Search

EFSA developed ahazard assessment protocol upfront to the re-evaluation of Bisphenol A to ensure an efficient and transparent assessment, in line with the principles highlighted in the EFSA project PROmoting METHods for Evidence Use in scientific assessments. After undergoing a public consultation, the protocol was revised according to the comments received and published in its draft version in 2017 (10.5281/zenodo.1116881). Prior to being applied, and still during its implementation in the BPA assessment, the protocol was tested and slightly revised. This is the final version of the protocol used for the BPA re-evaluation, annexed (Annex A) to the opinion on BPA risk assessment of the EFSA CEP Panelpublished in April 2023 (https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.6857). The protocol states in detail the methods and/or the criteria that were used in the BPA re-evaluation for data collection, study inclusion, evidence appraisal and integration.

Funding Information: The authors would like to thank everybody who contributed to the HBM4EU Aligned Studies: the participating children, teenagers, adults and their families, the fieldworkers that collected the samples and database managers that made the information available to HBM4EU, the HBM4EU project partners, especially those from WP7 for developing all materials supporting the fieldwork, WP9 for organizing the QA/QC scheme under HBM4EU and all laboratories who performed the analytical measurements. We would like to acknowledge Sun Kyoung Jung from the National Institute of Environmental Research of South-Korea for providing the KoNEHS Cycle III results (crt adjusted). HBM4EU is co-financed under Horizon 2020 (grant agreement No 733032). The authors thank all principal investigators of the contributing studies for their participation and contribution to the HBM4EU Aligned Studies and the national program owners for their financial support. Further details on funding for all the participating studies can be found in the Supplemental Material, Table S12. As one of the core elements of the European Human Biomonitoring Initiative (HBM4EU) a human biomonitoring (HBM) survey was conducted in 23 countries to generate EU-wide comparable HBM data. This survey has built on existing HBM capacity in Europe by aligning national or regional HBM studies, referred to as the HBM4EU Aligned Studies. The HBM4EU Aligned Studies included a total of 10,795 participants of three age groups: (i) 3,576 children aged 6–12 years, (ii) 3,117 teenagers aged 12–18 years and (iii) 4,102 young adults aged 20–39 years. The participants were recruited between 2014 and 2021 in 11–12 countries per age group, geographically distributed across Europe. Depending on the age group, internal exposure to phthalates and the substitute DINCH, halogenated and organophosphorus flame retardants, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs), cadmium, bisphenols, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic species, acrylamide, mycotoxins (deoxynivalenol (total DON)), benzophenones and selected pesticides was assessed by measuring substance specific biomarkers subjected to stringent quality control programs for chemical analysis. For substance groups analyzed in different age groups higher average exposure levels were observed in the youngest age group, i.e., phthalates/DINCH in children versus teenagers, acrylamide and pesticides in children versus adults, benzophenones in teenagers versus adults. Many biomarkers in teenagers and adults varied significantly according to educational attainment, with higher exposure levels of bisphenols, phthalates, benzophenones, PAHs and acrylamide in participants (from households) with lower educational attainment, while teenagers from households with higher educational attainment have higher exposure levels for PFASs and arsenic. In children, a social gradient was only observed for the non-specific pyrethroid metabolite 3-PBA and di-isodecyl phthalate (DiDP), with higher levels in children from households with higher educational attainment. Geographical variations were seen for all exposure biomarkers. For 15 biomarkers, the available health-based HBM guidance values were exceeded with highest exceedance rates for toxicologically relevant arsenic in teenagers (40%), 3-PBA in children (36%), and between 11 and 14% for total DON, Σ (PFOA + PFNA + PFHxS + PFOS), bisphenol S and cadmium. The infrastructure and harmonized approach succeeded in obtaining comparable European wide internal exposure data for a prioritized set of 11 chemical groups. These data serve as a reference for comparison at the global level, provide a baseline to compare the efficacy of the European Commission's chemical strategy for sustainability and will give leverage to national policy makers for the implementation of targeted measures. publishersversion published

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone - neohesperidine - which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13-week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter- and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from

Copper is an essential micronutrient and also a regulated product used in organic and in conventional farming pest management. Both deficiency and excessive exposure to copper can have adverse health effects. In this Scientific Opinion, the EFSA 2021 harmonised approach for establishing health-based guidance values (HBGVs) for substances that are regulated products and also nutrients was used to resolve the divergent existing HBGVs for copper. The tightly regulated homeostasis prevents toxicity manifestation in the short term, but the development of chronic copper toxicity is dependent on copper homeostasis and its tissue retention. Evidence from Wilson disease suggests that hepatic retention is indicative of potential future and possibly sudden onset of copper toxicity under conditions of continuous intake. Hence, emphasis was placed on copper retention as an early marker of potential adverse effects. The relationships between (a) chronic copper exposure and its retention in the body, particularly the liver, and (b) hepatic copper concentrations and evidence of toxicity were examined. The Scientific Committee (SC) concludes that no retention of copper is expected to occur with intake of 5 mg/day and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0.07 mg/kg bw. A refined dietary exposure assessment was performed, assessing contribution from dietary and non-dietary sources. Background copper levels are a significant source of copper. The contribution of copper from its use as plant protection product (PPP), food and feed additives or fertilisers is negligible. The use of copper in fertilisers or PPPs contributes to copper accumulation in soil. Infant formula and follow-on formula are important contributors to dietary exposure of copper in infants and toddlers. Contribution from non-oral sources is negligible. Dietary exposure to total copper does not exceed the HBGV in adolescents, adults, elderly and the very elderly. Neither hepatic copper retention nor adverse effects are expected to occur from the estimated copper exposure in children due to higher nutrient requirements related to growth. ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:21 issue:1 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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.