Guidance for the assessment of detoxification processes in feed.

This statement provides scientific guidance on the information needed to support the risk assessment of the detoxification processes applied to products intended for animal feed in line with the acceptability criteria of the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786.

Update of the risk assessment of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in food.

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in food, focusing on 10 congeners: BDE-28, -47, -49, -99, -100, -138, -153, -154, -183 and ­209. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour and reproductive/developmental effects are the critical effects in rodent studies. For four congeners (BDE-47, -99, -153, -209) the Panel derived Reference Points, i.e. benchmark doses and corresponding lower 95% confidence limits (BMDLs), for endpoint-specific benchmark responses. Since repeated exposure to PBDEs results in accumulation of these chemicals in the body, the Panel estimated the body burden at the BMDL in rodents, and the chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans. For the remaining six congeners no studies were available to identify Reference Points. The Panel concluded that there is scientific basis for inclusion of all 10 congeners in a common assessment group and performed a combined risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the combined margin of exposure (MOET) approach was the most appropriate risk metric and applied a tiered approach to the risk characterisation. Over 84,000 analytical results for the 10 congeners in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary Lower Bound exposure to PBDEs were meat and meat products and fish and seafood. Taking into account the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded that it is likely that current dietary exposure to PBDEs in the European population raises a health concern.

Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2009 risk assessment on arsenic in food carrying out a hazard assessment of inorganic arsenic (iAs) and using the revised exposure assessment issued by EFSA in 2021. Epidemiological studies show that the chronic intake of iAs via diet and/or drinking water is associated with increased risk of several adverse outcomes including cancers of the skin, bladder and lung. The CONTAM Panel used the benchmark dose lower confidence limit based on a benchmark response (BMR) of 5% (relative increase of the background incidence after adjustment for confounders, BMDL05) of 0.06 µg iAs/kg bw per day obtained from a study on skin cancer as a Reference Point (RP). Inorganic As is a genotoxic carcinogen with additional epigenetic effects and the CONTAM Panel applied a margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk characterisation. In adults, the MOEs are low (range between 2 and 0.4 for mean consumers and between 0.9 and 0.2 at the 95th percentile exposure, respectively) and as such raise a health concern despite the uncertainties.

Update of the risk assessment of mineral oil hydrocarbons in food.

Mineral oil hydrocarbons (MOH) are composed of saturated hydrocarbons (MOSH) and aromatic hydrocarbons (MOAH). Due to the complexity of the MOH composition, their complete chemical characterisation is not possible. MOSH accumulation is observed in various tissues, with species-specific differences. Formation of liver epithelioid lipogranulomas and inflammation, as well as increased liver and spleen weights, are observed in Fischer 344 (F344) rats, but not in Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats. These effects are related to specific accumulation of wax components in the liver of F344 rats, which is not observed in SD rats or humans. The CONTAM Panel concluded that F344 rats are not an appropriate model for effects of MOSH with wax components. A NOAEL of 236 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, corresponding to the highest tested dose in F344 rats of a white mineral oil product virtually free of wax components, was selected as relevant reference point (RP). The highest dietary exposure to MOSH was estimated for the young population, with lower bound-upper bound (LB-UB) means and 95th percentiles of 0.085-0.126 and 0.157-0.212 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. Considering a margin of exposure approach, the Panel concluded that the present dietary exposure to MOSH does not raise concern for human health for all age classes. Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity are associated with MOAH with three or more aromatic rings. For this subfraction, a surrogate RP of 0.49 mg/kg bw per day, calculated from data on eight polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, was considered. The highest dietary exposure to MOAH was also in the young population, with LB-UB mean and 95th percentile estimations of 0.003-0.031 and 0.011-0.059 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. Based on two scenarios on three or more ring MOAH contents in the diet and lacking toxicological information on effects of 1 and 2 ring MOAH, a possible concern for human health was raised.

Assessment of the processing conditions which make the Ambrosia seeds non-viable.

