Search

Genetically modified maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS-40278-9 was developed by crossing to combine four single events: DP4114, MON 89034, MON 87411 and DAS-40278-9. The GMO Panel previously assessed the four single maize events and two of the subcombinations and did not identify safety concerns. No new data on the single maize events or the assessed subcombinations were identified that could lead to modification of the original conclusions on their safety. The molecular characterisation, comparative analysis (agronomic, phenotypic and compositional characteristics) and the outcome of the toxicological, allergenicity and nutritional assessment indicate that the combination of the single maize events and of the newly expressed proteins in the four-event stack maize does not give rise to food and feed safety and nutritional concerns. Therefore, no post-market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable four-event stack maize grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The GMO Panel assessed the likelihood of interactions among the single events in eight of the maize subcombinations not previously assessed and concludes that these are expected to be as safe as the single events, the previously assessed subcombinations and the four-event stack maize. The post-market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP4114 × MON 89034 × MON 87411 × DAS-40278-9. Post-market monitoring of food/feed is not considered necessary. The GMO Panel concludes that the four-event stack maize and its subcombinations are as safe as its non-GM comparator and the tested non-GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.

In a previous scientific opinion on application EFSA-GMO-BE-2016-138, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) could not conclude on the comparative analysis and on the food/feed safety assessment of genetically modified (GM) oilseed rape (OSR) MS11 because of the lack of an appropriate compositional data set. Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to OSR MS11 to complement the original scientific opinion. The GMO Panel concluded that the information submitted (on the composition of the two-event stack MS11 × RF3) could not be used for the assessment of the composition of OSR MS11 and requested the applicant to perform a complementary set of field trials to generate additional data. The applicant did not perform the requested field trials and did not provide any new experimental data on the composition of OSR MS11. Hence, the GMO Panel is still not in the position to conclude on either the compositional analysis or the toxicological, allergenicity or nutritional assessment of OSR MS11. Therefore, the previous conclusions of the GMO Panel still hold.

The stable fly Stomoxys calcitrans (Diptera: Muscidae) is considered as the main mechanical vector of the lumpy skin disease virus (LSDV). In addition, the mosquito species Aedes aegypti (Diptera: Culicidae) was shown to transmit the virus from donor to receptor animals. Retention of the virus for several days was shown for two additional tropical mosquito species and the biting midge Culicoides nubeculosus (Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). In the present study, viral retention for 10- or 7-days post feeding on virus-spiked blood through a membrane was shown for field-collected Aedes japonicus and laboratory-reared Culex pipiens, two widely distributed mosquito species in temperate regions. Viral DNA could be detected from honey-coated Flinders Technology Associates (FTA) cards and shedded faeces for 1 or 4 days after an infectious blood meal was given to Ae. aegypti. Virus increase over time and virus dissemination was observed in laboratory-reared C. nubeculosus, but the virus could be isolated from field-collected biting midges only from the day of exposure to the blood meal. Thus, mosquitoes might serve as mechanical vectors of LSDV in case of interrupted feeding. A putative biological virus transmission by Culicoides biting midges, as suspected from field observations, deserves further investigations.

The EFSA has updated the Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain, human and animal health. It covers the application areas within EFSA’s remit, including novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The updated guidance, now Scientific Committee Guidance on nano risk assessment (SC Guidance on Nano‐RA), has taken account of relevant scientific studies that provide insights to physico‐chemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials and areas of applicability. Together with the accompanying Guidance on Technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles (Guidance on Particle‐TR), the SC Guidance on Nano‐RA specifically elaborates on physico‐chemical characterisation, key parameters that should be measured, methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. The SC Guidance on Nano‐RA also details aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vitro/in vivo toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. Furthermore, in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, local and systemic toxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials are described. Depending on the initial tier results, additional studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity and allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read‐across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes or mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6769/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6804/full

Following a mandate from the European Commission, EFSA has developed a Guidance on Technical Requirements (Guidance on Particle‐TR), defining the criteria for assessing the presence of a fraction of small particles, and setting out information requirements for applications in the regulated food and feed product areas (e.g. novel food, food/feed additives, food contact materials and pesticides). These requirements apply to particles requiring specific assessment at the nanoscale in conventional materials that do not meet the definition of engineered nanomaterial as set out in the Novel Food Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The guidance outlines appraisal criteria grouped in three sections, to confirm whether or not the conventional risk assessment should be complemented with nanospecific considerations. The first group addresses solubility and dissolution rate as key physicochemical properties to assess whether consumers will be exposed to particles. The second group establishes the information requirements for assessing whether the conventional material contains a fraction or consists of small particles, and its characterisation. The third group describes the information to be presented for existing safety studies to demonstrate that the fraction of small particles, including particles at the nanoscale, has been properly evaluated. In addition, in order to guide the appraisal of existing safety studies, recommendations for closing the data gaps while minimising the need for conducting new animal studies are provided. This Guidance on Particle‐TR complements the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain, human and animal health updated by the EFSA Scientific Committee as co‐published with this Guidance. Applicants are advised to consult both guidance documents before conducting new studies., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2021.6768/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6804/full

