Suchergebnisse

Following a request from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the EFSA Panel for Contaminants in the Food Chain was asked to deliver a statement on the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. Primary microplastics are plastics originally manufactured to be that size, while secondary microplastics originate from fragmentation. Nanoplastics can originate from engineered material or can be produced during fragmentation of microplastic debris. Microplastics range from 0.1 to 5,000 μm and nanoplastics from approximately 1 to 100 nm (0.001–0.1 μm). There is no legislation for microplastics and nanoplastics as contaminants in food. Methods are available for identification and quantification of microplastics in food, including seafood. Occurrence data are limited. In contrast to microplastics no methods or occurrence data in food are available for nanoplastics. Microplastics can contain on average 4% of additives and the plastics can adsorb contaminants. Both additives and contaminants can be of organic as well of inorganic nature. Based on a conservative estimate the presence of microplastics in seafood would have a small effect on the overall exposure to additives or contaminants. Toxicity and toxicokinetic data are lacking for both microplastics and nanoplastics for a human risk assessment. It is recommended that analytical methods should be further developed for microplastics and developed for nanoplastics and standardised, in order to assess their presence, identity and to quantify their amount in food. Furthermore, quality assurance should be in place and demonstrated. For microplastics and nanoplastics, occurrence data in food, including effects of food processing, in particular, for the smaller sized particles (< 150 μm) should be generated. Research on the toxicokinetics and toxicity, including studies on local effects in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, are needed as is research on the degradation of microplastics and potential formation of nanoplastics in the human GI tract.

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

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.

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.