Risks for animal and human health related to the presence of polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in feed and food.

EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in feed and food. The assessment focused on hexaCNs due to very limited data on other PCN congeners. For hexaCNs in feed, 217 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures for food-producing and non-food-producing animals; however, a risk characterisation could not be performed because none of the toxicological studies allowed identification of reference points. The oral repeated dose toxicity studies performed in rats with a hexaCN mixture containing all 10 hexaCNs indicated that the critical target was the haematological system. A BMDL20 of 0.05 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified for a considerable decrease in the platelet count. For hexaCNs in food, 2317 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures across dietary surveys and age groups. The highest exposure ranged from 0.91 to 29.8 pg/kg bw per day in general population and from 220 to 559 pg/kg bw per day for breast-fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs for the high dietary exposures ranged from 1,700,000 to 55,000,000 for the general population and from 90,000 to 230,000 for breast-fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. These MOEs are far above the minimum MOE of 2000 that does not raise a health concern. Taking account of the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded with at least 99% certainty that dietary exposure to hexaCNs does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. Due to major limitations in the available data, no assessment was possible for genotoxic effects or for health risks of PCNs other than hexaCNs.

Risks for animal health related to the presence of ergot alkaloids in feed.

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide an update of the 2012 Scientific Opinion of the Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) on the risks for animal health related to the presence of ergot alkaloids (EAs) in feed. EAs are produced by several fungi of the Claviceps and Epichloë genera. This Opinion focussed on the 14 EAs produced by C. purpurea (ergocristine, ergotamine, ergocornine, α- and ß-ergocryptine, ergometrine, ergosine and their corresponding 'inine' epimers). Effects observed with EAs from C. africana (mainly dihydroergosine) and Epichloë (ergovaline/-inine) were also evaluated. There is limited information on toxicokinetics in food and non-food producing animals. However, transfer from feed to food of animal origin is negligible. The major effects of EAs are related to vasoconstriction and are exaggerated during extreme temperatures. In addition, EAs cause a decrease in prolactin, resulting in a reduced milk production. Based on the sum of the EAs, the Panel considered the following as Reference Points (RPs) in complete feed for adverse animal health effects: for pigs and piglets 0.6 mg/kg, for chickens for fattening and hens 2.1 and 3.7 mg/kg, respectively, for ducks 0.2 mg/kg, bovines 0.1 mg/kg and sheep 0.3 mg/kg. A total of 19,023 analytical results on EAs (only from C. purpurea) in feed materials and compound feeds were available for the exposure assessment (1580 samples). Dietary exposure was assessed using two feeding scenarios (model diets and compound feeds). Risk characterisation was done for the animals for which an RP could be identified. The CONTAM Panel considers that, based on exposure from model diets, the presence of EAs in feed raises a health concern in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows and bovines, while for chickens for fattening, laying hens, ducks, ovines and caprines, the health concern related to EAs in feed is low.

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.

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 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.

Risks for animal health related to the presence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in feed.

In 2004, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) adopted a Scientific Opinion on the risks to animal health and transfer from feed to food of animal origin related to the presence of ochratoxin A (OTA) in feed. The European Commission requested EFSA to assess newly available scientific information and to update the 2004 Scientific Opinion. OTA is produced by several fungi of the genera Aspergillus and Penicillium. In most animal species it is rapidly and extensively absorbed in the gastro-intestinal tract, binds strongly to plasma albumins and is mainly detoxified to ochratoxin alpha (OTalpha) by ruminal microbiota. In pigs, OTA has been found mainly in liver and kidney. Transfer of OTA from feed to milk in ruminants and donkeys as well as to eggs from poultry is confirmed but low. Overall, OTA impairs function and structure of kidneys and liver, causes immunosuppression and affects the zootechnical performance (e.g. body weight gain, feed/gain ratio, etc.), with monogastric species being more susceptible than ruminants because of limited detoxification to OTalpha. The CONTAM Panel considered as reference point (RP) for adverse animal health effects: for pigs and rabbits 0.01 mg OTA/kg feed, for chickens for fattening and hens 0.03 mg OTA/kg feed. A total of 9,184 analytical results on OTA in feed, expressed in dry matter, were available. Dietary exposure was assessed using different scenarios based on either model diets or compound feed (complete feed or complementary feed plus forage). Risk characterisation was made for the animals for which an RP could be identified. The CONTAM Panel considers that the risk related to OTA in feed for adverse health effects for pigs, chickens for fattening, hens and rabbits is low.

