Margosa Extract Evaluation of Classification and Labelling Proposal with regard to Skin Sensitisation

Similar documents
Azadirachtin Evaluation of Classification and Labelling Proposal with regard to Skin Sensitisation

Azadirachtin Evaluation of Classification and Labelling Proposal with regard to Developmental Toxicity

Substance Evaluation Conclusion document EC No SUBSTANCE EVALUATION CONCLUSION DOCUMENT. as required by REACH Article 48.

Addendum 1 to the Draft Assessment Report

Margosa Extract Product-type 18 (Insecticides, Acaricides and Products to control other Arthropods)

Committee for Risk Assessment RAC

Assessing the sensitization/irritation properties of micro organisms. Gregorio Loprieno Prevention Medicine Local Health Authority 2 Lucca (Italy)

EFSA Statement regarding the EU assessment of glyphosate and the socalled

Application of the calculation method in regulatory risk assessment. Part 1 The issue of animal studies

Justification for the selection of a candidate CoRAP substance

1,1 - iminodipropan-2-ol

Explanatory note. On an opinion proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of. glyphosate (ISO); N-(phosphonomethyl)glycine

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PRODUCTS SCCP. Memorandum Classification and categorization of skin sensitisers and grading of test reactions

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

COMMENTS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON CLH: PROPOSAL AND JUSTIFICATION. Last data extracted on 10/12/2012

MRL application form (SANCO 4044/2008 rev. 10.2)

Acute Oral Toxicity. Acute Toxic Class Method of Difenacoum in Rats.

Committee for Risk Assessment RAC. Opinion proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of

Pesticides 3.0. New contaminants. What are we talking about? And how to evaluate the new substances? Dr. Silke Bruns Lach & Bruns Partnerschaft

ECHA note An attachment was submitted with the comment above. Refer to public attachment Penflufen_STOT RE_Annex.docx

Committee for Risk Assessment RAC. Opinion proposing harmonised classification and labelling at EU level of potassium sorbate

Bromadiolone CAS Active substance in Biocidal Products, Product Type 14 (Rodenticides) The Bromadiolone Task Force

Comments CLH proposal Cadmium hydroxide

Committee for Risk Assessment RAC

FoodDrinkEurope Position on GLP studies

Risk Management Option Analysis Conclusion Document

FÜR RISIKOBEWERTUNG BUNDESINSTITUT

Good Laboratory Practice. EU-Serbia screening meeting Brussels, 19 June 2014

Opinion on an Annex XV dossier proposing restrictions on Dimethylfumarate (DMFu)

Justification for the selection of a candidate CoRAP substance

Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide human health risk assessment of the active substance chlorpyrifos 1

Potency classification of skin sensitizers (EC WG on Sensitization)

Webinar: use of alternative methods to animal testing in your REACH registration

Material Safety Data Sheet BioWeed Control.

Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance azadirachtin 1

Practical guidance for applicants on the submission of applications on food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings

Dear Sir or Madam, so now I have questions

EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY DECISION. of 15 July 2009

Technical Datasheet LIFTONIN -XPRESS. 1. Application and Storage. Page 1 of 6. Country of Origin. Nature of Raw Materials

APPROVED: 17 March 2015 PUBLISHED: 27 March 2015

ADDENDUM. to the scientific opinion on. Zinc pyrithione (P81) ref. SCCS/1512/13

European Medicines Agency decision

EUROPEAN COMMISSION HEALTH & CONSUMER PROTECTION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL. Directorate C - Public Health and Risk Assessment C7 - Risk assessment SCCP

- A7/1 - APPENDIX 7 FORMAT FOR THE LISTING OF TEST AND STUDY REPORTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION EVALUATED

SAFETY DATA SHEET Clinell Antibacterial Hand Wipes According to Regulation (EU) No 453/2010

ECPA position paper on the criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties under Regulation

Justification Document for the Selection of a CoRAP Substance

Risk Management Option Analysis Conclusion Document

RISK MANAGEMENT OPTION ANALYSIS CONCLUSION DOCUMENT

- A8/1 - APPENDIX 8 FORMAT FOR THE LISTING OF TEST AND STUDY REPORTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION RELIED ON

Survey results - Analysis of higher tier studies submitted without testing proposals

Justification for the selection of a candidate CoRAP substance UPDATE

Biocidal Products Committee (BPC)

Substance Name: Silicic acid, lead salt. EC Number: CAS Number: MEMBER STATE COMMITTEE SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Ian Indans Regulatory scientist Chemicals Regulation Directorate (CRD)

Ingredient Product Information File FARMAL CS 3757

Pesticide risk assessment: changes and perspectives for mammalian toxicology in the new EC regulation 1107/2009

Substance Name: Sulfurous acid, lead salt, dibasic. EC Number: CAS Number: SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF

