The Prevalence and Compliance of Health Claims Used in the Labelling and Information for Prepacked Foods within Great Britain.

In the EU and Great Britain (GB), all health claims (HCs) on food must be authorised before use and should comply with Regulation 1924/2006. In GB, all HCs, authorised or not, are listed in the Great Britain Nutrition and Health Claims Register. This study reviews the prevalence and compliance of HCs on prepacked foods sold within three GB supermarkets and via their grocery shopping websites. In June 2023, food labels and online product information of 440 products were evaluated across three food categories-dairy and dairy alternatives; fruit juices, fruit juice drinks and fruit smoothies; and teas and infusions. In store, 26.3% of products carried an HC and 28.3% online. The prevalence of HCs was higher when compared with data from 2016. Overall compliance was high, in store (94.3%) and online (90.0%), with no statistically significant difference in overall HC compliance between in store and online products (p = 0.724). The HC violations observed in the present study were due to non-compliant wording of HCs or use of non-authorised HCs. This study demonstrates changes in the HC landscape and the need for continued monitoring of the prevalence and compliance of HCs as consumer trends alter.

Risk assessment of nutrients: There must be a threshold for their effects.

Nutrients serve physiological functions in a dose-dependent manner and that needs to be recognized in risk assessment. An example of the consequences of not properly considering this can be seen in a recent assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). EFSA concluded in 2022 that the intake of added and free sugars should be "as low as possible in the context of a nutritionally adequate diet". That conclusion of EFSA is based on the effects on two surrogate endpoints for an adverse effect found in randomized controlled trials with high sugars intake levels: fasting glucose and fasting triglycerides. The lowest intake levels in these trials were around 10 energy% and at this intake level there were no adverse effects on the two outcomes. This indicates that the adverse effects of sugars have an observable threshold value for these two endpoints. The most appropriate interpretation from the vast amount of data is that currently no definitive conclusion can be drawn on the tolerable upper intake level for dietary sugars. Therefore, EFSA's own guidance would lead to the conclusion that the available data do not allow the setting of an upper limit for added sugars and hence, that more robust data are required to identify the threshold value for intake of sugars.

FAIR environmental and health registry (FAIREHR)- supporting the science to policy interface and life science research, development and innovation.

The environmental impact on health is an inevitable by-product of human activity. Environmental health sciences is a multidisciplinary field addressing complex issues on how people are exposed to hazardous chemicals that can potentially affect adversely the health of present and future generations. Exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology are becoming increasingly data-driven and their efficiency and effectiveness can significantly improve by implementing the FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable, reusable) principles for scientific data management and stewardship. This will enable data integration, interoperability and (re)use while also facilitating the use of new and powerful analytical tools such as artificial intelligence and machine learning in the benefit of public health policy, and research, development and innovation (RDI). Early research planning is critical to ensuring data is FAIR at the outset. This entails a well-informed and planned strategy concerning the identification of appropriate data and metadata to be gathered, along with established procedures for their collection, documentation, and management. Furthermore, suitable approaches must be implemented to evaluate and ensure the quality of the data. Therefore, the 'Europe Regional Chapter of the International Society of Exposure Science' (ISES Europe) human biomonitoring working group (ISES Europe HBM WG) proposes the development of a FAIR Environment and health registry (FAIREHR) (hereafter FAIREHR). FAIR Environment and health registry offers preregistration of studies on exposure sciences and environmental epidemiology using HBM (as a starting point) across all areas of environmental and occupational health globally. The registry is proposed to receive a dedicated web-based interface, to be electronically searchable and to be available to all relevant data providers, users and stakeholders. Planned Human biomonitoring studies would ideally be registered before formal recruitment of study participants. The resulting FAIREHR would contain public records of metadata such as study design, data management, an audit trail of major changes to planned methods, details of when the study will be completed, and links to resulting publications and data repositories when provided by the authors. The FAIREHR would function as an integrated platform designed to cater to the needs of scientists, companies, publishers, and policymakers by providing user-friendly features. The implementation of FAIREHR is expected to yield significant benefits in terms of enabling more effective utilization of human biomonitoring (HBM) data.

Developing human biomonitoring as a 21st century toolbox within the European exposure science strategy 2020-2030.

