Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments.

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub-questions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and - not covered in this guidance - generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone 'template' for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

Development of adverse outcome pathways relevant for the identification of substances having endocrine disruption properties Uterine adenocarcinoma as adverse outcome.

Development of adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for uterine adenocarcinoma can provide a practical tool to implement the EFSA-ECHA Guidance (2018) for the identification of endocrine disruptors in the context of Regulations (EU) No 528/2012 and (EC) No 1107/2009. AOPs can give indications about the strength of the relationship between an adverse outcome (intended as a human health outcome) and chemicals (pesticides but not only) affecting the pathways. In this scientific opinion, the PPR Panel explored the development of AOPs for uterine adenocarcinoma. An evidence-based approach methodology was applied, and literature reviews were produced using a structured framework assuring transparency, objectivity, and comprehensiveness. Several AOPs were developed; these converged to a common critical node, that is increased estradiol availability in the uterus followed by estrogen receptor activation in the endometrium; therefore, a putative AOP network was considered. An uncertainty analysis and a probabilistic quantification of the weight of evidence have been carried out via expert knowledge elicitation for each set of MIEs/KEs/KERs included in individual AOPs. The collected data on the AOP network were evaluated qualitatively, whereas a quantitative uncertainty analysis for weight of the AOP network certainty has not been performed. Recommendations are provided, including exploring further the uncertainties identified in the AOPs and putative AOP network; further methodological developments for quantifying the certainty of the KERs and of the overall AOPs and AOP network; and investigating of NAMs applications in the context of some of the MIEs/KEs currently part of the putative AOP network developed.

Update of environmental risk assessment conclusions and risk management recommendations of EFSA (2016) on EU teosinte.

Teosinte, wild maize relatives originating from Mexico and Central America, emerged as a noxious agricultural weed in France and Spain. In 2016, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) issued a technical report that assessed the available scientific information on teosinte for its relevance for the environmental risk assessment (ERA) and risk management (RM) of genetically modified (GM) maize MON810, Bt11, 1507 and GA21 for cultivation. It was concluded that the impact of insect resistance and/or herbicide tolerance in GM teosinte hybrid progeny (potentially acquired through hybridisation between GM maize and teosinte) on target and non-target organisms, the abiotic environment and biogeochemical cycles would be very low under EU conditions. Following a request of the European Commission, EFSA evaluated whether the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, or require revision in light of new scientific evidence on teosinte that has become available since the publication of EFSA (2016). A protocol was developed to clarify the interpretation of the terms of reference of the mandate and make them operational. The assessment relied on evidence retrieved via an extensive literature search and from reports of the Competent Authorities of France and Spain, and on hearing expert testimonies. A limited collection of 18 publications of varying relevance and quality was retrieved and assessed. Based on this evidence, it is concluded that the ERA conclusions and RM recommendations of EFSA (2016) remain applicable, except those pertaining to the use of glyphosate-based herbicides on maize GA21 which should be considered under Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In infested agricultural areas (especially in regions where maize MON810 is widely grown), weed management measures implemented to monitor, control and/or eradicate teosinte must remain in place, as they will contribute to further reduce the low vertical gene flow potential between GM maize and EU teosinte.

Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks.

The workshop titled "Application of evidence-based methods to construct mechanism-driven chemical assessment frameworks" was co-organized by the Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and hosted by EFSA at its headquarters in Parma, Italy on October 2 and 3, 2019. The goal was to explore integration of systematic review with mechanistic evidence evaluation. Participants were invited to work on concrete products to advance the exploration of how evidence-based approaches can support the development and application of adverse outcome pathways (AOP) in chemical risk assessment. The workshop discussions were centered around three related themes: 1) assessing certainty in AOPs, 2) literature-based AOP development, and 3) integrating certainty in AOPs and non-animal evidence into decision frameworks. Several challenges, mostly related to methodology, were identified and largely determined the workshop recommendations. The workshop recommendations included the comparison and potential alignment of processes used to develop AOP and systematic review methodology, including the translation of vocabulary of evidence-based methods to AOP and vice versa, the development and improvement of evidence mapping and text mining methods and tools, as well as a call for a fundamental change in chemical risk and uncertainty assessment methodology if to be conducted based on AOPs and new approach methodologies (NAM). The usefulness of evidence-based approaches for mechanism-based chemical risk assessments was stressed, particularly the potential contribution of the rigor and transparency inherent to such approaches in building stakeholders' trust for implementation of NAM evidence and AOPs into chemical risk assessment.

EFSA's framework for evidence-based scientific assessments: A case study on uncertainty analysis.

