tolerances. Many of the scientific issues raised by FQPA are discussed in section 14.5. 

This maximum legal exposure, often referred to as the Theoretical Maximum Residue Contribution, or TMRC, is compared with established toxicological criteria such as the reference dose (RfD) or Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) which represent, after analysis of animal toxicology data and extrapolations to humans, the daily exposure that is not considered to present any appreciable level of risk. When it is determined that the TMRC exposure is below the RfD or ADI, the EPA usually considers the risks from the pesticide in question to be negligible and approves the manufacturer s petition to establish a tolerance at or slightly greater than the maximum levels identified from the manufacturer s controlled field trials (Winter, 1992a). 

Recently, we established that 7-hydroxystaurosporine (UCN-01) is 100,000 fold more potent than caffeine at overcoming the G2 arrest, and dramatically enhances the cytotoxicity of cisplatin in Chinese hamster ovary cells at exactly the same concentrations that bypass the G2 checkpoint [41] [42]. UCN-01 also enhanced the activity of cisplatin in human cell lines, and furthermore, this occurred preferentially in cells with disrupted p53 function [43]. Toxicology experiments have shown that the required doses of UCN-01 are well tolerated in both mice and dogs [44]. Accordingly, UCN-01 would appear to have great potential to be used effectively in combination with cisplatin to enhance cell killing specifically in the tumor. The importance of this strategy for the current discussion is that it emphasizes the... 

Toxicology studies are designed to establish a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) and a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) or a maximum feasible dose (MFD). The later is determined in part by the dosage form and maximum volumes that can be administered in an animal via the intended route of administration, (see Tables 38.9 through 38.11)... 

Conducts toxicological evaluations and establishes acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) or tolerable intakes. 

Given the known uncertainties which arise from qualitative and quantitative differences as well as similarities in toxicological effects observed in animals and man, interpretation of the dose-related effects must be done cautiously. If a no-observed-adverse-effect level of dosage can be determined from the experiment, this may be used to establish values for acceptable daily intake or a reference dose for setting tolerances of additives in food, for residue levels of unintentional contaminants, or for acceptable... 

The guideline contains extensive lists of solvents of all three classes, with limits for each. Known toxicology data are given for each solvent, with definitions for parameters and methods of establishing exposure limits such as permitted daily exposure (PDE), no-observed-effect level (NOEL), lowest-observed-effect level (LOEL), tolerable daily intake (TDI), and acceptable daily intake (ADI). 

---