The literature primarily includes effect studies on acute toxicity of antibiotics in the aquatic environment and effects of antiparasitic agents on dung/soil fauna.

Antibiotics are generally toxic to algae, but less toxic to crustaceans and fish. Especially the blue-green algae seems very sensitive to some antibiotics

Many studies have shown that antiparasitic drugs may be lethal for beneficial insects living in dung voided several weeks after treatment of cattle. Only a single study has investigated effects of ivermectin on earthworms.

Information is generally lacking on the long term ecotoxicological effects and on the ecological consequences of a continuous environmental exposure, e.g. in the cases of boli slowly releasing antiparasitic drugs during an entire grazing season.

The environment will often be exposed to many drugs and/or other hazardous chemicals simultaneous. However, generally very little is known about the resulting total environmental hazard, risk and impact of simultaneous occurring chemicals, including veterinary drugs.

Compared to industrial chemicals which often have a general narcotic mode of action, veterinary medicines generally have a specific mode of action. In the light of the limitations of the existing standardised test battery for evaluating the environmental hazard and risk of veterinary drugs, new and more appropriate test methods may be needed. Such new tests should, however, be validated and standardised before widely employed.

5. Legislation concerning environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products

5.1 Introduction

This chapter includes a review of the current risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products and outlines the similarities and differences to the current risk assessment principle of new and existing chemicals in the EEC. Initially it should be stressed that this chapter only describes the risk assessment procedure for new veterinary medicinal products introduced to the EU market after January 1998. No legislation or risk assessment procedure for existing veterinary medicinal products exist. To the authors knowledge there is no initiatives for doing so in the future

Whereas legislation and regulation of domestic and industrial chemicals with respect to the protection of the environment have been implemented in Europe and North America for decades, such legislation of medicinal products was first initiated in the late 80´s in the USA (FDA 1985; 1987 and 1995) and in the beginning of the 90´s in Europe.

The European Commission first integrated a basic evaluation of the environmental impact of veterinary medicinal products in its Directive 81/852/EEC as amended by Directive 92/18/EEC. This Directive outlines basic requirements for conducting an environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products. The 81/852/EEC and 92/18/EEC Directives was followed by a guidance document by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) - EMEA/CVMP/055/96, which provides a technical guidance for the assessment of environmental risk of new veterinary medicinal products. In addition, the European Commission has also laid down guidelines for an environmental risk assessment of animal food additives (94/40/EEC). These guidelines include a description of the basic requirements for assessing the fate and effects of the food additives in the environment, e.g. environmental fate and persistence; toxicity to algae, daphnia, fish in the aquatic environment and microbial processes and fauna in the terrestrial environment. At present, the Technical Directive for human medicinal products (75/318/EEC) does not include any reference to an assessment of their potential environmental risk or to ecotoxicology in general. However, a detailed technical draft guideline issued in 1994 (III/5504/94) indicates that the approach applicable for veterinary medicine also would apply for human medicinal products.

In the following sections a short review of the principles for assessment of environmental risk of new and existing chemicals in the EU is given (section 5.2) with the aim to compare these risk assessment methodologies with the risk assessment for veterinary medicinal products (section 5.3).

5.2 ERA for new and existing substances in the EEC region

The Council Directive 67/548/EEC (as amended by Directive 92/32/EEC) on the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances requires the manufactures of new substances, if these are sold in quantities exceeding a certain limit (1 t per year per manufacturer or imposter , to notify relevant national authorities in the country of manufacture or import. A notification includes a package of test data concerning various information of the physical-chemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties of the notified substance. With the base set of data, the competent authorities are then required to carry out an assessment of the risk of the substances to man and the environment in accordance with the principles of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC. For existing substances the Council Regulation (EEC) no. 793/93 requires an assessment of risk to man and environment of priority substances given in the Commission Regulation no. 1488/94 on risk assessment on existing substances. For existing chemicals an informal priority setting (EURAM-IPS) method is used for selecting chemicals among the 100,000 listed in the EINECS database (The European Inventory of Existing Commercial Chemical Substances). The purpose of IPS is to select chemicals for a detailed risk assessment among the EEC high production volume compounds, i.e. >1000 t/y/manufacture (HVPC, a subset of the EINECS database containing approx. 2700 chemicals). Data necessary for the IPS and an initial hazard assessment is called the HEDSET (European Commission 1993) and covers issues as environmental exposure, environmental effects, exposure of man and human health effects. The data are contained in the IUCLID database. On the basis of national priority lists of chemicals and priority indicated by the employed EURAM a comprehensive risk assessment documents is produced by competent authorities in the member states in collaboration with industry.

In support of the legislation a detailed Technical Guidance Document (TGD) and a software program (EUSES) have been produced, including extensive technical details for conducting hazard identification, dose-effect assessment, exposure assessment and risk characterisation in relation to man and environment. The risk assessment of new notified substances is based on the data submitted by the notifiers in accordance with Directive 67/548/EEC. The directive provides a scheme of step-wise, tonnage-related data requirements (Figure 5.1). The tests have to be carried out in accordance of the EU methods (Annex V to Directive 67/548/EEC). If no EU method is available or scientifically pertinent other international test guidelines, preferably OECD guidelines may be used. As a minimum requirement, the full base-set (FBS) testing required for new substances (Annex V, Directive 67/548/EEC) must be available for a risk assessment. Among the existing high production volume chemicals (>1000 tons/year/manufactor), the minimum data set for the high priority substances is the HEDSET, which encompasses the full base-set for new substances and a screening for reproductive toxicity (OECD 421). This ensures that for both new notified and for chemicals of priority data from studies on short term toxicity on algae, daphnia and fish and key data on the environmental fate, e.g. log Kow, biodegradability, vapour pressure and water solubility, are available for the risk assessment. For new substances further data are foreseen at level 1 and 2 of the risk assessment procedure. For existing substances information beyond the base-set is some time very limited other times very large and comprehensive. On the basis of the toxicity data available, an assessment factor ranging from 10-1000 is applied to the EC/LC/NOEC values to derive the Predicted No Effect Concentration (PNEC). The choice of assessment factor depends on the quantity and quality of toxicity data (Table 5.1).

Look here!

Figure 5.1.
The general principles of risk assessment of new and existing substances in the EU.

Figur 5.1.
De generelle principper for riskovurderingen af nye og eksisterende kemiske stoffer i EU.

Table 5.1.
Assessment factors to derive PNEC according to the Technical Guidance Document for new and existing substances. See TGD for detailed notification.

Tabel 5.1.
Applikationsfaktorer for estimering af PNEC ifølge den tekniske vejledning for vurdering af nye og eksisterende stoffer.

The exposure assessment should be based on representative monitoring data and/or model calculations. However, for many chemicals it is very difficult to obtain representative monitoring data, as detailed monitoring studies only exist for a few organic substances. To calculate the exposure by e.g. models may be very complicated as detailed information about distribution, specific use and application may not be available. The primary manufactures of a chemical may not hold detailed information about the use of the chemical in products, i.e. "downstreeam uses". Box 5.1 includes a brief discussion about uncertainties and limitations in the prediction of the environmental concentrations (PECs) .

An assessment of the risk of secondary poisoning to top predators has to be included in the risk assessment report if indicated by the available data, e.g. if the substance is bioaccumulative in fish and excert chronic or reproductive effects in mammals. At a base-set level the available physico-chemical and (eco)toxicological data can be used to decide whether or not there is any indications for a potential for bioaccumulation and/or indirect effects. The Technical Guidance Document provides detailed information on how to assess the risk of secondary poisoning

The risk assessment should be carried out for all relevant compartments (concern areas), i.e. for micro-organisms of sewage treatment plants, aquatic, sediment and soil dwelling species as well as for secondary poisoning of top predators of the food chains. A quantitative ERA is currently not possible for the air compartment. As the base set of effect data only include aquatic organisms and micro-organisms from sludge, and no base-set of tests currently exist for sediment and soil organisms, short-term toxicity tests on sediment and soil dwelling species are only required if a potential risk for the sediment or soil compartment have been identified on basis of a risk characterisation using the equilibrium partitioning method on the aquatic base-set, as outlined in the TGD. The OECD-tests on earthworm (207) and plants (208) are currently the only available internationally standardised tests for the soil environment. Standard tests on sediment species are currently being developed. Whereas, a quantitative evaluation of risk in the aquatic (especially the freshwater system) and the terrestrial environment should be possible for most substances, the risk assessment for air can only be carried out qualitatively, as no adequate biotic testing systems currently are available.

