Suchergebnisse

The FSA is the central authority in the field of food safety in the United Kingdom. It is an independent non-ministerial Government Department, governed by an independent Chair and nonexecutive Board responsible for overall strategic direction of the Agency and for ensuring it meets its legal obligations. It is accountable to the British Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly of Wales through Health Ministers. Besides questions about standards for food safety, the FSA is also responsible for meat inspection duties in fresh meat premises in England, Scotland and Wales (which is the responsibility of the DARD in Northern Ireland). FSA responsibilities also include monitoring of local enforcement authorities. The FSA is a UK wide body with its headquarters in London and offices in York (England), Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to ensure its priorities are delivered in a country-specific context. ; GB; en; efsa.focalpoint1@foodstandards.gsi.gov.uk

Does my asparagus really come from Germany? Has sugar been added to this acacia honey? Do food and feed really contain what's listed on the label? The possibilities of analytical testing of these and other questions were the focus of the first meeting of the scientific network for authenticity testing of food and feed held in Berlin on 13 and 14 June 2016. On the invitation of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), experts from different organisations of the Federal Government, the supervisory authorities of the federal states and the universities reported on their experiences and activities in authenticity testing. The objective of the meeting was to promote scientific exchange in this area of research to foster future developments in analysis. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

The assessment of epidemiological studies on the health effects of glyphosate is currently being discussed in the media. In this context, BfR evaluated a so-called expert opinion on epidemiological studies prepared by non-government organisations and concludes that no new findings are being reported for the joint European assessment of the active substance glyphosate. The accusations brought forth in the so-called expert opinion of scientific deception by the assessment authorities are completely unfounded and their content provides no new contri-bution to the scientific discourse. They were not made available in the public consultation or in a peer-reviewed publication. The BfR assessment report (RAR) that is criticised in the so-called expert report was exten-sively commented upon and evaluated by the general public, science, politics, trade and in-dustry and NGOs within the scope of the consultations of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on glyphosate. The report was confirmed and its contents were adopted by the experts of the member states, thus making it a European risk assessment and no longer a BfR or EFSA risk assessment. The assessment report is available to the EU Commission and member states for the purpose of reaching a decision on the re-authorisation of the ac-tive substance glyphosate. Incidentally, the result of the RAR complies with the specialised assessment of the epidemio-logical studies conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), who also classified the indications for the carcinogenicity of glyphosate in humans on the basis of the epidemiological studies as merely limited ("limited evidence in humans"). ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

Rice and rice-based products, such as rice cakes or rice flakes for creamed rice, can contain relatively high levels of inorganic arsenic. Inorganic arsenic is classified as carcinogenic for humans by international panels and no intake quantity can be defined as safe for human health with regard to its carcinogenic effect (cf. BfR opinion 018/2015). In the European Union, the introduction of maximum levels for inorganic arsenic in rice and rice products is being discussed on the basis of the health assessment of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)[…]. The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) has assessed the proposed maximum levels for rice and rice products from a health point of view and comes to the conclusion that the maximum level of 0.2 milligrams of inorganic arsenic per kilogram recommended for white rice is only suitable to avoid particularly high levels in rice. The proposal to introduce lower maximum levels for products used in the manufacture and preparation of baby food such as rice flakes for the production of creamed rice is endorsed by the BfR. The Institute does point out, however, that even under the assumption of concentrations of inorganic arsenic at the level of the recommended maximum limit of 0.1 milligrams per kilogram, the exposure of infants and toddlers to inorganic arsenic in rice flakes/creamed rice can still be high due to the fact that children consume comparatively large quantities of food in relation to their body weight. The BfR considers accompanying measures to be necessary for this reason. […] recommended that parents do not feed children and infants exclusively on the basis of rice […]. The full version of this BfR Opinion is available in German on http://www.bfr.bund.de/cm/343/eu-hoechstgehalte-fuer-anorganisches-arsen-in-reis-und-reisprodukten-durch-verzehrsempfehlungen-zum-schutz-von-saeuglingen-kleinkindern-und-kindern-ergaenzen.pdf ; DE; de; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

The EU approval process for glyphosate as active substance in plant protection products is meanwhile in the political decision-making phase in the area of risk management. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its conclusion on the peer review of glyphosate on 12 November 2015 (www.efsa.europa.eu). On 30 October 2015, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) submitted its Conclusion to the European Commission and the member states of the European Union. This completes the scientific assessment process for the active substance. The risk management authorities will review the report submitted by EFSA and then decide whether to renew the approval for the use of glyphosate as an active substance in pesticides. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