Standardisation ofneem-extracts

Animal testing versus calculation method

Annex to a news release

European Medicines Agency decision

Nice, France, 4 th June, 2018 E.F.E.O. European Federation of Essential Oils. Legislation update

Revision of GHS Chapter 3.2 to fully incorporate non-animal test methods

Statement on non-dietary exposure on diquat. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

Identification of substances as SVHCs due to equivalent level of concern to CMRs (Article 57(f)) sensitisers as an example

OPINION ON. Zinc pyrithione. COLIPA n P81

GLP in the European Union Ecolabel detergents, GLP and accreditation

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU)

CATEGORY 4 - Rosin adduct esters UVCB CATEGORY JUSTIFICATION DOCUMENT

REASONED OPINION. European Food Safety Authority 2, 3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

First Phase of Impact Assessment on Endocrine Disruptors:

Reproductive toxicity classification under CLP (Regulation (EC) no 1272/2008 on Classification, Labelling and Packaging of chemicals)

BfR Proposal for a Harmonised Procedure for Estimating the Dermal Absorption

Read-across illustrative example

Restrictions in the use of biocides for disinfection procedures

2,5-DICHLOROBENZOIC ACID METHYLESTER

Trisodium nitrilotriacetate (NTA)

An Applicant s Experience

Standard Operating Procedure. Selection of studies performed in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice for audit purposes

EC Number: CAS Number: SUPPORT DOCUMENT FOR IDENTIFICATION OF AS A SUBSTANCE OF VERY HIGH CONCERN BECAUSE OF ITS CMR 1 PROPERTIES

MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEET

Challenges in environmental risk assessment (ERA) for birds and mammals and link to endocrine disruption (ED) Katharina Ott, BASF SE, Crop Protection

Sumitomo Chemical Takeda Agro Co., Ltd. TI-435 February Acute Toxicity. Acute oral toxicity study in rats (LD 50 )

Justification for the selection of a substance for CoRAP inclusion

Product-type 18 (Insecticide)

CLH report. Proposal for Harmonised Classification and Labelling. Based on Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 (CLP Regulation), Annex VI, Part 2

19 September The Committees for Risk Assessment (RAC) and Socio-economic Analysis (SEAC)

Title: Scientific principles for the identification of endocrine disrupting chemicals a consensus statement

Lead Metal and the 9 th ATP to CLP: Frequently Asked Questions

SCCP. Opinion on. Alkyl (C16, C18, C22) trimethylammonium chloride

Risk Assessment Report on Tris (nonylphenyl)phosphite (TNPP)

ECHA Committee for Risk Assessment: Evaluation of the Classification and Labelling of Glyphosate

Monograph. Addendum 1. Ferric phosphate. Ecotoxicology. Rapporteur Member State: Germany. 26 May 2000

CLH REPORT FOR [DIOCTYLTIN BIS(2-ETHYLHEXYL MERCAPTOACETATE)]

TECHNICAL QUESTIONNAIRE

Transcription:

page 1 of 13 Margosa Extract Evaluation of Classification and Labelling Proposal with regard to Skin Sensitisation Date: 20.11.2014 Report Number: 126243-A2-050206-01 Author: Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Pfau GAB Consulting GmbH Hinter den Höfen 24 21769 Lamstedt Germany Phone: +49 4773 8889 141 Fax: +49 4773 8889 20 Email: wolfgang.pfau@gabconsulting.de

page 2 of 13 AUTHENTICATION Report No.: Report Title: 126243-A2-050206-01 Margosa Extract: Evaluation of Classification and Labelling Proposal with regard to Skin Sensitisation I, the undersigned, hereby declare that the present report has been prepared by GAB Consulting GmbH, Hinter den Höfen 24, 21769 Lamstedt, Germany. Signature Date 20. November 2014 Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Pfau

page 3 of 13 Table of Contents 1 Executive Summary... 4 2 Introduction... 4 3 CLH-Proposal Skin sensitisation... 4 4 Available Data... 4 6 Overall conclusion... 5 7 References... 6 8 Appendix... 7