The EFSA Scientific Committee was asked to provide guidance on the most appropriate in vivo tests to follow up on positive in vitro results for aneugenicity, and on the approach to risk assessment for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations. The Scientific Committee confirmed that the preferred approach is to perform an in vivo mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test with a relevant route of administration. If this is positive, it demonstrates that the substance is aneugenic in vivo. A negative result with evidence that the bone marrow is exposed to the test substance supports a conclusion that aneugenic activity is not expressed in vivo. If there is no evidence of exposure to the bone marrow, a negative result is viewed as inconclusive and further studies are required. The liver micronucleus assay, even though not yet fully validated, can provide supporting information for substances that are aneugenic following metabolic activation. The gastrointestinal micronucleus test, conversely, to be further developed, may help to assess aneugenic potential at the initial site of contact for substances that are aneugenic in vitro without metabolic activation. Based on the evidence in relation to mechanisms of aneugenicity, the Scientific Committee concluded that, in principle, health‐based guidance values can be established for substances that are aneugenic but not clastogenic nor causing gene mutations, provided that a comprehensive toxicological database is available. For situations in which the toxicological database is not sufficient to establish health‐based guidance values, some approaches to risk assessment are proposed. The Scientific Committee recommends further development of the gastrointestinal micronucleus test, and research to improve the understanding of aneugenicity to support risk assessment., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6814/full

This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health‐Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6480/full

Advances in molecular and synthetic biology are enabling the engineering of gene drives in insects for disease vector/pest control. Engineered gene drives (that bias their own inheritance) can be designed either to suppress interbreeding target populations or modify them with a new genotype. Depending on the engineered gene drive system, theoretically, a genetic modification of interest could spread through target populations and persist indefinitely, or be restricted in its spread or persistence. While research on engineered gene drives and their applications in insects is advancing at a fast pace, it will take several years for technological developments to move to practical applications for deliberate release into the environment. Some gene drive modified insects (GDMIs) have been tested experimentally in the laboratory, but none has been assessed in small‐scale confined field trials or in open release trials as yet. There is concern that the deliberate release of GDMIs in the environment may have possible irreversible and unintended consequences. As a proactive measure, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has been requested by the European Commission to review whether its previously published guidelines for the risk assessment of genetically modified animals (EFSA, 2012 and 2013), including insects (GMIs), are adequate and sufficient for GDMIs, primarily disease vectors, agricultural pests and invasive species, for deliberate release into the environment. Under this mandate, EFSA was not requested to develop risk assessment guidelines for GDMIs. In this Scientific Opinion, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) concludes that EFSA's guidelines are adequate, but insufficient for the molecular characterisation (MC), environmental risk assessment (ERA) and post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of GDMIs. While the MC,ERA and PMEM of GDMIs can build on the existing risk assessment framework for GMIs that do not contain engineered gene drives, there are specific areas where further guidance is needed for GDMIs., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1939/full

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases of the different epidemiological study designs. It describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. Regarding study reliability, measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inferences, systematic error and effect modification are explained. Regarding study relevance, the guidance describes the concept of external validity. The principles of appraising epidemiological studies are illustrated, and an overview of Risk of Bias (RoB) tools is given. A decision tree is developed to assist in the selection of the appropriate Risk of Bias tool, depending on study question, population and design. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained, detailing the use of RoB tools and assessing the risk of bias in the body of evidence. Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a Risk of Bias tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. This document constitutes a draft that will be applied in EFSA's assessments during a 1‐year pilot phase and be revised and complemented as necessary. Before finalisation of the document, a public consultation will be launched.

© 2020 European Food Safety Authority., Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐002 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Monsanto Company, the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of EFSA (GMO) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the herbicide‐tolerant genetically modified oilseed rape GT73. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in oilseed rape GT73 considered for renewal of authorisation is identical to the sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐002 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on oilseed rape GT73.

