Explore the vast range of titles available.

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

In 2018, 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 fumonisins, their modified forms and hidden forms in feed. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1 mg/kg feed was established for pigs. In poultry a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg feed and in horses a reference point for adverse animal health effect of 8.8 mg/kg feed was established, referred to as NOAEL. The European Commission (EC) requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of fumonisins for pigs, poultry and horses and to revise, if necessary, the established NOAELs. The EFSA CONTAM Panel considered that the term reference point (RP) for adverse animal health effects better reflects the uncertainties in the available studies. New evidence which had become available since the previous opinion allowed to revise an RP for adverse animal health effects for poultry from 20 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg feed (based on a LOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg feed for reduced intestinal crypt depth) and for horses from 8.8 to 1.0 mg/kg feed (based on case studies on equine leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM)). For pigs, the previously established NOAEL was confirmed as no further studies suitable for deriving an RP for adverse animal health effects could be identified. Based on exposure estimates performed in the previous opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing FB1–3 was considered a concern for poultry, when taking into account the RP of 1 mg/kg feed for intestinal effects. For horses and other solipeds, the risk is considered low, although a large uncertainty associated with exposure was identified. The same conclusions apply to the sum of FB1–3 and their hidden forms.

In 2016, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) published a scientific opinion on the acute health risks related to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides (CNGs) in raw apricot kernels in which an acute reference dose (ARfD) of 20 μg/kg body weight (bw) was established for cyanide (CN). In the present opinion, the CONTAM Panel concluded that this ARfD is applicable for acute effects of CN regardless the dietary source. To account for differences in cyanide bioavailability after ingestion of certain food items, specific factors were used. Estimated mean acute dietary exposures to cyanide from foods containing CNGs did not exceed the ARfD in any age group. At the 95th percentile, the ARfD was exceeded up to about 2.5‐fold in some surveys for children and adolescent age groups. The main contributors to exposures were biscuits, juice or nectar and pastries and cakes that could potentially contain CNGs. Taking into account the conservatism in the exposure assessment and in derivation of the ARfD, it is unlikely that this estimated exceedance would result in adverse effects. The limited data from animal and human studies do not allow the derivation of a chronic health‐based guidance value (HBGV) for cyanide, and thus, chronic risks could not be assessed. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1601/full

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of quinolizidine alkaloids (QAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment is limited to QAs occurring in Lupinus species/varieties relevant for animal and human consumption in Europe (i.e. Lupinus albus L., Lupinus angustifolius L., Lupinus luteus L. and Lupinus mutabilis Sweet). Information on the toxicity of QAs in animals and humans is limited. Following acute exposure to sparteine (reference compound), anticholinergic effects and changes in cardiac electric conductivity are considered to be critical for human hazard characterisation. The CONTAM Panel used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach identifying a lowest single oral effective dose of 0.16 mg sparteine/kg body weight as reference point to characterise the risk following acute exposure. No reference point could be identified to characterise the risk of chronic exposure. Because of similar modes of action for QAs, the CONTAM Panel used a group approach assuming dose additivity. For food, the highest mean concentration of Total QAs (TotQAs) (i.e. the 6 most abundant QAs) was found in lupin seed samples classified as ‘Lupins (dry) and similar‐’. Due to the limited data on occurrence and consumption, dietary exposure was calculated for some specific scenarios and no full human health risk characterisation was possible. The calculated margin of exposures (MOEs) may indicate a risk for some consumers. For example, when lupin seeds are consumed without a debittering step, or as debittered lupin seeds high in QA content and when ‘lupin‐based meat imitates’ are consumed. For horses, companion and farm animals, other than salmonids, the available database on adverse effects was too limited to identify no‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and/or lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and no risk characterisation was possible. For salmonids, the CONTAM Panel considers the risk for adverse effects to be low. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1348/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1717/full

The European Commission asked EFSA for a risk assessment on small organoarsenic species in food. For monomethylarsonic acid MMA(V), decreased body weight resulting from diarrhoea in rats was identified as the critical endpoint and a BMDL10 of 18.2 mg MMA(V)/kg body weight (bw) per day (equivalent to 9.7 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as a reference point (RP). For dimethylarsinic acid DMA(V), increased incidence in urinary bladder tumours in rats was identified as the critical endpoint. A BMDL10 of 1.1 mg DMA(V)/kg bw per day (equivalent to 0.6 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as an RP. For other small organoarsenic species, the toxicological data are insufficient to identify critical effects and RPs, and they could not be included in the risk assessment. For both MMA(V) and DMA(V), the toxicological database is incomplete and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied for risk characterisation. The highest chronic dietary exposure to DMA(V) was estimated in ‘Toddlers’, with rice and fish meat as the main contributors across population groups. For MMA(V), the highest chronic dietary exposures were estimated for high consumers of fish meat and processed/preserved fish in ‘Infants’ and ‘Elderly’ age class, respectively. For MMA(V), an MOE of ≥ 500 was identified not to raise a health concern. For MMA(V), all MOEs were well above 500 for average and high consumers and thus do not raise a health concern. For DMA(V), an MOE of 10,000 was identified as of low health concern as it is genotoxic and carcinogenic, although the mechanisms of genotoxicity and its role in carcinogenicity of DMA(V) are not fully elucidated. For DMA(V), MOEs were below 10,000 in many cases across dietary surveys and age groups, in particular for some 95th percentile exposures. The Panel considers that this would raise a health concern.