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.

Risks for human health related to the presence of grayanotoxins in certain honey.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for human health of the presence of grayanotoxins (GTXs) in 'certain honey' from Ericaceae plants. The risk assessment included all structurally related grayananes occurring with GTXs in 'certain' honey. Oral exposure is associated with acute intoxication in humans. Acute symptoms affect the muscles, nervous and cardiovascular systems. These may lead to complete atrioventricular block, convulsions, mental confusion, agitation, syncope and respiratory depression. For acute effects, the CONTAM Panel derived a reference point (RP) of 15.3 µg/kg body weight for the sum of GTX I and III based on a BMDL10 for reduced heart rate in rats. A similar relative potency was considered for GTX I. Without chronic toxicity studies, an RP for long-term effects could not be derived. There is evidence for genotoxicity in mice exposed to GTX III or honey containing GTX I and III, showing increased levels of chromosomal damage. The mechanism of genotoxicity is unknown. Without representative occurrence data for the sum of GTX I and III and consumption data from Ericaceae honey, acute dietary exposure was estimated based on selected concentrations for GTX I and III reflecting concentrations measured in 'certain' honeys. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs raised health concerns for acute toxicity. The Panel calculated the highest concentrations for GTX I and III below which no acute effects would be expected following 'certain honey' consumption. The Panel is 75% or more certain that the calculated highest concentration of 0.05 mg for the sum of GTX I and III per kg honey is protective for all age groups regarding acute intoxications. This value does not consider other grayananes in 'certain honey' and does not cover the identified genotoxicity.

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.

Decontamination process for dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs from fish oil and vegetable oils and fats by a physical process with activated carbon.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) assessed a decontamination process of fish oils and vegetable oils and fats to reduce the concentrations of dioxins (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and polychlorinated dibenzofurans, abbreviated together as PCDD/Fs) and dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls (DL-PCBs) by adsorption to activated carbon. All feed decontamination processes must comply with the acceptability criteria specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786. Data provided by the feed food business operator (FBO) were assessed for the efficacy of the process and to demonstrate that the process did not adversely affect the characteristics and properties of the product. The limited information provided, in particular on the analysis of the samples before and after decontamination, did not allow the CONTAM Panel to conclude whether or not the proposed decontamination process is effective in reducing PCDD/Fs and DL-PCBs in the fish- and vegetable oils and fats. Although there is no evidence from the data provided that the decontamination process leads to detrimental changes in the nutritional composition of the fish- and vegetable oils, it is possible that the process could deplete some beneficial constituents (e.g. vitamins). Taken together, it was not possible for the CONTAM Panel to conclude that the decontamination process as proposed by the FBO is compliant with the acceptability criteria provided for in Commission Regulation (EU) 2015/786 of 19 May 2015.

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.

Evaluation of the risks for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in feed for honey bees.

The European Commission has asked the EFSA to evaluate the risk for animal health related to the presence of hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) in honey bee feed. HMF is a degradation product of particular sugars and can be present in bee feed. HMF is of low acute toxicity in bees but causes increased mortality upon chronic exposure. A benchmark dose lower limit 10% (BMDL10) of 1.16 µg HMF per bee per day has been calculated from mortalities observed in a 20-day study and established as a Reference Point covering also mortality in larvae, drones and queens for which no or insufficient toxicity data were available. Winter bees have a much longer lifespan than summer bees and HMF shows clear time reinforced toxicity (TRT) characteristics. Therefore, additional Reference Point intervals of 0.21-3.1, 0.091-1.1 and 0.019-0.35 µg HMF/bee per day were calculated based on extrapolation to exposure durations of 50, 90 and 180 days, respectively. A total of 219 analytical data of HMF concentrations in bee feed from EU Member States and 88 from Industry were available. Exposure estimates of worker bees and larvae ranged between 0.1 and 0.48, and between 0.1 and 0.51 µg HMF/per day, respectively. They were well below the BMDL10 of 1.16 µg HMF/bee per day, and thus, no concern was identified. However, when accounting for TRT, the probability that exposures were below established reference point intervals was assessed to be extremely unlikely to almost certain depending on exposure duration. A concern for bee health was identified when bees are exposed to HMF contaminated bee feed for several months.

A novel method for combining outcomes with different severities or gene-level classifications.

