European Food Safety Authority EFSA

The provisional tolerable daily intake (TDI) values proposed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA 2008) and Health Protection Agency (HPA 2009) amount to 150 ng/kg body weight (bwt)/d and 300 ng/kg bwt/d, for PFOS and PFOA, respectively. 

According to the Directive, an active substance cannot be used in a PPP unless it is included in an EU positive list. The Directive also requires very extensive risk assessments for effects on health and environment to be carried out, before a PPP can be placed on the market and used. In 1992, the European Commission started a Community-wide review process for aU active substances used in PPPs within the EU. Based on scientific assessments, each applicant had to prove that a substance could be used safely regarding human health, the environment, ecotoxicology and residues in the food chain. This program will be completed by 2008. From the end of 2003, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) deals with risk assessment issues and the European Commission retains the risk... 

EES A. 2006. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) website. http /www.efsa.europa.eu EU. 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. Brussels, 2.02.2000, COM (2000) 1. http /ec.europa.eu/dgs/health consumer/library/pub/pub07 en.pdf EU. 2001. White Paper on the Strategy for a Future Chemicals Policy, http //ec.europa.eu/consumers/ cons safe/prod safe/other EU/chem policy en.htm... 

The stmcmre-based, tiered TTC approach as outlined by Munro et al. (1996, 1999) is used by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in a procedure for the evaluation of flavoring substances in food, including an acceptance of the general TTC of 1.5 pg/person/day, i.e., the US-FDA Threshold of Regulation (Section 4.13.1). The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) also uses this approach for evaluation of flavoring substances, except that the general TTC of 1.5 pg/person/day is not accepted (Larsen 2006). 

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), based in Parma, Italy, since 2005 is the keystone of EU risk assessment regarding food and feed safety. 

Recently, there has been an issue with the detection of 4-methylbenzophe-none (MBP) in breakfast cereal in Europe, leading to publicity concerning the presence of this photoinitiator in the food. Based on the close similarity between MBP and benzophenone, a photoinitiator for inks and coatings that are cured with UV light, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has concluded that short-term consumption of breakfast cereals containing ppm traces of MBP should not pose a risk to most people, but recommended that this substance undergo more detailed evaluation if it will continue to be used in food packaging. ... 

The general criteria for the use of food additives in the EU are described in Annex II of the Framework Directive 89/107/EEC. The authorization of a new food additive in the EU involves a two-step procedure a safety evaluation is completed by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the food additive is included in the appropriate Directive by the Commission and the Commission adopts a specification of the purity criteria for the food additive. 

Organization (WHO) recommends limits for the safe intake of chemical elements. The limit for Hg is 300 pg per week of which a maximum of 200 pg is Me-Hg [11]. In April 2004 the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published new limits for Me-Hg. On the one hand, a Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intake (PTWI) of 1.6 pg kg-1 body weight is given on the other hand, a significantly lower intake limit of 0.7 pg kg-1 body weight per week from a previous evaluation by the United States National Research Council (USNRC) is established [12]. 

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2010. Scientific opinion on the substantiation of health claims related to vitamin E and protection of DNA, proteins and lipids from oxidative damage (ID 160, 162, 1947). EFSA J. 8 1816 1846. 

As a reaction of the various food scares in Europe the European Commission successfully launched the establishment of a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Although its final seat has not yet been agreed upon, it is understood that the Authority will soon start operating from its temporary location in Brussels. The task of EFSA will be a complex one, potentially of immense value, but it must not be burdened with unrealistic expectations. It is obvious that the success of the Authority will strongly depend on its recognition by the public to provide a unified, excellent and independent scientific advice based on an accountable and transparent operation. Thus, it would be unrealistic to expect, that the majority of European consumers would accept EFSA as the ultimate authority on food safety already in the near future. 

In 2004, the European Commission reorganized its nonfood scientific committees following the creation of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and the transfer to the Authority of responsibilities for risk assessment on food-related issues previously carried out by some of the scientific committees. The Commission reviewed and refocused the work of its three remaining nonfood scientific committees and created three new committees Scientific Committee on Consumer Products (SCCP), Scientific Committee... 

Like Indiana Jones, virtually every manufacturer of a superfruit product is hot on the trail of the Holy Grail—a health claim approved by a national regulatory agency such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In simple terms, a health claim would verify that the product or compound has been scientifically proved to have a direct effect on health or the specific ability to alter the course of a disease. 

European Food Safety Authority. efsa.europa.eu. 

The Pesticide Risk Assessment Peer Review Unit (PRAPeR) of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is responsible for the peer review of initial risk assessments of active substances. For each substance, a member state carries out this initial risk assessment, which is presented in a draft assessment report (DAR) that is then peer reviewed by experts across the European Union (EU) in a process... 

