Data following the OECD testing guidelines are easier to accept, more timely, and more relevant-the input of national experts from member states has been highly valued and widely recognized in helping to eliminate the several rounds of submissions and comments after the establishment of the protocol. With the investment of experts in the design of test methods (application of OECD guidance documents 1 and 34, such as Solna principles), people have more confidence in the results of the OECD study. Similarly, the GLP project provides confidence in the repeatability of the research.
In addition, coordinated testing methods allow suggestions like acute research review sharing 1 (vs. work sharing) to be made. Audit sharing, even some fixed-level audits, will free up a lot of resources for government agencies, allowing limited expert resources to engage in risk assessment and other high-value-added activities. If an acute toxicology 6 Pack 2 is sent to 30 OECD member states, the result will be 180 reviews, of which 174 are redundant and have no value to the consumers we are all working hard to protect. This level of calibration can only be carried out using the OECD testing guidelines.
Finally, a unified test method helps to compare different formulations with the same standard test, which is helpful for decision-making.
Representatives of biofungicide companies based in OECD countries
A few years ago, a country proposed to develop its own pesticide toxicology testing guidelines until it realized that it must use the OECD testing guidelines. If it develops its own unique guidelines, our members may have to conduct additional tests, which may require unnecessary animal testing, increase the cost of regulators and our members, and additional, unnecessary bureaucracy.
Although there are thousands of chemicals on the market today, only a relatively small portion is produced in large quantities. For example, in the European Union, four substances account for 36.1% of the total amount of chemicals produced or imported. Substances (229 substances) manufactured and imported annually account for more than 96% of the total quantity. According to the Human Papillomavirus Chemicals Program, the OECD has published a list of chemicals that produce or import more than 1,000 tons per year in at least one member country/region (OECD, 2007). In general, the higher the number, the more potential human contact and the more chemicals will be released into the environment. Such a large number of chemicals are likely to be listed as priority assessment objects by various countries. Since these large-scale commodity chemicals are produced in multiple countries, OECD countries have great opportunities to cooperate in such assessments. Similarly, by using a common risk assessment method to share these chemicals, companies that produce and sell these chemicals in multiple countries can reduce costs when evaluating these chemicals in multiple countries. By allowing the use of predictive models for similar chemical groups, there is no need to test each chemical individually, further reducing costs.
The Environmental Health and Safety Program provides a forum for countries to exchange technical and policy information. This will increase trust and acceptance of each other’s methods, and ultimately promote more efficient, effective and more closely coordinated national chemical management plans. For example, it is estimated that reviewing a complete industry file of a new pesticide and writing a comprehensive report (monograph) requires 1.95 person-years from the government. However, if another country's monograph on the same pesticide is used (based on the OECD monograph format), government experts estimate that it will save 1.02 person-years (ie 52%)14, resulting in significant savings. By jointly discussing their chemical control policies and seeking ways to coordinate various instruments and methods, countries tend to formulate similar policies and regulations. In turn, this means that government regulatory agencies that exchange evaluations can significantly reduce the time and effort required to approve new products or (re)register existing products. In this way, not only the government saves resources, but the chemical products can also be brought to the market faster. There are some chemical information. Finally, governments can gain experience from many scientific and policy experts from other governments, industry, and academia involved in the work of the EHS program.