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide an assessment of the processing conditions which make Ambrosia seeds non-viable in feed materials and compound feed. This assessment also includes information on a reliable procedure to verify the non-viability of the seeds. Ambrosia seeds are known contaminants in feed with maximum levels set in the Directive 2002/32/EC. The manufacturing processes and processing conditions applied to the feed may affect the viability of the Ambrosia seeds. Therefore, the CONTAM Panel compared these conditions with conditions that have been shown to be sufficient to render Ambrosia seeds non-viable. The Panel concluded with a certainty of 99-100% that solvent extraction and toasting of oilseed meals at temperatures of 120°C with steam injection for 10 min or more will make Ambrosia seeds non-viable. Since milling/grinding feed materials for compound feed of piglets, aquatic species and non-food producing animals would not allow particles of sizes ≥1 mm (the minimum size of viable Ambrosia seeds) passing the grinding process it was considered very likely (with ≥ 90% certainty) that these feeds will not contain viable Ambrosia seeds. In poultry, pig, and possibly cattle feed, particle sizes are ≥ 1 mm and therefore Ambrosia seeds could likely (66-90% certainty) survive the grinding process. Starch and gluten either from corn or wheat wet milling would not contain Ambrosia seeds with 99-100% certainty. Finally, ensiling fresh forages contaminated with A. artemisiifolia seeds for more than 3 months is very likely to render all seeds non-viable. The Panel concluded that a combination of the germination test and a subsequent triphenyl-tetrazolium-chloride (TTC) test will very likely (with ≥ 90% certainty) verify the non-viability of Ambrosia seeds. The Panel recommends that data on the presence of viable Ambrosia seeds before and after the different feed production processes should be generated.

Risk assessment of N-nitrosamines in food.

EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of N-nitrosamines (N-NAs) in food. The risk assessment was confined to those 10 carcinogenic N-NAs occurring in food (TCNAs), i.e. NDMA, NMEA, NDEA, NDPA, NDBA, NMA, NSAR, NMOR, NPIP and NPYR. N-NAs are genotoxic and induce liver tumours in rodents. The in vivo data available to derive potency factors are limited, and therefore, equal potency of TCNAs was assumed. The lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose at 10% (BMDL10) was 10 µg/kg body weight (bw) per day, derived from the incidence of rat liver tumours (benign and malignant) induced by NDEA and used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Analytical results on the occurrence of N-NAs were extracted from the EFSA occurrence database (n = 2,817) and the literature (n = 4,003). Occurrence data were available for five food categories across TCNAs. Dietary exposure was assessed for two scenarios, excluding (scenario 1) and including (scenario 2) cooked unprocessed meat and fish. TCNAs exposure ranged from 0 to 208.9 ng/kg bw per day across surveys, age groups and scenarios. 'Meat and meat products' is the main food category contributing to TCNA exposure. MOEs ranged from 3,337 to 48 at the P95 exposure excluding some infant surveys with P95 exposure equal to zero. Two major uncertainties were (i) the high number of left censored data and (ii) the lack of data on important food categories. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the MOE for TCNAs at the P95 exposure is highly likely (98-100% certain) to be less than 10,000 for all age groups, which raises a health concern.

Assessment of information as regards the toxicity of deoxynivalenol for horses and poultry.

In 2017, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of deoxynivalenol (DON) and its acetylated and modified forms in food and feed. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were derived for different animal species. For horses, an NOAEL of 36 mg DON/kg feed was established, the highest concentration tested and not showing adverse effects. For poultry, an NOAEL of 5 mg DON/kg feed for broiler chickens and laying hens, and an NOAEL of 7 mg DON/kg feed for ducks and turkeys was derived. The European Commission requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of DON for horses and poultry and to revise, if necessary, the established reference points (RPs). Adverse effect levels of 1.9 and 1.7 mg DON/kg feed for, respectively, broiler chickens and turkeys were derived from reassessment of existing studies and newly available literature, showing that DON causes effects on the intestines, in particular the jejunum, with a decreased villus height but also histological damage. An RP for adverse animal health effects of 0.6 mg/kg feed for broiler chickens and turkeys, respectively, was established. For horses, an adverse effect level of 5.6 mg DON/kg feed was established from studies showing reduced feed intake, with an RP for adverse animal health effects of 3.5 mg/kg feed. For ducks and laying hens, RPs remain unchanged. Based on mean and P95 (UB) exposure estimates performed in the previous Opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing DON was considered a potential concern for broiler chickens and turkeys. For horses, the risk for adverse health effects from feed containing DON is low.

Assessment of information as regards the toxicity of T-2 and HT-2 toxin for ruminants.

