Suchergebnisse

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.

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.