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 On May 21st 2021, the Scientific Committee of EFSA published a draft guidance document on scientific criteria to group chemicals in assessment groups using hazard‐driven criteria and prioritisation methods using exposure‐driven and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 need for reliable, sensitive (developmental) neurotoxicity testing of chemicals has steadily increased. Given the limited capacities for routine testing according to accepted regulatory guidelines, there is potential risk to human health and the environment. Most toxicity studies are based on mammalian test systems, which have been questioned for low sensitivity, limited relevance for humans, and animal welfare considerations. This increased the need for alternative models, one of which is the zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryo. This study assessed selected neonicotinoids at sub-lethal concentrations for their effects on embryonic development and behavior. The fish embryo acute toxicity test (OECD TG 236) determined the lowest observable effective concentrations, which were used as the highest test concentrations in subsequent behavioral assays. In the FET test, no severe compound-induced sublethal effects were seen at < 100 µM. In the coiling assay, exposure to ≥ 1.25 µM nicotine (positive control) affected both the burst duration and burst count per minute, whereas ≥ 50 µM thiacloprid affected the mean burst duration. Exposure to ≥ 50 µM acetamiprid and imidacloprid induced significant alterations in both mean burst duration and burst count per minute. In the swimming assay, 100 µM acetamiprid induced alterations in the frequency and extent of movements, whilst nicotine exposure only induced non-significant changes. All behavioral changes could be correlated to findings in mammalian studies. Given the quest for alternative test methods of (developmental) neurotoxicity, zebrafish embryo behavior testing could be integrated into a future tiered testing scheme.