Search

Abstract 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, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose–response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies.

Abstract 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 The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on tetrabromobisphenol A (TBBPA) and five derivatives in food. Neurotoxicity and carcinogenicity were considered as the critical effects of TBBPA in rodent studies. The available evidence indicates that the carcinogenicity of TBBPA occurs via non‐genotoxic mechanisms. Taking into account the new data, the CONTAM Panel considered it appropriate to set a tolerable daily intake (TDI). Based on decreased interest in social interaction in male mice, a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified and selected as the reference point for the risk characterisation. Applying the default uncertainty factor of 100 for inter‐ and intraspecies variability, and a factor of 3 to extrapolate from the LOAEL to NOAEL, a TDI for TBBPA of 0.7 μg/kg bw per day was established. Around 2100 analytical results for TBBPA in food were used to estimate dietary exposure for the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary LB exposure to TBBPA were fish and seafood, meat and meat products and milk and dairy products. The exposure estimates to TBBPA were all below the TDI, including those estimated for breastfed and formula‐fed infants. Accounting for the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the CONTAM Panel concluded with 90%–95% certainty that the current dietary exposure to TBBPA does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. There were insufficient data on the toxicity of any of the TBBPA derivatives to derive reference points, or to allow a comparison with TBBPA that would support assignment to an assessment group for the purposes of combined risk assessment.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a risk assessment on small organoarsenic species in food. For monomethylarsonic acid MMA(V), decreased body weight resulting from diarrhoea in rats was identified as the critical endpoint and a BMDL10 of 18.2 mg MMA(V)/kg body weight (bw) per day (equivalent to 9.7 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as a reference point (RP). For dimethylarsinic acid DMA(V), increased incidence in urinary bladder tumours in rats was identified as the critical endpoint. A BMDL10 of 1.1 mg DMA(V)/kg bw per day (equivalent to 0.6 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as an RP. For other small organoarsenic species, the toxicological data are insufficient to identify critical effects and RPs, and they could not be included in the risk assessment. For both MMA(V) and DMA(V), the toxicological database is incomplete and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied for risk characterisation. The highest chronic dietary exposure to DMA(V) was estimated in ‘Toddlers’, with rice and fish meat as the main contributors across population groups. For MMA(V), the highest chronic dietary exposures were estimated for high consumers of fish meat and processed/preserved fish in ‘Infants’ and ‘Elderly’ age class, respectively. For MMA(V), an MOE of ≥ 500 was identified not to raise a health concern. For MMA(V), all MOEs were well above 500 for average and high consumers and thus do not raise a health concern. For DMA(V), an MOE of 10,000 was identified as of low health concern as it is genotoxic and carcinogenic, although the mechanisms of genotoxicity and its role in carcinogenicity of DMA(V) are not fully elucidated. For DMA(V), MOEs were below 10,000 in many cases across dietary surveys and age groups, in particular for some 95th percentile exposures. The Panel considers that this would raise a health concern.

Abstract EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in feed and food. The assessment focused on hexaCNs due to very limited data on other PCN congeners. For hexaCNs in feed, 217 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures for food‐producing and non‐food‐producing animals; however, a risk characterisation could not be performed because none of the toxicological studies allowed identification of reference points. The oral repeated dose toxicity studies performed in rats with a hexaCN mixture containing all 10 hexaCNs indicated that the critical target was the haematological system. A BMDL20 of 0.05 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified for a considerable decrease in the platelet count. For hexaCNs in food, 2317 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures across dietary surveys and age groups. The highest exposure ranged from 0.91 to 29.8 pg/kg bw per day in general population and from 220 to 559 pg/kg bw per day for breast‐fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs for the high dietary exposures ranged from 1,700,000 to 55,000,000 for the general population and from 90,000 to 230,000 for breast‐fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. These MOEs are far above the minimum MOE of 2000 that does not raise a health concern. Taking account of the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded with at least 99% certainty that dietary exposure to hexaCNs does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. Due to major limitations in the available data, no assessment was possible for genotoxic effects or for health risks of PCNs other than hexaCNs.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in food, focusing on 10 congeners: BDE‐28, ‐47, ‐49, ‐99, ‐100, ‐138, ‐153, ‐154, ‐183 and ‑209. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour and reproductive/developmental effects are the critical effects in rodent studies. For four congeners (BDE‐47, ‐99, ‐153, ‐209) the Panel derived Reference Points, i.e. benchmark doses and corresponding lower 95% confidence limits (BMDLs), for endpoint‐specific benchmark responses. Since repeated exposure to PBDEs results in accumulation of these chemicals in the body, the Panel estimated the body burden at the BMDL in rodents, and the chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans. For the remaining six congeners no studies were available to identify Reference Points. The Panel concluded that there is scientific basis for inclusion of all 10 congeners in a common assessment group and performed a combined risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the combined margin of exposure (MOET) approach was the most appropriate risk metric and applied a tiered approach to the risk characterisation. Over 84,000 analytical results for the 10 congeners in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary Lower Bound exposure to PBDEs were meat and meat products and fish and seafood. Taking into account the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded that it is likely that current dietary exposure to PBDEs in the European population raises a health concern.

Abstract This statement provides scientific guidance on the information needed to support the risk assessment of the detoxification processes applied to products intended for animal feed in line with the acceptability criteria of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786.