Human biomonitoring (HBM) is a crucial approach for exposure assessment, as emphasised in the European Commission's Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability (CSS). HBM can help to improve chemical policies in five major key areas: (1) assessing internal and aggregate exposure in different target populations; 2) assessing exposure to chemicals across life stages; (3) assessing combined exposure to multiple chemicals (mixtures); (4) bridging regulatory silos on aggregate exposure; and (5) enhancing the effectiveness of risk management measures. In this strategy paper we propose a vision and a strategy for the use of HBM in chemical regulations and public health policy in Europe and beyond. We outline six strategic objectives and a roadmap to further strengthen HBM approaches and increase their implementation in the regulatory risk assessment of chemicals to enhance our understanding of exposure and health impacts, enabling timely and targeted policy interventions and risk management. These strategic objectives are: 1) further development of sampling strategies and sample preparation; 2) further development of chemical-analytical HBM methods; 3) improving harmonisation throughout the HBM research life cycle; 4) further development of quality control / quality assurance throughout the HBM research life cycle; 5) obtain sustained funding and reinforcement by legislation; and 6) extend target-specific communication with scientists, policymakers, citizens and other stakeholders. HBM approaches are essential in risk assessment to address scientific, regulatory and societal challenges. HBM requires full and strong support from the scientific and regulatory domain to reach its full potential in public and occupational health assessment and in regulatory decision-making.

An Evaluation of the Nutri-Score System along the Reasoning for Scientific Substantiation of Health Claims in the EU-A Narrative Review.

In this narrative review, the scientific evidence in support of the front-of-pack label (FOPL) Nutri-Score system is evaluated along with the reasoning for scientific substantiation of health claims in the EU. A health claim could be phrased as 'Nutri-Score as an FOPL system results in an increased purchase of healthier foods by consumers'. Peer-reviewed scientific literature as found in Pubmed under search terms "NutriScore" and "Nutri-Score" that investigate the effects of the Nutri-Score on food purchases were evaluated. In total, eight papers were identified. Only three studies were conducted in real-life settings, and five were on online purchases. In the EU, health claims are evaluated by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Considering the three basic questions that EFSA uses to evaluate scientific substantiation of health claims, it appears that the (i) food/constituent (the Nutri-Score system) is sufficiently defined/characterised, and (ii) the evidence is sufficient to appraise the system as 'beneficial to human health'. However, the scientific evidence for a (iii) cause-and-effect relationship is contradictory and limited. In conclusion, based on the EFSA approach for substantiation of health claims, there is insufficient evidence to support a health claim based on the Nutri-Score system, since a cause-and-effect relationship could not be established.

Human health risk-benefit assessment of fish and other seafood: a scoping review.

Fish and other seafood are important sources of nutrients, but they are also sources of chemical contaminants that may cause adverse health effects. This article aimed to identify existing risk-benefit assessments (RBA) of fish, shellfish, and other seafood, compare methodologies, discuss differences and commonalities in findings, and identify limitations and ways forward for future studies. We conducted a scoping review of the scientific literature of studies in all languages published from 2000 through April 2019. We identified 106 RBA of fish and other seafood across Europe, Asia, North America, Africa, and at the global level. Studies were heterogeneous in terms of types of fish and other seafood considered, beneficial and adverse compounds assessed, and overall methodology. Collected data showed that a diet consisting of a variety of lean and fatty fish and other seafood is recommended for the overall population and that women of childbearing age and children should limit the consumption of fish and other seafood types that have a high likelihood of contamination. Our review emphasizes the need for evidence-based, up-to-date, and harmonized approaches in RBA in general.

Enhancing the use of exposure science across EU chemical policies as part of the European Exposure Science Strategy 2020-2030.

BACKGROUND: A scientific framework on exposure science will boost the multiuse of exposure knowledge across EU chemicals-related policies and improve risk assessment, risk management and communication across EU safety, security and sustainability domains. OBJECTIVE: To stimulate public and private actors to align and strengthen the cross-policy adoption of exposure assessment data, methods and tools across EU legislation. METHODS: By mapping and analysing the EU regulatory landscape making use of exposure information, policy and research challenges and key areas of action are identified and translated into opportunities enhancing policy and scientific efficiency. RESULTS: Identified key areas of actions are to develop a common scientific exposure assessment framework, supported by baseline acceptance criteria and a shared knowledge base enhancing exchangeability and acceptability of exposure knowledge within and across EU chemicals-related policies. Furthermore, such framework will improve communication and management across EU chemical safety, security and sustainability policies comprising sourcing, manufacturing and global trade of goods and waste management. In support of building such a common framework and its effective use in policy and industry, exposure science innovation needs to be better embedded along the whole policymaking cycle, and be integrated into companies' safety and sustainability management systems. This will help to systemically improve regulatory risk management practices. SIGNIFICANCE: This paper constitutes an important step towards the implementation of the EU Green Deal and its underlying policy strategies, such as the Chemicals Strategy for Sustainability.

