ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026
Scientific Opinion on waiving of the dog studies in the regulatory process of agrochemicals approval.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scientific Opinion on waiving of the dog studies in the regulatory process of agrochemicals approval.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Commission Regulation (EU) No. 283/2013 sets out the data requirements for pesticide active substances and includes short-term oral toxicity testing in rodents (90-day rat study) and non-rodents (90-day dog study) to support human health hazard assessment for pesticide active substances in the European Union (EU). However, the relevance of the 90-day dog study for such assessments has been increasingly questioned. In this context, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) initiated a self-task mandate to evaluate the contribution of the 90-day dog study to hazard assessment and to explore whether dog studies may be waived from a scientific perspective. This work included a retrospective analysis for the role of dog data in the derivation of health-based guidance values (HBGVs, i.e. acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acceptable operator exposure level (AOEL)) for pesticide active substances in the EU and the development of a tiered assessment strategy to support regulatory decision-making for new active substances. The evidence obtained in the retrospective analysis showed that, in 97% of the cases for ADI and 95% for AOEL, observed interspecies differences in established no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) were attributable to experimental and biological variability, differences in study design and/or allometric scaling, rather than reflecting a genuine dog-specific sensitivity. Further analyses of modes of action (MoA); absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME); and toxicokinetic (TK) profiles across species were conducted. Based on the retrospective analysis, a tiered assessment strategy was defined to decide whether for a new active substance, the 90-day dog study can be waived. A minimum data set and scientific criteria were defined for this assessment strategy, which includes integration of physiologically based kinetic (PBK) modelling and human-relevant data. The PPR Panel concludes that this strategy provides a robust basis to support the waiving of dog studies when scientifically justified and supports the implementation of new approach methodologies (NAMs) in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticide active substances.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.