Box 5.1.
Uncertainties and limitations in risk assessment

The requirements for the dossier to be submitted for the authorisation of a plant protection product is more extensive than the ones for new and existing substances (Annex VI, 91/414/EEC). In addition to the acute toxicity test with algae, daphnia and fish, chronic toxicity, bioaccumulation and sublethal studies on reproduction and growth is required for fish and daphnia. The applicant must furthermore provide data from toxicity studies on birds and other non- target organisms, e.g. honey bees and earthworms.

5.3 Comparison of ERA for veterinary medicinal products and food additives with ERA for new and existing substances in the EEC region

The European Commission has included the evaluation of the environmental impact of veterinary medicinal products in its Directive 81/852/EEC as amended by Directive 92/18/EEC. This Directive outlines in the basic requirements for conducting an environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products. For details on the evaluation and a technical guidance, the document by the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) - EMEA/CVMP/055/96, may be consulted.

The risk assessment as described in the EMEA guidance document is based on a tiered approach. Hence more detailed information is required as the risk assessment proceeds. The first level (phase 1) includes an identification of exposure routes and a first estimation of PECs. Phase 1 includes a number of cut-off values for further assessment. In the second step (phase 2 - Tier A) ecotoxicological effects are compared to the PECs, and a first risk assessment is made for the aquatic and the terrestrial environments. If further data are needed, Phase 2 - Tier B details additional toxicity tests and fate studies. The "Decision Trees" used for risk assessment in the EMEA-guideline is presented in Figure 5.2-5.4. In the following paragraphs this risk assessment will be compared to the one used for new and existing substances in the European Union. To facilitate the reading the term chemicals or industrial chemicals will be used as a collecting term for new and existing substances in this chapter, unless important differences in legislation exist for one of the two groups. The term drugs will regularly be used instead veterinary medicinal products.

Directive no. 94/40/EEC from the European Commission lays down a guideline for assessing the effects of food additives. According to the Directive applicants should review the physical-chemical, toxicological and ecotoxicological properties according to the Commission Directive 67/548 (latest amendment 93/105) or other international recognised methods. If other methods are used, such use must be justified. The guideline for assessing food additives, however, is currently being revised by the Commission. In addition the existing guideline is adopted from the risk assessment procedure for new chemicals, and no further discussion concerning food additives will therefore be presented in this report. Attention should however be drawn to the fact that many food additives, e.g. growth promoters, frequently are used as medicinal products as well.

Look here!

Figure 5.2.
Phase I in the EMEA procedure for assessing risk of veterinary medicinal products to the environment.

Figur 5.2.
Fase I i EMEA-proceduren for miljørisikovurdering af veterinære medicinale produkter.
          

Look here!

Figure 5.3.
Phase II in the EMEA procedure for assessing risk of non fish medicines to the environment.

Figur 5.3.
Fase II i EMEA-proceduren for miljørisikovurdering af de veterinære medicinale produkter, som ikke er fiskemedicin.
               

Look here!

Figure 5.4.
Phase II in the EMEA procedure for assessing risk of fish medicines to the environment.

Figur 5.4.
Fase II i EMEA-proceduren formiljørisikovurdering af medicinske produkter for fisk.

5.4 Phase 1

The first step in Phase I of the EMEA guideline, is to identify the uses and the active ingredients, which is not assumed to lead to any significant environmental exposure or pose significant risk, e.g. vitamins, electrolyte or natural amino acids. The identification of substances which are presumably non-toxic or very low-toxic, aims at avoiding unnecessary and unjustified testing and assessment efforts. Although e.g. substances used for treatment of companion animals (pets) and individual treatment of domestic animals may be produced and used in relatively large quantities, the treatment is not expected to lead to any significant exposure of the environment. Similar to the use of human medicine, medicinal products for companion animals may, however, if washed out to the drains by rainwater, be found in municipal waste water treatment plants.

This differs from the evaluation of new chemical substances, where a certain quantity marketed triggers the requirement of experimental investigations, no matter assumed toxicity. For existing substances another priority is valid. This is briefly based on a first IPS screening for risk and national priority among the high production volume chemicals (see 5.2) and uses already available data.

After the first elimination of substances, the EMEA guideline provides three different assessment schemes, depending on the application to the animals or exposure to environment: Direct entry into the water; internal application or external application. If applied directly to water, the phase II evaluation gives a procedure for prediction of the environmental concentration (Predicted Environmental Concentration - PEC). The same applies for externally applied medicine when substances are likely to enter the environment, e.g. the soil. The guidance document does not lay down criteria for estimating if and how the substances may enter the environment by external application. In the case of internally applied medicine, a cut-off concentration in manure and fresh dung regulate the need for further assessment. If the concentration of the active compound or major metabolite is found in concentrations below 100 µg/kg in manure and in concentrations below 10 µg/kg in fresh dung and no active ingredient or major metabolite is excreted by animal urine on pasture, no further assessment is considered necessary. If substances are degraded with a half-life faster than 30 days after spreading of manure/slurry on land, no further assessment is necessary, even though the concentration of the substance exceed a concentration of 100 µg/kg in manure. After the evaluation of the possible exposure routes, with the above mentioned possibilities to stop further assessment, the EMEA document prescribe that further assessment is needed, as described in a phase II decision tree, only if the PEC in groundwater and soil exceed 0.1 µg/l or 10 µg/kg, respectively.

The ERA of new and existing substances differs in several aspects from the initial risk assessment of veterinary medicinal substances. First of all, regardless of substance category the fundamental steps for risk assessment, i.e. hazard identification, exposure and effect assessment, risk characterisation and possible risk management, as laid down in the TGD for new and existing substances, is not followed in the risk assessment procedure found in the EMEA guideline. In several instances during initial exposure assessment it is possible to stop further assessment Furthermore, in cases where PEC for groundwater is < 0,1 µg/l or PEC for soil is <10 µg/kg no further assessment is required. In such cases no PNEC is elaborated and risk characterisation, by a comparison of PNEC and PEC, not given.

5.5 Phase II

Phase II deals separately with fish medicines and other veterinary medicinal substances. Major differences exist between the risk assessment of these two groups of medicines, but the rationale behind this is not properly explained in the guideline. Although variation in the exposure situation in the aquatic and terrestrial environment is large, the same principle in risk characterisation could be applicable with a few amendments.

5.5.1 Tier A

The Phase I of the ERA of veterinary substances does not require a collection of toxicity data. Only in cases where the cut off values for PEC in dung (10 m g/kg), manure (100 m g/kg), soil (10 m g/kg) or groundwater (0.1 m g/L) are exceeded, do the assessor has continue to Tier A of phase II. . Here data on biological effects for the first time has to be conducted for both medicines applied on soil and medicines applied directly in the water.

Veterinary medicinal substances other than fish medicines

In phase II, a minimum of information about physical/chemical and ecotoxicological properties must be obtained for all drugs. For example, e.g. K_oc and degradation rate in 3 soils, toxicity test using plants, earthworms and if groundwater is subjected to risk also Daphnia. As indicated in the explanatory notes, but not described in the Decision Tree (Figure 5.3), the phase II -Tier A should include more detailed evaluation of the possible fate and effects of the drug and/or its major metabolites. Major metabolites are defined as metabolites with a PEC higher than 20% of the applied dose. For comparison, major metabolites of pesticides are defined as metabolites with a PEC higher than 10% of the applied dose . In phase II -Tier A, it should be considered whether there is indication of significant air exposure or exposure of freshwater systems by run-off. This is different from the ERA of chemicals, where all relevant compartments (areas of concern) in principle should be evaluated during the initial phase. Areas of concern for chemicals are: water, sediment, soil, air, secondary poisoning and the function of waste water treatment plants. Of these it is only the last that may be unimportant for veterinary drugs.

In cases where PEC in dung or soil exceed 10 µg/kg, K_oc and degradation rates in three different soil types have to be determined. Furthermore, a phytotoxicity tests and an acute toxicity tests with earthworm is required. For veterinary drugs with insecticidal properties additional toxicity tests on fauna are required. If the PEC in groundwater is estimated to be higher than 0.1 µg/l the acute toxicity test with Daphnia has to be included in the basic investigations in Tier A. The determination of Koc and degradation rates may lead to a demand of further studies. PEC for surface water and acute toxicity tests with algae, Daphnia and fish have to be include if the K_oc < 500. Data on the effects of the drug to soil micro-organisms is required if half-life of the parent compound is longer than 60 days. The recommendation of tests with plants and earthworms both refer to EU and OECD test methods, whereas an US-FDA microbial growth test is recommended.

The risk characterisation used in the EMEA guideline for veterinary medicinal substances differs from the ERA used for new and existing chemicals on the following issues.