In 2011, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of T-2 (T2) and HT-2 (HT2) toxin in food and feed. No observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) and lowest observed adverse effect levels (LOAELs) were derived for different animal species. In ruminants a LOAEL was established for the sum of T2 and HT2 of 0.3 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, based on studies with calves and lambs. The CONTAM Panel noted that the effects observed in nutritionally challenged heifers and ewes give rise to the assumption that rumen detoxification of T2 may not always be complete and therefore effective to prevent adverse effects in ruminants. However, the limited data on the effects of T2 on adult ruminants did not allow a conclusion. The European Commission requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of T2 and HT2 for ruminants and to revise, if necessary, the established Reference Point (RP). Adverse effect levels of 0.001 and 0.01 mg T2/kg bw per day for, respectively, sheep and cows, were derived from case studies, estimated to correspond to feed concentrations of 0.035 mg T2/kg for sheep and 0.6 mg T2/kg for cows. RPs for adverse animal health effects of 0.01 mg/kg feed for sheep and 0.2 mg/kg feed for cows were established. For goats, the RP for cows was selected, in the absence of data that they are more sensitive. Based on mean exposure estimates performed in the previous Opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing T2 and HT2 was considered a concern for lactating sheep. For milking goats, a comparison performed between dietary exposure and the RP derived for cows, indicates a potential risk for adverse health effects. For dairy cows and fattening beef, the risk is considered low.

Guidance on the use of the benchmark dose approach in risk assessment.

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

Development of an Evidence-Based Risk Assessment Framework.

Assessment of potential human health risks associated with environmental and other agents requires careful evaluation of all available and relevant evidence for the agent of interest, including both data-rich and data-poor agents. With the advent of new approach methodologies in toxicological risk assessment, guidance on integrating evidence from mul-tiple evidence streams is needed to ensure that all available data is given due consideration in both qualitative and quantitative risk assessment. The present report summarizes the discussions among academic, government, and private sector participants from North America and Europe in an international workshop convened to explore the development of an evidence-based risk assessment framework, taking into account all available evidence in an appropriate manner in order to arrive at the best possible characterization of potential human health risks and associated uncertainty. Although consensus among workshop participants was not a specific goal, there was general agreement on the key consider-ations involved in evidence-based risk assessment incorporating 21st century science into human health risk assessment. These considerations have been embodied into an overarching prototype framework for evidence integration that will be explored in more depth in a follow-up meeting.

Assessment of information as regards the toxicity of fumonisins for pigs, poultry and horses.

In 2018, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks for animal health related to the presence of fumonisins, their modified forms and hidden forms in feed. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1 mg/kg feed was established for pigs. In poultry a NOAEL of 20 mg/kg feed and in horses a reference point for adverse animal health effect of 8.8 mg/kg feed was established, referred to as NOAEL. The European Commission (EC) requested EFSA to review the information regarding the toxicity of fumonisins for pigs, poultry and horses and to revise, if necessary, the established NOAELs. The EFSA CONTAM Panel considered that the term reference point (RP) for adverse animal health effects better reflects the uncertainties in the available studies. New evidence which had become available since the previous opinion allowed to revise an RP for adverse animal health effects for poultry from 20 mg/kg to 1 mg/kg feed (based on a LOAEL of 2.5 mg/kg feed for reduced intestinal crypt depth) and for horses from 8.8 to 1.0 mg/kg feed (based on case studies on equine leukoencephalomalacia (ELEM)). For pigs, the previously established NOAEL was confirmed as no further studies suitable for deriving an RP for adverse animal health effects could be identified. Based on exposure estimates performed in the previous opinion, the risk of adverse health effects of feeds containing FB1-3 was considered a concern for poultry, when taking into account the RP of 1 mg/kg feed for intestinal effects. For horses and other solipeds, the risk is considered low, although a large uncertainty associated with exposure was identified. The same conclusions apply to the sum of FB1-3 and their hidden forms.

Update of the risk assessment of hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) in food.

