Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Herman Fontier - Update on the evaluation of active substances

2,014

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,014
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Committed since 2002 to ensuring that Europe’s food is safeUpdate on the evaluation of active substances Herman Fontier, Head of Unit
  • 2. Content• Overview peer review activities in 2011• Peer review planning 2012 and beyond• Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Commenting on draft EFSA Conclusions 2
  • 3. Content• Overview peer review activities in 2011• Peer review planning 2012 and beyond• Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Commenting on draft EFSA Conclusions 3
  • 4. Conclusions 2006 - 2011 4
  • 5. Conclusions 2011• Resubmissions under Regulation (EC) No 33/2008: 14 (the resubmission programme is finalised)• Renewals under Regulation (EC) No 737/2007: 1 (the AIR 1 programme is finalised)• Green track active substances (a.s.) of stage 4 (post approval conclusions in application of Regulation (EC) No 2229/2004): 34 5
  • 6. Conclusions 2011• New a.s. under Regulation (EU) No 188/2011: 3• Post approval (confirmatory data; application for amendment of the approval conditions): 2• With 2 exceptions, all conclusions have been delivered within the legal time lines 6
  • 7. Content• Overview peer review activities in 2011• Peer review planning 2012 and beyond• Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Commenting on draft EFSA Conclusions 7
  • 8. Conclusions 2012• According to EFSA’s Management Plan 2012, EFSA will adopt 77 Conclusions in 2012:  New a.s. under Regulation (EU) No 188/2011: 47  Green track a.s. stage 4: 24  Basic substances: 3  Post approval Conclusions: 3 8
  • 9. Regulation (EU) No 188/2011• 70 substances are reviewed under Regulation (EC) No 188/2011; situation on 13 April 2012:  3 Conclusions delivered in 2011  4 Conclusions delivered in 2012  47 draft assessment reports (DARs) under peer review  6 a.s. for which additional information is requested under Art. 11(6) with updated DAR awaited  10 DARs awaited 9
  • 10. Regulation (EU) No 188/2011• Major progress has been made with the pending new a.s. programme• On 13/04, for 54 of the 70 a.s., the peer review was ongoing or finalised• However, for almost all a.s., additional information needs to be requested after the commenting phase, leading to a stop of the clock of maximum 5 or 8 months (depending on the date of the completeness decision) 10
  • 11. Regulation (EU) No 188/2011• As a result, it is now becoming clear that in 2012, the number of Conclusions under Regulation (EU) No 188/2011 will be considerably lower than the 47 anticipated in the Management Plan 2012• On the other hand, the number of post approval conclusions might be higher than expected 11
  • 12. Mid-term planning 12
  • 13. Mid-term planning 2012 2013 2014 2015New a.s. 47 (22?) 20 (45?) 0 0188/2011New a.s. 0 10 10 101107/2009Basic 3 3 3 3substancesApproval 0 10 19 30?renewalGreen track 24 0 0 0stage 4Post approval 3 3 3 3Total 77 (52?) 46 (71?) 35 46? 13
  • 14. Planning the peer review• Two major problems continue to affect the peer review planning:  The unpredictability at several levels (planning by Commission (COM), stops of the clock at RMS level and during the peer review, end of stop of the clock, timely input by the RMS)  The important yearly fluctuation of the workload 14
  • 15. Resource management• In order to address both these fluctuations and the lack of resources in the area of Reasoned Opnions (ROs; Art. 10, 12(1) and 12(2) of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005), the Pesticides Unit has initiated a training programme for scientific officers working for the peer review, so that they can contribute to the drafting of ROs 15
  • 16. Resource management• The Pesticides Unit has 49 staff members:  1 Head of Unit  38 scientific officers (SOs; 1 position open; 3 seconded national experts)  10 assistants• In the next slide, the distribution of the SOs over the different teams is given; between brackets the number of SOs that can also do work in the area of the ROs 16
  • 17. Resource management Team PPR MRL Coor Resi Phys- Toxi Eco Fate dinati dues chem colo tox on gy Staff 8 7 5 3 (3) 3 (1) 4 (2) 4 4 (2) num - ber 17
  • 18. Content• Overview peer review activities in 2011• Peer review planning 2012 and beyond• Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Commenting on draft EFSA Conclusions 18
