3,987 research outputs found
Scientific Opinion on Priority topics for the development of risk assessment guidance by EFSA?s Scientific Committee
No full textThe European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked its Scientific Committee to review its own cross cutting risk assessment Guidance Documents to identify gaps requiring either the development of new guidance or the revision of existing guidance. The Scientific Committee identified topics for further strategic discussion without ranking their priority. Four topics were identified as gaps requiring the development of new guidance: the interpretation of epidemiological studies; the use of weight of evidence approach in risk assessment; the identification of biological relevance in toxicology; import risk assessment. Two topics were identified where existing guidance documents require updating or follow up: harmonisation of the assessment of human exposure; terminology in risk assessment. Work for the development of guidance documents is already ongoing on environmental risk assessment, and uncertainty in risk assessment. The assessment of food allergenicity was identified as a further topic where the development of guidance document would be beneficial to applicants and for risk assessment by EFSA. There are some developing scientific issues (e.g. omics, synthetic biology) which the Scientific Committee considers to be too premature for the development of meaningful guidance but which EFSA should keep under review and, when appropriate, should evaluate their importance for food safety risk assessment. The topics identified in this opinion will be discussed further within EFSA to develop its multiannual workplan, the strategic work programme of the Scientific Committee and future priorities
Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments
No full textEFSA 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
Annual working plan of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition
No full text<p>Annual working plan of the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition</p>CZ; cs; [email protected]
Work plan 2013 Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM)
No full textWork plan for the Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) 2013NO; no; [email protected]
EFSA Scientific Committee; Scientific Opinion on Risk Assessment Terminology
No full textThe Scientific Committee of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the use of risk assessment terminology within its Scientific Panels. An external report, commissioned by EFSA, analysed 219 opinions published by the Scientific Committee and Panels to recommend possible ways of improving the expression and communication of risk and/or uncertainties in the selected opinions. The Scientific Committee concluded that risk assessment terminology is not fully harmonised within EFSA. In part this is caused by sectoral legislation defining specific terminology and international standards for specific fields of risk assessment and thus for specific Panels. The use of defined terminology for risk assessment is driven by three standard-setting organisations, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) in relation to food safety, the World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) for animal health and the International Plant Protection Convention (IPPC) for plant health, under the Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) of which the European Union is a member. Should the major purpose of risk assessment be international trade, the Scientific Committee concludes that particular care must be taken that the principles of CAC, OIE or IPPC are followed strictly. EFSA Scientific Panels should identify which specific approach is most useful in dealing with their individual mandates. The Scientific Committee considered detailed aspects of risk assessment terminology and identified their relevance for EFSA to adopt more harmonised use. These included examining definitions of risk and uncertainty, expressing uncertainty and different levels of risk, the merits of using qualitative and quantitative expressions and the use of glossaries of definitions to improve both the understanding and harmonisation of terminology across EFSA’s scientific opinions. Follow-up action by EFSA is identified to develop appropriate detailed guidance to the Scientific Panels. Recommendations are made to improve the clarity, consistency and where possible the harmonization of risk assessment terminology within and across EFSA’s scientific opinions
Report of the Scientific Committee of the Spanish Agency for Consumers Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (AECOSAN) on safety criteria that limit exposure to acrylamide produced by frying potatoes
No full textAcrylamide is an organic compound with a low molecular weight, highly soluble in water, which is formed on cooking certain starchy foods, with a low humidity, at temperatures above 120 ºC and low moisture as deep-frying or roasting); this is mainly due to the Maillard reaction, which occurs between certain amino acids, including free asparagine, and reducing sugars (glucose, fructose and others), turning color to browns and also affects its taste. Acrylamide is classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as a probable human carcinogen (Group 2A), as acrylamide is biotransformed into the metabolite, glycidamide, with genotoxic activity with a special affinity for the nervous system. To date, results from studies on humans have been inconclusive as regards its toxicity. Given that any level of exposure to a genotoxic substance might damage DNA and lead to the appearance of cancer, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is not able to establish a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for acrylamide in food. Instead, the EFSA have estimated the dose range within which acrylamide is most likely to cause a small but measurable incidence of tumours (known as the neoplastic effect) or other potential adverse effects (neurological, preand postnatal development and male reproduction). The lower limit of this range (Benchmark Dose Lower Confidence Limit, BMDL10) has been established by the EFSA at a BMDL10 of 0.17 mg/ kg body weight/day. For other effects, the most relevant neurological changes observed were those with a BMDL10 of 0.43 mg/kg body weight/day. Although the epidemiological associations have not demonstrated acrylamide to be a human carcinogen, the margins of exposure indicate a concern for neoplastic effects based on animal evidence.