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2011 risk assessment on hexabromocyclododecanes (HBCDDs) in food. HBCDDs, predominantly mixtures of the stereoisomers α-, ß- and γ-HBCDD, were widely used additive flame retardants. Concern has been raised because of the occurrence of HBCDDs in the environment, food and in humans. Main targets for toxicity are neurodevelopment, the liver, thyroid hormone homeostasis and the reproductive and immune systems. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the neurodevelopmental effects on behaviour in mice can be considered the critical effects. Based on effects on spontaneous behaviour in mice, the Panel identified a lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) of 0.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) as the Reference Point, corresponding to a body burden of 0.75 mg/kg bw. The chronic intake that would lead to the same body burden in humans was calculated to be 2.35 µg/kg bw per day. The derivation of a health-based guidance value (HBGV) was not considered appropriate. Instead, the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied to assess possible health concerns. Over 6,000 analytical results for HBCDDs in food were used to estimate the exposure across dietary surveys and age groups of the European population. The most important contributors to the chronic dietary LB exposure to HBCDDs were fish meat, eggs, livestock meat and poultry. The CONTAM Panel concluded that the resulting MOE values support the conclusion that current dietary exposure to HBCDDs across European countries does not raise a health concern. An exception is breastfed infants with high milk consumption, for which the lowest MOE values may raise a health concern.

Assessment of an application on a detoxification process of groundnut press cake for aflatoxins by ammoniation.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) provided a scientific opinion on an application for a detoxification process of groundnut press cake for aflatoxins by ammoniation. Specifically, it is required that the feed decontamination process is compliant with the acceptability criteria specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015. The CONTAM Panel assessed the data provided by the feed business operator with respect to the efficacy of the process to remove the contaminant from groundnut press cake batches and on information demonstrating that the process does not adversely affect the characteristics and the nature of the product. Although according to the literature the process may be able to reduce aflatoxin levels below the legal limits, the Panel concluded that the proposed decontamination process, on the basis of the experimental data submitted by the feed business operator, cannot be confirmed for compliance with the acceptability criteria provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015. The Panel recommended sufficient sample testing before and after the process, under the selected conditions, to ensure that the process is reproducible and reliable and to demonstrate that the detoxification is not reversible. In addition, genotoxicity testing of extracts of the treated feedingstuff and of the identified degradation products would be necessary. Finally, information on the transfer rate of AFB1 to AFM1 excretion in milk for animals fed the ammoniated product, in comparison to the starting material and on the ammoniation process changes of the nutritional values of the feed material should be provided.

Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its previous Opinion on nickel in food and drinking water, taking into account new occurrence data, the updated benchmark dose (BMD) Guidance and newly available scientific information. More than 47,000 analytical results on the occurrence of nickel were used for calculating chronic and acute dietary exposure. An increased incidence of post-implantation loss in rats was identified as the critical effect for the risk characterisation of chronic oral exposure and a BMDL 10 of 1.3 mg Ni/kg body weight (bw) per day was selected as the reference point for the establishment of a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 13 µg/kg bw. Eczematous flare-up reactions in the skin elicited in nickel-sensitised humans, a condition known as systemic contact dermatitis, was identified as the critical effect for the risk characterisation of acute oral exposure. A BMDL could not be derived, and therefore, the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level of 4.3 µg Ni/kg bw was selected as the reference point. The margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied and an MOE of 30 or higher was considered as being indicative of a low health concern. The mean lower bound (LB)/upper bound (UB) chronic dietary exposure was below or at the level of the TDI. The 95th percentile LB/UB chronic dietary exposure was below the TDI in adolescents and in all adult age groups, but generally exceeded the TDI in toddlers and in other children, as well as in infants in some surveys. This may raise a health concern in these young age groups. The MOE values for the mean UB acute dietary exposure and for the 95th percentile UB raises a health concern for nickel-sensitised individuals. The MOE values for an acute scenario regarding consumption of a glass of water on an empty stomach do not raise a health concern.

Risk assessment of nitrate and nitrite in feed.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks to animal health related to nitrite and nitrate in feed. For nitrate ion, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) identified a BMDL 10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg body weight (bw) per day for adult cattle, based on methaemoglobin (MetHb) levels in animal's blood that would not induce clinical signs of hypoxia. The BMDL 10 is applicable to all bovines, except for pregnant cows in which reproductive effects were not clearly associated with MetHb formation. Since the data available suggested that ovines and caprines are not more sensitive than bovines, the BMDL 10 could also be applied to these species. Highest mean exposure estimates of 53 and 60 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in grass silage-based diets for beef cattle and fattening goats, respectively, may raise a health concern for ruminants when compared with the BMDL 10 of 64 mg nitrate/kg bw per day. The concern may be higher because other forages might contain higher levels of nitrate. Highest mean exposure estimates of 2.0 mg nitrate/kg bw per day in pigs' feeds indicate a low risk for adverse health effects, when compared with an identified no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 410 mg nitrate/kg bw per day, although the levels of exposure might be underestimated due to the absence of data on certain key ingredients in the diets of this species. Due to the limitations of the data available, the CONTAM Panel could not characterise the health risk in species other than ruminants and pigs from nitrate and in all livestock and companion animals from nitrite. Based on a limited data set, both the transfer of nitrate and nitrite from feed to food products of animal origin and the nitrate- and nitrite-mediated formation of N-nitrosamines and their transfer into these products are likely to be negligible.

