Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1931/full

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1539/full

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1798/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 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.

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1940/full

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.

This assessment addresses a food enzyme preparation consisting of the immobilised intact but non‐viable cells of the genetically modified Corynebacterium glutamicum strain FIS002 by CJ‐Tereos Sweeteners Europe SAS. The production strain produces the food enzyme d‐fructose 3‐epimerase (d‐psicose 3‐epimerase; EC 5.1.3.30). The food enzyme preparation is used in processing fructose to produce a speciality carbohydrate d‐allulose (synonym d‐psicose). Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of d‐allulose, dietary exposure was not calculated. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,796 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is low. The food enzyme preparation contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene, which is considered a hazard. However, under the specific intended conditions of use described by the applicant, and based on the evidence showing the removal of TOS during the production of d‐allulose and the absence of recombinant DNA in the d‐allulose, the Panel concluded that the identified hazard associated with the food enzyme d‐psicose 3‐epimerase produced with the genetically modified C. glutamicum strain FIS002 will not result in a risk.

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

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.