Suchergebnisse

The European Parliament requested EFSA to develop a holistic risk assessment of multiple stressors in honey bees. To this end, a systems-based approach that is composed of two core components: a monitoring system and a modelling system are put forward with honey bees taken as a showcase. Key developments in the current scientific opinion (including systematic data collection from sentinel beehives and an agent-based simulation) have the potential to substantially contribute to future development of environmental risk assessments of multiple stressors at larger spatial and temporal scales. For the monitoring, sentinel hives would be placed across representative climatic zones and landscapes in the EU and connected to a platform for data storage and analysis. Data on bee health status, chemical residues and the immediate or broader landscape around the hives would be collected in a harmonised and standardised manner, and would be used to inform stakeholders, and the modelling system, ApisRAM, which simulates as accurately as possible a honey bee colony. ApisRAM would be calibrated and continuously updated with incoming monitoring data and emerging scientific knowledge from research. It will be a supportive tool for beekeeping, farming, research, risk assessment and risk management, and it will benefit the wider society. A societal outlook on the proposed approach is included and this was conducted with targeted social science research with 64 beekeepers from eight EU Member States and with members of the EU Bee Partnership. Gaps and opportunities are identified to further implement the approach. Conclusions and recommendations are made on a way forward, both for the application of the approach and its use in a broader context.

78 p.-6 fig.-26 tab.-3 appendix ; In 2016, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) published a scientific opinion on the acute health risks related to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides (CNGs) in raw apricot kernels in which an acute reference dose (ARfD) of 20 lg/kg body weight (bw) was established for cyanide (CN). In the present opinion, the CONTAM Panel concluded that this ARfD is applicable for acute effects of CN regardless the dietary source. To account for differences in cyanide bioavailability after ingestion of certain food items, specific factors were used. Estimated mean acute dietary exposures to cyanide from foods containing CNGs did not exceed the ARfD in any age group. At the 95th percentile, the ARfD was exceeded up to about 2.5-fold in some surveys for children and adolescent age groups. The main contributors to exposures were biscuits, juice or nectar and pastries and cakes that could potentially contain CNGs. Taking into account the conservatism in the exposure assessment and in derivation of the ARfD, it is unlikely that this estimated exceedance would result in adverse effects. The limited data from animal and human studies do not allow the derivation of a chronic health-based guidance value (HBGV) for cyanide, and thus, chronic risks could not be assessed. ; The EFSA Journal is a publication of the European FoodSafety Authority, an agency of the European Union. ; Peer reviewed

Abstract
EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose–response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies.