Identification and Description of the Uncertainty, Variability, Bias and Influence in Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs) for Toxicity Prediction

Improving regulatory confidence in, and acceptance of, a prediction of toxicity from a quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) requires assessment of its uncertainty and determination of whether the uncertainty is acceptable. Thus, it is crucial to identify potential uncertainties fundamental to QSAR predictions. Based on expert review, sources of uncertainties, variabilities and biases, as well as areas of influence in QSARs for toxicity prediction were established. These were grouped into three thematic areas: uncertainties, variabilities, potential biases and influences associated with 1) the creation of the QSAR, 2) the description of the QSAR, and 3) the application of the QSAR, also showing barriers for their use. Each thematic area was divided into a total of 13 main areas of concern with 49 assessment criteria covering all aspects of QSAR development, documentation and use. Two case studies were undertaken on different types of QSARs that demonstrated the applicability of the assessment criteria to identify potential weaknesses in the use of a QSAR for a specific purpose such that they may be addressed and mitigation strategies can be proposed, as well as enabling an informed decision on the adequacy of the model in the considered context

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 evaluation of the substances currently on the list in the annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils – Part III of III

Shipping of edible fats and oils into Europe is permitted in bulk tanks, in which substances, included in a positive list, had been previously transported. The European Commission requested EFSA to evaluate the list of substances in the Annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC as acceptable previous cargoes for edible fats and oils, taking into account its review of the Scientific Committee on Food criteria for acceptable previous cargoes and criteria proposed by the Codex Committee for Fats and Oils. This is the third and last scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) on this topic, in which sixteen of these substances or groups of substances have been evaluated. The CONTAM Panel concluded that sodium silicate (water glass) solution, iso-octanol, iso-nonanol, iso-decanol, 1,3-propanediol, isobutyl acetate, sec-butyl acetate, tert-butyl acetate, n-butyl acetate, propylene tetramer, paraffin wax, candelilla wax, white mineral oils and glycerol would not be of health concern as previous cargoes. The CONTAM Panel concluded that carnauba wax was not acceptable as a previous cargo because of its insolubility in water and high melting point, which raise concerns regarding the efficiency of tank cleaning. There was insufficient information available on the composition of montan wax for the CONTAM Panel to conclude that it would be of no health concern when used as previous cargo and hence it does not meet the criteria for acceptability as previous cargo. The CONTAM Panel made several recommendations regarding the way in which the substances are described in the Annex to Commission Directive 96/3/EC, to correct inaccuracies and to better reflect current transport practices

Adverse Effects of Methylmercury: Environmental Health Research Implications

Background: The scientific discoveries of health risks resulting from methylmercury exposure began in 1865 describing ataxia, dysarthria, constriction of visual fields, impaired hearing, and sensory disturbance as symptoms of fatal methylmercury poisoning. Objective: Our aim was to examine how knowledge and consensus on methylmercury toxicity have developed in order to identify problems of wider concern in research. Data sources and extraction: We tracked key publications that reflected new insights into human methylmercury toxicity. From this evidence, we identified possible caveats of potential significance for environmental health research in general. Synthesis: At first, methylmercury research was impaired by inappropriate attention to narrow case definitions and uncertain chemical speciation. It also ignored the link between ecotoxicity and human toxicity. As a result, serious delays affected the recognition of methylmercury as a cause of serious human poisonings in Minamata, Japan. Developmental neurotoxicity was first reported in 1952, but despite accumulating evidence, the vulnerability of the developing nervous system was not taken into account in risk assessment internationally until approximately 50 years later. Imprecision in exposure assessment and other forms of uncertainty tended to cause an underestimation of methylmercury toxicity and repeatedly led to calls for more research rather than prevention. Conclusions: Coupled with legal and political rigidity that demanded convincing documentation before considering prevention and compensation, types of uncertainty that are common in environmental research delayed the scientific consensus and were used as an excuse for deferring corrective action. Symptoms of methylmercury toxicity, such as tunnel vision, forgetfulness, and lack of coordination, also seemed to affect environmental health research and its interpretation