Following the submission of application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003 from Syngenta Crop Protection NV/SA, the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO) was asked to deliver a scientific risk assessment on the data submitted in the context of the renewal of authorisation application for the insect‐resistant genetically modified maize MIR604, for food and feed uses, excluding cultivation within the EU. The data received in the context of this renewal application contained post‐market environmental monitoring reports, a systematic search and evaluation of literature, updated bioinformatic analyses, and additional documents or studies performed by or on behalf of the applicant. The GMO Panel assessed these data for possible new hazards, modified exposure or new scientific uncertainties identified during the authorisation period and not previously assessed in the context of the original application. Under the assumption that the DNA sequence of the event in maize MIR604 considered for renewal is identical to the corrected sequence of the originally assessed event, the GMO Panel concludes that there is no evidence in renewal application EFSA‐GMO‐RX‐013 for new hazards, modified exposure or scientific uncertainties that would change the conclusions of the original risk assessment on maize MIR604.

Following a request from the European Commission, the GMO Panel assessed additional information related to the application for authorisation of food and feed containing, consisting of and produced from genetically modified (GM) maize 3272 (EFSA‐GMO‐UK‐2006‐34). The applicant conducted new agronomic, phenotypic and compositional analysis studies on maize 3272 and assessed the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein, addressing elements that remained inconclusive from previous EFSA opinion issued in 2013. The GMO Panel is of the opinion that the agronomic and phenotypic characteristics as well as forage and grain composition of maize 3272 do not give rise to food and feed safety, and nutritional concerns when compared to non‐GM maize. Considering the scope of this application and the characteristics of the trait introduced in this GM maize, the effect of processing and potential safety implications of specific food or feed products remain to be further investigated. Regarding the allergenic potential of AMY797E protein and considering all possible food and feed uses of maize 3272, the Panel concludes that the information provided does not fully address the concerns previously raised by the Panel in 2013. Owing to the nature and the knowledge available on this protein family, it is still unclear whether under specific circumstances the alpha‐amylase AMY797E has the capacity to sensitise certain individuals and to cause adverse effects. To further support the safety of specific products of maize 3272, the applicant provided thorough information relevant for the allergenicity assessment of dried distiller grains with solubles (DDGS), which is the main product of interest for importation into the EU. Having considered the information provided on this product, the Panel is of the opinion that under the specific conditions of use described by the applicant, DDGS produced from maize 3272 does not raise concerns when compared to DDGS from non‐GM maize.

The European Food Safety Authority has produced this Guidance on human and animal health aspects (Part 1) of the risk assessment of nanoscience and nanotechnology applications in the food and feed chain. It covers the application areas within EFSA's remit, e.g. novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The Guidance takes account of the new developments that have taken place since publication of the previous Guidance in 2011. Potential future developments are suggested in the scientific literature for nanoencapsulated delivery systems and nanocomposites in applications such as novel foods, food/feed additives, biocides, pesticides and food contact materials. Therefore, the Guidance has taken account of relevant new scientific studies that provide more insights to physicochemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials. It specifically elaborates on physicochemical characterisation of nanomaterials in terms of how to establish whether a material is a nanomaterial, the key parameters that should be measured, the methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. It also details the aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vivo/in vitro toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. It describes in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials. Depending on the initial tier results, studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read‐across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes/mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis, and provides recommendations for further research in this area., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1430/full

To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2018.5123/full

Following a request from the European Commission, a set of assessment criteria was developed to support the selection of existing environmental surveillance networks for post‐market environmental monitoring (PMEM) of genetically modified plants (GMPs). In compliance with these criteria, some networks and associated programmes were identified as being of potential use subject to further case‐by‐case analysis. When considering PMEM of GMPs, the approach would also require comparing sites monitored by the networks and the locations where GMPs are cultivated. The reporting of the sites surveyed by networks and locations of cultivated GMPs should thus follow the same standards in order to ensure interoperability and to potentially establish a causal link between a change observed and the GMPs. In this respect, technical support might be required by networks to transform their data records into workable standards. Moreover, the EFSA GMO Panel was asked by the European Commission to examine the sensitivity of statistical analyses used by the networks to detect change. A decision tree is provided for selecting the optimal method for statistical analysis based on the study design and the datasets from networks. Sufficient statistical power needs to be ensured to detect an effect for a particular indicator. Sample size is one of the main contributing factors in determining the power of any network to detect an effect of a product release into the environment. Increasing the sample size implies variable extra‐costs depending on whether data are collected by volunteers or professionals. A more powerful statistical analysis can also be achieved by pooling datasets collected by different networks; this needs further investigation because of important covariates leading to differentiated responses. In general, PMEM would benefit from a move towards ‘open data’ policies for re‐analysis or pooling data collected by different networks.

