an introduction to efsa and the panel on contaminants in ... · contaminants in the food chain ......
TRANSCRIPT
An introduction to EFSA and the panel onAn introduction to EFSA and the panel on
Contaminants in the food chain Contaminants in the food chain
(CONTAM) (CONTAM)
Jean Lou Dorne –Senior Scientific Officer-Toxicology
Unit on Contaminants
Hungary 2008 2
Content
•1. Introduction to EFSA
•2. EFSA ‘s CONTAM Panel
•3.How an EFSA opinion is produced ?
•4.Principles of chemical risk assessment
• 5.Examples of CONTAM risk assessments
Hungary 2008 3
EFSA and EFSA's mission
• EFSA is the European Union's scientific risk assessment body on food and feed safety, nutrition, animal health and welfare, and plant health and protection, tackling issues all along the food chain. Regulation (EC) 178/2002
• Provide science based risk assessments supporting risk management related to food/feed safety.
• Provide scientific and technical advice on all matters within these fields.
• Communicate all findings publicly.
Hungary 2008 4
How does EFSA work?
EFSA
1000 scientific experts
Over 1000 scientific outputs
Networking national agencies and scientific organisations
Hungary 2008 5
Scientific Panels/Scientific Committee
• Max. 21 expert members, not EFSA staff
• Selected on the basis of scientific excellence, area of expertise, gender and geographical
balance
• Appointed by Management Board for 3 years
Hungary 2008 6
Application process
• Scientific Committee & Panel Members
• Open from 23 Oct till 7 Jan 2009
• Experts contacted spring 2009
• New Scientific Committee and Panel members meet and begin work summer 2009
• Scientific experts
• Now open
• No closing date
Fill in an online form on the EFSA website and make a declaration of interests (to ensure their independence)
Hungary 2008 7
Selection of experts
• Scientific Committee & Panel Members• EFSA evaluates
candidates and draws up shortlist
• Management Board assesses shortlists and makes final decision about candidates
• Members are appointed:• for 3 years, renewable
• through an open procedure based on proven scientific excellence
• Scientific experts
• When a scientific need is identified, EFSA selects the most suitable experts to assist it
• Selected experts invited to participate in certain scientific activities of EFSA or Member States
9
Ten Scientific Panels
• Food additives, nutrient sources (ANS)
• Food contact material, enzymes and flavourings (CEF)
• Additives and products in animal feed (FEEDAP)
• Plant Health (PLH)
• Plant Protection Products (PPR)
• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO)
• Dietetic products, nutrition and allergies (NDA)
• Biological hazards (BIOHAZ)
• Contaminants in the food chain (CONTAM)
• Animal Health and Welfare (AHAW)
Hungary 2008 10
Scientific Committee
Composition:
• Chairs of ten Scientific Panels
• Six scientists not panel members
Role:
• General co-ordination of EFSA’s scientific work, ensure consistency of opinions
• Guidance and scientific advice on multi-sectorialissues, e.g. botanicals, nanotechnology, etc.
• Expert working groups and Advice on risk assessment and policies related to EFSA’s work
Hungary 2008 11
The CONTAM Panel 2006 - 2009
• Chair: Dr. Josef Schlatter (CH)
• Vice-chairs: Prof. Johanna Fink-Gremmels
(NL), Prof. Rolaf van Leeuwen (NL)
Find more information on the CONTAM experts
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/science/contam/
contam_members.html
Hungary 2008 12
Mandate of the CONTAM Panel
To deliver scientific opinions on contaminants
in food and feed, associated areas and
undesirable substances i.e. natural toxicants,
mycotoxins and residues of non authorised
substances not covered by another Panel.
F C
F
F
Cx
F
F
S
O
O
R
Hungary 2008 13
3. How an EFSA Opinion is produced (from “question” to “answer”)
European Commission
European Parliament
Member States
EFSA (“self mandate”)
Question?
Risk Assessment
Hungary 2008 15
From “question” to “answer”
European Commission
European Parliament
Member States
EFSA (“self mandate”)
Question?