A human biomonitoring (HBM) Global Registry Framework: Further advancement of HBM research following the FAIR principles.

Data generated by the rapidly evolving human biomonitoring (HBM) programmes are providing invaluable opportunities to support and advance regulatory risk assessment and management of chemicals in occupational and environmental health domains. However, heterogeneity across studies, in terms of design, terminology, biomarker nomenclature, and data formats, limits our capacity to compare and integrate data sets retrospectively (reuse). Registration of HBM studies is common for clinical trials; however, the study designs and resulting data collections cannot be traced easily. We argue that an HBM Global Registry Framework (HBM GRF) could be the solution to several of challenges hampering the (re)use of HBM (meta)data. The aim is to develop a global, host-independent HBM registry framework based on the use of harmonised open-access protocol templates from designing, undertaking of an HBM study to the use and possible reuse of the resulting HBM (meta)data. This framework should apply FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) principles as a core data management strategy to enable the (re)use of HBM (meta)data to its full potential through the data value chain. Moreover, we believe that implementation of FAIR principles is a fundamental enabler for digital transformation within environmental health. The HBM GRF would encompass internationally harmonised and agreed open access templates for HBM study protocols, structured web-based functionalities to deposit, find, and access harmonised protocols of HBM studies. Registration of HBM studies using the HBM GRF is anticipated to increase FAIRness of the resulting (meta)data. It is also considered that harmonisation of existing data sets could be performed retrospectively. As a consequence, data wrangling activities to make data ready for analysis will be minimised. In addition, this framework would enable the HBM (inter)national community to trace new HBM studies already in the planning phase and their results once finalised. The HBM GRF could also serve as a platform enhancing communication between scientists, risk assessors, and risk managers/policy makers. The planned European Partnership for the Assessment of Risk from Chemicals (PARC) work along these lines, based on the experience obtained in previous joint European initiatives. Therefore, PARC could very well bring a first demonstration of first essential functionalities within the development of the HBM GRF.

Guidance on the preparation and submission of an application for authorisation of a novel food in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1)2.

[Table: see text] Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods, the European Commission requested EFSA develop scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and submission of applications for authorisation of novel foods. This guidance presents a common format for the organisation of the information to be presented by the applicant when preparing a well-structured application to demonstrate the safety of the novel food. It outlines the data needed for the safety assessments of novel foods. Requirements relate to the description of the novel food, production process, compositional data, specification, proposed uses and use levels, and anticipated intake of the novel food. Further sections on the history of use of the novel food and/or its source, absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, nutritional information, toxicological information and allergenicity should be considered by the applicant by default. If not covered in the application, this should be justified. The applicant should integrate the data presented in the different sections to provide their overall considerations on how the information supports the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use. Where potential health hazards have been identified, they should be discussed in relation to the anticipated intakes of the novel food and the proposed target populations. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety of the novel food under the proposed conditions of use. This guidance was originally adopted in 2016.It has beenrevised to informapplicants of the new provisions introduced by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.This revised guidance applies to all dossiers submitted as of 27 March 2021. The 2016 version of this guidance remains applicable to applications submitted before 27 March 2021.

Guidance on the preparation and submission of the notification and application for authorisation of traditional foods from third countries in the context of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 (Revision 1).

[Table: see text] Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on Novel Foods, the European Commission requested EFSA to develop a scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and submission of notifications for traditional foods from third countries. This guidance presents a common format for the organisation of the information to be presented by applicant for the preparation of a well-structured dossier. The safety of a traditional food should be substantiated by reliable data on its composition, its experience of continued use and its proposed conditions of use. Its normal consumption should not be nutritionally disadvantageous. This guidance is also intended to support applicants in providing the type and quality of information EU Member States and EFSA need for the assessments of traditional foods from third countries. The applicant should integrate the information on the composition and the experience of continued use and provide a concise overall consideration on how this substantiates the history of safe use of the traditional food and how this relates to the proposed conditions of use for the EU. Where potential health hazards have been identified on the basis of the composition and/or data from the experience of continued use, they should be discussed. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety related to the consumption of the traditional food under the proposed conditions of use. This guidance was originally adopted by the NDA Panel in 2016. It has been revised in 2020 to inform applicants of the new provisions introduced by Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.It is applicable to allnotifications and applications submitted as of 27 March 2021. The 2016 version remains applicable to notifications and applications submitted before 27 March 2021.