page 4 of 13 1 Executive Summary Margosa extract is a refined medium polarity extract from the kernels of the Neem tree. It is approved in the EU as active substance for biocidal products of the product type 18. RMS Germany prepared a CLH-Dossier to define an appropriate harmonized classification for Margosa Extract and, regarding skin sensitisation, proposed classification in Category 1 (H317). Based on the submitted data Margosa Extract did meet the criteria laid down in the CLP regulation to be classified with Skin sensitisation Category 1B (H317 - May cause an allergic skin reaction). 2 Introduction Margosa Extract is a refined medium polarity extract from the kernels of the Neem tree. Margosa Extract was included into Annex I of Directive 98/8 EC by Commission Implementing Directive 2012/15/EU (8 May 2012) for pesticide product type 18 in the EU. Regarding skin sensitisation, classification in Category 1 (H317) was proposed in the CLH report. The available data on skin sensitisation is discussed in the following with the conclusion that classification with Skin sensitisation, Category 1B is appropriate. 3 CLH-Proposal Skin sensitisation In the CLH report (Proposal for Harmonised Classification and Labelling) the RMS Germany concluded regarding classification and labelling that Results with NeemAzal and NPI 720 lead to a classification in category 1B, whereas results with Fortune Aza lead to category 1A. Considering the contradictory categories, it is proposed to place Azadirachtin into category 1 (without sub categories), see Part B, Point 4.6.1.4 (page 24). 4 Available Data The rapporteur MS Germany prepared only one toxicological evaluation for both Azadirachtin (CAS No: 11141-17-6) and Margosa Extract (CAS-No: 84696-25-3). This is appropriate since the extract NeemAzal is identical for both Azadirachtin and Margosa Extract. However, while evaluation of the plant protection insecticide Azadirachtin is based on three Azadirachtin Extracts from three different sources (including NeemAzal), the biocide Margosa Extract is identical to NeemAzal only. Classification is, thus, to be based on experimental data for NeemAzal. 1 An experimental study (Magnusson Kligman test) conducted with NeemAzal according to GLP and the OECD technical guideline 406 has been evaluated in the CLH report and is summarised in Table 1. 1 The weight of evidence, considering all data available including experimental data showing that the products containing Azadirachtin are lacking any skin sensitising activity, indicates that also Azadirachtin the pesticide is appropriately classified as Skin sensitiser Category 1B.

page 5 of 13 Table 1: Summary of skin sensitisation (taken from CLH report, Part B, Point 4.6.1.1, Table 19) Animal species strain Number of animals Doses Result Reference Method Guinea pig, Dunkin Hartley albino 20 M treated 10 control Intradermal: 5 % (w/v) in acetone/alembicol Dermal: 80 % in acetone Sensitising (M&K) [all animals sensitised] NeemAzal Allan & Coleman, 1997 TOX9700507 OECD TG 406 Table 2: CLP criteria for skin sensitisation Guinea pig maximisation test (Magnusson Kligman Test) Category 1A (H317): 30 % responding at 0.1 % intradermal induction dose or 60 % responding at > 0.1 % to 1 % intradermal induction dose Category 1B (H317): 30 % to < 60 % responding at > 0.1 % to 1 % intradermal induction dose or 30 % responding at > 1 % intradermal induction dose Comparing the test results with the CLP criteria, and in agreement with the evaluation by the rapporteur it is concluded that Results with NeemAzal [ ] lead to a classification in category 1B. The classification of Margosa Extract as a weak skin sensitising agent is corroborated by experimental data with the biocidal product containing 3% Margosa Extract (NeemAzal-T/S). This product was demonstrated to lack skin sensitising activity in a Magnusson Kligman test using induction-concentrations of 5% and 30% for intradermal and topical induction, respectively (data summarised in Table 3 below and a more detailed study summary is included in the Appendix). Table 3 Skin Sensitisation study with the biocidal product Number of animals (Guinea pigs) Test substance Concentration of Azadirachtin Doses product (Induction) Doses active substance (Induction) Result Reference Report No Method M&K 20 M treated 10 control NeemAzal T/S 3% Azadirachtin Extract NeemAzal Intradermal: 5 % in sesame oil Dermal: 100% undiluted Intradermal: 0.15% Dermal: 4.5% Not sensitising [no animal sensitised] Kramer, 1998 981042830 OECD 406 6 Overall conclusion In summary based on the submitted data and considering also the experimental evidence obtained with the plant protection product, Margosa Extract did meet the criteria laid down in CLP regulation to be classified with Skin sensitisation Category 1B (H317 - May cause an allergic skin reaction).

page 6 of 13 7 References Author(s) Year Allan, S., Coleman, D. 1997 Kramer, H.-J. 1998 Title Testing Facility Owner / Source (where different from owner) Report No GLP or GEP status (where relevant) Published or not Neemazal technical skin sensitisation in the guinea-pig Huntingdon Life Sciences Ltd., Huntingdon, UK Trifolio-M GmbH Report-no. EIP 10/950818/SS GLP: yes Published: no Skin Sensitisation Study according to Magnusson & Kligman BioChem GmbH, Karlsruhe, Germany Trifolio-M GmbH Report-no. 981042830 GLP: yes Published: no Owner TRF TRF

page 7 of 13 8 Appendix The following study summary of skin sensitisation study performed with NeemAzal-T/S was taken from the CAR on Margosa Extract of January 2012 showing that this formulations had no sensitising effects.

page 8 of 13

page 9 of 13

page 10 of 13

page 11 of 13

page 12 of 13

page 13 of 13