Risk Assessment
Opinion
RiskManagement
Risk Communication
Industry
Media
Consumers
Professionals
Hungary 2008 16
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTLevels in food, dietary
exposure, groups with higherexposures, relevant food groups, non-food sources, time trends
HAZARD CHARACTERISATIONADME, acute, subchronic & chronic toxicityhuman studies genotox, reprotox,immunotox,dose-response, mode/mechanism of action,selection of critical dataset, ARfD, NOEAL,
TDI, mathematical modelling (BMD)
RISK CHARACTERISATIONMarigin of Exposure (MOE)
Vulnerable groups (children – high level consumers)
4.Principles of chemical risk assessment
Hungary 2008 17
RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS
LOW - DOSEEXTRAPOLATION
Margin of Exposure Approach : risk associated with
intake
QUANTITATIVERISK ASSESSMENT
No Threshold: Cancer endpoint Threshold: Tox other than cancer
NOAEL ANDSAFETY FACTORS
Intake with no appreciable effects
eg ADI
NON - QUANTITATIVERISK ASSESSMENT
Hungary 2008 18
The Margin Of exposure (MOE) developed, by the JECFA and EFSA (2005) Point of reference on the dose-response curve* (based on animal and human data) divided by the estimated human intakes. MOE (animal data) >10,000 as of low concern for public health.
*BMDL: Benchmark Dose
(*NOAEL: No observed-Adverse-Effect-Level)
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/Scientific_Opinion/sc_op_ej282_gentox_en3,0.pdf
Margin of exposureMargin of exposure--cancer endpointscancer endpoints
Indicates data point
with confidence bars
NOAELBMDL
BMR0
0
Best-fitting
dose-response
model% A
nim
als
Re
sp
on
din
gDose
100
Lower statistical
limit on dose
Hungary 2008 19
ADI/TDI (mg/kg/day) =
NOAEL or BMDL (mg/kg) / 100
Derivation of the Acceptable and Tolerable Derivation of the Acceptable and Tolerable
Daily Intake (ADI and TDI)Daily Intake (ADI and TDI)
ADI: Intentionally added compounds TDI, PTWI: Contaminants
Indicates data point
with confidence bars
NOAELBMDL
BMR0
0
Best-fitting
dose-response
model% A
nim
als
Re
sp
on
din
g
Dose
100
Lower statistical
limit on dose
NOAEL: No observed-Adverse-Effect-Level BMDL: Benchmark Dose
Hungary 2008 20
5. Examples:
Cross-contamination of non-target feedingstuffs by coccidiostats authorised for use as feed additive
Hungary 2008 21
Cross-contamination of coccidiostats
allowed for broilers
not allowed for laying hens
residues
toxic to some non-target animals
Hungary 2008 22
Terms of reference
The Commission asked EFSA to assess the risks involved for animal health and public health as the consequence of cross-contamination of 11 coccidiostats into feed for non-target animals.
11 opinions have been adopted by CONTAM Panel in 2007 and 2008.
Hungary 2008 23
Overall…
• Depending on active substance, cross-contamination of feeds with coccidiostats can be a health risk to non-target animal species (>2% salinomycin carry over toxic to horses).
• For all coccidiostats, no health risk for consumers caused by cross-contamination was identified. Calculated using the highest residue levels in eggs, liver 10 % cross-contamination level and default values for daily human consumption
• For many coccidiostats, sensitive analytical methods developed for food, should be validated also for feed and used to control cross-contamination.
Hungary 2008 24
• Based on EFSA assessments, European Commission introduced management measures to limit cross-contamination
• The SCFCAH, Animal Nutrition Section will vote on 27.11.2008 on proposal to set maximum levels for these compounds in the frame of the Directive 2002/32/EC:
• Carry-over rate of approx 3 % compared to authorised max concentration for feed for non-sensitive non-target animal species, and
• Carry-over rate of approx 1% compared to authorised max concentration for feed for sensitive non-target animal species and finishing feed has to be achieved.
Follow up…
Hungary 2008 25
Opinion on PAHs in food
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_1211902034842.htm
Hungary 2008 26
Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
� Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) form a class of diverse organic compounds, each of them containing two or more aromatic rings
� Hundreds of different such compounds may be formed and released during a variety of combustion and pyrolysis processes. The natural and anthropogenic sources of PAHs in the environment are numerous
� PAH compounds are emitted from the processing of coal, crude oil, petroleum, and natural gas, from production of aluminium, iron and steel, from heating in power plants and homes (oil, gas, charcoal-fired stoves, wood stoves), burning of refuse, wood fires, and from motor vehicle exhausts
Hungary 2008 27
Human exposure to PAHs
� Humans can be exposed to PAHs through different routes. For the general population, the major routes of exposure are from food and inhaled air, while in smokers, the contributions from smoking and food may be of a similar magnitude
� Food can be contaminated by environmental PAHs that are present in air, soil or water, by industrial food processing methods (e.g. heating, drying and smoking processes) and by home food preparation (e.g. grilling, roasting processes)
28
Terms of reference,
• Review of the PAHs opinion (SCF, 2002) by taking into account: – New occurrence data from EFSA 2007
– Any new toxicological studies
• Can benzo[a]pyrene be considered as a suitable marker both for occurrence and exposure?– if not: are there other suitable markers?