The European Commission (EC) asked EFSA to assess the genotoxicity of beauvericin (BEA). Relevant information, including that which has become available since the 2014 Scientific Opinion on the risks to human and animal health related to the presence of BEA and enniatins in food and feed, was reviewed. In the previous Opinion the Panel concluded that in vitro genotoxicity data were equivocal and there were no in vivo genotoxicity data available. New in vitro studies in mammalian cell lines provided no convincing evidence for induction of chromosomal damage by BEA as measured by micronucleus and chromosome aberration tests or an increase of DNA strand breaks as assessed by the Comet assay. In these studies, no concentration‐dependent effects or potential for interference from associated cytotoxicity were observed. In addition, DNA double‐strand breaks as measured by γ‐H2AX analysis were only observed following exposure to highly cytotoxic BEA concentrations. In vivo studies (Comet and Pig‐a assays, micronucleus test) with BEA were negative. In vitro gene expression studies showed no indication of a DNA damage response and (quantitative) structure activity relationship analysis was also not indicative of genotoxic potential. Some effects of BEA might play an indirect role in the formation of DNA strand breaks. These include increased reactive oxygen species, induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, associated with interference in mitochondrial function and cell signalling. There was no compelling evidence of inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Taken together, the available data indicate that BEA is devoid of genotoxic potential.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a risk assessment on complex organoarsenic species in food. They are typically found in marine foods and comprise mainly arsenobetaine (AsB), arsenosugars and arsenolipids. For AsB, no reference point (RP) could be derived because of insufficient toxicity data. AsB did not show adverse effects in the two available repeat dose toxicity tests in rodents. It has not shown genotoxicity in in vitro assays. There is no indication of an association with adverse outcomes in human studies. The highest 95th percentile exposure for AsB was observed in ‘Toddlers’ with an estimate of 12.5 μg As/kg bw per day (AsB expressed as elemental arsenic). There is sufficient evidence to conclude that AsB at current dietary exposure levels does not raise a health concern. For glycerol arsenosugar (AsSugOH) a RP of 0.85 mg As/kg bw per day was derived based on the BMDL10 values for cognitive and motor function in mice. A margin of exposure (MOE) of ≥ 1000 would not raise a health concern. The highest 95th percentile estimate of exposure for AsSugOH (for adult consumers of red seaweed Nori/Laver) was 0.71 μg As/kg bw per day (AsSugOH expressed as elemental arsenic), which results in an MOE > 1000, not raising a health concern. Based on qualitative consideration of all identified uncertainties, it is regarded likely that the dietary exposures to AsB and AsSugOH do not raise a health concern. No conclusions could be drawn regarding other arsenosugars. No risk characterisation could be conducted for arsenolipids, due to the lack of data.

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.

In 2011, 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 T‐2 (T2) and HT‐2 (HT2) toxin in food and feed. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were derived for different animal species. In ruminants a LOAEL was established for the sum of T2 and HT2 of 0.3 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, based on studies with calves and lambs. The CONTAM Panel noted that the effects observed in nutritionally challenged heifers and ewes give rise to the assumption that rumen detoxification of T2 may not always be complete and therefore effective to prevent adverse effects in ruminants. However, the limited data on the effects of T2 on adult ruminants did not allow a conclusion. The European Commission requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of T2 and HT2 for ruminants and to revise, if necessary, the established Reference Point (RP). Adverse effect levels of 0.001 and 0.01 mg T2/kg bw per day for, respectively, sheep and cows, were derived from case studies, estimated to correspond to feed concentrations of 0.035 mg T2/kg for sheep and 0.6 mg T2/kg for cows. RPs for adverse animal health effects of 0.01 mg/kg feed for sheep and 0.2 mg/kg feed for cows were established. For goats, the RP for cows was selected, in the absence of data that they are more sensitive. Based on mean exposure estimates performed in the previous Opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing T2 and HT2 was considered a concern for lactating sheep. For milking goats, a comparison performed between dietary exposure and the RP derived for cows, indicates a potential risk for adverse health effects. For dairy cows and fattening beef, the risk is considered low.

Nickel (Ni) is a silvery‐white, hard, ductile metal existing in oxidation states; in biological systems, Ni2+ is the prevalent form. All analytical results used to estimate animal dietary exposure were reported as Ni', without providing information on specific chemical species. Considering the data provided by Member states, among FoodEx level 1 feed categories, the highest mean Ni levels were measured in ‘Minerals and products derived thereof’ (n = 72). High mean Ni concentrations were also observed in ‘Compound feed’ (n = 516), in particular in complementary feeds for fattening cattles, unspecified complementary feed and complementary feeds for fattening pigs. Within grains used as feed (n = 597), the highest mean Ni concentrations were measured in oats. In addition, Ni concentrations in hydrogenated vegetable oils/fats were reported by industry. Exposure to Ni in livestock and companion animals varied according to the animal species. When considering the diets with hydrogenated vegetable oils/fats based on the reported Ni concentrations, the mean exposures varied between 6.0 μg Ni/kg body weight (bw) per day in cats and 79 μg Ni/kg bw per day in laying hens and the high exposure levels varied between 11 μg Ni/kg bw per day in cats and 127 μg Ni/kg bw per day in rabbits. The mean exposure estimates considering the maximum concentration of Ni assumed from good manufacturing practice in hydrogenated vegetable oils/fats (50 mg Ni/kg) varied between 27 μg Ni/kg bw per day in cats and 255 μg Ni/kg bw per day in rabbits; for the high concentration scenarios, exposures varied between 30 μg Ni/kg bw per day and 307 μg Ni/kg bw per day in the same species. The estimated exposures to Ni are in line with the one reported in the 2015 EFSA opinion, using a worst‐case scenario. When estimating exposure with a realistic scenario, using the reported Ni concentration in hydrogenated vegetable oils/fats, the exposure of livestock and companion animals is lower (approximately from 1.5 to 6 times, depending on the species) than the 2015 assessment.