Following a review of all available studies, glyphosate, an active substance used in pesticides, has been assessed as non-carcinogenic by the competent national, European and other international institutions for health assessment including the WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR). At a meeting of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) in March 2015 in Lyon, the participating experts classified glyphosate as a carcinogenic substance in Group 2A ("probably carcinogenic to humans"), based on "limited evidence in humans" and "sufficient evidence in animals". This classification was published in a short report in the "Lancet" journal on 20 March 2015. As Germany is the "Rapporteur Member State" in the European Union (EU) for the active substance glyphosate, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) is issuing its comments on this classification by IARC based on the published short report. The BfR will perform a thorough review of the classification issued by IARC once the monograph becomes available. According to an IARC notification of 29 May 2015, the scheduled publication date has been brought forward to July 2015. As neither the BfR nor any of the other assessment authorities worldwide currently have access to this report, it is not yet possible to comprehensively assess the reasons given for the conclusions drawn by IARC. The WHO recently created an "ad hoc expert task force" to consider possible reasons for the different assessments of the data by IARC and the JMPR. The Taskforce should report back to JMPR in September 2015 for further discussion and action. This process is known as a scientific divergence procedure within the WHO. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

Following a review of all available studies, glyphosate, an active substance used in pesticides, has been assessed as non-carcinogenic for humans by the competent national, European and other international institutions for health assessment including the WHO/FAO Joint Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) based on the current data and the assumption of intended uses. The International Agency for Cancer Research (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) recently classifies glyphosate as a carcinogenic substance in Group 2A, in IARC words "Probably carcinogenic to humans", based on the available and evaluated studies by IARC. This classification was initially published in a short report in the "Lancet Oncology" journal on 20 March 2015 but was not explained scientifically in detail. The full report on glyphosate from the IARC monograph (Volume 12) has been publicly available since 29 July 2015, and the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) is reviewing the monograph with regard to documentation that was previously not taken into account, the assessment findings, quality aspects and methodology. Germany – as the rapporteur member state for the active substance glyphosate within the framework of active substance approval - is also forwarding the findings to EFSA and ECHA. The WHO itself has set up an "ad hoc expert task force" to compare the publications considered by its own bodies IARC and the JMPR to identify new studies to clarify the reasons for the different assessments. This process is known as a scientific divergence procedure within the WHO. In addition, the German government has commissioned the BfR to conduct a scientific review of the IARC monograph. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

The BfR has been asked to provide its expert opinion on the publication "Major pesticides are more toxic to human cells than their declared active principles" by the French task force led by Prof. Gilles-Eric Séralini. It is hypothesized that many pesticides (= plant protection products, PPP) are more toxic to humans and animals due to their mixed-in additives than their actual tested and approved active substances. This hypothesis is supported by cytotoxicity testing results derived from tests with nine active substances (including glyphosate) and one formulation of each active substance. The new publication by Mesnage et al. (2014) provides further indications that some PPP may have higher toxicity than the active substances contained therein. However, the publica-tion does not provide any new information for the toxicological assessment of glyphosate and no general regulatory consequences can be derived from it. The publication's aspects re-garding the toxicological assessment of mixed-in additives in PPP are already incorporated in the BfR´s draft assessment report, which was prepared during the re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate in December 2013. The BfR report describes in detail that the toxicity of glyphosate-containing PPP is higher than the toxicity of glyphosate itself. The-refore this new publication is of no relevance to the current re-evaluation process of gly-phosate in the European Union. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

The EU Food Safety Almanac gives an overview of the competent public authorities and the structures of food and feed safety within the EU. The emphasis is on risk assessment. This Chapter provides information on Food Safety in Greece. ; GR; en; Editor: Klaus Jürgen Henning, efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de; Country profile: efsa@efet.gr

The EU Food Safety Almanach gives you an overview of the competent public authorities and the structures of food and feed safety within European Union and in this case in the Czech Republic. The emphasis is on risk assessment. ; CZ; en; efsa.focalpoint@mze.cz

Assessment of the health risks posed to operators and uninvolved third parties during and after application of plant protection products is to be further standardised in the zonal authorisation procedure within the European Union. In the opinion of the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), this is an important outcome of the "European Conference on Safe Use of Plant Protection Products", which the BfR organised together with the European Commission, Directorate General for Health and Consumers in Berlin on 18 and 19 June 2014. As an important step towards harmonisation, the new draft of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) "Guidance on the Assessment of Exposure for Operators, Workers, Residents and Bystanders in Risk Assessment of Plant Protection Products" was discussed during the conference. In addition to exposure, i.e. type and extent of absorption of active substances, the experts exchanged views on additional aspects relevant to the assessment such as standardised derivation of the amount of active substance potentially absorbed through the skin and better harmonised measures to minimise risks. The more than 50 participants represented the European Commission, EFSA, and the competent authorities from the Member States and European associations. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

