Upload
ngominh
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
S i tifi P l Pl t H lth (PLH)Scientific Panel on Plant Health (PLH)
Presentation to the EFSA Management Board27 March 2008, Paphos CY
1
Jan Schans, Chair of the PLH Panel
Outline
• Positioning Plant Health (PLH)• Work of the PLH Panel• Issues• Challengesg
2
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
Hazards of concern:– organisms potentially harmful to plants, plant products, natural
habitats or biodiversity (pests);habitats or biodiversity (pests);– Not yet present in the endangered area, or– present but with restricted distribution
Relation with food safety:Potential increase of pesticide resid es on food– Potential increase of pesticide residues on food
– Food security: reduced and instable yields– Food toxins (e.g. aflatoxin, ergot): exceptional
3
( g g )
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
Background for PLH at EFSA (1)
– Development of plant health risk management at DG-SANCO• Directive 2000/29/EC• Standing Committee on Plant Health• Harmonized for EU; no independent MS legislation• Covers all plants: food, ornamentals, (semi-)natural environmentp , , ( )
– Development of worldwide concept of Pest Risk Analysis • Revision of International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC)
I i l S d d f Ph i M (ISPM)• International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM)• GATT WTO; Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (WTO-
SPS)• Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
4
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
Background for PLH at EFSA (2)Background for PLH at EFSA (2)– Pest Risk Assessment for EC:
• Scientific justification of plant health risk managementScientific justification of plant health risk management• By Member States?
– diverse– possible national bias
• By European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO)?
– Many EPPO members are not EC Member States
N d f i d d t S i tifi C itt t EC l l– Need for an independent Scientific Committee at EC-level
– Positioned at newly created EFSA• PPR Panel
5
• PLH Panel (June 2006)
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
Potential impacts of plant health hazards:– Agriculture– (Semi-)natural environment
– Human healthAnimal health– Animal health
– Combinations
Main relation with food safety:– Increased use of pesticides, and their residues on food, if a new
pest becomes established
6
pest becomes established
Potato brown rot (Ralstonia solanacearum))
Impact:• Agricultural production• Agricultural production• Food security
7
Tuta absoluta
Impact:• Agricultural production• Food safety (pesticide residues)• Food security
8
Asian longhorn beetle (Anoplophoraspp.)pp )
Impact:• Agricultural production• Agricultural production• (semi-)natural environment• Not a food issue
9
Floating Pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides))
Impact:• (semi-)natural environment• (semi-)natural environment• Not a food issue
10
Oak procession moth (Thaumetopoea processionea)
Impact:• Agricultural production
(semi )natural environment• (semi-)natural environment• Human and animal health• Not a food issue
11
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
Major factor leading to exposure to new pests:– International trade in plants and plant products
Key element of plant health risk management:Prevention of exposure by restrictions to international– Prevention of exposure by restrictions to international trade:
• Total import ban• Import only from ‘pest free areas’• Import only if consignments have been treated• Etc.
