Explore the vast range of titles available.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for selenium. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to identify evidence regarding excess selenium intake and clinical effects and potential biomarkers of effect, risk of chronic diseases and impaired neuropsychological development in humans. Alopecia, as an early observable feature and a well‐established adverse effect of excess selenium exposure, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base a UL for selenium. A lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (LOAEL) of 330 μg/day is identified from a large randomised controlled trial in humans (the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)), to which an uncertainty factor of 1.3 is applied. A UL of 255 μg/day is established for adult men and women (including pregnant and lactating women). ULs for children are derived from the UL for adults using allometric scaling (body weight0.75). Based on available intake data, adult consumers are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high daily doses of selenium or regular consumers of Brazil nuts. No risk has been reported with the current levels of selenium intake in European countries from food (excluding food supplements) in toddlers and children, and selenium intake arising from the natural content of foods does not raise reasons for concern. Selenium‐containing supplements in toddlers and children should be used with caution, based on individual needs.

Following a request from five European Nordic countries, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was tasked to provide scientific advice on a tolerable upper intake level (UL) or a safe level of intake for dietary (total/added/free) sugars based on available data on chronic metabolic diseases, pregnancy‐related endpoints and dental caries. Specific sugar types (fructose) and sources of sugars were also addressed. The intake of dietary sugars is a well‐established hazard in relation to dental caries in humans. Based on a systematic review of the literature, prospective cohort studies do not support a positive relationship between the intake of dietary sugars, in isocaloric exchange with other macronutrients, and any of the chronic metabolic diseases or pregnancy‐related endpoints assessed. Based on randomised control trials on surrogate disease endpoints, there is evidence for a positive and causal relationship between the intake of added/free sugars and risk of some chronic metabolic diseases: The level of certainty is moderate for obesity and dyslipidaemia (> 50–75% probability), low for non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease and type 2 diabetes (> 15–50% probability) and very low for hypertension (0–15% probability). Health effects of added vs. free sugars could not be compared. A level of sugars intake at which the risk of dental caries/chronic metabolic diseases is not increased could not be identified over the range of observed intakes, and thus, a UL or a safe level of intake could not be set. Based on available data and related uncertainties, the intake of added and free sugars should be as low as possible in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet. Decreasing the intake of added and free sugars would decrease the intake of total sugars to a similar extent. This opinion can assist EU Member States in setting national goals/recommendations.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) derived dietary reference values (DRVs) for sodium. Evidence from balance studies on sodium and on the relationship between sodium intake and health outcomes, in particular cardiovascular disease (CVD)‐related endpoints and bone health, was reviewed. The data were not sufficient to enable an average requirement (AR) or population reference intake (PRI) to be derived. However, by integrating the available evidence and associated uncertainties, the Panel considers that a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day represents a level of sodium for which there is sufficient confidence in a reduced risk of CVD in the general adult population. In addition, a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day is likely to allow most of the general adult population to maintain sodium balance. Therefore, the Panel considers that 2.0 g sodium/day is a safe and adequate intake for the general EU population of adults. The same value applies to pregnant and lactating women. Sodium intakes that are considered safe and adequate for children are extrapolated from the value for adults, adjusting for their respective energy requirement and including a growth factor, and are as follows: 1.1 g/day for children aged 1–3 years, 1.3 g/day for children aged 4–6 years, 1.7 g/day for children aged 7–10 years and 2.0 g/day for children aged 11–17 years, respectively. For infants aged 7–11 months, an Adequate Intake (AI) of 0.2 g/day is proposed based on upwards extrapolation of the estimated sodium intake in exclusively breast‐fed infants aged 0–6 months. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1679/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.e15121/full This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5779/full

Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for folic acid/folate. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess evidence on priority adverse health effects of excess intake of folate (including folic acid and the other authorised forms, (6S)‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid glucosamine and l‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid calcium salts), namely risk of cobalamin‐dependent neuropathy, cognitive decline among people with low cobalamin status, and colorectal cancer and prostate cancer. The evidence is insufficient to conclude on a positive and causal relationship between the dietary intake of folate and impaired cognitive function, risk of colorectal and prostate cancer. The risk of progression of neurological symptoms in cobalamin‐deficient patients is considered as the critical effect to establish an UL for folic acid. No new evidence has been published that could improve the characterisation of the dose–response between folic acid intake and resolution of megaloblastic anaemia in cobalamin‐deficient individuals. The ULs for folic acid previously established by the Scientific Committee on Food are retained for all population groups, i.e. 1000 μg/day for adults, including pregnant and lactating women, 200 μg/day for children aged 1–3 years, 300 μg/day for 4–6 years, 400 μg/day for 7–10 years, 600 μg/day for 11–14 years and 800 μg/day for 15–17 years. A UL of 200 μg/day is established for infants aged 4–11 months. The ULs apply to the combined intake of folic acid, (6S)‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid glucosamine and l‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid calcium salts, under their authorised conditions of use. It is unlikely that the ULs for supplemental folate are exceeded in European populations, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of folic acid/5‐methyl‐tetrahydrofolic acid salts.

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.