To provide sound scientific advice in support of the European decision-making process in food and feed safety, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has defined the principles for producing "evidence-based scientific assessments" (impartiality, methodological rigor, transparency, and engagement) and, to help fulfil them, has developed cross-cutting methodological approaches. This paper focusses on two of these approaches: conducting scientific assessments in four steps ­ with an emphasis on developing a protocol for the assessment a priori ­ and analyzing uncertainty. An overview of the 4-step approach and of the methods for addressing uncertainty is given, and a case study on uncertainty analysis, developed in collaboration with the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, is illustrated. The main advantage related to the implementation of protocols and uncertainty analysis is improvement of the scientific value of the outputs. However, experience and further capacity-building is needed to better incorporate uncertainty analysis into the planning phase (protocol) of the scientific assessment process. The case study is based on exposure in humans. Nonetheless it provides an example of a framework for evidence-based scientific assessments that is applicable also to other types of evidence, including evidence arising from new approach methodologies. Adopting the proposed framework, which covers an analysis of uncertainties in the planning and implementation phase, is expected to foster the integration of multiple evidence sources, including alternative methods and testing strategies, in the regulatory scientific assessment process.

Recommendations for the conduct of systematic reviews in toxicology and environmental health research (COSTER).

BACKGROUND: There are several standards that offer explicit guidance on good practice in systematic reviews (SRs) for the medical sciences; however, no similarly comprehensive set of recommendations has been published for SRs that focus on human health risks posed by exposure to environmental challenges, chemical or otherwise. OBJECTIVES: To develop an expert, cross-sector consensus view on a key set of recommended practices for the planning and conduct of SRs in the environmental health sciences. METHODS: A draft set of recommendations was derived from two existing standards for SRs in biomedicine and developed in a consensus process, which engaged international participation from government, industry, non-government organisations, and academia. The consensus process consisted of a workshop, follow-up webinars, email discussion and bilateral phone calls. RESULTS: The Conduct of Systematic Reviews in Toxicology and Environmental Health Research (COSTER) recommendations cover 70 SR practices across eight performance domains. Detailed explanations for specific recommendations are made for those identified by the authors as either being novel to SR in general, specific to the environmental health SR context, or potentially controversial to environmental health SR stakeholders. DISCUSSION: COSTER provides a set of recommendations that should facilitate the production of credible, high-value SRs of environmental health evidence, and advance discussion of a number of controversial aspects of conduct of EH SRs. Key recommendations include the management of conflicts of interest, handling of grey literature, and protocol registration and publication. A process for advancing from COSTER's recommendations to developing a formal standard for EH SRs is also indicated.

Implementing systematic review techniques in chemical risk assessment: Challenges, opportunities and recommendations.

Systematic review (SR) is a rigorous, protocol-driven approach designed to minimise error and bias when summarising the body of research evidence relevant to a specific scientific question. Taking as a comparator the use of SR in synthesising research in healthcare, we argue that SR methods could also pave the way for a "step change" in the transparency, objectivity and communication of chemical risk assessments (CRA) in Europe and elsewhere. We suggest that current controversies around the safety of certain chemicals are partly due to limitations in current CRA procedures which have contributed to ambiguity about the health risks posed by these substances. We present an overview of how SR methods can be applied to the assessment of risks from chemicals, and indicate how challenges in adapting SR methods from healthcare research to the CRA context might be overcome. Regarding the latter, we report the outcomes from a workshop exploring how to increase uptake of SR methods, attended by experts representing a wide range of fields related to chemical toxicology, risk analysis and SR. Priorities which were identified include: the conduct of CRA-focused prototype SRs; the development of a recognised standard of reporting and conduct for SRs in toxicology and CRA; and establishing a network to facilitate research, communication and training in SR methods. We see this paper as a milestone in the creation of a research climate that fosters communication between experts in CRA and SR and facilitates wider uptake of SR methods into CRA.

Using scientific evidence to inform public policy on the long distance transportation of animals: role of the European Food Safety Authority.

The authors review the work of the previous Scientific Committee on Animal Health and Animal Welfare and the current European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in providing scientific advice on the welfare aspects of animal transport and the impact of this advice on the European Union (EU) regulatory framework. Through its Protocol on the Protection and Welfare of Animals, the Treaty of Amsterdam obliges European institutions to pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals when formulating and implementing EU legislation. Regulation 1/2005 states that EU legislation should be amended to take into account new scientific evidence. Provisions for poultry, cats and dogs take into account the recommendations included in EFSA's Scientific Opinion which considers different species (poultry, deer, rabbits, dogs and cats, fish and exotic animals). Examples of the effect of the scientifically based conclusions and recommendations from the Scientific Opinion on the measures in Regulation 1/2005 are summarised and show the impact of scientific evidence on EU legislation.