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to provide an update of the 2012 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) on the risks for animal health related to the presence of ergot alkaloids (EAs) in feed. EAs are produced by several fungi of the Claviceps and Epichloë genera. This Opinion focussed on the 14 EAs produced by C. purpurea (ergocristine, ergotamine, ergocornine, α‐ and β‐ergocryptine, ergometrine, ergosine and their corresponding ‘inine’ epimers). Effects observed with EAs from C. africana (mainly dihydroergosine) and Epichloë (ergovaline/−inine) were also evaluated. There is limited information on toxicokinetics in food and non‐food producing animals. However, transfer from feed to food of animal origin is negligible. The major effects of EAs are related to vasoconstriction and are exaggerated during extreme temperatures. In addition, EAs cause a decrease in prolactin, resulting in a reduced milk production. Based on the sum of the EAs, the Panel considered the following as Reference Points (RPs) in complete feed for adverse animal health effects: for pigs and piglets 0.6 mg/kg, for chickens for fattening and hens 2.1 and 3.7 mg/kg, respectively, for ducks 0.2 mg/kg, bovines 0.1 mg/kg and sheep 0.3 mg/kg. A total of 19,023 analytical results on EAs (only from C. purpurea) in feed materials and compound feeds were available for the exposure assessment (1580 samples). Dietary exposure was assessed using two feeding scenarios (model diets and compound feeds). Risk characterisation was done for the animals for which an RP could be identified. The CONTAM Panel considers that, based on exposure from model diets, the presence of EAs in feed raises a health concern in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and bovines, while for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks, ovines and caprines, the health concern related to EAs in feed is low.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2009 risk assessment on arsenic in food carrying out a hazard assessment of inorganic arsenic (iAs) and using the revised exposure assessment issued by EFSA in 2021. Epidemiological studies show that the chronic intake of iAs via diet and/or drinking water is associated with increased risk of several adverse outcomes including cancers of the skin, bladder and lung. The CONTAM Panel used the benchmark dose lower confidence limit based on a benchmark response (BMR) of 5% (relative increase of the background incidence after adjustment for confounders, BMDL05) of 0.06 μg iAs/kg bw per day obtained from a study on skin cancer as a Reference Point (RP). Inorganic As is a genotoxic carcinogen with additional epigenetic effects and the CONTAM Panel applied a margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk characterisation. In adults, the MOEs are low (range between 2 and 0.4 for mean consumers and between 0.9 and 0.2 at the 95th percentile exposure, respectively) and as such raise a health concern despite the uncertainties.

Abstract In 2004, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks to animal health and transfer from feed to food of animal origin related to the presence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in feed. The European Commission requested EFSA to assess newly available scientific information and to update the 2004 Scientific Opinion. OTA is produced by several fungi of the genera Aspergillus and Penicillium. In most animal species it is rapidly and extensively absorbed in the gastro‐intestinal tract, binds strongly to plasma albumins and is mainly detoxified to ochratoxin alpha (OTalpha) by ruminal microbiota. In pigs, OTA has been found mainly in liver and kidney. Transfer of OTA from feed to milk in ruminants and donkeys as well as to eggs from poultry is confirmed but low. Overall, OTA impairs function and structure of kidneys and liver, causes immunosuppression and affects the zootechnical performance (e.g. body weight gain, feed/gain ratio, etc.), with monogastric species being more susceptible than ruminants because of limited detoxification to OTalpha. The CONTAM Panel considered as reference point (RP) for adverse animal health effects: for pigs and rabbits 0.01 mg OTA/kg feed, for chickens for fattening and hens 0.03 mg OTA/kg feed. A total of 9,184 analytical results on OTA in feed, expressed in dry matter, were available. Dietary exposure was assessed using different scenarios based on either model diets or compound feed (complete feed or complementary feed plus forage). Risk characterisation was made for the animals for which an RP could be identified. The CONTAM Panel considers that the risk related to OTA in feed for adverse health effects for pigs, chickens for fattening, hens and rabbits is low.

Abstract EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the ‘Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments’ published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub‐questions is proposed: the ‘APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross‐cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub‐questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub‐)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi‐formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and – not covered in this guidance – generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone ‘template’ for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

Abstract Mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOH) are composed of saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) and aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH). Due to the complexity of the MOH composition, their complete chemical characterisation is not possible. MOSH accumulation is observed in various tissues, with species‐specific differences. Formation of liver epithelioid lipogranulomas and inflammation, as well as increased liver and spleen weights, are observed in Fischer 344 (F344) rats, but not in Sprague–Dawley (SD) rats. These effects are related to specific accumulation of wax components in the liver of F344 rats, which is not observed in SD rats or humans. The CONTAM Panel concluded that F344 rats are not an appropriate model for effects of MOSH with wax components. A NOAEL of 236 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, corresponding to the highest tested dose in F344 rats of a white mineral oil product virtually free of wax components, was selected as relevant reference point (RP). The highest dietary exposure to MOSH was estimated for the young population, with lower bound–upper bound (LB–UB) means and 95th percentiles of 0.085–0.126 and 0.157–0.212 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. Considering a margin of exposure approach, the Panel concluded that the present dietary exposure to MOSH does not raise concern for human health for all age classes. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are associated with MOAH with three or more aromatic rings. For this subfraction, a surrogate RP of 0.49 mg/kg bw per day, calculated from data on eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, was considered. The highest dietary exposure to MOAH was also in the young population, with LB–UB mean and 95th percentile estimations of 0.003–0.031 and 0.011–0.059 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. Based on two scenarios on three or more ring MOAH contents in the diet and lacking toxicological information on effects of 1 and 2 ring MOAH, a possible concern for human health was raised.