Risk assessment of chlorinated paraffins in feed and food.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of chlorinated paraffins in feed and food. The data for experimental animals were reviewed and the CONTAM Panel identified the liver, kidney and thyroid as the target organs for the SCCP and MCCP mixtures tested in repeated dose toxicity studies. Decreased pup survival and subcutaneous haematoma/haemorrhage were also identified as critical effects for an MCCP mixture. For the LCCP mixtures tested, the liver was identified as the target organ. The Panel selected as reference points a BMDL 10 of 2.3 mg/kg bw per day for increased incidence of nephritis in male rats, and of 36 mg/kg bw per day for increased relative kidney weights in male and female rats for SCCPs and MCCPs, respectively. For LCCPs, a reference point relevant for humans could not be identified. Due to the limitations in the toxicokinetic and toxicological database, the Panel concluded that derivation of a health-based guidance value was not appropriate. Only limited data on the occurrence of SCCPs and MCCPs in some fish species were submitted to EFSA. No data were submitted for LCCPs. Thus, a robust exposure assessment and consequently a complete risk characterisation could not be performed. A preliminary risk characterisation based only on the consumption of fish was performed, and the calculated margins of exposure suggested no health concern for this limited scenario. The Panel noted that dietary exposure will be higher due to the contribution of CPs from other foods. The Panel was not able to identify reference points for farm animals, horses and companion animals. No occurrence data for feed were submitted to EFSA. Therefore, no risk characterisation could be performed for any of these animal species.

Risk assessment of aflatoxins in food.

EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the risks to public health related to the presence of aflatoxins in food. The risk assessment was confined to aflatoxin B1 (AFB1), AFB2, AFG1, AFG2 and AFM1. More than 200,000 analytical results on the occurrence of aflatoxins were used in the evaluation. Grains and grain-based products made the largest contribution to the mean chronic dietary exposure to AFB1 in all age classes, while 'liquid milk' and 'fermented milk products' were the main contributors to the AFM1 mean exposure. Aflatoxins are genotoxic and AFB1 can cause hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) in humans. The CONTAM Panel selected a benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL) for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.4 µg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of HCC in male rats following AFB1 exposure to be used in a margin of exposure (MOE) approach. The calculation of a BMDL from the human data was not appropriate; instead, the cancer potencies estimated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives in 2016 were used. For AFM1, a potency factor of 0.1 relative to AFB1 was used. For AFG1, AFB2 and AFG2, the in vivo data are not sufficient to derive potency factors and equal potency to AFB1 was assumed as in previous assessments. MOE values for AFB1 exposure ranged from 5,000 to 29 and for AFM1 from 100,000 to 508. The calculated MOEs are below 10,000 for AFB1 and also for AFM1 where some surveys, particularly for the younger age groups, have an MOE below 10,000. This raises a health concern. The estimated cancer risks in humans following exposure to AFB1 and AFM1 are in-line with the conclusion drawn from the MOEs. The conclusions also apply to the combined exposure to all five aflatoxins.

