Abstract
Abstract
Background
Veterinary medicinal products (VMPs) administered to livestock might affect the environment. Therefore, an environmental risk assessment (ERA) is conducted during the approval process of VMPs. In the European Union (EU), the ERA, which was established approximately 10 years ago, consists of two phases. In the present review, we examined the first phase. In this phase, VMPs are subjected to a decision-making process comprising 19 questions and several tables with default values published in the “Guideline on environmental impact assessment for veterinary medicinal products in support of the VICH guidelines GL6 and GL38 (European Medicines Agency 2016).”
Since a proportion of livestock husbandry systems is currently shifting toward ecological husbandry and free-range production systems, there is a lower risk of VMP consumption in general, but livestock excretions possibly containing VMPs might be directly released into the environment instead of being stored and applied as manure. In the present study, the first phase of the current ERA of VMPs in the EU was critically discussed with respect to the changes in animal husbandry. The large number of default values used in the ERA were checked for topicality. In a three-step approach, firstly trends and changes in animal husbandry in Europe that might be relevant for the ERA were collected, secondly, the interactions between Phase I and animal husbandry were evaluated and thirdly, the default values used in Phase I were verified in order to identify research gaps.
Results
Several default values used in the current ERA were identified as outdated. Together with the lack of valid data (e.g., on animal husbandry systems or VMP treatments), this may have an impact on the predicted environmental concentration (PEC) as the central decision threshold of the ERA.
Conclusions
The results of the present study indicate that an update of the ERA of VMPs in the EU is required to consider the changes in animal husbandry. Several aspects related to this issue are critically discussed.
Funder
Umweltbundesamt
Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference164 articles.
1. Maynard MS, Wislocki PG, Ku CC (1989) Fate of avermectin B1a in lactating goats. J Agric Food Chem 37:1491–1497. https://doi.org/10.1021/jf00090a008
2. Kemper N (2008) Veterinary antibiotics in the aquatic and terrestrial environment. Ecol Ind 8:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2007.06.002
3. Boxall ABA (2010) Veterinary medicines and the environment. In: Cunningham F, Elliott J, Lees P (eds) Comparative and veterinary pharmacology. Handbook of experimental pharmacology, 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-10324-7_12
4. Wallmann J, Bode C, Köper L, Heberer T (2020) Abgabemengenerfassung von Antibiotika in Deutschland 2019:1102–1109
5. Vidaurre R, Lukat E, Steinhoff-Wagner J, Ilg Y, Petersen B, Hannappel S, Möller K (2016) Konzepte zur Minderung von Arzneimitteleinträgen aus der landwirtschaftlichen Tierhaltung in die Umwelt. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/medien/2546/publikationen/fachbroschuere_tam_final.pdf. Accessed 10 Nov 2020
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献