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to provide an assessment of the processing conditions which make Ambrosia seeds non‐viable in feed materials and compound feed. This assessment also includes information on a reliable procedure to verify the non‐viability of the seeds. Ambrosia seeds are known contaminants in feed with maximum levels set in the Directive 2002/32/EC. The manufacturing processes and processing conditions applied to the feed may affect the viability of the Ambrosia seeds. Therefore, the CONTAM Panel compared these conditions with conditions that have been shown to be sufficient to render Ambrosia seeds non‐viable. The Panel concluded with a certainty of 99–100% that solvent extraction and toasting of oilseed meals at temperatures of 120°C with steam injection for 10 min or more will make Ambrosia seeds non‐viable. Since milling/grinding feed materials for compound feed of piglets, aquatic species and non‐food producing animals would not allow particles of sizes ≥1 mm (the minimum size of viable Ambrosia seeds) passing the grinding process it was considered very likely (with ≥ 90% certainty) that these feeds will not contain viable Ambrosia seeds. In poultry, pig, and possibly cattle feed, particle sizes are ≥ 1 mm and therefore Ambrosia seeds could likely (66–90% certainty) survive the grinding process. Starch and gluten either from corn or wheat wet milling would not contain Ambrosia seeds with 99–100% certainty. Finally, ensiling fresh forages contaminated with A. artemisiifolia seeds for more than 3 months is very likely to render all seeds non‐viable. The Panel concluded that a combination of the germination test and a subsequent triphenyl‐tetrazolium‐chloride (TTC) test will very likely (with ≥ 90% certainty) verify the non‐viability of Ambrosia seeds. The Panel recommends that data on the presence of viable Ambrosia seeds before and after the different feed production processes should be generated.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for human health of the presence of grayanotoxins (GTXs) in ‘certain honey’ from Ericaceae plants. The risk assessment included all structurally related grayananes occurring with GTXs in ‘certain’ honey. Oral exposure is associated with acute intoxication in humans. Acute symptoms affect the muscles, nervous and cardiovascular systems. These may lead to complete atrioventricular block, convulsions, mental confusion, agitation, syncope and respiratory depression. For acute effects, the CONTAM Panel derived a reference point (RP) of 15.3 μg/kg body weight for the sum of GTX I and III based on a BMDL10 for reduced heart rate in rats. A similar relative potency was considered for GTX I. Without chronic toxicity studies, an RP for long‐term effects could not be derived. There is evidence for genotoxicity in mice exposed to GTX III or honey containing GTX I and III, showing increased levels of chromosomal damage. The mechanism of genotoxicity is unknown. Without representative occurrence data for the sum of GTX I and III and consumption data from Ericaceae honey, acute dietary exposure was estimated based on selected concentrations for GTX I and III reflecting concentrations measured in ‘certain’ honeys. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs raised health concerns for acute toxicity. The Panel calculated the highest concentrations for GTX I and III below which no acute effects would be expected following ‘certain honey’ consumption. The Panel is 75% or more certain that the calculated highest concentration of 0.05 mg for the sum of GTX I and III per kg honey is protective for all age groups regarding acute intoxications. This value does not consider other grayananes in ‘certain honey’ and does not cover the identified genotoxicity.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the leaves of Laurus nobilis L. (laurel leaf oil), when used as a sensory additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 4% methyleugenol. The use of the additive at 2 mg/kg complete feed in dogs and cats was considered of low concern. For other long‐living and reproductive animals, the use of the additive at 10 mg/kg was considered of concern. For short‐living animals, the Panel had no safety concern when the additive is used at 10 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, piglets and other growing Suidae, pigs for fattening, veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening and other growing ruminants, horses and rabbits for meat production, salmonids and other fin fish; and at 8.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, other growing poultry and other minor species for fattening. The use of laurel leaf oil up to the highest level in feed which was considered of no concern for target animals was also expected to be of no concern for consumers. The additive should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract. Due to the high concentration of methyleugenol (≥ 1%), the additive was classified by the applicant as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since the leaves of L. nobilis and their preparations were recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be the same, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of N‐nitrosamines (N‐NAs) in food. The risk assessment was confined to those 10 carcinogenic N‐NAs occurring in food (TCNAs), i.e. NDMA, NMEA, NDEA, NDPA, NDBA, NMA, NSAR, NMOR, NPIP and NPYR. N‐NAs are genotoxic and induce liver tumours in rodents. The in vivo data available to derive potency factors are limited, and therefore, equal potency of TCNAs was assumed. The lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose at 10% (BMDL10) was 10 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day, derived from the incidence of rat liver tumours (benign and malignant) induced by NDEA and used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Analytical results on the occurrence of N‐NAs were extracted from the EFSA occurrence database (n = 2,817) and the literature (n = 4,003). Occurrence data were available for five food categories across TCNAs. Dietary exposure was assessed for two scenarios, excluding (scenario 1) and including (scenario 2) cooked unprocessed meat and fish. TCNAs exposure ranged from 0 to 208.9 ng/kg bw per day across surveys, age groups and scenarios. ‘Meat and meat products’ is the main food category contributing to TCNA exposure. MOEs ranged from 3,337 to 48 at the P95 exposure excluding some infant surveys with P95 exposure equal to zero. Two major uncertainties were (i) the high number of left censored data and (ii) the lack of data on important food categories. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the MOE for TCNAs at the P95 exposure is highly likely (98–100% certain) to be less than 10,000 for all age groups, which raises a health concern.

Abstract In 2017, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of deoxynivalenol (DON) and its acetylated and modified forms in food and feed. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were derived for different animal species. For horses, an NOAEL of 36 mg DON/kg feed was established, the highest concentration tested and not showing adverse effects. For poultry, an NOAEL of 5 mg DON/kg feed for broiler chickens and laying hens, and an NOAEL of 7 mg DON/kg feed for ducks and turkeys was derived. The European Commission requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of DON for horses and poultry and to revise, if necessary, the established reference points (RPs). Adverse effect levels of 1.9 and 1.7 mg DON/kg feed for, respectively, broiler chickens and turkeys were derived from reassessment of existing studies and newly available literature, showing that DON causes effects on the intestines, in particular the jejunum, with a decreased villus height but also histological damage. An RP for adverse animal health effects of 0.6 mg/kg feed for broiler chickens and turkeys, respectively, was established. For horses, an adverse effect level of 5.6 mg DON/kg feed was established from studies showing reduced feed intake, with an RP for adverse animal health effects of 3.5 mg/kg feed. For ducks and laying hens, RPs remain unchanged. Based on mean and P95 (UB) exposure estimates performed in the previous Opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing DON was considered a potential concern for broiler chickens and turkeys. For horses, the risk for adverse health effects from feed containing DON is low.