  • 19. Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Classification and labelling• MRL applications submitted with an a.s. approval application other than for representative uses (« extra » MRL applications)• Confidential business information (CBI) 19
  • 20. Classification and labelling• BfR Workshop in April 2011 (Berlin)• Working document on processes as a follow-up of the BfR Workshop (parallel evaluations under the Regulations (EC) No 1107/2009 and 1272/2008)• Discussion in the Pesticide Steering Committee (PSC)• Selection of a new a.s. assessed under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 for testing of the working document in a pilot project 20
  • 21. MRL applications• Art. 8(1)(g) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 provides for the possibility to add copies of MRL applications to a dossier for approval of an a.s.• The MRL applications are evaluated together with the a.s. approval application according to the time lines of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Several practical questions can arise with regard to the reporting, the procedure, the time lines• These questions have been discussed in the PSC 21
  • 22. MRL applications• Separation of information on the representative uses and on « extra » MRL applications in DAR and Conclusions?• Yes, it should be clear whether information evaluated or a data gap identified is linked to an « extra » MRL application or not; an « extra » MRL application data gap cannot lead to the identification of a critical area of concern 22
  • 23. MRL applications• Integration of information on « extra » MRL applications in the peer review process (commenting, expert consultation)?• Yes, but  « extra » MRL applications should never trigger an expert consultation (should not prolong the a.s. approval process)  residue trials for « extra » MRL applications would normally not be scheduled for an expert consultation 23
  • 24. MRL applications• What happens in the case of data gaps for the « extra » MRL applications, hampering the evaluation of the proposed MRLs?• The « extra » MRL applications should not lead to a delay in the a.s. approval process, and therefore the processes under Regulations (EC) No 1107/2009 and 396/2005 may need to be separated again 24
  • 25. CBI• EFSA has to make available to the public several documents: summary dossiers, applications for renewal, DARs, EFSA Conclusions• EFSA together with the MSs (in the PSC) analysed the legal requirements; an approach on who will do what was agreed 25
  • 26. CBI• More information can be found on the EFSA website: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/pesticides/pesticid esconsultations.htm• In particular:  An overview document on the removal of CBI  A form for the identification and justification of CBI 26
  • 27. Content• Overview peer review activities in 2011• Peer review planning 2012 and beyond• Implementation of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009• Commenting on draft EFSA Conclusions 27
  • 28. Commenting on draftConclusions• MSs are invited to comment on the draft Conclusions• The comments are collated in a table; the EFSA evalution of the comments is added; the table is part of the background documents to the Conclusion and publicly available• Applicants are invited to identify CBI in the Conclusions 28
  • 29. Commenting on draftConclusions• Applicants are not invited to comment on the draft Conclusion for the following reasons:  There is no legal requirement for EFSA to do so  EFSA has strict and challenging time lines for the drafting of the Conclusions; there is no time to address possibly lengthy comments from the applicants  COM invites the applicants to comment on the EFSA Conclusions 29
  • 30. Commenting on draftConclusions• EFSA looks into the comments sent to COM• Factual errors pointed out by the applicant are addressed quickly• EFSA cannot react to new information• EFSA will make an effort to react consistently to unfair comments (such as « EFSA identified a data gap at the very last moment », whereas the issue was already identified during the commenting…) 30
  • 31. Commenting on draftConclusions• Some comments should have been made during the commenting on the DAR (example: EFSA based its evaluation on the wrong GAP; the mistake was made by the RMS in the DAR)• Don’t miss the opportunity to comment on the DAR! 31
  • 32. Thank you for your attention! 32

×