Challenges and Future State for Mycotoxin Analysis: A Review From a Regulatory Perspective.

Mycotoxins are naturally occurring toxins produced by certain fungi. Exposure to mycotoxins may occur through the consumption of contaminated foods or from animals that are fed contaminated feed. To safeguard the nation's food supply, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) utilizes a comprehensive mycotoxin program which samples and analyzes foods for surveillance and compliance purposes, including enforcing action levels. Mycotoxin analysis is at the center of the mycotoxin program, as concentration data are needed for data analysis, scientific assessments, and risk management. This review focuses on the Agency's continuous efforts to develop and incorporate fit-for-purpose analytical tools for mycotoxin analysis with particular focus on the relationship between analytical methodologies and scientific assessments. The discussion further highlights challenges and advancements in analytical methods and discusses future possibilities to develop analytical tools and preventative risk management approaches to meet the evolving regulatory needs.

Natural products for biocontrol: review of their fate in the environment and impacts on biodiversity.

Biocontrol solutions (macroorganisms, microorganisms, natural substances, semiochemicals) are presented as potential alternatives to conventional plant protection products (PPPs) because they are supposed to have lower impacts on ecosystems and human health. However, to ensure the sustainability of biocontrol solutions, it is necessary to document the unintended effects of their use. Thus, the objectives of this work were to review (1) the available biocontrol solutions and their regulation, (2) the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air) by biocontrol solutions, (3) the fate of biocontrol solutions in the environment, (4) their ecotoxicological impacts on biodiversity, and (5) the impacts of biocontrol solutions compared to those of conventional PPPs. Very few studies concern the presence of biocontrol solutions in the environment, their fate, and their impacts on biodiversity. The most important number of results were found for the organisms that have been used the longest, and most often from the angle of their interactions with other biocontrol agents. However, the use of living organisms (microorganisms and macroorganisms) in biocontrol brings a specific dimension compared to conventional PPPs because they can survive, multiply, move, and colonize other environments. The questioning of regulation stems from this specific dimension of the use of living organisms. Concerning natural substances, the few existing results indicate that while most of them have low ecotoxicity, others have a toxicity equivalent to or greater than that of the conventional PPPs. There are almost no result regarding semiochemicals. Knowledge of the unintended effects of biocontrol solutions has proved to be very incomplete. Research remains necessary to ensure their sustainability.

Wildlife ecotoxicology of plant protection products: knowns and unknowns about the impacts of currently used pesticides on terrestrial vertebrate biodiversity.

Agricultural practices are a major cause of the current loss of biodiversity. Among postwar agricultural intensification practices, the use of plant protection products (PPPs) might be one of the prominent drivers of the loss of wildlife diversity in agroecosystems. A collective scientific assessment was performed upon the request of the French Ministries responsible for the Environment, for Agriculture and for Research to review the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services based on the scientific literature. While the effects of legacy banned PPPs on ecosystems and the underlying mechanisms are well documented, the impacts of current use pesticides (CUPs) on biodiversity have rarely been reviewed. Here, we provide an overview of the available knowledge related to the impacts of PPPs, including biopesticides, on terrestrial vertebrates (i.e. herptiles, birds including raptors, bats and small and large mammals). We focused essentially on CUPs and on endpoints at the subindividual, individual, population and community levels, which ultimately linked with effects on biodiversity. We address both direct toxic effects and indirect effects related to ecological processes and review the existing knowledge about wildlife exposure to PPPs. The effects of PPPs on ecological functions and ecosystem services are discussed, as are the aggravating or mitigating factors. Finally, a synthesis of knowns and unknowns is provided, and we identify priorities to fill gaps in knowledge and perspectives for research and wildlife conservation.

The use of copper as plant protection product contributes to environmental contamination and resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity and ecosystem functions.

Copper-based plant protection products (PPPs) are widely used in both conventional and organic farming, and to a lesser extent for non-agricultural maintenance of gardens, greenspaces, and infrastructures. The use of copper PPPs adds to environmental contamination by this trace element. This paper aims to review the contribution of these PPPs to the contamination of soils and waters by copper in the context of France (which can be extrapolated to most of the European countries), and the resulting impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity, as well as on ecosystem functions. It was produced in the framework of a collective scientific assessment on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in France. Current science shows that copper, which persists in soils, can partially transfer to adjacent aquatic environments (surface water and sediment) and ultimately to the marine environment. This widespread contamination impacts biodiversity and ecosystem functions, chiefly through its effects on phototrophic and heterotrophic microbial communities, and terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates. Its effects on other biological groups and biotic interactions remain relatively under-documented.

Recommendations to reduce the streetlight effect and gray areas limiting the knowledge of the effects of plant protection products on biodiversity.

Preserving biodiversity against the adverse effects of plant protection products (PPPs) is a major environmental and societal issue. However, despite intensive investigation into the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs, the knowledge produced remains fragmented given the sheer diversity of PPPs. This is due, at least in part, to a strong streetlight effect in the field of ecotoxicology. Indeed, while some PPPs have been investigated in numerous ecotoxicological studies, there are many for which the scientific literature still has little or no information on their ecotoxicological risks and effects. The PPPs under the streetlight include a large variety of legacy substances and a more limited number of more recent or currently-in-use substances, such as the herbicide glyphosate and the neonicotinoid insecticides. Furthermore, many of the most recent PPPs (including those used in biocontrol) and PPP transformation products (TPs) resulting from abiotic and/or biotic degradation are rarely addressed in the international literature in the field of ecotoxicology. Here, based on a recent collective scientific assessment of the effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecosystem services in the French and European contexts, this article sets out to illustrate the limitations and biases caused by the streetlight effect and numbers of gray areas, and issue recommendations on how to overcome them.

Improved assessment of the impacts of plant protection products on certain soil ecosystem services requires better consideration of terrestrial microalgae and cyanobacteria.

There is growing scientific and societal consciousness that the environmental risks and impacts of plant protection products (PPPs) cannot be properly assessed without considering ecosystem services. However, the science on this issue remains incomplete and fragmented, as recently illustrated in a collective scientific assessment that pointed out the limited knowledge on the risks and impacts of PPPs on soil ecosystem services, which are clearly overlooked. Beside soil ecosystem services, certain key players involved in these services are largely overlooked in the scientific literature on the risks and impacts of PPPs, namely soil microbial photosynthetic communities. Here, we followed the principles of evidence-based logic chain approaches to show the importance of considering these microorganisms when studying the impacts of PPPs on certain services provided by soil ecosystems, with a focus on regulating and maintenance services that play a role in the regulation of baseline flows and extreme events. Terrestrial microalgae and cyanobacteria are ubiquitous photosynthetic microorganisms that, together with other soil micro- and macro-organisms, play key roles in the ecosystem functions that underpin these ecosystem services. There is an extensive literature on the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs on different organisms including soil microorganisms, but studies concerning soil microbial photosynthetic communities are very scarce. However, there is scientific evidence that herbicides can have both direct and indirect impacts on these microbial photosynthetic communities. Given that they play key functional roles, we argue that soil microbial photosynthetic communities warrant greater attention in efforts to assess the environmental risks and impacts of PPPs and, ultimately, help preserve or restore the regulating and maintenance services provided by soil ecosystems.

Impacts of neonicotinoids on biodiversity: a critical review.

Neonicotinoids are the most widely used class of insecticides in the world, but they have raised numerous concerns regarding their effects on biodiversity. Thus, the objective of this work was to do a critical review of the contamination of the environment (soil, water, air, biota) by neonicotinoids (acetamiprid, clothianidin, imidacloprid, thiacloprid, thiamethoxam) and of their impacts on terrestrial and aquatic biodiversity. Neonicotinoids are very frequently detected in soils and in freshwater, and they are also found in the air. They have only been recently monitored in coastal and marine environments, but some studies already reported the presence of imidacloprid and thiamethoxam in transitional or semi-enclosed ecosystems (lagoons, bays, and estuaries). The contamination of the environment leads to the exposure and to the contamination of non-target organisms and to negative effects on biodiversity. Direct impacts of neonicotinoids are mainly reported on terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., pollinators, natural enemies, earthworms) and vertebrates (e.g., birds) and on aquatic invertebrates (e.g., arthropods). Impacts on aquatic vertebrate populations and communities, as well as on microorganisms, are less documented. In addition to their toxicity to directly exposed organisms, neonicotinoid induce indirect effects via trophic cascades as demonstrated in several species (terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates). However, more data are needed to reach firmer conclusions and to get a clearer picture of such indirect effects. Finally, we identified specific knowledge gaps that need to be filled to better understand the effects of neonicotinoids on terrestrial, freshwater, and marine organisms, as well as on ecosystem services associated with these biotas.

Linking ecotoxicological effects on biodiversity and ecosystem functions to impairment of ecosystem services is a challenge: an illustration with the case of plant protection products.

There is growing interest in using the ecosystem services framework for environmental risk assessments of chemicals, including plant protection products (PPPs). Although this topic is increasingly discussed in the recent scientific literature, there is still a substantial gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid evaluation of potential ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services. This was recently highlighted by a collective scientific assessment (CSA) performed by 46 scientific experts who analyzed the international science on the impacts of PPPs on biodiversity, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services. Here, we first point out the main obstacles to better linking knowledge on the ecotoxicological effects of PPPs on biodiversity and ecological processes with ecosystem functions and services. Then, we go on to propose and discuss possible pathways for related improvements. We describe the main processes governing the relationships between biodiversity, ecological processes, and ecosystem functions in response to effects of PPP, and we define categories of ecosystem functions that could be directly linked with the ecological processes used as functional endpoints in investigations on the ecotoxicology of PPPs. We then explore perceptions on the possible links between these categories of ecosystem functions and ecosystem services among a sub-panel of the scientific experts from various fields of environmental science. We find that these direct and indirect linkages still need clarification. This paper, which reflects the difficulties faced by the multidisciplinary group of researchers involved in the CSA, suggests that the current gap between most ecotoxicological studies and a solid potential evaluation of ecotoxicological consequences on ecosystem services could be partially addressed if concepts and definitions related to ecological processes, ecosystem functions, and ecosystem services were more widely accepted and shared within the ecotoxicology community. Narrowing this gap would help harmonize and extend the science that informs decision-making and policy-making, and ultimately help to better address the trade-off between social benefits and environmental losses caused by the use of PPPs.

Regulatory performance of the East African Community joint assessment procedure: The way forward for regulatory systems strengthening.

BACKGROUND: Seven national medicines regulatory authorities in the East African Community (EAC) have embraced regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing through the EAC Medicines Regulatory Harmonization programme. Measuring the performance of regulatory systems provides key baseline information to build on regulatory system-strengthening strategies. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the regulatory performance of the EAC joint scientific assessment of applications approved between 2018 and 2021. METHODS: Utilising a data metrics tool, information was collected reflecting timelines for various milestones including submission to screening, scientific assessment and communication of regional recommendations for biologicals and pharmaceuticals that received a positive regional recommendation for product registration from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: Several challenges as well as possible solutions were identified, including median overall approval times exceeding the EAC 465-day target and median times to issue marketing authorisation following EAC joint assessment recommendation that far exceeded the 116-day target. Recommendations included establishment of an integrated information management system and automation of the capture of regulatory timelines through the EAC metric tool. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initiative progress, work is required to improve the EAC joint regulatory procedure to achieve regulatory systems-strengthening and ensure patients' timely access to safe, efficacious and quality medicines.

A suggestion for the quantification of precise and bounded probability to quantify epistemic uncertainty in scientific assessments.