Abstract Copper is an essential micronutrient and also a regulated product used in organic and in conventional farming pest management. Both deficiency and excessive exposure to copper can have adverse health effects. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA 2021 harmonised approach for establishing health‐based guidance values (HBGVs) for substances that are regulated products and also nutrients was used to resolve the divergent existing HBGVs for copper. The tightly regulated homeostasis prevents toxicity manifestation in the short term, but the development of chronic copper toxicity is dependent on copper homeostasis and its tissue retention. Evidence from Wilson disease suggests that hepatic retention is indicative of potential future and possibly sudden onset of copper toxicity under conditions of continuous intake. Hence, emphasis was placed on copper retention as an early marker of potential adverse effects. The relationships between (a) chronic copper exposure and its retention in the body, particularly the liver, and (b) hepatic copper concentrations and evidence of toxicity were examined. The Scientific Committee (SC) concludes that no retention of copper is expected to occur with intake of 5 mg/day and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0.07 mg/kg bw. A refined dietary exposure assessment was performed, assessing contribution from dietary and non‐dietary sources. Background copper levels are a significant source of copper. The contribution of copper from its use as plant protection product (PPP), food and feed additives or fertilisers is negligible. The use of copper in fertilisers or PPPs contributes to copper accumulation in soil. Infant formula and follow‐on formula are important contributors to dietary exposure of copper in infants and toddlers. Contribution from non‐oral sources is negligible. Dietary exposure to total copper does not exceed the HBGV in adolescents, adults, elderly and the very elderly. Neither hepatic copper retention nor adverse effects are expected to occur from the estimated copper exposure in children due to higher nutrient requirements related to growth.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the fruit of Cuminum cyminum L. (cumin oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the use of cumin oil up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed of 15 mg/kg complete feed is considered as safe for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel considered the use in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of cumin oil up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to estragole (and dillapiole) cannot be excluded. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of cumin oil at the proposed use level in feed is not expected to pose a risk to the environment. Since C. cyminum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from leaves, stalks and twigs of Cinnamomum cassia (L.) J. Presl (cassia leaf oil) when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Owing to the presence of styrene in cassia leaf oil, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude for long‐living animals and animals for reproduction. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that cassia leaf oil is considered as safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 28.5 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and other minor poultry, 38 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 51 mg/kg for piglets and other minor Suidae, 61 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 100 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), 60 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and other ruminants for fattening, 30 mg/kg for horses, 25 mg/kg for rabbits, 125 mg/kg for salmonids and other fin fish. For the other minor species, the additive is considered as safe at 28.5 mg/kg complete feed. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel considered the use in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additive at the use levels considered safe in feed for the target species. When handling the essential oil, exposure of unprotected users to styrene cannot be excluded. Therefore, to reduce the risk, the exposure of the users should be minimised. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Cassia leaf oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

Abstract The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from the bark and the leaves of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Owing to the presence of styrene in the essential oils under assessment, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for long‐living animals and animals for reproduction. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil are considered as safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the Panel considered the use of cinnamon bark oil in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. For cinnamon leaf oil, the proposed use level in water for drinking of 3 mg/L is considered as safe for ‘short‐living’ animals. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additives at the use level considered safe in feed for the target species. Based on the presence of safrole ≥0.1%, cinnamon leaf oil and bark oil are classified as carcinogen (category 1B) and handled accordingly. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. verum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for cinnamon essential oils.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) assessed a decontamination process of fish oils and vegetable oils and fats to reduce the concentrations of dioxins (polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, abbreviated together as PCDD/Fs) and dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL‐PCBs) by adsorption to activated carbon. All feed decontamination processes must comply with the acceptability criteria specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786. Data provided by the feed food business operator (FBO) were assessed for the efficacy of the process and to demonstrate that the process did not adversely affect the characteristics and properties of the product. The limited information provided, in particular on the analysis of the samples before and after decontamination, did not allow the CONTAM Panel to conclude whether or not the proposed decontamination process is effective in reducing PCDD/Fs and DL‐PCBs in the fish‐ and vegetable oils and fats. Although there is no evidence from the data provided that the decontamination process leads to detrimental changes in the nutritional composition of the fish‐ and vegetable oils, it is possible that the process could deplete some beneficial constituents (e.g. vitamins). Taken together, it was not possible for the CONTAM Panel to conclude that the decontamination process as proposed by the FBO is compliant with the acceptability criteria provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015.

Abstract In 2011, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of T‐2 (T2) and HT‐2 (HT2) toxin in food and feed. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were derived for different animal species. In ruminants a LOAEL was established for the sum of T2 and HT2 of 0.3 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, based on studies with calves and lambs. The CONTAM Panel noted that the effects observed in nutritionally challenged heifers and ewes give rise to the assumption that rumen detoxification of T2 may not always be complete and therefore effective to prevent adverse effects in ruminants. However, the limited data on the effects of T2 on adult ruminants did not allow a conclusion. The European Commission requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of T2 and HT2 for ruminants and to revise, if necessary, the established Reference Point (RP). Adverse effect levels of 0.001 and 0.01 mg T2/kg bw per day for, respectively, sheep and cows, were derived from case studies, estimated to correspond to feed concentrations of 0.035 mg T2/kg for sheep and 0.6 mg T2/kg for cows. RPs for adverse animal health effects of 0.01 mg/kg feed for sheep and 0.2 mg/kg feed for cows were established. For goats, the RP for cows was selected, in the absence of data that they are more sensitive. Based on high exposure estimates performed in the 2017 EFSA Scientific Report, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing T2 and HT2 was considered low for dairy cows, fattening beef, cereal beef and lactating sheep. For milking goats, a comparison performed between dietary exposure and the RP derived for bovines, also indicates a low risk for adverse health effects.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate synthetic biology (SynBio) developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine whether or not they are expected to constitute potential new hazards/risks. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment of SynBio and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers food and feed risk assessment, the variety of microorganisms that can be used in the food/feed chain and the whole spectrum of techniques used in SynBio. This Opinion complements a previously adopted Opinion with the evaluation of existing guidelines for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through SynBio. The present Opinion confirms that microbial SynBio applications for food and feed use, with the exception of xenobionts, could be ready in the European Union in the next decade. New hazards were identified related to the use or production of unusual and/or new‐to‐nature components. Fifteen cases were selected for evaluating the adequacy of existing guidelines. These were generally adequate for assessing the product, the production process, nutritional and toxicological safety, allergenicity, exposure and post‐market monitoring. The comparative approach and a safety assessment per se could be applied depending on the degree of familiarity of the SynBio organism/product with the non‐genetically modified counterparts. Updated guidance is recommended for: (i) bacteriophages, protists/microalgae, (ii) exposure to plant protection products and biostimulants, (iii) xenobionts and (iv) feed additives for insects as target species. Development of risk assessment tools is recommended for assessing nutritional value of biomasses, influence of microorganisms on the gut microbiome and the gut function, allergenic potential of new‐to‐nature proteins, impact of horizontal gene transfer and potential risks of living cell intake. A further development towards a strain‐driven risk assessment approach is recommended.

