International Frameworks Dealing with Human Risk Assessment of Combined Exposure to Multiple Chemicals

The development of harmonised terminology and frameworks for the human risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals (“chemical mixtures”) is an important area for EFSA and a number of activities have already been undertaken, i.e. in the fields of pesticides and contaminants. The first step prior to a risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals is problem formulation defining the relevant exposure, hazard and population to be considered. In practice, risk assessment of multiple chemicals is conducted using a tiered approach for exposure assessment, hazard assessment and risk characterisation. Higher tiers require increasing knowledge about the group of chemicals under assessment and the tiers can range from tier 0 (default values, data poor situation) to tier 3 (full probabilistic models). This scientific report reviews the terminology, methodologies and frameworks developed by national and international agencies for the human risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and provides recommendations for future activities at EFSA in this area

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

Can we define a level of protection for allergic consumers that everyone can accept?

Substantial progress has been made in characterising the risk associated with exposure to allergens in food. However, absence of agreement on what risk is tolerable has made it difficult to set quantitative limits to manage that risk and protect allergic consumers effectively. This paper reviews scientific progress in the area and the diverse status of allergen management approaches and lack of common standards across different jurisdictions, including within the EU. This lack of regulation largely explains why allergic consumers find Precautionary Allergen Labelling confusing and cannot rely on it. We reviewed approaches to setting quantitative limits for a broad range of food safety hazards to identify the reasoning leading to their adoption. This revealed a diversity of approaches from pragmatic to risk-based, but we could not find clear evidence of the process leading to the decision on risk acceptability. We propose a framework built around the criteria suggested by Murphy and Gardoni (2008) for approaches to defining tolerable risks. Applying these criteria to food allergy, we concluded that sufficient knowledge exists to implement the framework, including sufficient expertise across the whole range of stakeholders to allow opinions to be heard and respected, and a consensus to be achieved