1. The risk characterisation of veterinary drugs does not consist of a direct PEC and PNEC comparison, which is an essential principle of the risk characterisation for new and existing chemicals. Instead effect values are compared directly with the PEC.
2. In cases were half-life has been estimated to be shorter than 60 days in three soils, the basic requirements for test species only includes two throphic levels (earthworms and plants), compared to three level in the risk assessment of new and existing chemicals. If DT₅₀ > 60 days, a MIC for microorganisms is required.

The risk characterisation of veterinary drugs does not consist of a direct PEC and PNEC comparison. Instead are the effect values compared directly with the PEC. This is mainly an academic difference if the actual application of safety factor is the same in the risk estimation. However, this is not the case. For compounds with a DT₅₀ < 60 days, the exposure-effect ratio (e.g. PEC/EC₅₀) has to exceed 0.1 to initiate an appropriate risk management strategy or a collection of further data on the fate effect (Tier B). Since PNECs normally are derived by the application of a assessment (safety) factor on the EC₅₀-value (or NOEC), this correspond in reality to an application of an assessment factor of only 10. In cases of DT₅₀ > 60 days the risk quotient for earthworms has to exceed 0.01 to initiate further measures, which correspond to a safety factor of 100.

These assessment factors are not in general accordance with the ERA procedure for new and existing chemicals (c.f. Technical Guidance Document to Directive 93/67/EEC and Commission Regulation No. 1488/94), where a use of an assessment factor of 1000 is prescribed as a starting point on the lowest short-term effect data from studies of at least three throphic levels, e.g. algae, daphnia and fish or plants, earthworms and micro-organisms. An assessment factor of 10 should normally, according to the TDG, only be applied when long-term NOECs are available from at least three throphic levels. The same assessment factors are also used for the high priority existing chemicals that annually are evaluated in a detailed risk assessment. The number of existing chemicals evaluated in EU each year is presently around 20. As a consequence of this, the ERA procedure of veterinary drugs, not used as fish medicine, generally uses a 10-100 times lower margin of safety in the effect assessment than the procedure used for industrial chemicals. The absence of PNEC calculation for terrestrial organisms and the indirectly choice of lower safety factors is not discussed in details anywhere in the EMEA guideline. However, the principles for evaluation of the undesired effects of veterinary drugs do to some extent resemble the approach and principles that are used to assess the risk on non-target soil fauna by using pesticides on agricultural land, as laid down in Directive 91/414/EEC (Uniform Principles). Some countries, like Denmark, have expressed concern about whether the margin of safety applied in the Uniform Principles is sufficient to effectively protect non-target organisms towards unintended adverse effects of pesticides, and have therefore approved the use of higher assessment factors (Box 5.2 for a discussion of risk management versus risk acceptance).

For veterinary substances, which have insecticidal properties, additional information on their toxicity to dung or grassland invertebrates is required if PEC exceed 10 µg/kg in dung or soil, respectively. Examples on evidence for insecticidal activities are given in Annex III of the EMEA guideline. The recommended test strategy for veterinary drugs with insecticidal properties follows guidelines given by the International Organisation of Biological Control (IOBC), which do not require a dose-respond calculation but rather gives cut-off values based on the effect level at relevant test concentrations. Concern for the environment is recognised in cases where more than 50 or 79% of the fauna is affected at PEC in dung and soil, respectively. If this is the case an appropriate risk management strategy or collecting of additional information on fate and effects has to made in a Tier B.

For veterinary drugs a risk characterisation for the groundwater compartment has to be made if PEC > 0.1 µg/l. The PNEC is derived by an application of an assessment factor of 100 based on the result from the acute test with Daphnia magna. In comparison the groundwater scenario in the TGD for chemicals is solely based on a risk assessment of human health a result of exposure through groundwater. The PNEC for human health is based on long term mammalian toxicity tests.

For very persistent veterinary drugs with a DT₉₀ exceeding one year an appropriate risk management strategy has to applied or the applicant has to deliver more detailed information about fate and effects of the substance as prescribed in Tier B.

Fish Medicine

The ERA of fish medicine or veterinary medicinal substances released directly into water systems, also include drugs used in rearing and production of crustacean etc. Basic requirements includes K_ow, an estimation of hydrolysis and/or photolysis, and toxicity studies with species covering three throphic levels, e.g. algae, daphnia (or other crustacean) and fish. Depending on the use of the medicine an evaluation of the fresh-water and/or marine system has to be made. On basis on the collected information a risk characterisation is performed (PEC/PNEC). A factor of 100 is used on the basic short term toxicity data set, based on the recommendation from a OECD workshop on extrapolation of laboratory toxicity data to the environment (OECD Monograph no. 33). Also in this respect the choice of assessment factor (100) is a factor of 10 below the one required for industrial chemicals on similar data.

Concern for the environment is recognised in cases where PEC/PNEC > 1 or K_ow > 1000 or the half-life in water exceed four days. In such cases further assessment in a Tier B is required.

5.5.2 Tier B

If any of the trigger values are exceeded further assessment according to Tier B is required. At this stage the guidelines suggested in the EMEA document should only be considered as recommendations to the applicant, as many of the suggested tests, especially for the terrestrial environment is not standardised or even well developed. Therefore it is recommended to include the regulatory authorities already at the planning stage of tests required in a Tier B approach.

Veterinary medicinal substances other than fish medicines

As it was the case in Tier A, the ERA for the terrestrial environment (not presented in a decision tree) is mainly based on the ERA for pesticides, and includes e.g. identification of metabolites from the transformation pathway; effect on the microbial activity in the carbon and nitrogen mineralisation processes; sublethal effects on earthworms; further laboratory studies on the effects on plants and invertebrates found in dung and grassland or finally field studies on possible adverse effects caused by the substance on relevant plant and animal species.

An assessment of poisoning of terrestrial vertebrate wildlife following use or disposal of veterinary medicinal products has to be made for the first time in Tier B. This includes both direct effects and biomagnification effects. An arbitrary classification system of toxicity to wildlife as recommended by the US-EPA is used to indicate whether there is need for further assessment. The classification is based on avian single-dose oral LD₅₀, and an avian dietary LC₅₀ test which group the substances into 5 different classes ranging from practically non-toxic to very highly toxic. If the substance is found highly or very highly toxic further assessment is needed, whereas for "practically non-toxic" substances no further assessment is needed. For "slightly" and "moderately" toxic substances the EMEA guideline states that the need of assessment depends on whether the level of exposure is sufficiently high (not specified). The risk assessment procedure for veterinary substances on vertebrate wildlife differs on a few minor issues compared with the ERA for chemicals.

Whether there is a need for assessing secondary poisoning is made at a later stage than for chemicals, as the consideration of whether the substance has any indication of bioaccumulation potential has to be made in the initial phase for chemicals. If the compound has a potential for bioaccumulation in fish and belongs to a certain classification (T+/T/Xn and R48/R60-R64) a risk characterisation has to be made. The EMEA document is less specific on the criteria for bioaccumulation, but refer to information collected as part of the residue package, i.e. information concerning the use of substances in domestic animals and pharmacokinetic studies in fish. For toxic compounds used for dips a warning printed on the package warning users of the need to keep wildlife away from the dip. For toxic compounds with a likely exposure of wildlife through feeding on terrestrial invertebrates or aquatic species such as fish, a procedure for risk assessment is outlined in the EMEA guideline. A collection of sufficient toxicity data is recommended if available in the literature. The EMEA guideline indicates that an assessment factor of 10 should be applied to toxicity data on species likely to be exposed or to a wider range of toxicity data.

Fish medicine

In cases where PEC/PNEC > 1 or DT₅₀ in water is longer than 4 days, further aquatic studies have to be included in the final ERA of fish medicines. These may include additional acute toxicity studies on aquatic species; long-term toxicity studies to aquatic species; toxicity studies on sediment species and bioaccumulation studies, depending on estimations on the environmental fate of the substance. If degradation studies indicate a short exposure period, the EMEA guideline prescribes that the PEC should be considered as a short-term PEC, to which it is only necessary to compare short-term effects on aquatic species. This leads to a recommendation of adjusting the assessment factor used on the basic acute toxicity set down to only 10, as it is no longer considered necessary to take long-term effects into account. It is not explicit in the guideline when exposure is considered to be acute or long term. This procedure of veterinary medicinal products is somehow different from the procedure used for chemicals, which do not take biodegradation into account when recommending assessment factors. For chemicals only a change in the set of toxicity data, i.e. changes in the number of test species or by going from acute to chronic exposure, may alter the use of assessment factors, whereas the biodegradation data is used when estimating PECs..

In cases where application is repeated, which is not unusual in many fish farms, the exposure may be more or less chronic although the substance is broken down relatively fast. Therefore, reduction in the assessment factor due to degradation properties should only be accepted if repeated exposure does not occurs or occurs at very long intervals like it is discussed in the section concerning intermittent releases of industrial chemicals in the TGD.