Abstract In 2018, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of fumonisins, their modified forms and hidden forms in feed. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1 mg/kg feed was established for pigs. In poultry a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg feed and in horses a reference point for adverse animal health effect of 8.8 mg/kg feed was established, referred to as NOAEL. The European Commission (EC) requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of fumonisins for pigs, poultry and horses and to revise, if necessary, the established NOAELs. The EFSA CONTAM Panel considered that the term reference point (RP) for adverse animal health effects better reflects the uncertainties in the available studies. New evidence which had become available since the previous opinion allowed to revise an RP for adverse animal health effects for poultry from 20 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg feed (based on a LOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg feed for reduced intestinal crypt depth) and for horses from 8.8 to 1.0 mg/kg feed (based on case studies on equine leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM)). For pigs, the previously established NOAEL was confirmed as no further studies suitable for deriving an RP for adverse animal health effects could be identified. Based on exposure estimates performed in the previous opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing FB1–3 was considered a concern for poultry, when taking into account the RP of 1 mg/kg feed for intestinal effects. For horses and other solipeds, the risk is considered low, although a large uncertainty associated with exposure was identified. The same conclusions apply to the sum of FB1–3 and their hidden forms.

Abstract The European Commission has asked the EFSA to evaluate the risk for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey bee feed. HMF is a degradation product of particular sugars and can be present in bee feed. HMF is of low acute toxicity in bees but causes increased mortality upon chronic exposure. A benchmark dose lower limit 10% (BMDL10) of 1.16 μg HMF per bee per day has been calculated from mortalities observed in a 20‐day study and established as a Reference Point covering also mortality in larvae, drones and queens for which no or insufficient toxicity data were available. Winter bees have a much longer lifespan than summer bees and HMF shows clear time reinforced toxicity (TRT) characteristics. Therefore, additional Reference Point intervals of 0.21–3.1, 0.091–1.1 and 0.019–0.35 µg HMF/bee per day were calculated based on extrapolation to exposure durations of 50, 90 and 180 days, respectively. A total of 219 analytical data of HMF concentrations in bee feed from EU Member States and 88 from Industry were available. Exposure estimates of worker bees and larvae ranged between 0.1 and 0.48, and between 0.1 and 0.51 μg HMF/per day, respectively. They were well below the BMDL10 of 1.16 μg HMF/bee per day, and thus, no concern was identified. However, when accounting for TRT, the probability that exposures were below established reference point intervals was assessed to be extremely unlikely to almost certain depending on exposure duration. A concern for bee health was identified when bees are exposed to HMF contaminated bee feed for several months.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) provided a scientific opinion on an application for a detoxification process of groundnut press cake for aflatoxins by ammoniation. Specifically, it is required that the feed decontamination process is compliant with the acceptability criteria specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015. The CONTAM Panel assessed the data provided by the feed business operator with respect to the efficacy of the process to remove the contaminant from groundnut press cake batches and on information demonstrating that the process does not adversely affect the characteristics and the nature of the product. Although according to the literature the process may be able to reduce aflatoxin levels below the legal limits, the Panel concluded that the proposed decontamination process, on the basis of the experimental data submitted by the feed business operator, cannot be confirmed for compliance with the acceptability criteria provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015. The Panel recommended sufficient sample testing before and after the process, under the selected conditions, to ensure that the process is reproducible and reliable and to demonstrate that the detoxification is not reversible. In addition, genotoxicity testing of extracts of the treated feedingstuff and of the identified degradation products would be necessary. Finally, information on the transfer rate of AFB1 to AFM1 excretion in milk for animals fed the ammoniated product, in comparison to the starting material and on the ammoniation process changes of the nutritional values of the feed material should be provided.

Abstract This guidance document provides harmonised and flexible methodologies to apply scientific criteria and prioritisation methods for grouping chemicals into assessment groups for human risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. In the context of EFSA’s risk assessments, the problem formulation step defines the chemicals to be assessed in the terms of reference usually through regulatory criteria often set by risk managers based on legislative requirements. Scientific criteria such as hazard‐driven criteria can be used to group these chemicals into assessment groups. In this guidance document, a framework is proposed to apply hazard‐driven criteria for grouping of chemicals into assessment groups using mechanistic information on toxicity as the gold standard where available (i.e. common mode of action or adverse outcome pathway) through a structured weight of evidence approach. However, when such mechanistic data are not available, grouping may be performed using a common adverse outcome. Toxicokinetic data can also be useful for grouping, particularly when metabolism information is available for a class of compounds and common toxicologically relevant metabolites are shared. In addition, prioritisation methods provide means to identify low‐priority chemicals and reduce the number of chemicals in an assessment group. Prioritisation methods include combined risk‐based approaches, risk‐based approaches for single chemicals and exposure‐driven approaches. Case studies have been provided to illustrate the practical application of hazard‐driven criteria and the use of prioritisation methods for grouping of chemicals in assessment groups. Recommendations for future work are discussed.