Risk assessment of glycoalkaloids in feed and food, in particular in potatoes and potato-derived products.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids (GAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment covers edible parts of potato plants and other food plants containing GAs, in particular, tomato and aubergine. In humans, acute toxic effects of potato GAs (α-solanine and α-chaconine) include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. For these effects, the CONTAM Panel identified a lowest-observed-adverse-effect level of 1 mg total potato GAs/kg body weight (bw) per day as a reference point for the risk characterisation following acute exposure. In humans, no evidence of health problems associated with repeated or long-term intake of GAs via potatoes has been identified. No reference point for chronic exposure could be identified from the experimental animal studies. Occurrence data were available only for α-solanine and α-chaconine, mostly for potatoes. The acute dietary exposure to potato GAs was estimated using a probabilistic approach and applying processing factors for food. Due to the limited data available, a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied. The MOEs for the younger age groups indicate a health concern for the food consumption surveys with the highest mean exposure, as well as for the P95 exposure in all surveys. For adult age groups, the MOEs indicate a health concern only for the food consumption surveys with the highest P95 exposures. For tomato and aubergine GAs, the risk to human health could not be characterised due to the lack of occurrence data and the limited toxicity data. For horses, farm and companion animals, no risk characterisation for potato GAs could be performed due to insufficient data on occurrence in feed and on potential adverse effects of GAs in these species.

Risk assessment of ochratoxin A in food.

The European Commission asked EFSA to update their 2006 opinion on ochratoxin A (OTA) in food. OTA is produced by fungi of the genus Aspergillus and Penicillium and found as a contaminant in various foods. OTA causes kidney toxicity in different animal species and kidney tumours in rodents. OTA is genotoxic both in vitro and in vivo; however, the mechanisms of genotoxicity are unclear. Direct and indirect genotoxic and non-genotoxic modes of action might each contribute to tumour formation. Since recent studies have raised uncertainty regarding the mode of action for kidney carcinogenicity, it is inappropriate to establish a health-based guidance value (HBGV) and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied. For the characterisation of non-neoplastic effects, a BMDL 10 of 4.73 µg/kg body weight (bw) per day was calculated from kidney lesions observed in pigs. For characterisation of neoplastic effects, a BMDL 10 of 14.5 µg/kg bw per day was calculated from kidney tumours seen in rats. The estimation of chronic dietary exposure resulted in mean and 95th percentile levels ranging from 0.6 to 17.8 and from 2.4 to 51.7 ng/kg bw per day, respectively. Median OTA exposures in breastfed infants ranged from 1.7 to 2.6 ng/kg bw per day, 95th percentile exposures from 5.6 to 8.5 ng/kg bw per day in average/high breast milk consuming infants, respectively. Comparison of exposures with the BMDL 10 based on the non-neoplastic endpoint resulted in MOEs of more than 200 in most consumer groups, indicating a low health concern with the exception of MOEs for high consumers in the younger age groups, indicating a possible health concern. When compared with the BMDL 10 based on the neoplastic endpoint, MOEs were lower than 10,000 for almost all exposure scenarios, including breastfed infants. This would indicate a possible health concern if genotoxicity is direct. Uncertainty in this assessment is high and risk may be overestimated.

Comparison of Points of Departure for Health Risk Assessment Based on High-Throughput Screening Data.

BACKGROUND: The National Research Council's vision for toxicity testing in the 21st century anticipates that points of departure (PODs) for establishing human exposure guidelines in future risk assessments will increasingly be based on in vitro high-throughput screening (HTS) data. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare different PODs for HTS data. Specifically, benchmark doses (BMDs) were compared to the signal-to-noise crossover dose (SNCD), which has been suggested as the lowest dose applicable as a POD. METHODS: Hill models were fit to > 10,000 in vitro concentration-response curves, obtained for > 1,400 chemicals tested as part of the U.S. Tox21 Phase I effort. BMDs and lower confidence limits on the BMDs (BMDLs) corresponding to extra effects (i.e., changes in response relative to the maximum response) of 5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, and 40% were estimated for > 8,000 curves, along with BMDs and BMDLs corresponding to additional effects (i.e., absolute changes in response) of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%. The SNCD, defined as the dose where the ratio between the additional effect and the difference between the upper and lower bounds of the two-sided 90% confidence interval on absolute effect was 1, 0.67, and 0.5, respectively, was also calculated and compared with the BMDLs. RESULTS: The BMDL40, BMDL25, and BMDL18, defined in terms of extra effect, corresponded to the SNCD1.0, SNCD0.67, and SNCD0.5, respectively, at the median. Similarly, the BMDL25, BMDL17, and BMDL13, defined in terms of additional effect, corresponded to the SNCD1.0, SNCD0.67, and SNCD0.5, respectively, at the median. CONCLUSIONS: The SNCD may serve as a reference level that guides the determination of standardized BMDs for risk assessment based on HTS concentration-response data. The SNCD may also have application as a POD for low-dose extrapolation.