Objectives of the project are to gather information that will help to harmonize and integrate Associated Candidate Countries (ACC) and New Member States (NMS) infrastructures and activities in the field of chemical food safety with those of Member States (MS) and to provide the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) with a network of scientists, researchers, institutions able to address the different aspects of the chemical contaminants in food. In addition, through participation in this project, scientists and research groups will have the opportunity to join mainstream research activities, such as the ones developed in Food Chemical Safety in Europe (FOSIE), the NoE Chemicals as contaminants in the food chain an NoE for research, risk assessment and education. (CASCADE), the project Harmonized Environmental Indicators for Pesticide Risk (HAIR), or to promote new projects in the field of food safety. 

Based on the above-mentioned considerations, it is evident that the final goal of the project will be the harmonization of the approach to food safety among the enlarging European Union. A second significant result will be the creation of a European food Safety network, which will continue its activities after the end of the two-year period of the project. The network will work in close relation with the European Food safety Authority (EFSA) and will disseminate information through the website which will be created and implemented in the frame of SAFEFOODNET activities. 

There are a few other novelties in the regulations Before 2003/1829/EC came into force, applications for new biotech crops could be made in any EC member states country. The assessment was made (and approved) in that country and was binding for any other EC member state. The assessments were apparently made differently with different stringency by member countries. The newly established European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was tasked with harmonizing this simation. Every new application for biotech crops must now go directly to the EFSA for assessment and approval. This is laid down in 2003/1829/EC (9) ... 

This list was amended in December 2006 with the addition of mollusks and lupin, as Directive 2006/142/EC, to account for the opinion delivered by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) referring to the allergenicity of these foods and the prevalence of such food allergy in European member states. 

European Food Safety Authority, Advice of the Ad Hoc Expert Group Set up to Advise the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) on the Possible Occurrence of Semicar-bazide in Packaged Foods, July 28, 2003, AFC/ad hoc SEM/1, Brussels, 2003. 

To explore the relationships between parent and transformation product eco-toxicity to earthworms, data were collated on the acute ecotoxicity to earthworms for pesticides and their transformation products. These were acute, generally 14 d, LC50 data and were collected from pesticide evaluation documents of the UK PSD and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) [ 11 ], US EPA [8], EU [9,10], the Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency (PMRA) [21] and the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) [22]. Collated data were supplemented by data collated by the EU SEEM project [17]. Ultimately this provided 142 comparisons between pesticides and their transformation products. 

Detailed lists of the data required to be evaluated to satisfy inclusion in Annex I of the Directive, or the authorization of a plant protection product are set out in the Directive (Annexes II and III). Annex II data relate to the active substance and Annex III to the plant protection product. These data are submitted to one or more Member States for evaluation. A report of the evaluation is submitted to the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Following peer review of the report the EFSA makes a recommendation to the European Commission on whether Annex I inclusion is acceptable. This recommendation is then discussed by all Member States in the framework of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFA), previously the Standing Committee on Plant Health (SCPH). Where necessary, the Scientific Panel is consulted before the SCFA can deliver an opinion on whether an active substance should be included in Annex I of 91/414/EEC. 

Regulation (EC) No. 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the European Council provides a legal basis permitting the use of antimicrobial treatments to remove surface contamination from poultry. Following a risk assessment conducted by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2005 (European Food Safety Authority, 2005), the European Commission (EC) has provided a draft regulation on the approval of substances, including ASC, that can be used to remove surface contamination from fresh poultry carcasses (European Commission, 2006). 

AFL occurrence and concentration data, submitted from 22 European Union (EU) Member States for the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) risk assessment requested by the European Commission (EC) in 2006, were available for this evaluation. Australia, Brazil, the Islamic Republic of Iran, Japan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates and the United States of America (USA) also submitted data on AFL contamination. In total, the Committee had access to over 100 000 data points for its analyses. Other data on contamination by these toxins have been taken from published literature, but they were not used to calculate dietary exposure because the disaggregated data were not available. Rather, they were used to reinforce the analysis made in the document. 

For this evaluation, the Committee considered new toxicological studies that had become available since the last evaluation these included further studies on developmental toxicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity, nephrotoxicity and geno-toxicity and studies on the mode of action of ochratoxin A in the kidney. The Committee also considered the opinion on ochratoxin A in human food published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) in 2006 (European Food Safety Authority, 2006). New data on analytical methods, sampling protocols and the effects of processing were also considered, together with methods of prevention and control and levels and patterns of food contamination. A new dietary exposure assessment was conducted, and the impact of different MLs for cereals was considered. 

---