An honest communication of uncertainty about quantities of interest enhances transparency in scientific assessments. To support this communication, risk assessors should choose appropriate ways to evaluate and characterize epistemic uncertainty. A full treatment of uncertainty requires methods that distinguish aleatory from epistemic uncertainty. Quantitative expressions for epistemic uncertainty are advantageous in scientific assessments because they are nonambiguous and enable individual uncertainties to be characterized and combined in a systematic way. Since 2019, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recommends assessors to express epistemic uncertainty in conclusions of scientific assessments quantitatively by subjective probability. A subjective probability can be used to represent an expert judgment, which may or may not be updated using Bayes's rule to integrate evidence available for the assessment and could be either precise or approximate. Approximate (or bounded) probabilities may be enough for decision making and allow experts to reach agreement on certainty when they struggle to specify precise subjective probabilities. The difference between the lower and upper bound on a subjective probability can also be used to reflect someone's strength of knowledge. In this article, we demonstrate how to quantify uncertainty by bounded probability, and explicitly distinguish between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty, by means of robust Bayesian analysis, including standard Bayesian analysis through precise probability as a special case. For illustration, the two analyses are applied to an intake assessment.

Toxicological assessment of Tobacco Heating System 2.2: Findings from an independent peer review.

Offering safer alternatives to cigarettes, such as e-cigarettes and heated tobacco products, to smokers who are not willing to quit could reduce the harm caused by smoking. Extensive and rigorous scientific studies are conducted to assess the relative risk of such potentially modified risk tobacco products compared with that of smoking cigarettes. In addition to the peer review of publications reporting individual studies, we aimed to gauge the plausibility of the evidence to the scientific community and appreciate likely necessary additions prior to regulatory submission. Therefore, we sponsored a two-tier peer review organized by an independent third party who identified, recruited, and managed 7 panels of 5-12 experts whose identity remains unknown to us. The reviewers had access to all publications and raw data from preclinical and clinical studies via a web portal. The reviewers were asked questions regarding study design, methods, quality of data, and interpretation of results to judge the validity of the conclusions regarding the relative effects of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 compared with cigarettes. Once their conclusions were submitted, the experts had the opportunity to participate in an anonymized online debate with their fellow panel members. We present here the results obtained from this innovative peer review effort which revealed supportive or very supportive of the study methods and results, and support the robustness of the studies and validity of the conclusions.

The principles and methods behind EFSA's Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessment.

To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments.

Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSA's scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision-making. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail.

Scientific motivations and criteria to consider updating EFSA scientific assessments.

EFSA 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.

Pilot study on uncertainty analysis in EFSA Reasoned Opinions on the modification of pesticide maximum residue levels.

Applicability of the EFSA Scientific Committee revised draft Guidance on uncertainty in EFSA scientific assessment is tested in the context of an EFSA Reasoned Opinion on the modification of pesticide maximum residue levels (MRLs). EFSA purchased services for the preparation of a non-regulatory Evaluation Report with example non-standard uncertainties related to a fictitious application for the modification of MRLs. The Evaluation Report was assessed by EFSA in the format of a Reasoned Opinion and case-specific examples of non-standard uncertainty in the acute and chronic dietary risk assessments were analysed. Methods were selected from the general framework outlined in the Scientific Committee draft Guidance in order to apply a relatively simple strategy that could be considered for use in a regulatory context. The individual non-standard uncertainties were assessed by sensitivity analysis with iterative back-calculation of the parameter values that would lead to exceedance of the toxicological reference value (exceedance limit calculation), and quantified by subjective probability estimation. Non-standard uncertainties affecting the chronic risk assessment were quantified by subjective upper bound probability percentile estimation and the combined estimated non-standard uncertainty calculated by probability bounds analysis. Probability bounds analysis provides a relatively simple approach for calculating the probability related to a combination of uncertainties. The draft Guidance was found to provide a comprehensive range of methods for uncertainty analysis. However, process-specific guidelines and practical procedures may need to be developed in order to implement the uncertainty assessment framework in routine pesticide risk assessments. The uncertainty assessment is intended to provide additional information on how certain the conclusions of the risk assessment are and thereby support the risk-based decision-making process by enabling risk managers to take account of uncertainty. The outcome of the pilot study will inform the EFSA Scientific Committee Working Group on how to further tailor the draft Guidance on uncertainty for the needs of the EFSA panels and units.

Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments.

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered.

Evaluation of the Tobacco Heating System 2.2. Part 1: Description of the system and the scientific assessment program.

This publication introduces a series of eight other publications describing the non-clinical assessment and initial clinical study of a candidate modified risk tobacco product (MRTP) - the Tobacco Heating System 2.2 (THS2.2). This paper presents background information on tobacco harm reduction, to complement the approaches aimed at increasing smoking cessation and reducing smoking initiation to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by cigarette smoking. THS2.2 heats tobacco without combustion, and the resulting formation of harmful and potentially harmful constituents (HPHC) is greatly reduced compared with cigarette smoke. Assessment of the THS2.2 aerosol in vitro and in vivo reveals reduced toxicity and no new hazards. Additional mechanistic endpoints, measured as part of in vivo studies, confirmed reduced impact on smoking-related disease networks. The clinical study confirmed the reduced exposure to HPHCs in smokers switching to THS2.2, and the associated transcriptomic study confirmed the utility of a gene expression signature, consisting of only 11 genes tested in the blood transcriptome of subjects enrolled in the clinical study, as a complementary measure of exposure response. The potential of THS2.2 as an MRTP is demonstrated by the assessment and additional publications cited in this series.

[Is the age of causality over?]. / Ist das Zeitalter der Kausalität vorbei?

For the assessment of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions a sound scientific base has been developed during the last twenty years. Under the headline of Evidence-based Medicine nowadays a comprehensive set of tools is offered which can be used to assess the benefit and the risk of medical interventions. The overarching rule which evolved for the grading of evidence from studies is to maximize the protection against bias. Despite this coherent approach, there is still controversy that is regularly mainly sparked by the dominant position of randomized controlled trials. Observational studies and registries are deemed to be more relevant because they provide results that are produced under "everyday conditions". These controversial discussions often show a lack of orientation, as they do without the explicit naming of scientific criteria for the evaluation and to a large extent rely on common sense. That the latter may not be a good guide for assessments in the medical field is known from numerous studies. For unbiased assessments the rigorous use of basic scientific principles is the only way. To express doubt and question these principles requires a scientific basis itself. The alternative is to move away from the established scientific foundation. The path to a "new" scientific paradigm is currently dominated by a discussion under the buzzword Big Data. Defined by the three V's of Variety, Velocity and Volume, a potential of the unlimited analysis of data is envisioned, for which there is currently no validation and whose logical foundations are extremely doubtful. The demand must be reaffirmed that instead of promises strict validation criteria be followed for the evaluation of all interventions in medicine, particularly in view of these developments.

Scientometrics Study of Impact of Journal Indexing on the Growth of Scientific Productions of Iran.

BACKGROUND: This study represents scientific production of Iran in medical sciences field at recent years, and the correlation between scientific productions with the number of indexed journals. METHODS: Data extracted from SCOPUS database between years 2000 and 2011, and Iran's performance measured in terms of different Scientometrics indexes including self-citations, percent of cited articles, number of articles with international collaboration and contribution of Iran in medical sciences in Middle East and world. Moreover correlation between the number of articles, citations, self-citations, and H-index and number of indexed journals for 50 countries in all fields is included. RESULTS: In 2011 year, Iran contributed 32.77 percent of the Middle East, and accounted for 1.57 percent of the world scientific production. The most frequent document type was original journal article published in English. Retrieved records revealed preferred subject areas, including medicine miscellaneous (14.53 percent of Iran publications in 2011 year). In 2011, according to the number of articles and citations to them, Iran was at 17th and 23th position between 226 countries, respectively. After adjustment for 19708 journals from 50 countries, Iran's rank based on the number of journals in medical sciences was 24th. CONCLUSION: The number of indexed journals with number of articles, citations, self-citations, and H-index of each country showed significant correlation (P-value<0.01). In recent years, by favoring quality over quantity of researches, the new rules have proven to be more effective for discriminating Iranian scientific productions.