The European Commission asked the Scientific Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA GMO Panel) to address the objections of Cyprus to the placing on the market of the genetically modified (GM) carnation SHD‐27531‐4. The GM carnation cut flowers, with a modified petal colour, are intended to be imported and distributed in the European Union for ornamental use only. The EFSA GMO Panel responded to the objections of Cyprus, taking into account the limited intended use of carnation SHD‐27531‐4 and the information available. First, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that the propagation of carnation SHD‐27531‐4 by individuals cannot be excluded. However, should this occur, carnation SHD‐27531‐4 would not show any potential for increased survival, fitness or weediness compared with its parental line. Second, the EFSA GMO Panel is of the opinion that the potential spread of pollen of the GM carnation SHD‐27531‐4 by Lepidoptera to wild Dianthus species cannot be eliminated but is highly unlikely to occur and, if it did occur, it is very unlikely that viable hybrids would be produced, survive and result in adverse environmental effects. Third, considering the very low potentials for hybridisation and/or seed production of (GM) carnations, the EFSA GMO Panel concludes that plant‐to‐plant gene transfer of the introduced genes is very unlikely and, if it did occur, it is unlikely to result in viable seed production leading to adverse environmental effects.

Following a request from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO Panel) was asked to supplement its environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations on maize 59122 for cultivation in the light of new scientific information on non‐target organisms and regionally sensitive areas. Having considered additional information relevant to the assessment of potential adverse effects of maize 59122 on non‐target organisms, the Panel must revise two of its previous environmental risk assessment conclusions, invalidating its earlier statement on the environmental safety of maize 59122 in its 2013 Scientific Opinion. A gap in the event‐specific data on the honeybee study performed by Maggi (2001) was identified, as a result of which uncertainty over the occurrence of adverse effects on pollinators due to potential unintended changes in maize 59122 remains. Therefore, the Panel is no longer in a position to complete its assessment on the occurrence of adverse effects on pollinators. The Panel reassessed the available dataset on ladybirds, including the Califf and Ostrem (2009) study, and considers the latter study does not enable resolving the remaining scientific uncertainty on the potential toxicity of the binary Cry34Ab1/Cry35Ab1 proteins on Coccinella septempunctata or other ladybirds. In both cases, the Panel recommends that an additional laboratory study is performed prior to authorisation. The Panel considered regionally sensitive areas in its assessment, but regards it as premature to recommend specific risk management strategies for susceptible insect species potentially found within and nearby such areas owing to the inconclusive nature of the assessment of potential adverse effects of maize 59122 on non‐target organisms.

This longitudinal study of travellers to Africa taking mefloquine (MQ) chemoprophylaxis aimed to quantify and assess non-serious adverse events (AE) occurring during short-term prophylaxis and relate these to concentrations of racemic MQ, its enantiomers and metabolite. A total of 420 volunteers (52% F) participated. AEs with some impact on activities were reported by 11.2% of participants including 7.9% of neurological/psychiatric symptoms. Women were more likely to report AEs (P = 0.02). The standardized questionnaires used showed more pathological indicators in travellers who reported subjective AE with significantly more dizziness, distress, sleep disturbances and a high total mood disturbance (TMD) in the AE group. There was, however, no significant performance deficit in computerized psychomotor tests in those experiencing AE. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in enantiomer ratios, metabolite concentrations, or racemic MQ levels in participants with or without AEs suggesting that these factors are not the main predictors of mefloquine intolerability.

EFSA´s scientific Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ Panel) provides independent scientific advice on biological hazards in relation to food safety and food-borne diseases. This covers food-borne zoonoses, food microbiology, food hygiene, antimicrobial resistance (AMR), transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (BSE/TSEs) and associated waste management issues. Most of the activities of the BIOHAZ Panel focus on human health and the whole food chain and on science-based interventions to lower the risk to consumers. In the future, food-borne disease burden estimations are foreseen to become increasingly relevant. The risk assessments done by the BIOHAZ Panel are in line with the EU (European Union) strategy of one health, include a farm to fork approach and in many cases have a high multidisciplinary component. Whenever possible, the Panel applies this risk assessment framework developed by Codex Alimentarius as a basis for their work on food safety. The outcomes of some of the activities during the last three to four years are presented. From these examples of recent BIOHAZ opinions it can be seen that the work covers different approaches, ranging from quantitative risk assessments over structured qualitative risk assessment/risk ranking to opinions with short deadlines summarising existence knowledge from scientific literature. The approach taken depends on both the terms of reference (ToR) as received from the EC (European Commission), the available data and resources, and last but not least the time frame for the work following the risk managers’ needs.