Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1845/full

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested to assess the differences in the outcome of the risk assessment of tropane alkaloids (TAs) in food between the CONTAM Panel and the Joint FAO/WHO meeting (FAO/WHO) and to conclude if an update of the EFSA opinion on tropane alkaloids in food and feed would be appropriate. TAs are secondary metabolites occurring in several plants. The main TAs considered in the assessments of EFSA and FAO/WHO were (‐)‐hyoscyamine and (‐)‐scopolamine, which exert their pharmacological and toxicological effects by acting as competitive antagonists of the muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Both EFSA and FAO/WHO considered a study in human volunteers as the key study to assess the effects of TAs. The CONTAM Panel established a group acute reference dose (ARfD) of 0.016 μg/kg body weight (bw) for the sum of (‐)‐hyoscyamine and (‐)‐scopolamine, based on decreased heart rate. FAO/WHO concluded that it was not possible to establish an ARfD and instead selected a point of departure of 1.54 μg/kg bw for the sum of the two substances, based on decreased salivary secretion, and applied it in a margin of exposure approach. A detailed assessment of the differences in the two approaches is provided in the report. Overall, it is not straightforward to compare quantitatively the differences emerging from the assessments of the CONTAM Panel and the FAO/WHO, in view of the different approaches applied and the different scopes of the assessments. Given the existing uncertainties, the ARfD established by the CONTAM Panel should be retained without modifications as protective towards the general population including susceptible subgroups. In conclusion, based on the comparison with the FAO/WHO assessment, an update of the CONTAM Panel assessment on the risks to human health related to the presence of tropane alkaloids in food is not considered necessary.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of dioxins (PCDD/Fs) and DL‐PCBs in feed and food. The data from experimental animal and epidemiological studies were reviewed and it was decided to base the human risk assessment on effects observed in humans and to use animal data as supportive evidence. The critical effect was on semen quality, following pre‐ and postnatal exposure. The critical study showed a NOAEL of 7.0 pg WHO2005‐TEQ/g fat in blood sampled at age 9 years based on PCDD/F‐TEQs. No association was observed when including DL‐PCB‐TEQs. Using toxicokinetic modelling and taking into account the exposure from breastfeeding and a twofold higher intake during childhood, it was estimated that daily exposure in adolescents and adults should be below 0.25 pg TEQ/kg bw/day. The CONTAM Panel established a TWI of 2 pg TEQ/kg bw/week. With occurrence and consumption data from European countries, the mean and P95 intake of total TEQ by Adolescents, Adults, Elderly and Very Elderly varied between, respectively, 2.1 to 10.5, and 5.3 to 30.4 pg TEQ/kg bw/week, implying a considerable exceedance of the TWI. Toddlers and Other Children showed a higher exposure than older age groups, but this was accounted for when deriving the TWI. Exposure to PCDD/F‐TEQ only was on average 2.4‐ and 2.7‐fold lower for mean and P95 exposure than for total TEQ. PCDD/Fs and DL‐PCBs are transferred to milk and eggs, and accumulate in fatty tissues and liver. Transfer rates and bioconcentration factors were identified for various species. The CONTAM Panel was not able to identify reference values in most farm and companion animals with the exception of NOAELs for mink, chicken and some fish species. The estimated exposure from feed for these species does not imply a risk. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1136/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1137/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1374/full

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to deliver a scientific opinion on the risks for human health related to the presence of pyrrolizidine alkaloids (PAs) in honey, tea, herbal infusions and food supplements and to identify the PAs of relevance in the aforementioned food commodities and in other feed and food. PAs are a large group of toxins produced by different plant species. In 2011, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) assessed the risks related to the presence of PAs in food and feed. Based on occurrence data limited to honey, the CONTAM Panel concluded that there was a possible health concern for those toddlers and children who are high consumers of honey. A new exposure assessment including new occurrence data was published by EFSA in 2016 and was used to update the risk characterisation. The CONTAM Panel established a new Reference Point of 237 μg/kg body weight per day to assess the carcinogenic risks of PAs, and concluded that there is a possible concern for human health related to the exposure to PAs, in particular for frequent and high consumers of tea and herbal infusions. The Panel noted that consumption of food supplements based on PA‐producing plants could result in exposure levels too close (i.e. less than 100 times lower) to the range of doses known to cause severe acute/short term toxicity. From the analysis of the available occurrence data, the CONTAM Panel identified a list of 17 PAs of relevance for monitoring in food and feed. The Panel recommended continuing the efforts to monitor the presence of PAs in food and feed, including the development of more sensitive and specific analytical methods. A recommendation was also issued on the generation of data to identify the toxic and carcinogenic potency of the PAs commonly found in food.

The CONTAM Panel updated the assessment of the risks for human health related to the presence of 3‐monochloropropane diol (3‐MCPD) and its fatty acid esters in food published in 2016 in view of the scientific divergence identified in the establishment of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) in the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants (FAO/WHO) report published in 2017. In this update, dose–response analysis was performed following the recent EFSA Scientific Committee guidance on the use of benchmark dose (BMD) approach in risk assessment, and a review of available data on developmental and reproduction toxicity was included. The outcome of this review indicates that in rats short‐term exposure to 3‐MCPD above 1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day can induce reduced sperm motility associated with reduced male fecundity. Decreased sperm count and histopathological changes in the testis and epididymis were observed following longer treatment periods at higher doses. Regarding increased incidence kidney tubular hyperplasia, BMD analysis using model averaging resulted in a BMDL10 of 0.20 mg/kg bw per day in male rats, which was selected as the new Reference Point (RP) for renal effects. For the effects on male fertility, decreased sperm motility was selected as the most sensitive relevant endpoint and a BMDL05 of 0.44 mg/kg bw per day was calculated. The RP for renal effects was considered to derive an updated group TDI of 2 μg/kg bw per day for 3‐MCPD and its fatty acid esters and was considered protective also for effects on male fertility. The established TDI of 2 μg/kg bw per day is not exceeded in the adult population. A slight exceedance of the TDI was observed in the high consumers of the younger age groups and in particular for the scenarios on infants receiving formula only. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2016.4426/full