Fried potatoes are one of the foods that most contribute to exposure to acrylamide in the general population. The Scientific Committee of the Spanish Agency for Consumer Affairs, Food Safety and Nutrition (AECOSAN) has assessed the characteristics of potatoes as regards the dry matter in the raw material, the presence of reducing sugars and the colour index after frying, which affect the exposure to acrylamide generated as a result of the frying process. In addition, it considers the possible measures to be taken to prevent and reduce the formation of acrylamide in fried potatoes in a domestic environment, including storage temperature or washing potatoes before frying them. Regarding the characteristics of potatoes affecting the exposure to acrylamide generated as a result of frying, the Scientific Committee concludes that: Given that the water content of a fresh potato ranges between 75-80 %, the content of dry matter in the raw material should not be higher than 25 %. Although the content of reducing sugars may vary considerably over time depending on storage conditions, potato varieties with a low content of reducing sugars, no more than 0.3 %, should be selected. Potatoes intended for frying must be stored at temperatures of around 8 ºC. Large tubers, measuring over 50 mm, should be selected for frying. As regards the recommendations for minimising the production of acrylamide when cooking potatoes at home, the Scientific Committee concludes that: When purchasing potatoes, only select potatoes at optimum ripeness level, without green parts or sprouts. When storing potatoes at home, do not store potatoes at temperatures below 8 ºC (do not keep potatoes in the fridge) and avoid prolonged storage. Before frying: cut the potato in thicker chunks or strips rather than thin slices; wash the potatoes after slicing under plenty of tap water and then dry thoroughly with kitchen paper. When cooking: boil potatoes or cook them in the microwave rather than frying. Avoid frying temperatures over 175 ºC at all times. Observe the colour that appears on the surface of the product. Potatoes must be fried until they are a golden yellow colour rather than golden brown and darker coloured potatoes should be thrown away.ES; PDF; [email protected]
Scientific motivations and criteria to consider updating EFSA scientific assessments
No full textEFSA is committed to assess and communicate the risks occurring in the food and feed chain from farm to fork and to provide other forms of scientific advice. This work, carried out by EFSA since its inception, has resulted in the adoption of thousands of scientific assessments. EFSA is obliged to re-assess past assessments in specific regulatory contexts such as those on food and feed additives, active substances in plant protection products and genetically modified food and feed. In other sectors, the consideration for updating past EFSA scientific assessments is taken on an ad hoc basis mainly depending on specific requests by risk managers or on EFSA self-tasking. If safety is potentially at stake in any area within EFSA's remit, the readiness to update past scientific assessments is important to keep EFSA at the forefront of science and to promote an effective risk assessment. Although this task might be very complex and resource demanding, it is fundamental to EFSA's mission. The present EFSA Scientific Committee opinion deals with scientific motivations and criteria to contribute to the timely updating of EFSA scientific assessments. It is recognised that the decision for updating should be agreed following careful consideration of all the relevant elements by the EFSA management, in collaboration with risk managers and stakeholders. The present opinion addresses the scientific approaches through which it would be possible for EFSA to increase the speed and effectiveness of the acquisition of new data, as well as, to improve the consequent evaluations to assess the relevance and reliability of new data in the context of contributing to the better definition of whether to update past scientific assessments. (C) 2017 European Food Safety Authority
Recovery in environmental risk assessment at EFSA : EFSA Scientific Committee
No full textEFSA performs environmental risk assessments (ERAs) for single potential stressors such as plant protection products, genetically modified organisms and feed additives and for invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. In this risk assessment domain, the EFSA Scientific Committee recognises the importance of more integrated ERAs considering both the local and landscape scales, as well as the possible co-occurrence of multiple potential stressors that fall under the remit of EFSA, which are important when addressing ecological recovery. In this scientific opinion, the Scientific Committee gathered scientific knowledge on the potential for the recovery of non-target organisms for the further development of ERA. Current EFSA guidance documents and opinions were reviewed on how ecological recovery is addressed in ERA schemes. In addition, this scientific opinion is based on expert knowledge and data retrieved from the literature. Finally, the information presented in this opinion was reviewed by experts from the relevant EFSA Panels, European risk assessment bodies and through an open consultation requesting input from stakeholders. A conceptual framework was developed to address ecological recovery for any assessed products, and invasive alien species that are harmful for plant health. This framework proposes an integrative approach based on well-defined specific protection goals, scientific knowledge derived by means of experimentation, modelling and monitoring, and the selection of focal taxa, communities, processes and landscapes to develop environmental scenarios to allow the assessment of recovery of organisms and ecological processes at relevant spatial and temporal scales
Calculation of dietary exposure to acrylamide in the Norwegian population
No full textThe Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety (VKM) is requested by the Norwegian Food Safety Authority (NFSA) to calculate the dietary exposure to acrylamide in the Norwegian population.
NFSA refers to the recent scientific opinion on acrylamide in food by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA concludes that acrylamide in food potentially increases the risk of developing cancer for consumers in all age groups.NO; en; [email protected]
Annual working plan of the Scientific Committee on GM Food and Feed
No full text<p>Annual working plan of the Scientific Committee on Genetically Modified Food and Feed</p>CZ; cs; [email protected]
- …
