Explore the vast range of titles available.

Neonicotinoid pesticides were first introduced in the mid-1990s, and since then, their use has grown rapidly. They are now the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, with the majority of applications coming from seed dressings. Neonicotinoids are water-soluble, and so can be taken up by a developing plant and can be found inside vascular tissues and foliage, providing protection against herbivorous insects. However, only approximately 5% of the neonicotinoid active ingredient is taken up by crop plants and most instead disperses into the wider environment. Since the mid-2000s, several studies raised concerns that neonicotinoids may be having a negative effect on non-target organisms, in particular on honeybees and bumblebees. In response to these studies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was commissioned to produce risk assessments for the use of clothianidin, imidacloprid and thiamethoxam and their impact on bees. These risk assessments concluded that the use of these compounds on certain flowering crops poses a high risk to bees. On the basis of these findings, the European Union adopted a partial ban on these substances in May 2013. The purpose of the present paper is to collate and summarise scientific evidence published since 2013 that investigates the impact of neonicotinoids on non-target organisms. Whilst much of the recent work has focused on the impact of neonicotinoids on bees, a growing body of evidence demonstrates that persistent, low levels of neonicotinoids can have negative impacts on a wide range of free-living organisms.

Suggestions that a food contains healthy ingredients or that it can provide beneficial effects upon consumption have been regulated in the EU since 2006. This paper describes the analysis of how this nutrition and health claim regulation has resulted in over 300 authorised claims and how the authorisation requirements and processes have affected the use of claims on foods. Five challenges are identified that negatively affect the current legislation dealing with nutrition and health claims: non-reviewed botanical claims (as well as on hold claims for infants and young children), the lack of nutrient profiles and the focus of claims on single ingredients, consumer understanding, research into health effects of nutrition and finally, enforcement. These challenges are shown to influence the goals of the regulation: protecting consumers from false and misleading claims and stimulating the development of a level playing field in the EU, to foster innovation. Tackling these political and scientific substantiation questions for health claims, together with continuously analysing the understanding and usage of claims by consumers and operators will ensure that the NHCR will stay effective, today and in the future.

A great variety of functional foods, nutraceuticals, or foods with bioactive compounds are provided nowadays to consumers. Aware of the importance of the safety aspects, the food industry has to comply with different legal requirements around the world. In this review, the European regulatory framework for food-related bioactive compounds is summarized. The term ‘bioactive compound’ is not defined in the European regulations, however, since they can be part of food supplements, fortified foods, or novel food, they are included within the legal requirements of those corresponding types of foods or supplements. Lists of authorized compounds/foods appear in the correspondent regulations, however, when a new compound/food is going to be launched into the market, its safety assessment is essential. Although the responsibility for the safety of these compounds/foods lies with the food business operator placing the product on the market, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carries out scientific evaluations to assess the risks for human health. To facilitate this procedure, different guidelines exist at the European level to explain the tier toxicity testing approach to be considered. This approach divides the evaluation into four areas: (a) toxicokinetics; (b) genotoxicity; (c) subchronic and chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity; and (d) reproductive and developmental toxicity.

Serious flaws in the scientific evaluation in the RAR incorrectly characterise the potential for a carcinogenic hazard from exposure to glyphosate. Since the RAR is the basis for the European Food Safety Agency (EFSA) conclusion, 4 it is critical that these shortcomings are corrected. [...]the WG also saw a significant increase in the incidence of pancreatic islet cell adenomas in two studies in male Sprague-Dawley rats. 14-16 In one of these rat studies, thyroid gland adenomas in females and liver adenomas in males were also increased.

