EFSA CEF Panel (Panel on Food Contac t Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids , 2013. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 2 07 (FGE.2 07 )

International audienc

Stability of DON and OTA during the breadmaking process and determination of process and performance criteria

The fate of deoxynivalenol (DON) and ochratoxin A (OTA) during the breadmaking process was studied. In particular, toxin content was analysed in mixed baking ingredients before kneading, after fermentation and proofing, and finally after baking. Fermentation and proofing were carried out at 30 C for 1 h, while baking was performed at different temperature levels (from 170 to 210 C) and baking times from 45 to 135 min, in a full factorial design. DON increased from unkneaded mix to fermented dough, and decreased due to baking; this trend depended on the initial concentration of DON in the flour. The level in the bread was significantly lower than in the initial mix of ingredients. In contrast, deoxynivalenol-3-glucoside (DON-3-G) content increased both during kneading and fermentation, and also during baking. Moreover, the results confirmed the high stability of OTA as no significant change in its content could be observed as a result of the breadmaking process. As conclusion, the design of bakery product processes may help to control DON in final products, because although quite stable, its levels can be reduced to some extent. However, high levels of DON-3-G were released during baking, and this point should be further investigated. Mycotoxins have been always considered as stable compounds; however, in depth knowledge of the processing steps that may lead to some reduction (although limited) and those which can stimulate their release from conjugated forms, will definitely help in their control in finished foodstuffs.The authors are grateful to the Spanish government (projects AGL2010-22182-C04-04 and AGL2011-24862) for the financial support. A. Vidal thanks the Spanish Government (Ministry of Education) for the pre-doctoral grant. H. Morales is grateful to the Portuguese Government. (Ministerio da Ciecia, Tecnologia e Ensino Superior; FCT Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia) Grant ref. SFRH/BPD/38011/2007

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 74, Revision 3 (FGE.74Rev3): Consideration of Simple Aliphatic Sulphides and Thiols evaluated by the JECFA (53rd and 61st meeting) Structurally related to Aliphatic and Alicyclic Mono-, Di-, Tri-, and Polysulphides with or wi thout Additional Oxygenated Functional Groups from Chemical Group 20 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.08Rev5 (2012)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (the JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 19 simple aliphatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by the JECFA at the 53rd meeting in 1999 and the 61st meeting in 2003. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. For nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] considered in this FGE, the Panel concluded that they would pose “No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances” based on the MSDI approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered for the substances evaluated through the Procedure and for all nine substances, the information is adequate. Thus, the Panel concluded that nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] do not give rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. For 10 candidate substances in FGE.74Rev3 [FL-no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155, 12.169, 12.241 and 12.280] evaluated through the Procedure, the Panel concluded that additional toxicity data are required

Influence of psychological factors in food risk assessment - A review

Background: Typically, food-related risk assessments are carried out within a four step, technical framework, as detailed by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (World Health Organization/ Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, 2015). However, the technical framework presumes a level of ‘objective risk’ and does not take into account that risk is complex and psychologically constructed, something which is rarely acknowledged within risk analysis as a whole. It is well documented that people's perceptions of risk are based on more than merely probability of occurrence, but reflect other non-technical psychological factors (e.g., risk origin, severity, controllability, familiarity). Moreover, the basis of these risk perceptions is largely similar for experts and non-experts. Scope and approach: In this review, we consider each stage of the risk assessment process from a psychological perspective, reviewing research on non-technical factors which could affect assessments of risk and subsequent risk management decisions, with a particular focus on food safety. Key Findings and Conclusions: We identify 12 factors from the psychological literature which could potentially influence how risks are assessed and characterised. Drawing on insights from this research, we propose a number of recommendations to standardise approaches in risk assessment. Acknowledging and working with the subjectivity of risk is key to ensuring the efficacy of the wider risk analysis process

Cross-Sector Review of Drivers and Available 3Rs Approaches for Acute Systemic Toxicity Testing

Acute systemic toxicity studies are carried out in many sectors in which synthetic chemicals are manufactured or used and are among the most criticized of all toxicology tests on both scientific and ethical grounds. A review of the drivers for acute toxicity testing within the pharmaceutical industry led to a paradigm shift whereby in vivo acute toxicity data are no longer routinely required in advance of human clinical trials. Based on this experience, the following review was undertaken to identify (1) regulatory and scientific drivers for acute toxicity testing in other industrial sectors, (2) activities aimed at replacing, reducing, or refining the use of animals, and (3) recommendations for future work in this area

Aquatic food security:insights into challenges and solutions from an analysis of interactions between fisheries, aquaculture, food safety, human health, fish and human welfare, economy and environment

Fisheries and aquaculture production, imports, exports and equitability of distribution determine the supply of aquatic food to people. Aquatic food security is achieved when a food supply is sufficient, safe, sustainable, shockproof and sound: sufficient, to meet needs and preferences of people; safe, to provide nutritional benefit while posing minimal health risks; sustainable, to provide food now and for future generations; shock-proof, to provide resilience to shocks in production systems and supply chains; and sound, to meet legal and ethical standards for welfare of animals, people and environment. Here, we present an integrated assessment of these elements of the aquatic food system in the United Kingdom, a system linked to dynamic global networks of producers, processors and markets. Our assessment addresses sufficiency of supply from aquaculture, fisheries and trade; safety of supply given biological, chemical and radiation hazards; social, economic and environmental sustainability of production systems and supply chains; system resilience to social, economic and environmental shocks; welfare of fish, people and environment; and the authenticity of food. Conventionally, these aspects of the food system are not assessed collectively, so information supporting our assessment is widely dispersed. Our assessment reveals trade-offs and challenges in the food system that are easily overlooked in sectoral analyses of fisheries, aquaculture, health, medicine, human and fish welfare, safety and environment. We highlight potential benefits of an integrated, systematic and ongoing process to assess security of the aquatic food system and to predict impacts of social, economic and environmental change on food supply and demand