Search

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

EFSA updated its previous work on the establishment of specific effects that are considered relevant for grouping pesticide residues targeting the thyroid and for performing the retrospective assessment of dietary cumulative risk (CRA). The two specific effects already selected in 2019 leading to the two cumulative assessment groups (CAGs) 'hypothyroidism' and 'C‐cell hypertrophy, hyperplasia and neoplasia' were reconfirmed. Compared to 2019, the list of indicators that can be used to identify these specific effects was refined to only include histopathological changes. In a second phase of the work, data will be extracted on indicators of the specific effects from the dossiers on active substances (a.s.) used as plant protection products. The criteria for including a.s. into CAGs were also updated, together with the hazard characterisation methodology and the lines of evidence for assessing CAG‐membership probabilities. The tasks related to the data extraction and the establishment of the CAGs on hypothyroidism and on C‐cell hypertrophy, hyperplasia and neoplasia are beyond the scope of this report. This part of the CRA process has been outsourced and will be the subject of a separate report. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2023.EN-7743/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7585/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component-based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component-based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)