Search

The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose–response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value‐based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk–benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability‐Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality‐Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human Risk Assessment (RA) of combined exposure to multiple chemicals follows the steps of RA namely problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard assessment and risk characterisation. Over the last decade, scientific advisory bodies have published a range of harmonised guidance documents to provide practical approaches for risk assessors. These include the WHO, the US‐EPA, the Joint Research Centre (JRC) of the European Commission, the OECD and the recent EFSA MIXTOX guidance document dealing with harmonised methodologies for the human health, animal health and ecological RA areas. On May 21st 2021, the Scientific Committee of EFSA published a draft guidance document on scientific criteria to group chemicals in assessment groups using hazard‐driven criteria and prioritisation methods using exposure‐driven and risk‐based approaches. The latter guidance and future challenges were the topic of this international workshop which was held online in the afternoons of the 18th, 19th and 20st October 2021. First, a plenary session provided overviews of European and international activities in the field including WHO, OECD, US‐EPA, JRC and EFSA. With a total of 118 participants including national and international scientific advisory bodies, academics and researchers, NGOs, industry, risk assessors, risk managers, four discussions groups were created for three break‐out group sessions: 1) Hazard‐driven criteria for grouping multiple chemicals into assessment groups; 2) Exposure‐driven and risk‐based criteria for the prioritisation of multiple chemicals 3) Data gaps and future challenges for human health and environmental RA of combined exposure to multiple chemicals to identify priority topics of international relevance and a way forward to address these topics. A final discussion and wrap‐up session concluded the meeting. This event report provides a summary of the discussions together with conclusions and recommendations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR) has developed, as a self‐task mandate (EFSA‐Q‐2019‐00100), two adverse outcome pathway (AOP)‐informed integrated approach to testing and assessment (IATA) case studies to answer a developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) hazard identification and characterisation problem formulation that could support the regulatory decisions for the pesticide active substances deltamethrin and flufenacet. The IATA were developed to assess the applicability of the DNT in vitro testing battery (IVB), designed to explore fundamental neurodevelopmental processes, in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticides. For this purpose, an evidence‐based‐approach methodology was applied: 1) systematic literature review and critical appraisal of all the evidence i.e. human observational studies, in vivo data from rodent models and new approach methodologies (NAMs, i.e. in vitro studies including high‐throughput testing from IVB and zebrafish studies from the literature) for both case studies; 2) a quantitative uncertainty analysis of all the evidence using expert knowledge elicitation (EKE) and a probabilistic approach; 3) integration of all the evidence using the AOP conceptual framework. This stepwise approach resulted in the postulation of an evidence‐based AOP network for one of the case studies. A probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence (WoE) using Bayesian network analysis allowed the assessment and the quantification of the uncertainty in the postulated AOP. The approach taken allowed conclusions to be drawn with an acceptable level of certainty in DNT hazard identification and characterisation of deltamethrin and that flufenacet is not a developmental neurotoxicant, supporting the relevance of the mechanistic understanding. The case studies show the applicability of the DNT‐IVB for hazard identification and characterisation and illustrate the usefulness of an AOP‐informed IATA for regulatory decision making. The overall activity led to improved interpretation of human data by providing a plausible mechanistic link to adverse outcomes, which would support their contextualisation in the risk assessment process. This Scientific Opinion allows the PPR Panel to draft several recommendations for the implementation of the AOP‐informed IATA methodology and of the DNT‐IVB in the regulatory risk assessment of pesticides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A retrospective chronic cumulative risk assessment of dietary exposure to pesticide residues, supported by an uncertainty analysis based on expert knowledge elicitation, was conducted for two effects on the thyroid, hypothyroidism and parafollicular cell (C‐cell) hypertrophy, hyperplasia and neoplasia. The pesticides considered in this assessment were identified and characterised in the scientific report on the establishment of cumulative assessment groups of pesticides for their effects on the thyroid. Cumulative exposure assessments were conducted through probabilistic modelling by EFSA and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) using two different software tools and reported separately. These exposure assessments used monitoring data collected by Member States under their official pesticide monitoring programmes in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and individual consumption data from 10 populations of consumers from different countries and different age groups. This report completes the characterisation of cumulative risk, taking account of the available data and the uncertainties involved. For each of the 10 populations, it is concluded with varying degrees of certainty that cumulative exposure to pesticides that have the chronic effects on the thyroid mentioned above does not exceed the threshold for regulatory consideration established by risk managers. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1836/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1835/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6087/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A retrospective acute cumulative risk assessment of dietary exposure to pesticide residues, supported by an uncertainty analysis based on expert knowledge elicitation, was conducted for two effects on the nervous system: brain and/or erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase inhibition, and functional alterations of the motor division. The pesticides considered in this assessment were identified and characterised in the scientific report on the establishment of cumulative assessment groups of pesticides for their effects on the nervous system. Cumulative exposure assessments were conducted through probabilistic modelling by EFSA and the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) using two different software tools and reported separately. These exposure assessments used monitoring data collected by Member States under their official pesticide monitoring programmes in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and individual consumption data from 10 populations of consumers from different countries and different age groups. This report completes the characterisation of cumulative risk, taking account of the available data and the uncertainties involved. For each of the 10 populations, it is concluded with varying degrees of certainty that cumulative exposure to pesticides that have the acute effects on the nervous system mentioned above does not exceed the threshold for regulatory consideration established by risk managers. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1836/fullhttp://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1835/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6088/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR Panel) prepared a scientific opinion to provide a comprehensive evaluation of pesticide residues in foods for infants and young children. In its approach to develop this scientific opinion, the EFSA PPR Panel took into account, among the others, (i) the relevant opinions of the Scientific Committee for Food setting a default maximum residue level (MRL) of 0.01 mg/kg for pesticide residues in foods for infants and young children; (ii) the recommendations provided by EFSA Scientific Committee in a guidance on risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age; (iii) the knowledge on organ/system development in infants and young children. For infants below 16 weeks of age, the EFSA PPR Panel concluded that pesticide residues at the default MRL of 0.01 mg/kg for food for infants and young children are not likely to result in an unacceptable exposure for active substances for which a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) of 0.0026 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or higher applies. Lower MRLs are recommended for active substances with HBGVs below this value. For infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the established approach for setting HBGVs is considered appropriate. For infants below 16 weeks of age the approach may not be appropriate and the application of the EFSA guidance on risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age is recommended. The contribution of conventional food to the total exposure to pesticide residues is much higher than that from foods intended for infants and young children. Because of the increased intake of conventional food by young children, these have the highest exposure to pesticide residues, whereas infants 3–6 months of age generally have lower exposure. The impact of cumulative exposure to pesticide residues on infants and young children is not different from the general population and the EFSA cumulative risk assessment methodology is also applicable to these age groups. Residue definitions established under Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 are in general considered appropriate also for foods for infants and young children. However, based on a tier 1 analysis of the hydrolysis potential of pesticides simulating processing, the particular appropriateness of existing residue definitions for monitoring to cover processed food, both intended for infants and young children as well as conventional food, is questionable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This guidance on the assessment of dermal absorption has been developed to assist notifiers, users of test facilities and Member State authorities on critical aspects related to the setting of dermal absorption values to be used in risk assessments of active substances in Plant Protection Products (PPPs). It is based on the ‘scientific opinion on the science behind the revision of the guidance document on dermal absorption’ issued in 2011 by the EFSA Panel on Plant Protection Products and their Residues (PPR). The guidance refers to the EFSA PPR opinion in many instances. In addition, the first version of this guidance, issued in 2012 by the EFSA PPR Panel, has been revised in 2017 on the basis of new available data on human in vitro dermal absorption for PPPs and wherever clarifications were needed. Basic details of experimental design, available in the respective test guidelines and accompanying guidance for the conduct of studies, have not been addressed but recommendations specific to performing and interpreting dermal absorption studies with PPPs are given. Issues discussed include a brief description of the skin and its properties affecting dermal absorption. To facilitate use of the guidance, flow charts are included. Guidance is also provided, for example, when there are no data on dermal absorption for the product under evaluation. Elements for a tiered approach are presented including use of default values, data on closely related products, in vitro studies with human skin (regarded to provide the best estimate), data from experimental animals (rats) in vitro and in vivo, and the so called ‘triple pack’ approach. Various elements of study design and reporting that reduce experimental variation and aid consistent interpretation are presented. A proposal for reporting data for assessment reports is also provided. The issue of nanoparticles in PPPs is not addressed. Data from volunteer studies have not been discussed since their use is not allowed in EU for risk assessment of PPPs.