Statement on the derivation of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients.

This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources.

Risk-benefit in food safety and nutrition - Outcome of the 2019 Parma Summer School.

Risk-benefit assessment is the comparison of the risk of a situation to its related benefits, i.e. a comparison of scenarios estimating the overall health impact. The risk-benefit analysis paradigm mirrors the classical risk analysis one: risk-benefit assessment goes hand-in-hand with risk-benefit management and risk-benefit communication. The various health effects associated with food consumption, together with the increasing demand for advice on healthy and safe diets, have led to the development of different research disciplines in food safety and nutrition. In this sense, there is a clear need for a holistic approach, including and comparing all of the relevant health risks and benefits. The risk-benefit assessment of foods is a valuable approach to estimate the overall impact of food on health. It aims to assess together the negative and positive health effects associated with food intake by integrating chemical and microbiological risk assessment with risk and benefit assessment in food safety and nutrition. The 2019 Parma Summer School on risk-benefit in food safety and nutrition had the objective was to provide an opportunity to learn from experts in the field of risk-benefit approach in food safety and nutrition, including theory, case studies, and communication of risk-benefit assessments plus identify challenges for the future. It was evident that whereas tools and approaches have been developed, more and more case studies have been performed which can form an inherent validation of the risk-benefit approach. Executed risk-benefit assessment case studies apply the steps and characteristics developed: a problem formulation (with at least 2 scenarios), a tiered approach until a decision can be made, one common currency to describe both beneficial and adverse effects (DALYs in most instances). It was concluded that risk-benefit assessment in food safety and nutrition is gaining more and more momentum, while also many challenges remain for the future. Risk-benefit is on the verge of really enrolling into the risk assessment and risk analysis paradigm. The interaction between risk-benefit assessors and risk-benefit managers is pivotal in this, as is the interaction with risk-benefit communicators.

Towards a systematic use of effect biomarkers in population and occupational biomonitoring.

Effect biomarkers can be used to elucidate relationships between exposure to environmental chemicals and their mixtures with associated health outcomes, but they are often underused, as underlying biological mechanisms are not understood. We aim to provide an overview of available effect biomarkers for monitoring chemical exposures in the general and occupational populations, and highlight their potential in monitoring humans exposed to chemical mixtures. We also discuss the role of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework and physiologically based kinetic and dynamic (PBK/D) modelling to strengthen the understanding of the biological mechanism of effect biomarkers, and in particular for use in regulatory risk assessments. An interdisciplinary network of experts from the European chapter of the International Society for Exposure Science (ISES Europe) and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Occupational Biomonitoring activity of Working Parties of Hazard and Exposure Assessment group worked together to map the conventional framework of biomarkers and provided recommendations for their systematic use. We summarized the key aspects of this work here, and discussed these in three parts. Part I, we inventory available effect biomarkers and promising new biomarkers for the general population based on the H2020 Human Biomonitoring for Europe (HBM4EU) initiative. Part II, we provide an overview AOP and PBK/D modelling use that improved the selection and interpretation of effect biomarkers. Part III, we describe the collected expertise from the OECD Occupational Biomonitoring subtask effect biomarkers in prioritizing relevant mode of actions (MoAs) and suitable effect biomarkers. Furthermore, we propose a tiered risk assessment approach for occupational biomonitoring. Several effect biomarkers, especially for use in occupational settings, are validated. They offer a direct assessment of the overall health risks associated with exposure to chemicals, chemical mixtures and their transformation products. Promising novel effect biomarkers are emerging for biomonitoring of the general population. Efforts are being dedicated to prioritizing molecular and biochemical effect biomarkers that can provide a causal link in exposure-health outcome associations. This mechanistic approach has great potential in improving human health risk assessment. New techniques such as in silico methods (e.g. QSAR, PBK/D modelling) as well as 'omics data will aid this process. Our multidisciplinary review represents a starting point for enhancing the identification of effect biomarkers and their mechanistic pathways following the AOP framework. This may help in prioritizing the effect biomarker implementation as well as defining threshold limits for chemical mixtures in a more structured way. Several ex vivo biomarkers have been proposed to evaluate combined effects including genotoxicity and xeno-estrogenicity. There is a regulatory need to derive effect-based trigger values using the increasing mechanistic knowledge coming from the AOP framework to address adverse health effects due to exposure to chemical mixtures. Such a mechanistic strategy would reduce the fragmentation observed in different regulations. It could also stimulate a harmonized use of effect biomarkers in a more comparable way, in particular for risk assessments to chemical mixtures.