Adverse Effects of Methylmercury: Environmental Health Research Implications

Background: The scientific discoveries of health risks resulting from methylmercury exposure began in 1865 describing ataxia, dysarthria, constriction of visual fields, impaired hearing, and sensory disturbance as symptoms of fatal methylmercury poisoning. Objective: Our aim was to examine how knowledge and consensus on methylmercury toxicity have developed in order to identify problems of wider concern in research. Data sources and extraction: We tracked key publications that reflected new insights into human methylmercury toxicity. From this evidence, we identified possible caveats of potential significance for environmental health research in general. Synthesis: At first, methylmercury research was impaired by inappropriate attention to narrow case definitions and uncertain chemical speciation. It also ignored the link between ecotoxicity and human toxicity. As a result, serious delays affected the recognition of methylmercury as a cause of serious human poisonings in Minamata, Japan. Developmental neurotoxicity was first reported in 1952, but despite accumulating evidence, the vulnerability of the developing nervous system was not taken into account in risk assessment internationally until approximately 50 years later. Imprecision in exposure assessment and other forms of uncertainty tended to cause an underestimation of methylmercury toxicity and repeatedly led to calls for more research rather than prevention. Conclusions: Coupled with legal and political rigidity that demanded convincing documentation before considering prevention and compensation, types of uncertainty that are common in environmental research delayed the scientific consensus and were used as an excuse for deferring corrective action. Symptoms of methylmercury toxicity, such as tunnel vision, forgetfulness, and lack of coordination, also seemed to affect environmental health research and its interpretation

Scientific Opinion on the hazard assessment of endocrine disruptors: Scientific criteria for identification of endocrine disruptors and appropriateness of existing test methods for assessing effects mediated by these substances on human health and the environment

Upon request of the European Commission, the Scientific Committee (SC) of the European Food Safety Authority reviewed existing information related to the testing and assessment of endocrine active substances (EASs) and endocrine disruptors (EDs). This work was conducted by a working group of experts in endocrinology, risk assessment and toxicology, together with observers from other EU agencies, namely EMA, ECHA and EEA. To distinguish between EDs and other groups of substances with different modes of action, it was concluded that an ED is defined by three criteria: the presence of i) an adverse effect in an intact organism or a (sub)population; ii) an endocrine activity; and iii) a plausible causal relationship between the two. As scientific criteria for adversity have not been generally defined, specific criteria for endocrine disrupting effects could not be identified. Hence, expert judgement is required to assess on a case-by-case basis the (eco)toxicological relevance of changes at the molecular to individual and/or (sub)population level following exposure to an EAS. The SC concluded that a reasonably complete suite of standardised assays for testing the effects of EASs is (or will soon be) available for the oestrogenic, androgenic, thyroid and steroidogenic modalities in mammals and fish, with fewer tests for birds and amphibians. Shortcomings in current tests and for other endocrine modalities and species were reviewed. Critical effect, severity, (ir)reversibility and potency aspects are part of the hazard characterisation of EDs. To inform on risk and level of concern for the purpose of risk management decisions, risk assessment (taking into account hazard and exposure data/predictions) makes best use of available information. Levels of concern are not determined exclusively by risk assessment but also by protection goals set by the risk management

EFSA NDA Panel (EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies), 2013 . Scientific opinion on Dietary Reference Values for fluoride

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) derived Dietary Reference Values (DRVs) for fluoride, which are provided as Adequate Intake (AI) from all sources, including non-dietary sources. Fluoride is not an essential nutrient. Therefore, no Average Requirement for the performance of essential physiological functions can be defined. Nevertheless, the Panel considered that the setting of an AI is appropriate because of the beneficial effects of dietary fluoride on prevention of dental caries. The AI is based on epidemiological studies (performed before the 1970s) showing an inverse relationship between the fluoride concentration of water and caries prevalence. As the basis for defining the AI, estimates of mean fluoride intakes of children via diet and drinking water with fluoride concentrations at which the caries preventive effect approached its maximum whilst the risk of dental fluorosis approached its minimum were chosen. Except for one confirmatory longitudinal study in US children, more recent studies were not taken into account as they did not provide information on total dietary fluoride intake, were potentially confounded by the use of fluoride-containing dental hygiene products, and did not permit a conclusion to be drawn on a dose-response relationship between fluoride intake and caries risk. The AI of fluoride from all sources (including non-dietary sources) is 0.05 mg/kg body weight per day for both children and adults, including pregnant and lactating women. For pregnant and lactating women, the AI is based on the body weight before pregnancy and lactation. Reliable and representative data on the total fluoride intake of the European population are not available