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1250/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Multiple exposures and their combined effects require better risk management. • Precautionary approaches and intermediate measures could already be applied. • A European strategy is needed to address the research and policy needs. The number of anthropogenic chemicals, manufactured, by-products, metabolites and abiotically formed transformation products, counts to hundreds of thousands, at present. Thus, humans and wildlife are exposed to complex mixtures, never one chemical at a time and rarely with only one dominating effect. Hence there is an urgent need to develop strategies on how exposure to multiple hazardous chemicals and the combination of their effects can be assessed. A workshop, "Advancing the Assessment of Chemical Mixtures and their Risks for Human Health and the Environment" was organized in May 2018 together with Joint Research Center in Ispra, EU-funded research projects and Commission Services and relevant EU agencies. This forum for researchers and policy-makers was created to discuss and identify gaps in risk assessment and governance of chemical mixtures as well as to discuss state of the art science and future research needs. Based on the presentations and discussions at this workshop we want to bring forward the following Key Messages: • We are at a turning point: multiple exposures and their combined effects require better management to protect public health and the environment from hazardous chemical mixtures. • Regulatory initiatives should be launched to investigate the opportunities for all relevant regulatory frameworks to include prospective mixture risk assessment and consider combined exposures to (real-life) chemical mixtures to humans and wildlife, across sectors. • Precautionary approaches and intermediate measures (e.g. Mixture Assessment Factor) can already be applied, although, definitive mixture risk assessments cannot be routinely conducted due to significant knowledge and data gaps. • A European strategy needs to be set, through stakeholder engagement, for the governance of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and mixtures. The strategy would include research aimed at scientific advancement in mechanistic understanding and modelling techniques, as well as research to address regulatory and policy needs. Without such a clear strategy, specific objectives and common priorities, research, and policies to address mixtures will likely remain scattered and insufficient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The current/traditional human health risk assessment paradigm is challenged by recent scientific and technical advances, and ethical demands. The current approach is considered too resource intensive, is not always reliable, can raise issues of reproducibility, is mostly animal based and does not necessarily provide an understanding of the underlying mechanisms of toxicity. From an ethical and scientific viewpoint, a paradigm shift is required to deliver testing strategies that enable reliable, animal‐free hazard and risk assessments, which are based on a mechanistic understanding of chemical toxicity and make use of exposure science and epidemiological data. This shift will require a new philosophy, new data, multidisciplinary expertise and more flexible regulations. Re‐engineering of available data is also deemed necessary as data should be accessible, readable, interpretable and usable. Dedicated training to build the capacity in terms of expertise is necessary, together with practical resources allocated to education. The dialogue between risk assessors, risk managers, academia and stakeholders should be promoted further to understand scientific and societal needs. Genuine interest in taking risk assessment forward should drive the change and should be supported by flexible funding. This publication builds upon presentations made and discussions held during the break‐out session 'Advancing risk assessment science – Human health' at EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food and Society' (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Scientific Committee confirms that the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a pragmatic screening and prioritisation tool for use in food safety assessment. This Guidance provides clear step‐by‐step instructions for use of the TTC approach. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined and the use of the TTC decision tree is explained. The approach can be used when the chemical structure of the substance is known, there are limited chemical‐specific toxicity data and the exposure can be estimated. The TTC approach should not be used for substances for which EU food/feed legislation requires the submission of toxicity data or when sufficient data are available for a risk assessment or if the substance under consideration falls into one of the exclusion categories. For substances that have the potential to be DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens based on the weight of evidence, the relevant TTC value is 0.0025 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day. For organophosphates or carbamates, the relevant TTC value is 0.3 μg/kg bw per day. All other substances are grouped according to the Cramer classification. The TTC values for Cramer Classes I, II and III are 30 μg/kg bw per day, 9 μg/kg bw per day and 1.5 μg/kg bw per day, respectively. For substances with exposures below the TTC values, the probability that they would cause adverse health effects is low. If the estimated exposure to a substance is higher than the relevant TTC value, a non‐TTC approach is required to reach a conclusion on potential adverse health effects. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1661/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1589/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1602/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1539/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]