Increasing Seaweed Consumption in the Netherlands and Portugal and the Consequences for the Intake of Iodine, Sodium, and Exposure to Chemical Contaminants: A Risk-Benefit Study.

Background: Seaweed has a high potential for nourishing the future planet. However, besides being beneficial, it also contains adverse components; this poses the question whether consumption of seaweed foods overall contributes beneficially or detrimentally to human health, and hence if their consumption should be promoted or restricted. Methods: This study evaluated the impact of substituting regular foods with seaweed foods in the diet, both in terms of nutritional quality (via iodine and sodium) and food safety (via arsenic, cadmium, lead, and mercury). Food consumption data from the Netherlands and Portugal (adults aged >18 years) were used, in which 10% of the amounts of pasta, bacon, and lettuce consumed were replaced by seaweed-derived products made from kelp (Saccharina latissima). Using Monte Carlo Risk Assessment software (MCRA), long-term nutrient intake and exposure to contaminants were assessed. The results obtained for the Netherlands and Portugal were compared with data from Japan, a country that has a high natural consumption of seaweed. Results: This low-tier risk-benefit study reveals that an increased seaweed consumption (as assessed by the 10% replacement with seaweed products) has no consequences in terms of intake of sodium and exposure to cadmium, lead, and mercury, and the associated (absence of) adverse health aspects. The alternative scenario almost doubled the mean iodine intake in the Netherlands (to 300 µg/day) and Portugal (to 208 µg/day) and increased the average exposure to arsenic levels in the Netherlands (to 1.02 µg/kg bw/day) and Portugal (to 1.67 µg/kg bw/day). Conclusion: The intake of iodine and exposure to arsenic in the Netherland and Portugal were certainly higher due to the modeled increase of seaweed foods. If seaweed consumption increases close to the 10% substitution, the public health consequences thereof may trigger further research.

Biomonitoring as an Underused Exposure Assessment Tool in Occupational Safety and Health Context-Challenges and Way Forward.

Recent advances in analytical chemistry have allowed a greater possibility of using quantitative approaches for measuring human exposure to chemicals. One of these approaches is biomonitoring (BM), which provides unequivocal evidence that both exposure and uptake of a chemical have taken place. BM has been a longstanding practice in occupational health for several reasons. BM integrates exposure from all routes. It can help identify unintentional and unexpected exposures and assess the effectiveness of existing risk-management measures. BM also provides relevant information to support policy development by delivering better evidence of workers' exposure to chemical substances, even within the framework of the present regulations. Thus, BM can allow for both the evaluation of the impact of regulation and identification of further needs for new or improved regulation. However, despite all these well-recognized advantages, BM is currently an underused exposure assessment tool. This paper provides an overview of the key aspects to be considered when using BM in the context of occupational health interventions. Additionally, this paper describes the potential of BM as an exposure assessment tool, distinguishing the role of BM in exposure assessment and health surveillance and clarifies ethical and communication aspects to guarantee that general data protection regulations are followed. In addition, actions and research needs are identified (particularly with reference to the European situation), which aim to encourage the increased use of BM as an exposure assessment tool.

A Novel Urinary Biomarker Approach Reveals Widespread Exposure to Multiple Low-Calorie Sweeteners in Adults.

BACKGROUND: Observational investigations into the health impacts of low-calorie sweeteners (LCSs) in humans fail to adequately identify or fully characterize LCS consumption. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to utilize a novel biomarker approach to investigate exposure to 5 LCSs and to test whether reported low-calorie sweetened beverage (LCSB) consumption effectively identifies exposure to LCSs in adults. METHODS: In this cross-sectional analysis, 2 population studies were conducted in adults. Urinary excretions of 5 LCSs, namely acesulfame-K, saccharin, cyclamate, sucralose, and steviol glycosides, were simultaneously determined using LC tandem-MS. In Study 1, previously collected 24-h urine samples (n = 357) were analyzed. In Study 2, previously collected 24-h urine samples (n = 79) were analyzed to compare urinary excretions of LCSs with self-reported LCSB consumption for identifying LCS exposure. Exposure to LCSs was characterized using descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were performed to assess associations between age-groups and LCS excretion, and to assess the proportion of individuals identified as LCS consumers using biomarker data or reported LCSB consumption. RESULTS: A total of 341 adults (45% men) and 79 adults (39% men) were included in the final analysis of Studies 1 and 2, respectively. In Study 1, >96% of samples contained ≥1 LCS and almost 60% contained ≥3 LCSs. A greater proportion of younger adults (<40 y old) excreted ≥3 LCSs than older adults (>40 y old) (P < 0.001). In Study 2, a much higher prevalence of LCS consumption was observed using biomarker data (92%) than reported LCSB consumption (6%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This work indicates widespread exposure to LCSs, suggesting that population-based research to date into LCS exposure and health may be flawed. Therefore, a urinary biomarker approach offers considerable potential for more robust investigations in this area.

