Review of the methodology used for the assessment of the short‐term (acute) dietary exposure to pesticide residues in food (IESTI methodology)

In accordance with the mandate under Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA reviewed the methodology used for the assessment of the short-term dietary exposure to pesticide residues currently used in the EU (also known as international estimated short-term intake (IESTI) methodology) and elaborated three alternative options for exposure calculations that would address some of the weak points of the current methodology. For more than 400 pesticide/commodity combinations, comparative calculations were performed using the current IESTI methodology and the proposed alternative calculation algorithms. This impact assessment illustrated that the food commodities currently falling under IESTI case 1, 2a, 2b and 3, respectively, would be affected to a different extent if the IESTI methodology is replaced as proposed in the alternative calculation options. In addition, EFSA performed a probabilistic exposure calculation based on monitoring data for 62 pesticides present in food products that are the main components of the diet of EU citizens. These calculations can give an indication whether the legal limits (maximum residue levels, MRLs), which have been set after they passed the acute risk assessment using the IESTI methodology, are sufficiently protective for European consumers. The calculations identified that for the majority of pesticide/population subgroups, the probability of an exposure above the acute reference dose (ARfD) was negligible. However, for a few cases, the probability of an exposure above the ARfD could not be ruled out. Nevertheless, given the conservative assumptions used in the probabilistic calculations and the absence of data to refine the exposure estimates, the current maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the selected pesticides are considered to offer a good protection for European consumers. Overall, the probabilistic exposure calculations should support further discussions at risk management level whether the level of conservatism of the revised methodology needs to increase compared with the current IESTI methodology.