In cases where chronic exposure is likely, long-term studies on the most sensitive group of the acute toxicity base-set should be conducted. In deriving the PNEC on the basis of this test, the guideline prescribe the use of an assessment factor of 10. For chemicals a safety factor of 10 is only prescribed in cases of long-term studies of at least three species or on data from long-term studies on the most sensitive species in the short term tests, supplemented by at least one other NOEC.

In Tier B of Phase II, a guideline for assessing the fate and effects of veterinary substances in the sediment compartment is given for the first time. This is at a later stage than for chemicals, where a risk characterisation for all relevant media is an essential part of the basic RA. The EMEA guideline suggests an initial assessment of PEC based on an estimate of the partitioning between sediment and water as extrapolated on basis of the physical/chemical properties of the test substances. The estimated interstitial water concentration should be compared to the PNEC derived for water column species as a first screening for risk. If the PEC/PNEC ratio is of concern or if the compounds, due to e.g. very lipophilic properties, is unsuited for such extrapolation, test using spiked sediment must be carried out. The EMEA guideline recommend the same assessment factors for deriving PNEC for the sediment fauna as for the assessment of the pelagic PNEC. These are again one order of magnitude lower than in the ERA of chemicals.

As studies using spiked sediment is time consuming and expensive it makes sense to recommend a first risk characterisation based on extrapolated values. This is very much in line with the prescription in the TDG for chemicals. However, as this initial ERA of sediment is not associated with extra costs, it should be considered to employ this assessment already in Tier A, on equal terms with fresh and marine waters, for all veterinary substances released directly into the aquatic environment. When concern for the benthic fauna is identified by such an initial risk characterisation or if the K_ow is higher than 1000, additional information using tests with spiked sediment is required in Tier B.

A parallel to the discussion above on secondary poisoning for the terrestrial environment can be made for the aquatic environment. It is not in line with the ERA of chemicals, not to have at least a first risk assessment of secondary poisoning in Tier A. Accumulation studies have to be carried out if the pharmacokinetic studies in fish for veterinary drugs indicate a potential for bioaccumulation. From the concentration of residues that are considered likely to occur in fish, on basis of the bioaccumulation studies, secondary poisoning is assessed by assuming a worst case situation where a 2 kg heron eats 500 g of contaminated fish pr. day. The risk characterisation follows the one for wildlife in the terrestrial environment, using the same assessment factors.

On basis of the initial studies in Tier B, the assessor has to estimate whether the substances pose a moderate to high risk to the environment or only pose a low or no risk at all to the environment. The EMEA guideline do not provide any criteria for deciding the level of acceptable risk, leading to a completion of the ERA, or a non acceptable risk leading to further studies, e.g. fate studies in sediment or aquatic field or mesocosm studies.

Box 5.2
Risk management and risk acceptance

5.6 Summary and conclusions

The risk assessment procedure for new and existing substances (chemicals) has briefly been reviewed and compared to the risk assessment of veterinary medicinal substances (drugs). A comparison reveal a number of differences of more less important character. The most important being:

No guidance exist on how and when to assess the environmental risk of already existing veterinary drugs, and apparently there is no current national or international regulatory strategy on how to deal with environmental risk of existing veterinary drugs.

The estimation of PEC for drugs is different from that of new and existing chemicals and plant protection products. The major environmental release is from treated animals, and is influenced by e.g. treatment intervals, dosages, formulation of drugs, metabolisation of drugs and by the species of animal treated.

The ERA procedure of drugs not used as fish medicine may stop further assessment on the basis of arbitrary cut-off values for the environmental concentration, i.e. a risk characterisation for drugs found in concentrations below 10 µg/kg in dung or soil can be left out because no risk is assumed. A half-life shorter than 30 days in soil of the parent compound may also stop the need for further assessment.

When making the risk characterisation by comparing the exposure level with the effect level of drugs (risk quotient), this is not done by directly estimating the PEC/PNEC ratio, but rather as a direct comparison of effect data with the PEC (e.g. PEC/LC50). The required assessment factors used for deriving PNEC for the terrestrial environment is at least a factor of 10 lower than the assessment factors prescribed for assessing chemicals, and in cases of compounds with half-life shorter than 60 days it is a factor of 100 lower. In the ERA of fish medicine the assessment factor is generally a factor of 10 lower than that for chemicals.

When conducting the initial risk characterisation for VMP, risk to the sediment and risk for secondary poisoning is not considered. Such a risk characterisation will only be made if the compounds are submitted for a further assessment in a Tier B of Phase II.

6. Conclusions

This report presents the amount of both therapeutically and non-therapeutically veterinary medicinal products used in Denmark. On the basis of the information collected on use, fate and effects of veterinary medicinal products is it possible to draw a number of overall conclusions

No public available database exists on the therapeutically use of veterinary medicines in Denmark. Based on data from Danish Medicines Agency, this report present the amount used in 1996 and 1997.

The Danish Plant Directorate calculates annually the total consumption of growth promoters and medicines for feed additives on single active substance level. Data from the period 1986-1998 is presented in this report.

Data for selected A and B labelled therapeutically used veterinary medicines is included in this report. The sale of V and H labelled substances, such as antiparasitic drugs and, and H labelled compounds, such as acetylicaceticacid, are not registered

Data showed the following use of VMPs in 1997: - 14 tons for the alimentary tract and metabolism - 29 kg of hormones - 230 kg of substances for CNS-active products - 236 kg of antiparasitic drugs - 48.5 tons of antibiotics used for therapeutic applications

The quantity of antiparasitic drugs sold as V-labelled products is most likely significant.

More than 105 tons of antibiotics were used in 1997 non-therapeutically as growth promoters.

17 tons of active substance was used as coccidiostatic in the production of poultry.

The main environmental release of veterinary medicines is through the faeces and urine of treated animals. Very little information is available about the fate of veterinary medicinal products when stored in manure and slurry tanks. It has, however, been shown that certain excretion metabolites can be reactivated and converted into the parent compounds in samples of liquid manure.

Biodegradation data showed that half-lives varies from a few days to years depending on characteristics of the substance, the matrix (e.g. soil, water or manure) and on environmental conditions such as temperature, humidity and pH.

Although submitted to a number of uncertainties, PECsoil calculations was made for a number of substances. Worst case PECsoil estimation was made for hormones (0.01-0.05 µg kg-1), antibiotics (0.2 to 9 mg kg-1) and substances used for treatment of diseases associated with the alimentary tract and the metabolism, (0.04 - 5.7 mg kg -1).

Very few field measurements are available to verify PEC calculations. Oxytetracycline reach concentrations between 0.1 and 11 µg/kg in sediments located in the vicinity of fish farms For cattle, dung concentrations of 1.6 mg / kg ivermectin was measured one week after injection with 0.2 mg ivermectin/kg body weight. After 17 days a reduction in dung concentration to 0.3 mg / kg dung was found.

Antibiotics are shown toxic to algae, crustaceans and fish. Especially blue-green algaes seem very sensitive to some antibiotics

No information is available on effects of VMPs on soil living organisms or soil functions

Many studies have shown that antiparasitic drugs may be lethal for beneficial insects living in dung voided several weeks after treatment of cattle.

Information is lacking on the ecological consequences of a continuous environmental exposure, e.g. in the cases of boli slowly releasing antiparasitic drugs during an entire grazing season, and on the fact that the environment often will be exposed to many drugs and/or other hazardous chemicals simultaneous.

A Guidance Document on how to assess environmental risk of new (i.e. post 1.1.1997) veterinary medicinal products have been published by the EMEA. A guidance on how to assess the environmental risk of already existing VMPs. Apparently there is currently no national or international regulatory strategy on how to deal with environmental risk of existing VMPs.

A number of deviations exist between the risk assessment procedure of veterinary drugs and the procedure used for new and existing chemicals and plant protection products.

The procedure of environmental risk assessment (ERA) of drugs may stop further assessment on the basis of arbitrary cut-off values for the environmental concentration, i.e. a risk characterisation for drugs found in concentrations below 10 µg/kg in dung or soil can be left out. A half-life shorter than 30 days in soil of the parent compound may also stop the need for further assessment.

The required assessment factors used for deriving PNEC for VMPs in the terrestrial environment is at least a factor of 10 lower than the assessment factors prescribed for assessing chemicals.

7. Recommendations

On the basis of the overall conclusions drawn above and the identification of gabs in our knowledge on consumption, release, fate and effects of veterinary medicinal products a number of recommendation is made. The recommendations do not represent the opinion of the individual academia or regulatory authority organisations represented in the advisory group but reflects the opinion of the experts of the group.