Managing evidence in food safety and nutrition.

Evidence ('data') is at the heart of EFSA's 2020 Strategy and is addressed in three of its operational objectives: (1) adopt an open data approach, (2) improve data interoperability to facilitate data exchange, and (3) migrate towards structured scientific data. As the generation and availability of data have increased exponentially in the last decade, potentially providing a much larger evidence base for risk assessments, it is envisaged that the acquisition and management of evidence to support future food safety risk assessments will be a dominant feature of EFSA's future strategy. During the breakout session on 'Managing evidence' of EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society', current challenges and future developments were discussed in evidence management applied to food safety risk assessment, accounting for the increased volume of evidence available as well as the increased IT capabilities to access and analyse it. This paper reports on presentations given and discussions held during the session, which were centred around the following three main topics: (1) (big) data availability and (big) data connection, (2) problem formulation and (3) evidence integration.

EFSA's third Scientific Conference 'Science, Food, Society': concluding remarks.

From 18-21 September 2018, EFSA hosted its third Scientific Conference on Science, Food and Society in Parma, Italy. This paper summarises the overall recommendations on future actions and research priorities of the conference and complements the earlier multi-authored papers in this issue. The conference started and closed with the plenary sessions 'where science meets society: putting risk assessment in context' and 'staying relevant in a changing world', respectively. In between, there were seven breakout sessions five of which aimed at advancing risk assessment science in the areas of human health, the environment, biological hazards, nutrition and managing evidence, and two of which were dedicated to the societal aspects of risk assessment: engaging with society and envisioning the expertise of the future. During the 4 days of the event, participants addressed the complex interplay between science, risk assessment, policy and society, and explored how to advance food safety risk assessment to address the challenges of a changing world and ensure preparedness. Acknowledging that good science alone is no longer sufficient to ensure fit-for-purpose food safety risk assessments, EFSA must further build on its current five Strategic Objectives. To ensure that its risk assessments remain scientifically robust and sound, EFSA should strive for robust and fit-for-purpose risk assessments; consider food in the context of safety, nutrition and sustainability; and explore further how EFSA can work with other organisations to achieve the One Health/One Environment goals. In addition, EFSA should base scientific risk assessments on reliable science while capitalising on scientific advances; address scientific uncertainties; and fully publish the evidence and data used. In line with societal expectations, EFSA, in coordination with risk managers, should frame risk assessments through clear policy goals and problem formulation; be explicit about value judgements; communicate clearly and consistently and in coordination with risk assessors and risk managers; involve society; avoid conflicts of interest; and follow trustworthy processes.

Guidelines for Biomarker of Food Intake Reviews (BFIRev): how to conduct an extensive literature search for biomarker of food intake discovery.

Identification of new biomarkers of food and nutrient intake has developed fast over the past two decades and could potentially provide important new tools for compliance monitoring and dietary intake assessment in nutrition and health science. In recent years, metabolomics has played an important role in identifying a large number of putative biomarkers of food intake (BFIs). However, the large body of scientific literature on potential BFIs outside the metabolomics area should also be taken into account. In particular, we believe that extensive literature reviews should be conducted and that the quality of all suggested biomarkers should be systematically evaluated. In order to cover the literature on BFIs in the most appropriate and consistent manner, there is a need for appropriate guidelines on this topic. These guidelines should build upon guidelines in related areas of science while targeting the special needs of biomarker methodology. This document provides a guideline for conducting an extensive literature search on BFIs, which will provide the basis to systematically validate BFIs. This procedure will help to prioritize future work on the identification of new potential biomarkers and on validating these as well as other biomarker candidates, thereby providing better tools for future studies in nutrition and health.