Abstract This Opinion assesses the biological relevance of the non‐monotonic dose responses (NMDR) identified in a previous EFSA External Report (Beausoleil et al., 2016) produced under GP/EFSA/SCER/2014/01 and the follow‐up probabilistic assessment (Chevillotte et al., 2017a,b), focusing on the in vivo data sets fulfilling most of the checkpoints of the visual/statistical‐based analysis identified in Beausoleil et al. (2016). The evaluation was completed with cases discussed in EFSA assessments and the update of the scientific literature. Observations of NMDR were confirmed in certain studies and are particularly relevant for receptor‐mediated effects. Based on the results of the evaluation, the Opinion proposes an approach to be applied during the risk assessment process when apparent non‐monotonicity is observed, also providing advice on specific elements to be considered to facilitate the assessment of NMDR in EFSA risk assessments. The proposed approach was applied to two case studies, Bisphenol A and bis(2‐ethylhexyl phthalate (DEHP) and these evaluations are reported in dedicated annexes. Considering the potential impact of NMDRs in regulatory risk assessment, the Scientific Committee recommends a concerted international effort on developing internationally agreed guidance and harmonised frameworks for identifying and addressing NMDRs in the risk assessment process.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide information on the levels of domoic acid (DA) in whole scallops that would ensure that levels in edible parts are below the regulatory limit after shucking. This should include five species of scallops. In addition, EFSA was asked to recommend the number of scallops to be used in an analytical sample. To address these questions, EFSA received suitable data on DA for only one scallop species, Pecten maximus, i.e. data on pooled samples of edible and non‐edible parts. A large part of the concentration levels was above the limit of quantification (LOQ) and only these data were used for the assessment. Shucking in most cases resulted in a strong decrease in the toxin levels. Statistical analysis of the data showed that levels in whole scallops should not exceed 24 mg DA/kg, 59 mg DA/kg and 127 mg DA/kg to ensure that levels in, respectively, gonads, muscle and muscle plus gonads are below the regulatory limit of 20 mg DA/kg with 99% certainty. Such an analysis was not possible for the other scallop species. In the absence of data from member states, published data of variations between scallops were used to calculate the sample size to ensure a 95% correct prediction on whether the level in scallops in an area or lot is correctly predicted to be compliant/non‐compliant. It was shown that 10 scallops per sample would be sufficient to predict with 95% certainty if DA levels in the area/lot were twofold below or above the regulatory limit for the highest reported coefficient of variance (CV) of 1.06. To predict with 95% certainty for levels between 15 and 27 mg DA/kg, a pooled sample of more than 30 scallops would have to be tested.

Abstract The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems‐based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent‐based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) in food. HBCDDs, predominantly mixtures of the stereoisomers α‐, β‐ and γ‐HBCDD, were widely used additive flame retardants. Concern has been raised because of the occurrence of HBCDDs in the environment, food and in humans. Main targets for toxicity are neurodevelopment, the liver, thyroid hormone homeostasis and the reproductive and immune systems. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour in mice can be considered the critical effects. Based on effects on spontaneous behaviour in mice, the Panel identified a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) as the Reference Point, corresponding to a body burden of 0.75 mg/kg bw. The chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans was calculated to be 2.35 μg/kg bw per day. The derivation of a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) was not considered appropriate. Instead, the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied to assess possible health concerns. Over 6,000 analytical results for HBCDDs in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary LB exposure to HBCDDs were fish meat, eggs, livestock meat and poultry. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the resulting MOE values support the conclusion that current dietary exposure to HBCDDs across European countries does not raise a health concern. An exception is breastfed infants with high milk consumption, for which the lowest MOE values may raise a health concern.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide information on levels of lipophilic shellfish toxins in whole scallops that would ensure levels in edible parts below the regulatory limits after shucking, i.e. removal of non‐edible parts. This should include the okadaic acid (OA), the azaspiracid (AZA) and the yessotoxin (YTX) groups, and five species of scallops. In addition, EFSA was asked to recommend the number of scallops in an analytical sample. To address these questions, EFSA received suitable data on the three toxin groups in two scallop species, Aequipecten opercularis and Pecten maximus, i.e. data on individual and pooled samples of edible and non‐edible parts from contamination incidents. The majority of the concentration levels were below limit of quantification (LOQ)/limit of detection (LOD), especially in adductor muscle but also in gonads. Shucking in most cases resulted in a strong decrease in the toxin levels. For Pecten maximus, statistical analysis showed that levels in whole scallops should not exceed 256 μg OA eq/kg or 217 μg AZA1 eq/kg to ensure that levels in gonads are below the regulatory limits of 160 μg OA or AZA1 eq/kg with 99% certainty. Such an analysis was not possible for yessotoxins or any toxin in Aequipecten opercularis and an assessment could only be based on upper bound levels. To ensure a 95% correct prediction on whether the level in scallops in an area or lot is correctly predicted to be compliant/non‐compliant, it was shown that 10 scallops per sample would be sufficient to predict with 95% certainty if levels of OA‐group toxins in the area/lot were 25% below or above the regulatory limit. However, to predict with a 95% certainty for levels between 140 and 180 μg OA eq/kg, a pooled sample of more than 30 scallops would have to be tested.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks to animal health related to nitrite and nitrate in feed. For nitrate ion, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) identified a BMDL10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg body weight (bw) per day for adult cattle, based on methaemoglobin (MetHb) levels in animal's blood that would not induce clinical signs of hypoxia. The BMDL10 is applicable to all bovines, except for pregnant cows in which reproductive effects were not clearly associated with MetHb formation. Since the data available suggested that ovines and caprines are not more sensitive than bovines, the BMDL10 could also be applied to these species. Highest mean exposure estimates of 53 and 60 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in grass silage‐based diets for beef cattle and fattening goats, respectively, may raise a health concern for ruminants when compared with the BMDL10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg bw per day. The concern may be higher because other forages might contain higher levels of nitrate. Highest mean exposure estimates of 2.0 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in pigs’ feeds indicate a low risk for adverse health effects, when compared with an identified no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 410 mg nitrate/kg bw per day, although the levels of exposure might be underestimated due to the absence of data on certain key ingredients in the diets of this species. Due to the limitations of the data available, the CONTAM Panel could not characterise the health risk in species other than ruminants and pigs from nitrate and in all livestock and companion animals from nitrite. Based on a limited data set, both the transfer of nitrate and nitrite from feed to food products of animal origin and the nitrate‐ and nitrite‐mediated formation of N‐nitrosamines and their transfer into these products are likely to be negligible.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to update its previous Opinion on nickel in food and drinking water, taking into account new occurrence data, the updated benchmark dose (BMD) Guidance and newly available scientific information. More than 47,000 analytical results on the occurrence of nickel were used for calculating chronic and acute dietary exposure. An increased incidence of post‐implantation loss in rats was identified as the critical effect for the risk characterisation of chronic oral exposure and a BMDL10 of 1.3 mg Ni/kg body weight (bw) per day was selected as the reference point for the establishment of a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 13 μg/kg bw. Eczematous flare‐up reactions in the skin elicited in nickel‐sensitised humans, a condition known as systemic contact dermatitis, was identified as the critical effect for the risk characterisation of acute oral exposure. A BMDL could not be derived, and therefore, the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level of 4.3 μg Ni/kg bw was selected as the reference point. The margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied and an MOE of 30 or higher was considered as being indicative of a low health concern. The mean lower bound (LB)/upper bound (UB) chronic dietary exposure was below or at the level of the TDI. The 95th percentile LB/UB chronic dietary exposure was below the TDI in adolescents and in all adult age groups, but generally exceeded the TDI in toddlers and in other children, as well as in infants in some surveys. This may raise a health concern in these young age groups. The MOE values for the mean UB acute dietary exposure and for the 95th percentile UB raises a health concern for nickel‐sensitised individuals. The MOE values for an acute scenario regarding consumption of a glass of water on an empty stomach do not raise a health concern.