The aim of the recommendations is to stimulate regulatory, academia and industry efforts to improve the current understanding and assessment of environmental risks associated with the use of veterinary medicinal products. It is by no means the aim of the recommendations to preclude the use of veterinary medicines in animal health treatment or to hinder a rational medicinal management of livestock in Denmark.

The report identifies a considerable lack of basic knowledge on the environmental release, fate and effects of veterinary medicinal products. Therefore, it is recommended that research in environmental fate and ecotoxicological effects of veterinary medicinal products is stimulated.

The report has furthermore identified certain limitations regarding the assessment of environmental exposure and effects of veterinary medicinal products. In order to improve such assessments, the following recommendations should be considered:

It should be considered to register the use of both prescription and non-prescription veterinary medicinal products. This would provide an overview of all veterinary medicinal products used in Denmark. At present prescription veterinary medicinal products (A- and B-labelled products) are registered, but non-prescription veterinary medicinal products (H- and V-labelled products) are not.

Antimicrobial active substances and antiparasitic substances constitute the greater part of veterinary medicines used in Denmark. Harmful effects on non-target fauna, flora and microbial organisms have been reported for these types of veterinary medicines. Furthermore, the environmental release of these substances and/or their metabolites may be of significance. Nevertheless, the actual impact on the environment of these products is not known. Therefore, it is recommended to consider an evaluation of individual existing high-use substances from these product classes. Such an evaluation could include present concepts and principles in environmental risk assessment procedures for veterinary medicine, and where relevant those employed for other use categories of substances.

Other therapeutic products used in lower quantities (e.g. hormones), which may be suspected of having potential environmental impact may also be considered for further evaluation.

Actions according to the recommendations given above should be considered being made known to other regulatory and scientific bodies in the EU member states for stimulating further improvement of the current EU methodology for environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products.

The advisory group has discussed the current methodologies of environmental risk assessment of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union. In lieu of the recommended use of arbitrary exposure related cut-of-values in the evaluation of veterinary substances, in addition, it may be considered to substitute the use arbitrary cut-of-values in soil and manure with triggers based on biological effects with relevant test organisms. Another alternative is to conduct an actual risk assessment of VMPs, i.e. a comparison of exposure and effects for target environments/environments following the same principles as these for new and existing chemicals.

Furthermore, it may be useful to include new endpoints for the evaluation of some veterinary medicines. Compared to industrial chemicals which often have a general narcotic mode of action, veterinary medicines generally have a specific mode of action. In the light of the current doubt about the existing standardised test battery being sufficient to evaluate e.g. the risk of endocrine disrupters, new and more appropriate test methods for evaluating the risk of certain veterinary medicines could be considered. Prior to the implementation of such new tests, they need, however, to be developed, validated and standardised.

8. References

Addison (1984) Antibiotics in sediments and run-off waters from feedlots. Residue Reviews, Volume 92 pp 1-28.

Batchelder, A.R. (1981) Chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline effects on plant growth and development in liquid cultures. Journal of Environmental Quality Vol 10(4) p.515-518.

Batchelder, A.R. (1982) Chlortetracyline and oxytetracykline effects on plant growth and development in soil systems. Journal of Environmental Quality Vol 11(4) p.675-678.

Berger, K., B. Petersen and H. Buening-Pfaue (1986) Persistence of drugs occurring in liquid manure in the food chain. Archiv fuer Lebensmittelhygiene Vol. 37(4) p. 99-102 (in German)

Björklund H., Bondestam J. and Bylund G. (1990) Residues of Oxytetracycline in Wild Fish and Sediments from Fish Farms. Aquaculture Vol. 86 pp 359/67.

Björklund, H., Råbergh, C.M.I. and Bylund, G., (1991) Residues of oxolinic acid and oxytretracykline in fish and sediments from fish farms. Thesis, Department of Biology, Åbo Akademi University, Finland.

Blume R.R., Younger R.L. Aga A. and Myers C.J. (1976) Southwestern Ent. Vol. 1 pp 100.

Brambilla G., Civitareale C. and Migliore L. (1994) Experimental toxicity and analysis of bacitracin, flumequine and sulphadimethoxine in terrestrial and aquatic organisms as a predictive model for ecosystem damage. Quimica analitica 13 (supp 1) pp 114/18.

Bull D.L., Ivie G.W., MacConnell J.G., Gruber V.F., Ku C.C., Arison B.H., Stevenson J.M. and Van den Heuvel W.J.A. (1984) Fate of Avermectin B1A in soil and plants. J. Agric Food. Chem. Vol. 32. pp. 94-102.

Canton, J.H. and Van Esch, G.J. (1976) The Short-term Toxicity of Some Feed Additives to Different Freshwater Organisms. Bull. Env. Contam. Toxicol. Vol. 15 pp. 720-725.

Carli S., Perretta G., Monti F., Sonzogni O. and Faustini R. (1982) Serum levels, tissue distribution and residues of neomycin following intra muscular administration in chicks. J. of Vet. Pharm. and Therap. Vol. 5 p. 203/7.

Chiu S-H. L., Green M.L., Baylis F.P., Eline D., Rosegay A., Meriwether H. and Jacob T.A. (1990) Absorption, Tissue, Distribution and Excretion of Tritium-Labelled Ivermectin in Cattle, Sheep and Rat. J. Agric. Food. Chem. Vol. 38 pp 2072-78.

Cihak, R., Srb.V. and Vontorkova M. (1983) Cytogenetic effects of quinoloxaline - 1.4 - dioxide - type growth promoting agents. Mutation Research Vol. 116 pp. 129/35.

Coyne, R., Hiney, M., O´Conner, B., Cazabon, D. and Smith P. (1994) Concentration and persistence of oxytetracycline in sediments under a marine salmon farm. Aquaculture Vol. 123 pp 31-42.

Cravedi, J.P., Choubert, G. and Delous, G., (1987) Digestibility of chloramphenicol, oxolinic acid and oxytetracycline in rainbow trout and influence of these antibiotics on lipid digestibility. Aquaculture 60:133-141.

Dojmi di Delupis, G., Macri, A., Civitareale, C. and Migliore, L. (1992) Antibiotics of zootechnical use: effects of acute high and low dose contamination on Daphia magna Straus. Aquatic Toxicology Vol. 22. pp 53-60.

Donoho, A.L. (1984) Biochemical studies of the fate of monensin in animals and in the environment. Journal of Animal Science Vol. 58(6) pp. 1528-39.

EMEA/CVMP/055/96 (1996). Note for Guidance: Environmental Risk Assessment for Veterinary Medical products other than GMO-containing and Immunological Products. The European Agency for the Evaluation of medicinal Products (EMEA), Veterinary medicines Evaluation Unit, London.

Ervik, A., O. B. Samuelsen, J.E., Juell and H. Sveier (1994a) Reduced environmental impact of antibacterial agents applied in fish farms using the liftUp feed collector system or a hydroacoustic feed detector. Dis. Aquat. Org. Vol 19 pp 101-104.

Ervik, A., B. Thorsen, V. Eriksen, B.T. Lunestad and O.B. Samuelsen (1994b) Impact of administrated antibacterial agents on wild fish and blue mussels Mytilus edulis in the vinicity of fish farms. Dis. Aquat. Org. Vol. 18 pp 45-51.

EU (European Union). Commission of the European Communities 1993.HEDSET explanatory note. Harmonised Electronic Data Set for the Council Regulation on the Evaluation and Control of the Risk of Existing Substances and the OECD Existing Chemicals programme, pp 5-8, EC, Brussels.

EU (European Union) 92/18/EEC:

EU (European Union) 94/40/EEC: Commission of the European Communities. 1994. Council Directive 94/40/EEC of 22. July 1994 on the changes of Council Directive 87/153/EEC laying down the principles for the assessment of feed additives.

EU (European Union) 67/548/EEC: Commission of the European Communities. 1967. Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 18 August 1967 on the approximation of the laws, regulation and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances. Off. J. Eur. Comm. L96/1

EU (European Union ) 92/32/EEC: Commission of the European Communities. 1992. Council Directive of 30 April 1992 amending for the seventh time Directive.

EU (European Union) 67/548/EEC on the approximation of the laws, regulation and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (92/32/EEC). Off. J. Eur. Comm. L154/1.

EU (European Union) 93/67/EEC: Commission of the European Communities. 1993. Commission Directive 93/67/EEC of 20 July 1993, laying down the principles for the assessment of risk to man and the environment of substances notified in accordance with Council Directive 67/548/EEC. Off. J. Eur. Comm. L227.

EU (European Union) 91/414/EEC: Commission of the European Communities. 1991. Council Directive 91/414/EEC of 15 July 1991 concerning the placing of plant protection products on the market. Off. J. Eur. Comm. L230/1.

EU (European Union) 1996. Commission of the European Communities. 1996. Technical Guidance Document in support of Commission Directive 93/67/EEC on risk assessment for new notified substances and Commission regulation (EC) No 1488/94 on risk assessment for existing substances. Part I-IV.

EU (European Union) (1993). Directive 75/318/EEC. Technical Directive concerning human medicinal products.

EU (European Union) (1993). Directive 81/852/EEC. Technical directive concerning veterinary medicinal products. Amended since 1. April 1993.

EU (European Union) (1994). Ad hoc working party on environmental risk assessment for non GMO containing medical products for human use. EU draft guideline III/5504/94 draft 4., Brussels, Belgium.

FDA ( Food and Drug Administration) (1985) FDA Final Rule for Compliance with National Environmental Policy Act: Policy and Procedures, Federal Register 50 FR 16636, 21 CFR 25, 26 April 1985.

FDA ( Food and Drug Administration) (1987) Environmental Assessment Technical Assistance Handbook (FDA Centre for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Environmental Impact Section, Match 1987), NTIS PB87-175345.

FDA (Food and Drug Administration) (1995) Guidance for Industry for the Submission of an Environmental Assessment in Human Drug Application and Supplements. CDER, Washington.

Fedler and Day (1985) Anaerobic digestion of swine manure containing an antibiotic inhibitor. Agriculture waste utilisation and management pp. 523/30.

Fincher G.T. (1992) Injectable Ivermectin for Cattle: Effects on some Dung-Inhabiting Insects. Environmental Entomology Vol. 21 pp 871-876.

Gavalchin J. and S.E. Katz (1994) The persistence of faecal-borne antibiotics in soil. J. of AOEC international Vol. 77 No 2. pp 481/85.

Gibson, G. and P. Skett (1986) Introduction to drug metabolism. Chapman and Hall. London.

Gilbertson T.J., Hornish R.E., Jaglan P.S., Koshy K.T., Nappier J.L., Stahl G.L., Cazers A.R., Napplier J.M., Kubicek M.F., Hoffman G.A. and Hamlow P.J. (1990) Environmental Fate of Ceftiofur Sodium, a Cephalosporin Antibiotic. Role of Animal Excreta in Its Decomposition. J. Agric. Food Chem. Vol. 38 pp 890-894.

Gool, S. van (1993) Possible environmental effects of antibiotic residues in animal manure. Tijdschrift voor Diergeneeeskunde (Netherland) p. 8/10. (in dutch) (summary in english)

Gruber, V.F, Hallay B.A, Hwang S.C. and Ku C.C (1990) Mobility of avermectin Bla in soil. Journal of agricultural and food chemistry Vol. 38 pp.886-890.

Halley B.A., Jacob T.A. and Lu A.Y.H. (1989) The environmental impact of the use of iverrmectin. Environmental effects and fate. Chemosphere Vol. 18 pp 1543/63.

Halling-Sørensen, B., S. Nors Nielsen, P.F. Lansky, F. Ingerslev, H.C. Holten Lützhøft and S.E. Jørgensen (1998) Occurence, Fate and Effects of Pharmaceuticals in the Environment - A Review. Chemosphere Vol. 36 (2) pp 357-393.

Hansen, P.K., Lunestad, B.T. and Samuelson, O.B. (1992) Effects of oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid and flumequine on bacteria in a marine aquaculture sediment. In: Lunestad, B.T. 1992, Environmental effects of antibacterial agents used in aquaculture. Thesis, Department of Microbiology and Plant Physiology, University of Bergen, Norway.

Harrass, M.C., Kinding, A.C. and Taub, F.B. (1985) Responses of Blue-green and Green Algae to Streptomycin in Unialgal and Paired Culture. Aquatic Toxicology Vol. 6 p. 1-11.

Hektoen, H., Berge, J.A., Hormazabal, V. and Yndestad, M. (1995) Persistence of Antibacterial Agents in Marine Sediments. Aquaculture Vol. 133 p. 175-184

Holter, P., C. Sommer, J. Grønvold and M. Madsen (1993) Effects of ivermectin treatment on the attention of dung beetles to cow pats. Bull. Entomol. Research.

Husevåg B., Lunestad B.T., Johannesen P.J, Enger Ø. and Samuelsen O.B. (1991) Simultaneous occurrence of Vibrio salmonicida and antibiotic-resistant bacteria in sediment at abandoned aquaculture sites. J. of Fish Diseases Vol. 14 pp 631/40.

Ilektone H., Berge J.A., Nygaard K., Schaaring M., Hormazabal V. and Yndestad M (1993) Norsk Vetrinaer-skrift. Vol. 105(1) pp. 27/31.

Jacobsen, P. and Berglind, L., (1988) Persistence of Oxytetracycline in Sediments from Fish Farms. Aquaculture. Vol.70 p.365-370.

Kerry, J., (1995b) Study of antibiotic resistance associated with the use of antimicrobial agents in fish farms. Ph.D. Thesis. National University of Ireland, Dublin.

Kerry, J., Hiney, M., Coyne, R., NicGabhainn, S., Gilroy, D., Cazabon, D. and Smith P., (1995b) Fish feed as a source of oxytetracycline-resistent bacteria in the sediment under fish farms. Aquaculture Vol. 131 pp 101/113.

Kopf , W. (1995) Wirkung endokriner Stoffe in Biotests mit Wasserorganismen. Vortrag bei der 50. Fachtagung des Bay. LA für Wasserwirtschaft: Stoffe mit endokriner Wirkung im Wasser (Abstact) (in germen).

Lanzky P.F. and B. Halling-Sørensen. (1997) The toxic effect of the antibiotic metronidazol on aquatic organisms. Chemosphere. Vol. 35(11) pp 2553-2561.

Lilius, H., Hästbacka, T. and Isomaa, B. (1995) A comparison of the toxicity of 30 reference chemicals to Daphnia magna and Daphnia pulex. Envir. Toxicol. Chem. Vol. 14 pp 2085-2088.

Lumaret J.P. (1988?) Toxicite de certains helminthicides vis -a-vis des insectes coprophages et consequence sur la disparition des excrements de la surface du sol. Acta Oecol. Vol 7 p. 313-324.

Lumaret J.P., Galante E., Lumbreras C., Mena J., Bertrand M., Bernal J.L., Cooper J.F., Kadiri N. and Crowe D. (1993) Field effects of ivermectin residues on dung beetles. Journal of Applied Ecology Vol. 30 pp 428/36.

Lunestad, B.T. (1992a) Environmental effects of antibacterial agents used in aquaculture. Doctor thesis at the University of Bergen, Norway. 60 pages (in english)

Lunestad , B.T. (1992b) Fate and effects of antibacterial agents in aquatic enviornments. In: Chemotherapy in Aquaculture: From theory to reality. Michel, C and Aldermand, D.J (eds.) Office Internatl. des Epizooties, Paris p.152-161.

Macrì, A., and Sbardella, E. (1984) Toxicological Evaluation of Nitrofurazone and Furaltadone on Selenastrum capricornutum , Daphnia magna and Musca domestica. Ecotoxicol. Envir. Safety Vol. 8. pp.101-105.

Macrì, A., Staza, A.V. and Dojmi di Delupis, G. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Furazolidone on Artemia salina, Daphnia magna, and Culex pipiens molestus Larvae. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Safety Vol. 16 p. 90-94.

Madsen M, Overgaard-Nielsen B., Holter P., Pedersen O.C., Brøchner Jespersen J., Vagn Jensen K-M., Nansen P. and Grønvold J. (1990) Treating cattle with ivermectin: Effects on the fauna and decomposition of dung pats. Journal of Applied Ecology Vol. 27 pp 1-15.

Martindale (1996) The Extra Pharmacopoeia. 31. edition. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society. London. England

Mayer J.A., Simco J.S. and Lancaster J.L. (1980) Control of face fly larvel development with the ivermectin MK-933. Southwestern Entomologist Vol. 5 pp 207/09.

Miller J.A., Kunz S.E., Oehler D.D. and Miller R.W. (1981) Larvicidal activity of Merck MK-933, an Avermectin, against the horn fly, stable fly and house fly. Journal of Economic Entomology Vol. 74 pp 608-611.

Migliore L., Civitareale C., Brambilla G., and Di Delupis G.D. (1997) Toxicity of several important agricultural antibiotics to artemia. Water Research Vol.31 no 7 pp.1801-1806.

Nessel R.J., Wallace D.H., Wehner T.A., Tait W.E. and Gomez L. (1989) Environmental fate of ivermectin in a cattle feedlot. Chemosphere Vol. 18 pp 1531-41.

Nygaard K., B.T. Lunestad, H. Hektonen, J.A. Berge and V. Hormazabal (1992) Resistance to oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid and furazolidone in bacteria from marine sediments. Aquaculture Vol. 104 pp 31-36.

Oka H., Ikai Y., Kawamura N., Yamada M., Harada K., Ito S. and Suzuki M. (1989) Photodecomposition Products of Tetracycline in Aqueous Solution. J. Agric. Food. Chem. Vol. 37 (1) pp 226/31.

Paul, H.E. and M.F. Paul (1964) The nitrofurans-chemotherapeutic properties, p. 307-370. In: Schnitzer, R.J. and F. Hawking (eds) Experimental chemotherapy, Vol. II. Academic Press, New York.

Petersen, A., J.E. Olsen, A. Dalsgaard (1997) Forekomst af antibiotikaresistente bakterier i akvatiske miljøer. Miljøprojekt nr. 361. ISBN nr 87-7810-800-4. Udgivet af Miljø - og Energi ministeriet. Miljøstyrelsen Standgade 29. 1401 København K. (in danish)

Pouliquen H., Le Bris H. and Pinault L. (1992) Experimental study of the therapeutic application of oxytetracycline, its attenuation in sediment and sea water, and implications for farm culture of benthic organisms. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. Vol. 189 pp.93-98.

Pouliquen H., Le Bris H. and Pinault L. (1993) Experimental study on the decomposition kinetics of seawater polluted by oxytetracycline contained in effluents released from fish farm located in a salt-march. Aquaculture Vol. 112 pp.113/123.

Pursell L., Samuelsen O.B. and Smith P. (1995) Reduction in the in-vitro activity of flumequine against Aeromonas salmonicida in the presence of the concentration of Mg 2+ and Ca 2+ ions found in sea water. Aquaculture Vol. 135 pp 245/55.

Ridsdill-Smith T.J. (1988) Survival and reproduction of Musca Vetustissima Walker (Diptera:Muscidea) and a scarabaeine dung beetle in dung of cattle treated with avermectin B1. J. Aust. ent. soc. Vol. 27 pp 175/78.

Roij Th.A.J.M. de and Vries P.H.U. de (1982) Milieutoxicologishe aspecten van het gebruik van veevoederadditiven en therapeutica, Persistentie in dierlijke excreta en milieu. serie Bodembescherming 4: p.1-134 (in dutch).

Sams, R. (1993) Chemical assay of avermectins by high performance liquid chromatogaphy with florescence detection. Veterinary Parasitology Vol. 48 pp 59-66.

Samuelsen, O.B. (1989) Degradation of Oxytetracycline in Seawater at Two Different Temperatures and Light Intensities, and the Persistence of Oxytetracycline in the Sediment from a Fish Farm. Aquaculture Vol. 83 pp. 7-16.

Samuelsen, O.B., Torsvik, V. and Ervik, A. (1992a) Long-range changes in oxytetracycline concentration and bacterial resistance towards oxytetracycline in a fish farm sediment after medication. Sci. Tot. Environ. Vol. 114 p. 25-36

Samuelsen O.B., B.T. Lunestad, B. Husevåg, T. Hølleland and A. Ervik (1992b) Residues of oxolinic acid in wild fauna following medication in fish farms. Dis. aquat. Org. Vol. 12 pp 111/19.

Sandaa R-A., Torsvik V.L. and Goksøyr J. (1992) Transferable drug resistance in bacteria from fish-farm sediment. Can. J. Microbiology Vol. 38 pp 1061/65.

Schmidt C.D. (1983) Activity of an Avermectin against Selected Insects in Aging Manure. Environmental Entomology Vol. 12 pp 455-457.

Shore L.S., Shemesh M. and Cohen R. (1988) The role of oestradiol and oestrone in chicken manure silage in hyperoestrogenism in cattle. Aust. Vet. J. Vol. 65 p.67.

Smith P. and Samuelsen O.B. (1996) Estimates of the significance of out-washing of oxytetracycline from sediments under Atlantic Salmon sea-cages. Aquaculture Vol. 144 pp 17/26.

Sommer C. (1992a) Environmental consequences of ivermectin usage. Ph.D. thesis, Institute of Population Biology, University of Copenhagen, Denmark (in english).

Sommer, C., B. Steffansen, B. Overgaard Nielsen, J. Grønvold, K.-M. Vagn Jensen, J. Brøchner Jespersen, J. Springborg and P. Nansen (1992b) Ivermectin excreted in cattle dung after subcutaneous injection or pour-on treatment: concentration and impact on dung fauna. Bull. Entomol. Research Vol. 82 pp. 257-264.

Sommer C. and B. Overgaard Nielsen (1992c) Larvae of the dung beetle Onthophagus gazella F. (Col., Scarabaeidae) exposed to lethal and sublethal ivermectin concentrations. Journal of Applied Entomology Vol. 114 pp 502-509.

Southcott W.H. (1980) Aust Vet. J. Vol. 56 p. 202.

Spaepen, K.R.I., L.J.J. van Leemput, P.G. Wislocke and C. Verschueren. A uniform procedure to estimate the predicted environmental concentrations of the residue of veterinary medicines in soil. Environ. Toxicol. and Chem. Vol. 16 pp 1977/82

Strong L. and Wall R. (1994) Effects of ivermectin and monoxidectin on the insects of cattle dung. Bulletin of Entomological Research Vol. 84 pp 403-409.

Sutton A.L., Nye J.C., Patterson J.A., Kelley D.T. and Furumoto-Elkin E.J. (1989) Effects of Avilamycin in swine and poultry wastes on methane production in anaerobic digersters. Biological Wastes Vol. 30 pp 35/45.

Thomulka, K.W., McGee, D.J. and Lange, J.H. (1993) Detection of Bioharzardous Materials in Water by Measuring Bioluminescence Reduction with the Marine Organism Vibrio harveyi. J. Envir. Sci. Health A28. pp 2153-2166.

Yeager R.L. and Halley B.A. (1990) Sorption/desorption of 14C[efromycin] with soils. Journal of agriculture and food chemistry. Vol 38 pp.883-886.

Vancutsum P.M., Babish J.G. and Schwark W.S. (1990) The flouroquinolones antimicrobials, structure, antimicrobial activity, pharmacokinetics, chemical use in domestic animals and toxicity. Cornell Vet. Vol. 80 pp 173/86.

Walker N. (1978) A soil Flavobacterium sp. that Degrades Sulphanilamide and Asulam. Journal of Applied Bacteriology. Vol. 45 pp 125-29.

Wall and Strong (1987) Environmental consequences of treating cattle with the antiparasitic drug ivermectin. Nature Vol. 327 pp. 418-421.

Wardhaugh K.G. and Rodriquez-Mendez H. (1988) The effects of the antiparasitic drug, ivermectin, on the development and survival of the dung-breeding fly, Orthelia cornicina (F) and the scarabaeine dung beetles, Copris hispanus L., Bubas bubalus (Oliver) and Onitis belial (F). Journal of Applied Entomology Vol. 106 pp 381-389.

Wardhaugh K.G., Holter P., Whitby W.A. and Shelley K. (1996) Effects of drug residues in the faces of cattle treated with injectable formulations of ivermectin and moxidectin on larvea of the bush fly, Musca vetustissima and the house fly, Musca domestica. Aust Vet. J. Vol. 74 No 5 pp 370/74.

Warman P.R and R.L. Thomas (1981) Chlortetracycline in soil amended with poultry manure. Canadian Journal of Soil Science Vol. 61(1) p.161-163.

Warman P.R. (1980) The effect of Amprolium and Aureomycin [antibiotic] on the nitrification of poultry manure-amended soil. Journal of the soil Science Society of America Vol. 44(6) p.1333-1334.

Weston, D.P., Capone, D.G, Hervig, R.P. and Staley, J.T. (1994) Environmental fate and effects of aquacultural antibacterials in Puget Sound: A report of the University of California pusuant to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Award no. NA26FD0109-01). University of California, Berkeley.

Veterinærmedicinsk produktkatalog (1997) Veterinærmedicinsk Industriforening. Strødamvej 50A. DK-2100 Kbh Ø. ISSN nr. 1395-7430. (in danish).

Wratten S.D. and Forbes A.B. (1996) Environmental assessment of veterinary avermectins in temperate pastoral ecosystems. Ann. appl. Biol. Vol. 128 pp 329-348.

9. Appendix A - List of CAS and ATC codes for substances quantified.

10. Appendix B - Danish legislation

The following laws and regulations regulates the therapeutic and non-therapeutic application of veterinary medical substances in Denmark

1) The medicinal law, "Lægemiddelloven"¹, regulates all aspects concerning the application of medicine including veterinary medicine and medicinal feed additives.