The conclusions of EFSA following the peer review of the initial risk assessments carried out by the Assessment Group on Glyphosate (AGG), consisting of the competent authorities of France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Hungary, acting jointly as rapporteur Member State for the pesticide active substance glyphosate are reported. The context of the peer review was that required by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 844/2012. The conclusions were reached on the basis of the evaluation of the representative uses of glyphosate as a herbicide as proposed by the applicants, covering uses pre‐sowing, pre‐planting and pre‐emergence plus post‐harvest in vegetables and sugar beet; post‐emergence of weeds in orchards, vineyards, row vegetables, railway tracks against emerged annual, biennial and perennial weeds. Moreover, uses as spot treatment against invasive species in agricultural and non‐agricultural areas, and in vegetables and sugar beet against couch grass are also included. The reliable endpoints, appropriate for use in regulatory risk assessment, are presented. Missing information identified as being required by the regulatory framework is listed. Concerns are reported where identified.

Acetamiprid is a pesticide active substance with insecticidal action whose approval was renewed by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2018/113. In January 2022, the EFSA PPR Panel published a statement following a request from the European Commission to advise on human health or the environment based on new scientific evidence presented by France during the decision‐making phase. In July 2022, by means of a further mandate received from the European Commission, EFSA was requested to provide advice if new information and any other scientific evidence that has become available since the assessment conducted for the renewal in 2018 warrant re‐evaluation of (i) toxicological parameters used for the risk assessment of acetamiprid during the renewal process, including toxicological endpoints; (ii) the residue definition for acetamiprid in products of plant origin; and (iii) the safety of existing maximum residue levels (MRLs). Meanwhile, the applicant of acetamiprid in the EU submitted new toxicology studies regarding the toxicological profile of the metabolite IM‐2‐1. Furthermore, the European Commission was made aware that several recent publications in scientific literature were made available after the literature searches conducted by EFSA. As the new data could affect the advice that EFSA was expected to deliver through the 2022 mandate, EFSA was further requested to consider this information by means of a revised mandate received in September 2023. As regards re‐evaluation of point (i) in this statement, this was addressed by an EFSA Working Group integrating all the available evidence. The results of the weight of evidence indicated that there are major uncertainties in the body of evidence for the developmental neurotoxicity (DNT) properties of acetamiprid and further data are therefore needed to come to a more robust mechanistic understanding to enable appropriate hazard and risk assessment. In view of these uncertainties, the EFSA WG proposed to lower the acceptable daily intake (ADI) and acute reference dose (ARfD) from 0.025 to 0.005 mg/kg body weight (per day). A revised residue definition for risk assessment was proposed for leafy and fruit crops as sum of acetamiprid and N‐desmethyl‐acetamiprid (IM‐2‐1), expressed as acetamiprid. Regarding pulses/oilseeds, root crops and cereals, the new data received did not indicate a need to modify the existing residue definition for risk assessment, which therefore remains as parent acetamiprid. Regarding the residue definition for enforcement, the available data did not indicate a need to modify the existing definition because acetamiprid is still a sufficient marker of the residues in all crop groups. Considering the new health‐based guidance values derived in the present statement, a risk for consumer has been identified for 38 MRLs currently in place in the EU Regulation. Consequently, EFSA recommended to lower the existing MRLs for 38 commodities based on the assessment of fall‐back Good Agricultural Practices received within an ad hoc data call. Some fall‐back MRLs proposals require further risk management considerations.

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1905/full

Tetrodotoxin (TTX) and its analogues are produced by marine bacteria and have been detected in marine bivalves and gastropods from European waters. The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of TTX and TTX analogues in marine bivalves and gastropods. The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain reviewed the available literature but did not find support for the minimum lethal dose for humans of 2 mg, mentioned in various reviews. Some human case reports describe serious effects at a dose of 0.2 mg, corresponding to 4 μg/kg body weight (bw). However, the uncertainties on the actual exposure in the studies preclude their use for derivation of an acute reference dose (ARfD). Instead, a group ARfD of 0.25 μg/kg bw, applying to TTX and its analogues, was derived based on a TTX dose of 25 μg/kg bw at which no apathy was observed in an acute oral study with mice, applying a standard uncertainty factor of 100. Estimated relative potencies for analogues are lower than that of TTX but are associated with a high degree of uncertainty. Based on the occurrence data submitted to EFSA and reported consumption days only, average and P95 exposures of 0.00–0.09 and 0.00–0.03 μg/kg bw, respectively, were calculated. Using a large portion size of 400 g bivalves and P95 occurrence levels of TTX, with exception of oysters, the exposure was below the group ARfD in all consumer groups. A concentration below 44 μg TTX equivalents/kg shellfish meat, based on a large portion size of 400 g, was considered not to result in adverse effects in humans. Liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectroscopy (LC–MS/MS) methods are the most suitable for identification and quantification of TTX and its analogues, with LOQs between 1 and 25 μg/kg.