Brominated vegetable oils can be used as stabilisers for aroma oils in fruity flavoured beverages. In the USA these substances are approved for up to 15 mg/L (15 ppm). In the European Union (EU), these vegetable oils are not permitted as additives. For this reason, products containing brominated vegetable oils and / or their components (brominated fatty acids) cannot, irrespective of the content, be traded. At the instance of the German food safety authority which rejected two beverages imported from the USA, the BfR was asked to assess the health effects of soft drinks to which brominated vegetable oils are added. Animal experiments with brominated vegetable oils have shown that brominated fatty acids may be deposited in various organs. In case of high dosage, the weight of the organs can increase, and the organs themselves may change as a result. At very high doses, the substances had an effect on fertility. No long-term studies required to derive no observed adverse effect levels (NOAEL) have been published as yet. Based on the current state of knowledge, no acute risks from soft drinks with contents up to 15 mg/L of brominated fatty acids can be derived. The case studies cited in this context about a connection between high consumption of soft drinks containing added brominated vegetable oils and adverse health effects are not plausible from a scientific viewpoint, nor do they prove a general risk. In the opinion of the BfR, it is notably not sufficiently clear whether brominated fatty acids may have any long-term health effects. The same applies to their accumulation potential in humans which many be higher than in the tested animal species. In this context, the high accumulation levels observed in children in particular requires clarification. As a general principle, the use of substances which have high accumulation potential in humans is to be seen as undesirable in food production. ; DE; de; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

On the surfaces of fresh poultry meat bacteria such as salmonella or campylobacter, which can cause gastrointestinal diseases in humans, are regularly detected. The pathogens can be transferred to the meat, if they already populated the live animals. In addition, germs can be transferred through cross-contamination during slaughtering, when cutting the meat into pieces and during treatment of the carcasses. In order to avoid infections transferred through contaminated foods, an integrated hygiene concept must be applied throughout the entire meat production process, i.e. from rearing and slaughtering down to the point of sale. Since these measures are, especially for poultry, effective only to a limited extent, a discussion is currently taking place within the European Union on the use of antimicrobial substances such as chlorine dioxide and peroxy acid for the purpose of removing germs from poultry carcasses. So far the use of such chemical substances for the decontamination of poultry carcasses is banned in the EU, because questions of resistance formation and environmental impact have not been conclusively answered. In addition, there is a lack of knowledge of unwanted health effects which may result from the fact that apart from the pathogenic germs, bacteria naturally occurring on the surface of poultry meat are killed as well. In the opinion of the Federal Institute of Risk Assessment (BfR), chemical procedures cannot replace the necessary integrated hygiene concepts. However, under certain circumstances they can supplement such concepts. The requirement for the use of chemical procedures is that their safety in terms of their health effects must first be established. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

The Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) is the scientific body of the Federal Republic of Germany that prepares expert reports and opinions on questions of consumer health protection on the basis of internationally recognised scientific assessment criteria and then formulates courses of action for risk minimisation based on the analysis of risks. The BfR is independent in its assessments, and the findings of these assessments are made available to the public at large, the world of science and other involved or interested parties. The BfR conducts its own research based on its core fields of expertise and cooperates with other institutions, particularly those in the portfolio of the Federal Ministry of Food and Agri-culture, as well as with universities, the member states of the European Union and international partner countries. The research activities of the BfR are designed to promote the insti-tute's national and international connections. In the development of methods and procedures, the focus is on standardisation on a high scientific level, particularly in an international context. The BfR primarily conducts research in fields in which risk assessments are necessary. The generated data, methods and techniques form the basis for assessments and policy advice in line with the latest knowledge and insights. The institute's research activities also include work of a non-experimental nature. The main areas of research are based on the BfR's statutory remit and are defined every two years in a research programme. Research areas of hge BfR are: reference and consiliary laboratories, early risk detection and risk minimisation, risk communication, exposure, biological safety, food safety, safety of pesticides, chemicals and product safety, safety in the food chain, experimental toxicology and ZEBET, methods to replace and supplement animal experiments. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de

Cattle from a Slovakian cattle population were recently slaughtered in Poland. A few days later, some animals of the same herd became ill with and died of anthrax. Subsequently subjected to veterinary examinations, the animals slaughtered in Poland did not show any symptoms of illness. Nor did the meat inspection indicate that the cattle had contracted anthrax. Following clearance, the meat of the animals was delivered, via the Netherlands, to several meat processing plants in some member states of the European Union, before the anthrax cases in the Slovakian herd became known. Some of those processing plants are in Germany. Having received the information that meat from a herd potentially infected with anthrax had entered the food chain, the Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) conducted an initial evaluation of the risk of contamination of meat with the anthrax pathogen and of anthrax infection in humans in Germany. ; DE; en; efsa-focal-point@bfr.bund.de)