When it comes to dealing with regulatory bodies, it is
notoriously tricky and I am sorry to say that many of my interactions have not
left me in “my happy” place. However,
the announcement by the EPA on April 7 th was exciting enough for me
to jump up and dance! The ruling is
equally important for both human and animal health so I did not just do a happy
dance, I did a Puppy Monkey Baby dance!
For those who did not watch the Super Bowl and were lucky enough to have
escaped seeing the Puppy
Monkey Baby (PMB) I will apologize for any mental scaring or nightmares I
may cause as a result of you watching the video. Without a doubt Mountain Dew produced one of
the most disturbing commercials of Super Bowl 50 and probably in the life of
commercials with its terrifying puppy-monkey-baby hybrid.
notoriously tricky and I am sorry to say that many of my interactions have not
left me in “my happy” place. However,
the announcement by the EPA on April 7 th was exciting enough for me
to jump up and dance! The ruling is
equally important for both human and animal health so I did not just do a happy
dance, I did a Puppy Monkey Baby dance!
For those who did not watch the Super Bowl and were lucky enough to have
escaped seeing the Puppy
Monkey Baby (PMB) I will apologize for any mental scaring or nightmares I
may cause as a result of you watching the video. Without a doubt Mountain Dew produced one of
the most disturbing commercials of Super Bowl 50 and probably in the life of
commercials with its terrifying puppy-monkey-baby hybrid.
Until the announcement of the Updated Emerging Pathogens
Guidance disinfectant registrants were forced to test each and every virus they
wanted to make a claim against. This of
course causes significant issues when new viruses “pop up” leading to significant
outbreaks such as Ebola, Enterovirus D68 or Porcine Endemic Diarrhea virus
(PEDv). When an outbreak erupts as a
result of a new virus, it can take a considerable amount of time to identify
what the new virus is (e.g. think back to SARS when we had no clue what the
virus was). If we have not yet
identified the virus, a disinfectant manufacturer cannot have their product
tested against it. Even if the virus has
been identified it can be months or years before a method is developed that
meets the EPA’s requirements to allow for label claims. There can also be times such as with
Norovirus where surrogates must be used because the actual virus just cannot be
cultured and grown in a lab in the way needed to conduct disinfectant efficacy
testing.
Guidance disinfectant registrants were forced to test each and every virus they
wanted to make a claim against. This of
course causes significant issues when new viruses “pop up” leading to significant
outbreaks such as Ebola, Enterovirus D68 or Porcine Endemic Diarrhea virus
(PEDv). When an outbreak erupts as a
result of a new virus, it can take a considerable amount of time to identify
what the new virus is (e.g. think back to SARS when we had no clue what the
virus was). If we have not yet
identified the virus, a disinfectant manufacturer cannot have their product
tested against it. Even if the virus has
been identified it can be months or years before a method is developed that
meets the EPA’s requirements to allow for label claims. There can also be times such as with
Norovirus where surrogates must be used because the actual virus just cannot be
cultured and grown in a lab in the way needed to conduct disinfectant efficacy
testing.
The need for considering the hierarchy of susceptibility is
not new. There was an excellent article written in
2007 by Dr. Syed Sattar, a world renowned microbiologist who recommended “In the case of new and emerging viruses
still awaiting culture and full characterization, it is proposed that any
official recommendations for disinfectant use be based on the well-established
hierarchy of susceptibility to such chemicals as related to virus particle size
and structure”. Several countries
including Canada, Australia and several in Europe have implemented a “General
Virucide Claim” whereby a disinfectant, if it has shown efficacy against one or
more viruses such as poliovirus, adenovirus or parvovirus, allows a product to
state that it has the ability to kill both enveloped and non-enveloped
viruses. This claim can then be applied
in the event of an outbreak by a virus of unknown origin. This is exactly what Canada did in 2003
during the SARS outbreak.
not new. There was an excellent article written in
2007 by Dr. Syed Sattar, a world renowned microbiologist who recommended “In the case of new and emerging viruses
still awaiting culture and full characterization, it is proposed that any
official recommendations for disinfectant use be based on the well-established
hierarchy of susceptibility to such chemicals as related to virus particle size
and structure”. Several countries
including Canada, Australia and several in Europe have implemented a “General
Virucide Claim” whereby a disinfectant, if it has shown efficacy against one or
more viruses such as poliovirus, adenovirus or parvovirus, allows a product to
state that it has the ability to kill both enveloped and non-enveloped
viruses. This claim can then be applied
in the event of an outbreak by a virus of unknown origin. This is exactly what Canada did in 2003
during the SARS outbreak.