Chemical risk assessment is currently based on consideration of health effects individually. The present work discusses a method for combining data by characterizing the dose-related sequence of the development of lower- to higher-order toxicological effects or the range of bioactivity observed at genomic level caused by a chemical/mixture. A reference point profile (RPP) is defined as the relation between benchmark doses for considered effects (or bioactivity measures) and a standardized severity or rank score determined for these effects. For a given dose of a chemical/mixture, the probability for exceeding the RPP can be assessed. An overall toxicological response can also be derived at the same dose by integrating contributions across all effects, with a rational for severity weighing. Conversely, dose equivalents corresponding to specified responses can be estimated. The variation in RPPs across chemicals suggests that joint consideration of effects under the proposed concept differentiates the consequence of chemical exposure, both at genomic and apical levels, to a higher extent compared to using a specific effect as a basis. This may help to refine the development of points of departure or sets of such values describing a range of health concerns. Analysis and comparison of apical and genomic RPPs, as well as consideration of functional relations between gene sets within such analyses, may aid in the transition towards a new approach method-based risk assessment paradigm that to a higher degree may require methods for combination of effect data compared to relying on specific outcomes.

Evaluation of the shucking of certain species of scallops contaminated with domoic acid with a view to the production of edible parts meeting the safety requirements foreseen in the Union legislation.

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide information on the levels of domoic acid (DA) in whole scallops that would ensure that levels in edible parts are below the regulatory limit after shucking. This should include five species of scallops. In addition, EFSA was asked to recommend the number of scallops to be used in an analytical sample. To address these questions, EFSA received suitable data on DA for only one scallop species, Pecten maximus, i.e. data on pooled samples of edible and non-edible parts. A large part of the concentration levels was above the limit of quantification (LOQ) and only these data were used for the assessment. Shucking in most cases resulted in a strong decrease in the toxin levels. Statistical analysis of the data showed that levels in whole scallops should not exceed 24 mg DA/kg, 59 mg DA/kg and 127 mg DA/kg to ensure that levels in, respectively, gonads, muscle and muscle plus gonads are below the regulatory limit of 20 mg DA/kg with 99% certainty. Such an analysis was not possible for the other scallop species. In the absence of data from member states, published data of variations between scallops were used to calculate the sample size to ensure a 95% correct prediction on whether the level in scallops in an area or lot is correctly predicted to be compliant/non-compliant. It was shown that 10 scallops per sample would be sufficient to predict with 95% certainty if DA levels in the area/lot were twofold below or above the regulatory limit for the highest reported coefficient of variance (CV) of 1.06. To predict with 95% certainty for levels between 15 and 27 mg DA/kg, a pooled sample of more than 30 scallops would have to be tested.

Evaluation of the shucking of certain species of scallops contaminated with lipophilic toxins with a view to the production of edible parts meeting the safety requirements foreseen in the Union legislation.

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide information on levels of lipophilic shellfish toxins in whole scallops that would ensure levels in edible parts below the regulatory limits after shucking, i.e. removal of non-edible parts. This should include the okadaic acid (OA), the azaspiracid (AZA) and the yessotoxin (YTX) groups, and five species of scallops. In addition, EFSA was asked to recommend the number of scallops in an analytical sample. To address these questions, EFSA received suitable data on the three toxin groups in two scallop species, Aequipecten opercularis and Pecten maximus, i.e. data on individual and pooled samples of edible and non-edible parts from contamination incidents. The majority of the concentration levels were below limit of quantification (LOQ)/limit of detection (LOD), especially in adductor muscle but also in gonads. Shucking in most cases resulted in a strong decrease in the toxin levels. For Pecten maximus, statistical analysis showed that levels in whole scallops should not exceed 256 µg OA eq/kg or 217 µg AZA1 eq/kg to ensure that levels in gonads are below the regulatory limits of 160 µg OA or AZA1 eq/kg with 99% certainty. Such an analysis was not possible for yessotoxins or any toxin in Aequipecten opercularis and an assessment could only be based on upper bound levels. To ensure a 95% correct prediction on whether the level in scallops in an area or lot is correctly predicted to be compliant/non-compliant, it was shown that 10 scallops per sample would be sufficient to predict with 95% certainty if levels of OA-group toxins in the area/lot were 25% below or above the regulatory limit. However, to predict with a 95% certainty for levels between 140 and 180 µg OA eq/kg, a pooled sample of more than 30 scallops would have to be tested.