The excessive growth of the food supplements' industry highlights the need to focus attention on all aspects involved in their proper consumption; one that takes centre stage is advertising. The aim of this research is to analyse the presence of false and misleading claims in food supplements advertising. To this end, a relationship is established between the different types of health-related claims and the substances on which they are based, whether authorised or not by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This empirical work conducts a content analysis of all radio mentions broadcast throughout 2017 on news/talk radio stations. Spain. All radio mentions broadcast on news/talk commercial radio stations in Spain with the highest audience levels. The corpus is composed of 437 advertisements. Results indicate that 80·3 % of function claims included in the analysed advertisements are not authorised by EFSA, while 20·4 % of disease claims are not allowed by EU regulation. Likewise, almost half of the substances referred to (43·7 %) are illicit: 54·1 % in function claims, 57·3 % in disease claims and 73·7 % in the case of reduction of disease risk claims. This work reveals consistent failures to comply with European regulation on food supplements advertising. The widespread use of unauthorised health claims and substances is aggravated by the indirect recourse of illness as a persuasive argument, descriptions of alleged benefits as product attributes and the omission of essential information. This leads to dangerous misinformation and can pose serious health risks. Stronger legal mechanisms are needed for effective consumer protection.

In this opinion, EFSA's Scientific Committee provides guidance on the scientific data needed to carry out a safety assessments of a botanical or a botanical preparation. It also proposes a two‐tiered scientific approach for the safety assessment depending on the available knowledge on a given botanical and the substance(s) it contains. The guidance also provides a set of criteria to help prioritise the safety assessment of botanical ingredients which are in use. EFSA has also compiled the available information on a large number of botanicals which have been reported to contain substances that may be of health concern when used in food or food supplements. The resulting compendium, which will be regularly updated, should be considered as part of this guidance document and is intended to assist manufacturers and food safety authorities by highlighting possible safety issues which may require further consideration.

This guidance of the Scientific Committee, prepared on request of EFSA, describes the scientific rationale for a number of default values to be used in a harmonised way across EFSA Scientific Committee, Scientific Panels and Units; it also harmonises the rules for rounding derived values, such as health‐based guidance values. The aim of this guidance document is not standardisation and it is therefore always possible to deviate from the proposed default values, provided that the rationale for such deviation is described and justified. The Scientific Committee recommends that where default values are defined in legislation, these should be reconsidered in the light of this guidance document. Furthermore, the Scientific Committee recommends that the proposed default values and their possible impact for risk assessment should be discussed between relevant European bodies and international organisations for wider harmonisation.

Dietary interventions with flavan-3-ols have shown beneficial effects on vascular function. The translation of these findings into the context of the health of the general public requires detailed information on habitual dietary intake. However, only limited data are currently available for European populations. Therefore, in the present study, we assessed the habitual intake of flavan-3-ol monomers, proanthocyanidins (PA) and theaflavins in the European Union (EU) and determined their main food sources using the EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. Data for adults aged 18–64 years were available from fourteen European countries, and intake was determined using the FLAVIOLA Flavanol Food Composition Database, developed for the present study and based on the latest US Department of Agriculture and Phenol-Explorer databases. The mean habitual intake of flavan-3-ol monomers, theaflavins and PA ranged from 181 mg/d (Czech Republic) to 793 mg/d (Ireland). The highest intakes of flavan-3-ol monomers and theaflavins were observed in Ireland (191/505 mg/d) and the lowest intakes in Spain (24/9 mg/d). In contrast, the daily intake of PA was highest in Spain (175 mg/d) and lowest in The Netherlands (96 mg/d). Main sources were tea (62 %), pome fruits (11 %), berries (3 %) and cocoa products (3 %). Tea was the major single contributor to monomer intake (75 %), followed by pome fruits (6 %). Pome fruits were also the main source of PA (28 %). The present study provides important data on the population-based intake of flavanols in the EU and demonstrates that dietary intake amounts for flavan-3-ol monomers, PA and theaflavins vary significantly across European countries. The average habitual intake of flavan-3-ols is considerably below the amounts used in most dietary intervention studies.

The European Commission (EC) recommends that policy within the EU should consider how to make the regulation of new genomic techniques ‘more resilient, future-proof and uniformly applied’ than is presently the case. In this article, we explore what this might mean for the EU and what solutions might exist.