The EPA’s
Emerging Pathogen Guidance is not perfect, but it is certainly better than
nothing! Under the new guidance document,
the EPA outlines to registrants the viral hierarchy that can be used to
identify effective disinfectant products for the use against emerging pathogens.
In addition to this, it now permits registrants to make limited claims of their
product’s efficacy against such pathogens. According to the EPA, the
intention of the new guidance applies only to emerging viruses and is intended
to allow for a voluntary, two stage process that involves product label
amendments and modified terms of registration. Unlike the countries noted above where there is
a blanket General Virucide Claim, the EPA has decided that this guidance may be
taken for eligible products ONLY
after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Organization
for Animal Health (OIE) has identified an emerging pathogen (new or
re-emerging) where environmental surface disinfection has been recommended to
help control its spread.
Emerging Pathogen Guidance is not perfect, but it is certainly better than
nothing! Under the new guidance document,
the EPA outlines to registrants the viral hierarchy that can be used to
identify effective disinfectant products for the use against emerging pathogens.
In addition to this, it now permits registrants to make limited claims of their
product’s efficacy against such pathogens. According to the EPA, the
intention of the new guidance applies only to emerging viruses and is intended
to allow for a voluntary, two stage process that involves product label
amendments and modified terms of registration. Unlike the countries noted above where there is
a blanket General Virucide Claim, the EPA has decided that this guidance may be
taken for eligible products ONLY
after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or the World Organization
for Animal Health (OIE) has identified an emerging pathogen (new or
re-emerging) where environmental surface disinfection has been recommended to
help control its spread.
According to the EPA, in order to be eligible to meet the
Emerging Pathogen Guidance, the disinfectant product must meet the following 2
criteria.
Emerging Pathogen Guidance, the disinfectant product must meet the following 2
criteria.
- The product is an EPA-registered,
hospital/healthcare or broad-spectrum disinfectant with directions for use on
hard, porous or non-porous surfaces - The currently accepted product label (from
an EPA registered product as described above) should have disinfectant efficacy
claims against at least one of the following viral pathogen groupings:
a.
A product should be approved by EPA to
inactivate at least one large
or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped
emerging viral pathogen.
inactivate at least one large
or one small non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against an enveloped
emerging viral pathogen.
b.
A product should be approved by EPA to
inactivate at least one
small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large,
non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
inactivate at least one
small, non-enveloped virus to be eligible for use against a large,
non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
c.
A product should be approved by EPA to
inactivate at least two
small, non-enveloped viruses to be eligible for use against a small,
non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
inactivate at least two
small, non-enveloped viruses to be eligible for use against a small,
non-enveloped emerging viral pathogen.
For example, this means that if the virus associated with
the outbreak is caused by a small, non-enveloped virus, the disinfectant must
already be registered and proven effective against two (2) small, non-enveloped
viruses. If the product only has claims
against enveloped viruses it will not qualify.
The product is also not eligible to have a claim on the actual product
label, and can instead use language akin to the following on marketing
materials, technical sheets etc for two years from the announcement of the
outbreak.
the outbreak is caused by a small, non-enveloped virus, the disinfectant must
already be registered and proven effective against two (2) small, non-enveloped
viruses. If the product only has claims
against enveloped viruses it will not qualify.
The product is also not eligible to have a claim on the actual product
label, and can instead use language akin to the following on marketing
materials, technical sheets etc for two years from the announcement of the
outbreak.
[Product name] has demonstrated effectiveness against viruses similar
to [name of emerging virus, which must be a small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped,
or enveloped virus] on [eligible surface type(s)]. Therefore, [product name]
can be used against [name of emerging virus, which must be a small
non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and/or enveloped virus] when used in
accordance with the directions for use against [name of supporting virus(es)]
on [hard, porous/non-porous surfaces]. Refer to the [CDC or OIE] website at
[pathogen-specific website address] for additional information.
to [name of emerging virus, which must be a small non-enveloped, large non-enveloped,
or enveloped virus] on [eligible surface type(s)]. Therefore, [product name]
can be used against [name of emerging virus, which must be a small
non-enveloped, large non-enveloped, and/or enveloped virus] when used in
accordance with the directions for use against [name of supporting virus(es)]
on [hard, porous/non-porous surfaces]. Refer to the [CDC or OIE] website at
[pathogen-specific website address] for additional information.
As I said, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing
and still worth doing my Puppy Monkey Baby dance!
and still worth doing my Puppy Monkey Baby dance!
Bugging Off!
Nicole