12
Positioning Plant Health (PLH)
When is a plant health risk unacceptable?– Two globally recognized, counteracting principles:
• Free trade (“Open, fair and undistorted competition” WTO)• Sovereign right of a country to protect plant health (IPPC, WTO-SPS)
– ‘Meeting point’:Meeting point :• potential economic impact, should a pest establish• Scientific demonstration is key criterion for justification of plant health
risk management measuresrisk management measures
– To prevent protectionist trade restrictions based on unduly plant health claims
13
Work of the PLH Panel
The PLH Panel:The PLH Panel:– Established: June 2006– 21 permanent scientific experts
• From 14 EU Member StatesFrom 14 EU Member States• 7 female experts• Wide coverage of expertise:
– Plant health disciplines (entomology, phytopathology, bacteriology, weed science, nematology, virology)nematology, virology)
– Risk assessment, agronomy, economic science– Various professional backgrounds (academia, governmental organisations,
independent consultants)– 4 permanent working groups (arthropods, fungi, bacteria, viruses)p g g p ( p , g , , )– Temporary ad hoc experts for specific questions
The PLH UnitT t l f 6 t ff b (M h 2008)
14
– Total of 6 staff members (March 2008)
Work of the PLH Panel
Q estions concerning PLH to EFSA (1)Questions concerning PLH to EFSA (1):
• Topics:– 2 questions clearly related to food production in EC (citrus)– 4 questions on invasive alien plants– 30 questions specific for French Overseas Departments (banana q p p (
and citrus)
15
Work of the PLH Panel
Q estions concerning PLH to EFSA (2)Questions concerning PLH to EFSA (2):
• Scientific evaluation (review) of:d i k d b h i– documents on pest risk assessments made by other parties
AND OF– The potential risk associated with the pest
• Documents provided varied in the level of detail
• Opinions of the PLH Panel vary accordingly:• Opinions of the PLH Panel vary accordingly:– Some are largely a scientific evaluation of the document– Some qualify as new, original risk assessments
16
Work of the PLH Panel
• Evaluation procedure refers to International Standards for Phytosanitary Measures (ISPM No. 2, 11)
Plant Health Food SafetyPest categorisation Hazard identificationA t f b bilit f E A tAssessment of probability of introduction and spread
Exposure Assessment
Assessment of potential economic consequences
Hazard characterisationeconomic consequencesConclusion Risk characterisation
17
Work of the PLH Panel
• Uncertainties in evaluation procedure:– Lack of evidence
• Extrapolation, using models (e.g. Climex)
– Variability in evidence
– Series of probabilistic events leading to establishment
18
Work of the PLH Panel
Meetings:Plenary meetings 12
Output:
Working group meetings: 65
Output:Year Adopted2006 12007 62008 25
4 (i itt d ti )
19
4 (in written adoption)
Work of the PLH Panel
Other activities:
– Self task:• Guidance document on evaluation of pest risk assessments for
phytosanitary purposes made by third partiesFinish date: December 2008
– Scientific Colloquium, Dec 2007• > 80 experts from 28 countries (22 MS)• Methodology, availability of data, harmonisation of methodsgy, y ,• New concept: type I and type II errors of assessment
Estimated publication date: June 2008
Contributions to SC and ESCO working groups
20
– Contributions to SC and ESCO working groups
Work of the PLH Panel
Communication with Standing Committee on Plant Health (SCPH)– SCPH is EC risk manager for Plant Health– Each EFSA opinion on PLH is presented to the SCPH– Beneficial effects:Beneficial effects:
• Increased appreciation of positions as risk assessor and risk manager
• increased mutual understanding of reasoning and argumentationg g g• Sharper formulation of ToR• Improved formulation of conclusions by EFSA
21
Issues
Plant Health Food Safety Issue:y
1 Exposure to a risk agent is not regulated, unless the
All exposure to risk agents is regulated, unless the
Assessment of potential economic
risk is shown to be unacceptable
risk is shown to be acceptable
impact
2 For each case: dedicated Straightforward Evaluation of risk2 For each case: dedicated design of risk management measures
Straightforward authorisation of risk agents with acceptable risk
Evaluation of risk management options
• Both issues are considered outside EFSA’s remit• Limitation to the scientific advice concerning plant health risks
22
g p• These issues are recognized and in discussion at EFSA
Challenges
• Contribute to effective harmonization of terminology and procedures– EFSA Scientific Panels– Other agencies and organisationsg g
• Develop guidance for scientific advice by EFSA:– When and how to consider potential economic impacts
Wh d h t l t t t ti– When and how to evaluate, ex ante, management options
• Develop and coordinate a network among MS for a flow of scientific RA information necessary for PLH risk management by the SCPH.– EFSA Article 36 Cooperation– Euphresco– FP-7
23
Thank you for your attention!
24