This includes the V-marked substances such as antiparacetic agents, e.g. ivermectin, iron and vitamins used in livestock production and that can be purchased without a prescription or requisition. The consumption of V-marked substances are not quantified in any official register. Antiparacetic agents also differs from other veterinary medicines in the way that they may be sold from other sources than from pharmacies even though they are registered as a medical substance. Veterinary vaccines are primarily sold as indicated in "lægemiddelloven" through the Danish Veterinary Laboratory.

The import of feed administered drugs² applicable to animals and fish are regulated by the Danish Medicines Agency. Information concerning the production and sales of medicinal substances on single product level may be purchased by the Ministry of Health from companies or trade organisations, if necessary.

2)"Bekendtgørelsen om foderlægemidler til dyr"³, regulates the import, export, production, control and sale of feed administered drugs for livestock. The term medical feed additive is applied to all mixtures of medicinal compounds (pre-mixtures) with one or more feed ingredients. The product is pre-mixtured before sale with the intention to either have actual treatment of diseases (therapeutic use) or help in precautions treatment (non-therapeutic use). Feed administered drugs may only be prepared with registered medicinal compounds. These preparations of medical substances used in feed named "premix" may be sold under the supervision of the Danish Medicines Agency by both specially authorised feed companies and pharmacies. Data have to be collected, on a daily basis, by the company producing feed administered drugs, on the amount sold of active substance, the name and address of the livestock owner and the prescribing veterinarian. The Danish Plant Directorate issues a list of the applied amounts of feed administred drugs to livestock on a yearly basis.

Only companies registered by the Danish Medicines Agency may produce medicinal feed additives. The permission is given in co-operation with the Danish Plant Directorate. These companies are mutually supervised by the Danish Medicines Agency and Danish Plant Directorate.

3) "Bekendtgørelsen om foderlægemidler til fisk"⁴, regulates the use of feed administred drugs to fish. This regulation is similar as the one for animals2 on main issues and is Also issued annually by the Danish Plant Directorate.

4) "Bekendgørelse om tilsætningsstoffer"⁵ regulates the preparation, sales and application of feed additives used non-therapeutic such as antibiotics, cocciostatics and growth promoters. For each single feed additives including medicinal products the Danish Medicines Agency issues detailed regulations, for individual types of livestock, regarding withdrawal times, maximum applicable quantities for certain livestocks and maximum concentration of drug in the feed. Also here the Danish Plant Directorate supervises that issued regulations are kept and inspects from time to time the companies that are licensed allowed to prepare feed additives.

5) "Apotekerloven"⁶, is the law regulating pharmacies. This law regulates all sales of medical products and determents all practise in pharmacies. The Danish Medicines Agency guides and controls the pharmacies. The Ministry of Health may decide, if it is considered necessary, that companies and trade organisations provides the ministry with information concerning the production and sales of single medicinal products.

For all veterinary medicinal products sold on prescription through pharmacies information on the veterinarians name, address, medicinal formulation, amount prescribed and date of issue is kept by the pharmacy. These informations may be coded for eventual registration. The amount of veterinary medical substances sold without prescription (H or V marked) are also registered by the pharmacies but less detailed.

6) "Husdyrsygdomsloven"⁷ , is the law regulating treatment of diseases in livestock. The law primarily ensure that diseases do not spread due to unexpected side effects due to the use of veterinary medicine. For certain veterinary medical products, e.g. vaccines, immunological products and antibiotics certain withdrawal times may be introduced before for example slaughtering or milk production. In fish farms withdrawal times are also introduced after antibiotic application. The Danish Medicines Agency regulates these withdrawal times for a substance in concern in connection with the registration of the compound. The Danish Veterinary and Food Administration inform all veterinarians on withdrawal times for new substances.

7) Dyrelægeloven⁸, is the law concerned with veterinarian praxis. The law guides the veterinarian with the application, prescription and handling of veterinary drugs. A veterinarian may only prescribe and hand over veterinary medicinal product in connection with personal treatment of the livestock.

Hormones⁹ and hormone mimicking substances may not be used in livestock production with the purpose of growth promotion. Sulfadimidin may not be used for pigs.

Treatment of livestock with antibiotics is specially regulated. Antibiotics may only be used as therapeutics to livestock when an infection is diagnosed.

11. Appendix C. Quantification of the use of single substances.

Tabel C 1
Forbruget af lægemiddelstoffer (tons aktivt stof i) 1996 og 1997, anvendt terapeutisk til fordøjelse og metabolisme sygdomme (gruppe QA).

Table C 1
Consumption (tons active substance) in 1996 and 1997 used therapeutically for the alimentary tract and metabolism (gruop QA).

Tabel C 2
Forbruget af lægemiddelstoffer (kg aktiv stof) til hormon behandling i 1996 og 1997 (gruppe QH og QG). * Antibiotika givet sammen med hormoner.

Table C 2
Consumption (kg active substance) in 1996 and 1997 of hormones (gruop QH and QG).

* Antibiotics in connection with hormones.

Tabel C 3.
Forbruget af antibiotika (tons aktiv stof) anvendt terapeutisk i 1996 og 1997 (gruppe QJ01 og QJ51).

Table C 3.
Consumption (tons active substance) in 1996 and 1997 of antibiotics for therapeutical treatment (gruop QJ01+QJ51).

Tabel C 4.
Forbruget af anæstetika (tons aktiv stof) i 1996 og 1997.

Table C 4.
Consumption (tons active substance) in 1996 and 1997 of Central Nervous System (CNS) active substances.

Tabel C 5
Forbruget af antiparasit midler (tons aktiv stof) (A eller B udlevering) i 1996 og 1997(gruppe QP).

Table C 5
Consumption of antiparacetic agents (tons active substance) in 1996 and 1997(A or B labelled substances) (gruop QP).

Tabel C 6
Forbruget af antibiotika (tons aktiv stof) som antimicrobielle vækst fremmere i Danmark i perioden 1989-97 samt første halvår af 1998. Kilde: Plantedirektoratet.

Table C 6
Consumption of Antibiotics (tons active substance) used as Antimicrobial Growth Promoters in Denmark 1989-97 and for the first six months of 1998. Source: The Danish Plant Directorate.

Look here!

Tabel C 7.
Forbruget af Coccidiostatika (tons aktiv stof) i Danmark i 1989-1997 samt de første 6 måneder af 1998. Kilde: Platedirektoratet.

Table C 7.
Consumption of Coccidiostatics (tons active substance) in Denmark in 1989-1997 and first six months of 1998. Source: The Danish Plant Directorate

Look here!

Tabel C 8.
Opgørelse over forbruget af forderlægemidler (kg aktiv stof) i Danmark i 1995 og 1996. Kilde: Plantedirektoratet.

Table C 8.
Consumption of Feed Administrated Drugs ( kg active substance) used in poultry. fish farms and livestock. Data from 1995 and 1996. Source: The Danish Plant Directorate.

Tabel C 9
Forbruget af antimicrobielle vækstfremmer (tons aktiv stof) i 1995 for forskellige dyre typer. Kilde: Plantedirektoratet. Fordeling på dyrearter er baseret på skøn.

Table C 9.
Consumption of antimicrobial growth promoters (tons active substance) during 1995 distributed on differet animal species, Source: The Danish Plant Directorate. Distribution amoung animal species is estimated.

* Used as coccidiostatics.
** Approximately 1.3 Tons used in mink.

Table C 10
Calculation example showing how the data recveied from the Dansh Medical Agency was translated from packet numbers in to weight of active compound

12. Appendix D

D1
- Detailed list on therapeutically used single substances

D2
- Detailed list on non- therapeutically used single substances

* Source: Veterinærmedicinsk produktkatalog

13. Appendix E

Worst case PEC calculations for veterinary medical substances in Denmark

References to daily doses: Veterinærmedicinsk Produktkatalog 1997

I. Scenario applying manure from fattening pigs on arable land. 150 kg N / ha / year

Antibiotics. Feed administrated drug - premix

Look here!
 

Antibiotics. Antimicrobial growth promoters. Fattening pigs: 2.5 kg daily feed (Personal communication H. Damgaard Petersen, DJF, Faulum)

Look her!
  

Antibiotics. Administred by injections.

Look here!
  

Hormones

Look here!
 

Alimentary tract and metabolisms

Look here!

II. Scenario applying manure from slaughter calf on arable land. 265 kg N / ha / year

Antibiotics administred by injection.

Look here!
 

Hormones

Look here!
  

Alimentary tract and metabolisms

Look here!
 

CNS substances

Look here!

14. Appendix F

Table F2. Fate of medical compounds in the environment.

Look here!

15. Appendix G

Table G. Toxic effects of medical compounds on the environment.

Look here!

16. Appendix H - Terminology and abbreviations