Scientific Opinion on the revised exposure assessment of steviol glycosides (E 960) for the proposed uses as a food additive

Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out an exposure assessment of steviol glycosides (E 960) from its use as a food additive, taking into account the proposed extension of uses. In 2010, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) adopted a scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycosides (E 960) and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Conservative estimates of exposure, both in adults and children, suggested that it is likely that the ADI would be exceeded at the maximum proposed use level. In 2011, EFSA carried out a revised exposure assessment for steviol glycosides based on revised proposed uses and concluded that high level dietary exposure in children may still exceed the ADI. The current refined exposure estimates are based on the currently authorised uses, the proposed extension, and the EFSA Comprehensive Food Consumption Database. The mean dietary exposure to steviol glycosides ranges from 0.1 mg/kg bw/day in adults and the elderly, to 2.4 mg/kg bw/day in toddlers. Estimates at the 95th percentile of exposure range from 0.3 to 4.3 mg/kg bw/day in the elderly and toddlers, respectively. The Panel concluded that dietary exposure to steviol glycosides is considerably lower than that in the previous exposure assessment. Overall, the revised exposure estimates for all age groups remain below the ADI, except for toddlers at the upper range of the high level (95th percentile) estimates, in one country. Moreover, the Panel noted that table top sweeteners may represent an important source of exposure and therefore a MPL with a numerical value, rather than quantum satis, would be preferable, to allow for a more precise estimation of the potential maximum level of exposure from table top sweeteners

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2013. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 216, Revision 1 (FGE.216Rev1). Consideration of genotoxic potential for α,β-unsaturated 2-Phenyl -2-Alkenals from Subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of five flavouring substances from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19. In the Flavouring Group Evaluation 216 (FGE.216) additional genotoxicity data were requested. Additional genotoxicity studies have now been provided for the representative substance 2-phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.062]. Based on these new data the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requests a proof of sufficient systemic exposure of animals treated with 2-phenylcrotonaldehyde. Moreover, since the substance was genotoxic only without metabolic activation, it appears necessary to prove the absence of genotoxic effect locally in the gastro intestinal system using the Comet assay

Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals

In 2013, at the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced a new risk assessment policy: Guidance on the environmental risks of genetically modified (GM) animals (‘Guidance’). This policy specifies the issues to be addressed in future risk assessments for GM animals. EFSA is the European Commission's scientific arm, responsible for food-related risk assessment. EFSA relies heavily on independent experts and consults non-state actors. Employing expert interviews and documentary analysis, the article explores non-state actor involvement in a traditionally expert domain through a case study. Analysis of EFSA's consultation demonstrates the inability of non-state actors to influence policy. The article argues that despite international legal obligations to develop risk assessment policy, the European Commission failed to recognize the Guidance as policy. When policy masquerades as science, unjustified restrictions are placed on non-state actor involvement and value judgements are cloaked from public scrutiny

Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment

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

Re-evaluation of the existing health-based guidance values for copper and exposure assessment from all sources

Copper is an essential micronutrient and also a regulated product used in organic and in conventional farming pest management. Both deficiency and excessive exposure to copper can have adverse health effects. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA 2021 harmonised approach for establishing health-based guidance values (HBGVs) for substances that are regulated products and also nutrients was used to resolve the divergent existing HBGVs for copper. The tightly regulated homeostasis prevents toxicity manifestation in the short term, but the development of chronic copper toxicity is dependent on copper homeostasis and its tissue retention. Evidence from Wilson disease suggests that hepatic retention is indicative of potential future and possibly sudden onset of copper toxicity under conditions of continuous intake. Hence, emphasis was placed on copper retention as an early marker of potential adverse effects. The relationships between (a) chronic copper exposure and its retention in the body, particularly the liver, and (b) hepatic copper concentrations and evidence of toxicity were examined. The Scientific Committee (SC) concludes that no retention of copper is expected to occur with intake of 5 mg/day and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0.07 mg/kg bw. A refined dietary exposure assessment was performed, assessing contribution from dietary and non-dietary sources. Background copper levels are a significant source of copper. The contribution of copper from its use as plant protection product (PPP), food and feed additives or fertilisers is negligible. The use of copper in fertilisers or PPPs contributes to copper accumulation in soil. Infant formula and follow-on formula are important contributors to dietary exposure of copper in infants and toddlers. Contribution from non-oral sources is negligible. Dietary exposure to total copper does not exceed the HBGV in adolescents, adults, elderly and the very elderly. Neither hepatic copper retention nor adverse effects are expected to occur from the estimated copper exposure in children due to higher nutrient requirements related to growth

Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the ‘Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments’ published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub‐questions is proposed: the ‘APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross‐cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub‐questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub‐)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi‐formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and – not covered in this guidance – generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone ‘template’ for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment

EFSA guidance on the submission of applications for authorisation of genetically modified plants under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

This document provides guidance to applicants for submitting an application for authorisation of genetically modified (GM) plants for food and feed uses, import and processing, and/or cultivation in the European Union under Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003. The EFSA submission guidance describes the community procedures in the European Union for handling GM plant applications, and provides instructions to applicants on how to prepare and present data in an application. It is supplemented with seven appendices providing templates of data presentation to be followed by applicants, including a completeness checklist. The earlier versions are now updated to account for requirements outlined in Implementing Regulation (EU) No 503/2013. Instructions for submission described in this EFSA guidance are applicable to all GM plant applications submitted under Articles 5, 11, 17 and 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1829/2003

Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of hexamethylene tetramine (E 239) as a food additive

Hexamethylene tetramine (HMT) is a food additive, currently only permitted in EU for use in Provolone cheese. The maximum permitted level is 25 mg/kg residual amount, expressed as formaldehyde, the break down product of HMT under acidic conditions. HMT has been previously evaluated by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, 1974) who established an ADI of 0.15 mg/kg bw/day based on a reproductive study with a NOEL of 15 mg/kg bw/day. Due to the limitations in the database the Panel could not identify a critical study and therefore to derive an ADI. However, the Panel noted that the exposure to formaldehyde from HMT of high level consumers of Provolone cheese equalled 18 µg formaldehyde/kg bw/day in adults and could be as high as 87 µg formaldehyde/kg bw/day in children according to a theoretical conservative assumption that all ripened cheese consumed was Provolone cheese. Considering the estimated exposure from the very limited permitted use, the toxicological database on HMT, the data from use of HMT therapeutically, the available oral toxicity and toxicokinetic data of formaldehyde and the magnitude of the potential effect on intracellular formaldehyde levels arising from this use of HMT, the Panel concluded that the use of HMT in Provolone cheese at the MPL of 25 mg/kg residual amount, expressed as formaldehyde, would not be of safety concern. However the Panel considered that any increase in the permitted uses of HMT or increases in the MPL of 25 mg /kg residual amount, expressed as formaldehyde would need detailed assessment which might require new toxicity data as well as use levels and/or an evaluation of its impact on formaldehyde levels in vivo

Scientific Opinion on the public health hazards to be covered by inspection of meat from farmed game

Salmonella spp. in farmed wild boar and Toxoplasma gondii in farmed deer and farmed wild boar were ranked as a high priority for meat inspection. Trichinella spp. in wild boar was ranked as low priority due to current controls, which should be continued. For chemical hazards, all substances were ranked as medium or lower potential concern. More effective control of biological hazards could be achieved using an integrated farm to chilled carcass approach, including improved food chain information (FCI) and risk-based controls. Further studies are required on Salmonella spp. in farmed wild boar and T. gondii in farmed wild boar and farmed deer. If new information confirms a high risk to public health from meat from these species, setting targets at carcass level should be considered. Palpation and incision should be omitted, as it will not detect biological hazards considered to be a high priority for meat inspection while increasing the potential spread and cross-contamination of the carcasses with Salmonella. Palpation and/or incision may be applied where abnormalities have been detected but away from the slaughter line. However the elimination of routine palpation and incision would be detrimental for detecting tuberculosis. As farmed deer and farmed wild boar can act as tuberculosis reservoirs, any reduction in the detection, due to changes in the post-mortem inspection procedures, will have consequences for the overall surveillance of tuberculosis. Monitoring programmes for chemical hazards should be more flexible and based on the risk of occurrence, taking into account FCI, which should be expanded to reflect the specific environmental conditions of the farms where the animals are reared, and the ranking of chemical substances, which should be regularly updated and include new hazards. Control programmes across the food chain, national residue control programmes, feed control and monitoring of environmental contaminants should be better integrated