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was requested from the European Commission to provide a statement on the validity of the conclusions of a mouse study on the carcinogenic potential of sucralose (E 955) performed by the Ramazzini Institute (Soffritti et al., ). Sucralose (E 955) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the full re‐evaluation of sucralose shall be completed by December 2020. Taking into consideration the publication from Soffritti et al. (), the technical report and additional information provided by the Ramazzini Institute and other information available for sucralose (E 955), the Panel noted: (i) the design of the bioassay that considers exposure from gestation up to natural death of animals implies an increase in background pathology that results in the possibility of misclassifications and a difficult interpretation of data, especially in the absence of both an appropriate concurrent control group and a recent historical database; (ii) the lack of a dose–response relationship between the exposure to sucralose and incidence of lymphomas and leukaemias (combined); (iii) the lack of a mode of action and failure to meet all the Bradford‐Hill considerations for a cause–effect relationship between intake of sucralose and the development of tumours in male mice only; (iv) a comprehensive database was available for sucralose and no carcinogenic effect was reported in adequate studies in rats and mice. Moreover, there was no reliable evidence of in vivo genotoxicity. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data did not support the conclusions of the authors (Soffritti et al., ) that sucralose induced haematopoietic neoplasias in male Swiss mice.

This Guidance of EFSA provides instructions on how to identify and select “scientific peer‐reviewed open literature” and how to report it in a dossier, as required by Article 8(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 on the placing of plant protection products on the market. The EFSA Guidance is intended for: (1) applicants submitting dossiers on active substances of plant protection products under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009; (2) EU Member States’ competent authorities evaluating the dossiers and preparing the draft assessment reports; and (3) the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), responsible for drawing conclusions on the dossiers. This EFSA Guidance provides a definition of scientific peer‐reviewed open literature and instructions on how to minimise bias in the identification, selection and inclusion of peer‐reviewed open literature in dossiers, according to the principles of systematic review (i.e. methodological rigour, transparency, reproducibility). The EFSA Guidance is compatible with existing OECD Guidance documents for the preparation of active substances dossiers.

Rare cancers are a challenge to clinical practice, and treatment experience, even in major cancer centres to which rare cancers are usually referred, is often limited. We aimed to study the epidemiology of rare cancers in a large population of several countries. We analysed survival by age, sex, subsite, and morphology in 57 144 adults with 14 selected rare cancers diagnosed 1983–94. Variations in survival over time and between European regions were also assessed for variations in quality of care. We also estimated the adjusted relative excess risk of death for every rare cancer. Overall 5-year relative survival was good (ie, >65%) for placental choriocarcinoma (85·4% [95% CI 81·4–89·5]), thyroid medullary carcinoma (72·4% [69·2–75·5]), ovarian germ-cell cancer (73·0% [70·0–76·0]), lung carcinoid (70·1% [67·3–72·9]), and cervical adenocarcinoma (65·5% [64·3–66·6]); intermediate (ie, 35–65%) for testicular cancer at age 65 years or older (64·0% [59·3–68·7]), sarcoma of extremities (60·0% [58·9–61·2]), digestive-system endocrine cancers (55·6% [54·9–56·3]), anal squamous-cell carcinoma (53·1% [51·5–54·8]), and uterine sarcoma (43·5% [42·0–44·9]); low for carcinoma of adrenal-gland cortex (32·7% [28·3–37·2]) and bladder squamous-cell carcinoma (20·4% [18·8–22·0]); and poor for angiosarcoma of liver (6·4% [1·8–11·0]) and mesothelioma (4·7% [4·3–5·2]). Survival was usually better for women than men and poor in those aged 75 years or older. Survival significantly improved over time for ovarian germ-cell cancer, sarcomas of extremities, digestive-system endocrine tumours, anal squamous-cell carcinoma, and angiosarcoma of liver. Survival in northern Europe was higher than in the other geographic groupings for most cancers. Because effective treatments are available for several of the rare cancers we assessed, further research is needed to ascertain why survival is lower in some European countries than in others, particularly in older patients. Audit of best practice for rare cancers with treatment protocols would be useful.

Colorectal cancer survival has increased in recent years, however, the impact of these cancers and their treatment on long-term survivors has not been extensively investigated at the population level. This pilot study assessed the prevalence of late outcomes in long-term colorectal cancer survivors registered by two European population-based cancer registries (CRs) to determine the feasibility of using the approach on a wider basis in Europe. Long-term survivors diagnosed in 1990 and in 1997 in Côte d'Or (France) and Varese (Italy) CRs were surveyed. Questionnaires to general practitioners (GPs) and survivors investigated a wide range of outcomes. Information on stage at diagnosis, primary treatment, stoma inserted during main surgery, and vital status was available from a previous study. Logistic regression was used to identify associations of late outcomes with sex, age at survey, country, year of diagnosis, and site. Participation was 51.8% (45.2% of French and 56.6% of Italian cases identified). Of the 256 survivors available for analysis, 10% had bowel incontinence, about 70% had other bowel, gastrointestinal, or urination problems, 10% had second primary cancer, 4% had colorectal recurrence, and 10% had stoma. The proportion with stoma reduced by 65% in survivors diagnosed between 1990 and 1997, but no other outcomes reduced in prevalence with time. Most (67%) had optimal GP-assessed ECOG performance status. Around 80% were followed-up with liver imaging or colonoscopy. We identified non-trivial rates of bowel and bladder problems after colorectal treatment, but overall good levels of functioning. High-resolution studies of this kind must be population-based to provide data useful for public health provision. This pilot study encountered difficulties in contacting GPs and suffered from low compliance. However, it is the first to investigate late outcome trends after treatment for colorectal cancer.