Abstract EFSA was asked by the European Commission to consider synthetic biology developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine if the use of this technology is expected to constitute potential risks and hazards for the environment. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers viable synthetic biology microorganisms (SynBioMs) expected to be deliberately released into the environment. The evaluation was based on: (i) horizon scanning of published information, (ii) gap analysis of existing guidelines covering the scope of this mandate, and (iii) future outlooks. A horizon scan showed that SynBioM applications could be ready for deliberate release into the environment of the EU in the next decade. However, extensively engineered SynBioMs are only expected in the wider future. For the microbial characterisation and the environmental risk assessment, the existing EFSA Guidances are useful as a basis. The extent to which existing Guidances can be used depends on the familiarity of the SynBioM with non‐modified organisms. Among the recommendations for updated Guidance, the range of uses of products to be assessed covering all agri‐food uses and taking into account all types of microorganisms, their relevant exposure routes and receiving environments. It is suggested that new EFSA Guidances address all ‘specific areas of risk’ as per Directive 2001/18/EC. No novel environmental hazards are expected for current and near future SynBioMs. However, the efficacy by which the SynBioMs interact with the environment may differ. This could lead to increased exposure and risk. Novel hazards connected with the development of xenobionts may be expected in the wider future.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific evaluation on the risks to human health related to the presence of perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in food. Based on several similar effects in animals, toxicokinetics and observed concentrations in human blood, the CONTAM Panel decided to perform the assessment for the sum of four PFASs: PFOA, PFNA, PFHxS and PFOS. These made up half of the lower bound (LB) exposure to those PFASs with available occurrence data, the remaining contribution being primarily from PFASs with short half‐lives. Equal potencies were assumed for the four PFASs included in the assessment. The mean LB exposure in adolescents and adult age groups ranged from 3 to 22, the 95th percentile from 9 to 70 ng/kg body weight (bw) per week. Toddlers and ‘other children’ showed a twofold higher exposure. Upper bound exposure was 4‐ to 49‐fold higher than LB levels, but the latter were considered more reliable. ‘Fish meat’, ‘Fruit and fruit products’ and ‘Eggs and egg products’ contributed most to the exposure. Based on available studies in animals and humans, effects on the immune system were considered the most critical for the risk assessment. From a human study, a lowest BMDL10 of 17.5 ng/mL for the sum of the four PFASs in serum was identified for 1‐year‐old children. Using PBPK modelling, this serum level of 17.5 ng/mL in children was estimated to correspond to long‐term maternal exposure of 0.63 ng/kg bw per day. Since accumulation over time is important, a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 4.4 ng/kg bw per week was established. This TWI also protects against other potential adverse effects observed in humans. Based on the estimated LB exposure, but also reported serum levels, the CONTAM Panel concluded that parts of the European population exceed this TWI, which is of concern.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids (GAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment covers edible parts of potato plants and other food plants containing GAs, in particular, tomato and aubergine. In humans, acute toxic effects of potato GAs (α‐solanine and α‐chaconine) include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. For these effects, the CONTAM Panel identified a lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect level of 1 mg total potato GAs/kg body weight (bw) per day as a reference point for the risk characterisation following acute exposure. In humans, no evidence of health problems associated with repeated or long‐term intake of GAs via potatoes has been identified. No reference point for chronic exposure could be identified from the experimental animal studies. Occurrence data were available only for α‐solanine and α‐chaconine, mostly for potatoes. The acute dietary exposure to potato GAs was estimated using a probabilistic approach and applying processing factors for food. Due to the limited data available, a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied. The MOEs for the younger age groups indicate a health concern for the food consumption surveys with the highest mean exposure, as well as for the P95 exposure in all surveys. For adult age groups, the MOEs indicate a health concern only for the food consumption surveys with the highest P95 exposures. For tomato and aubergine GAs, the risk to human health could not be characterised due to the lack of occurrence data and the limited toxicity data. For horses, farm and companion animals, no risk characterisation for potato GAs could be performed due to insufficient data on occurrence in feed and on potential adverse effects of GAs in these species.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to update their 2006 opinion on ochratoxin A (OTA) in food. OTA is produced by fungi of the genus Aspergillus and Penicillium and found as a contaminant in various foods. OTA causes kidney toxicity in different animal species and kidney tumours in rodents. OTA is genotoxic both in vitro and in vivo; however, the mechanisms of genotoxicity are unclear. Direct and indirect genotoxic and non‐genotoxic modes of action might each contribute to tumour formation. Since recent studies have raised uncertainty regarding the mode of action for kidney carcinogenicity, it is inappropriate to establish a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied. For the characterisation of non‐neoplastic effects, a BMDL10 of 4.73 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day was calculated from kidney lesions observed in pigs. For characterisation of neoplastic effects, a BMDL10 of 14.5 μg/kg bw per day was calculated from kidney tumours seen in rats. The estimation of chronic dietary exposure resulted in mean and 95th percentile levels ranging from 0.6 to 17.8 and from 2.4 to 51.7 ng/kg bw per day, respectively. Median OTA exposures in breastfed infants ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 ng/kg bw per day, 95th percentile exposures from 5.6 to 8.5 ng/kg bw per day in average/high breast milk consuming infants, respectively. Comparison of exposures with the BMDL10 based on the non‐neoplastic endpoint resulted in MOEs of more than 200 in most consumer groups, indicating a low health concern with the exception of MOEs for high consumers in the younger age groups, indicating a possible health concern. When compared with the BMDL10 based on the neoplastic endpoint, MOEs were lower than 10,000 for almost all exposure scenarios, including breastfed infants. This would indicate a possible health concern if genotoxicity is direct. Uncertainty in this assessment is high and risk may be overestimated.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of chlorinated paraffins in feed and food. The data for experimental animals were reviewed and the CONTAM Panel identified the liver, kidney and thyroid as the target organs for the SCCP and MCCP mixtures tested in repeated dose toxicity studies. Decreased pup survival and subcutaneous haematoma/haemorrhage were also identified as critical effects for an MCCP mixture. For the LCCP mixtures tested, the liver was identified as the target organ. The Panel selected as reference points a BMDL10 of 2.3 mg/kg bw per day for increased incidence of nephritis in male rats, and of 36 mg/kg bw per day for increased relative kidney weights in male and female rats for SCCPs and MCCPs, respectively. For LCCPs, a reference point relevant for humans could not be identified. Due to the limitations in the toxicokinetic and toxicological database, the Panel concluded that derivation of a health‐based guidance value was not appropriate. Only limited data on the occurrence of SCCPs and MCCPs in some fish species were submitted to EFSA. No data were submitted for LCCPs. Thus, a robust exposure assessment and consequently a complete risk characterisation could not be performed. A preliminary risk characterisation based only on the consumption of fish was performed, and the calculated margins of exposure suggested no health concern for this limited scenario. The Panel noted that dietary exposure will be higher due to the contribution of CPs from other foods. The Panel was not able to identify reference points for farm animals, horses and companion animals. No occurrence data for feed were submitted to EFSA. Therefore, no risk characterisation could be performed for any of these animal species.

