Search

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.

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 g

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.

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.

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.

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

Annexes to EFSA's Update Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of OTA in feed. Annex B includes the occurrence data in feed extracted from EFSA Data Warehouse for the period from 2012 to 2021. Annex C contains the occurrence data expressed in dry matter following analysis and cleansing of the dataset as detailed in EFSA's Opinion. Annex D lists the samples of 'Compound feed' and other feed materials except forage expressed in whole weight. The number of samples across some of the feed categories differ among the two annex C and D because in few cases the moisture content was not reported (and no assumption on the moisture could be done), precluding the conversion of the analytical results to either whole weight or dry matter., Annexes to EFSA's Update Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of OTA in feed. Annex B includes the occurrence data in feed extracted from EFSA Data Warehouse for the period from 2012 to 2021. Annex C contains the occurrence data expressed in dry matter following analysis and cleansing of the dataset as detailed in EFSA's Opinion. Annex D lists the samples of 'Compound feed' and other feed materials except forage expressed in whole weight. The number of samples across some of the feed categories differ among the two annex C and D because in few cases the moisture content was not reported (and no assumption on the moisture could be done), precluding the conversion of the analytical results to either whole weight or dry matter.

The file contains the raw occurrence dataset on nitrosamines in food as extracted from EFSA DWH on 3 July 2021 and presented in the EFSA opinion on Risk assessment of N-nitrosamines in food available at https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7884. The data is provided in csv format. This dataset is compliant with EFSA SSD2 data model and contains two additional columns documenting issues identified in the cleaning process (column: issue) and the action taken (column: action) to address the issue (e.g. delete record or update values in specific fields). The link to the catalogues of controlled terminologies for the updated textual description of fields values can be found under "Related identifiers”., The file contains the raw occurrence dataset on nitrosamines in food as extracted from EFSA DWH on 3 July 2021 and presented in the EFSA opinion on Risk assessment of N-nitrosamines in food available at https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7884. The data is provided in csv format. This dataset is compliant with EFSA SSD2 data model and contains two additional columns documenting issues identified in the cleaning process (column: issue) and the action taken (column: action) to address the issue (e.g. delete record or update values in specific fields). The link to the catalogues of controlled terminologies for the updated textual description of fields values can be found under "Related identifiers”.

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 g