Global reviews have been in the wish list of the international regulatory community for many years. But have we been considering all the details and looking at the broader implications of having a global review? Did we consider the existing regional and national blockage to such reviews? This talk will explore regional and national differences on critical issues such as hazard identification/quantification, risk identification associated with the use, agricultural practices, and approaches to risk assessment and risk management. Different regions look at the very same hazard, and the probability of that hazard being transformed into a risk, very differently. Why do different regions have such different perception of risk? What is behind these differences? Such differences in perception are at the heart of policy-making and lead to different legislations for the regulation of pesticides/plant protection products (i.e. different guidance, standards for testing, end-points, MRL and other trigger values). Understanding the differences and motivations leading to national policy-making may help set the way forward to more consistent reviews and eventually achieving an agreement on how a global submission should look like. Agreement on a single/similar data package should be the first step toward regulatory rationalization in plant protection, yet a better understanding of national policies needs to be built to achieve this goal. Examples of different policies – and their impact on join submissions – will be presented, covering the EU and some of its member states, briefly on Russia, South East Asia, South Africa and Northern Africa; and finally China where significant developments in policy-making for pesticide registration are happening right now.

Europe, Africa and Asia: Regional policy challenges impacting joint submissions

256th National Meeting (2018)

The official archive and repository for all ACS Meetings & Expositions abstracts and select posters or presentations.