Abstract EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of aflatoxins in food. The risk assessment was confined to aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), AFB2, AFG1, AFG2 and AFM1. More than 200,000 analytical results on the occurrence of aflatoxins were used in the evaluation. Grains and grain‐based products made the largest contribution to the mean chronic dietary exposure to AFB1 in all age classes, while ‘liquid milk’ and ‘fermented milk products’ were the main contributors to the AFM1 mean exposure. Aflatoxins are genotoxic and AFB1 can cause hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in humans. The CONTAM Panel selected a benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL) for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.4 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of HCC in male rats following AFB1 exposure to be used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. The calculation of a BMDL from the human data was not appropriate; instead, the cancer potencies estimated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in 2016 were used. For AFM1, a potency factor of 0.1 relative to AFB1 was used. For AFG1, AFB2 and AFG2, the in vivo data are not sufficient to derive potency factors and equal potency to AFB1 was assumed as in previous assessments. MOE values for AFB1 exposure ranged from 5,000 to 29 and for AFM1 from 100,000 to 508. The calculated MOEs are below 10,000 for AFB1 and also for AFM1 where some surveys, particularly for the younger age groups, have an MOE below 10,000. This raises a health concern. The estimated cancer risks in humans following exposure to AFB1 and AFM1 are in‐line with the conclusion drawn from the MOEs. The conclusions also apply to the combined exposure to all five aflatoxins.

Abstract Shipping of edible fats and oils into Europe is permitted in bulk tanks, provided that the previous cargo is included in a positive list. The European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate the acceptability of calcium lignosulfonate as previous cargo for fats and oils. The evaluation was based on the same criteria as those used for the evaluation of the substances currently on the list in the Annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as a acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils. In 2017, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) concluded that calcium lignosulfonate did not meet the acceptability criteria, due to uncertainties as regards the composition and toxicity of its low‐molecular weight fraction (LMWF) below 1,000 Da. In the current evaluation, new information, showing lack of genotoxicity of the LMWF isolated from a technical grade of calcium lignosulfonate was provided. Due to uncertainties regarding the presence of lignosulfonate components below 200 Da in this LMWF tested for genotoxicity, the CONTAM Panel concluded that the information provided was insufficient to assess the acceptability of calcium lignosulfonate as previous cargo. The Panel recommends a better analysis of the LMWF and a new genotoxicity test using this LMWF, including components < 200 Da, and evidence that the tested material is representative of the LMWF in products intended to be shipped as previous cargo for edible fat and oils.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of quinolizidine alkaloids (QAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment is limited to QAs occurring in Lupinus species/varieties relevant for animal and human consumption in Europe (i.e. Lupinus albus L., Lupinus angustifolius L., Lupinus luteus L. and Lupinus mutabilis Sweet). Information on the toxicity of QAs in animals and humans is limited. Following acute exposure to sparteine (reference compound), anticholinergic effects and changes in cardiac electric conductivity are considered to be critical for human hazard characterisation. The CONTAM Panel used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach identifying a lowest single oral effective dose of 0.16 mg sparteine/kg body weight as reference point to characterise the risk following acute exposure. No reference point could be identified to characterise the risk of chronic exposure. Because of similar modes of action for QAs, the CONTAM Panel used a group approach assuming dose additivity. For food, the highest mean concentration of Total QAs (TotQAs) (i.e. the 6 most abundant QAs) was found in lupin seed samples classified as ‘Lupins (dry) and similar‐’. Due to the limited data on occurrence and consumption, dietary exposure was calculated for some specific scenarios and no full human health risk characterisation was possible. The calculated margin of exposures (MOEs) may indicate a risk for some consumers. For example, when lupin seeds are consumed without a debittering step, or as debittered lupin seeds high in QA content and when ‘lupin‐based meat imitates’ are consumed. For horses, companion and farm animals, other than salmonids, the available database on adverse effects was too limited to identify no‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and/or lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and no risk characterisation was possible. For salmonids, the CONTAM Panel considers the risk for adverse effects to be low.