– can a TEF concept be applied?
– a margin of exposure (MOE) approach should be used, if appropriate
• Which food commodities contribute most to the exposure?
Hungary 2008 29
15 +1 PAHs•15 PAHs identified by the Scientific Committee on Food in 2002
•“Potentially genotoxic and carcinogenic to humans”
•+1 PAH identified by the JECFA in 2006
•Oral carcinogenicity data only available for eight PAHs (PAH8) , (Culp et al., 1998 ): Benzo[a]pyrene, Benzo[k]fluoranthene, Chrysene , Benzo[ghi]perylene, Benz[a]anthracene,Dibenz[a,h]anthracene, Benzo[b]fluoranthene, Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
•No new toxicological data
benzo[a]pyrene
CH3
Hungary 2008 30
Matching available toxicological data with occurrence data
FACTS:– Oral carcinogenicity data only available for PAH8– PAH8 most often found in food samples
– PAH8 contribute the most to concentrations of PAHs in foods
– In ~50% of samples benzo[a]pyrene was detected
– In ~30% of samples other PAHs were found despite testing negative for benzo[a]pyrene
PAH8:benzo[a]pyrene benzo[k]fluoranthene
chrysene benzo[ghi]perylene
benz[a]anthracene dibenz[a,h]anthracene
benzo[b]fluoranthene indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
Hungary 2008 31
Can sum of PAH8 or sub-groups of PAH8 be good markers foroccurrence and toxicity of PAHs ???
benzo[a]pyrene benzo[k]fluoranthene
chrysene benzo[ghi]perylene
benz[a]anthracene dibenz[a,h]anthracene
benzo[b]fluoranthene indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
The grouping of PAHs:
PAH8
PAH2
PAH4
benzo[a]pyrene
Investigated further
Hungary 2008 32
Dietary exposure to benzo[a]pyrene, PAH2,
PAH4 and PAH8 for different food categories
Consumer exposure to benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), PAH2, PAH4 and PAH8 for each food category for which occurrence data are available. The median value of the mean consumption reported by the Member States for consumers only was calculated.
302012642Cheese
210170842141Fish and fishery products
4212891403627Seafood and seafood products
27919510742132Meat and meat products and substitutes
7425124413Alcoholic beverages
1561065521601Coffee, tea, cocoa (expressed as liquid)
8775405153Fruits
37822112450194Vegetables, nuts and pulses
2391771122638Fats (vegetable and animal)
392513543Sugar and sugar products including chocolate
39325712967257Cereals and cereal products
ng/dayng/dayng/dayng/dayg/day
PAH8PAH4PAH2BaPMedian
ExposureConsumptionCategory
Hungary 2008 33
Total exposure to benzo[a]pyrene, PAH2, PAH4
and PAH8 for average and high consumer in EU
30782068107738917291168641235Median EU
248916618543151415936499188United Kingdom
28761949100336417191168621230Sweden
56013769190570917271158626244Slovakia
42622900147046121361449765252Norway
48863318168753517851197658239Netherlands
43222943150248719621332719255Italy
30092013104937017931188646238Ireland
65684486223269415221039558205Iceland
2410163687731417161168647231Hungary
34392311119442218881258681255Germany
29211966102138018141220655245France
169311556232311422978535185Finland
2300154581829916901135617223Denmark
34492328120742617771196654239Czech Republic
30182027105338515261020560209Bulgaria
31382108110139317321158637232Belgium
PAH8PAH4PAH2BaPPAH8PAH4PAH2BaPCountry
High exposure Sum of P97.5 for cereals and seafood + average exposure for whole population
(ng/day)
Average exposure Whole population
(ng/day)
Hungary 2008 34
Risk characterisation- Margin of exposure (MOE) approach
MOEs at the median of the EU mean estimates of dietary exposure
MOEs at the median of the EU 97.5th percentile estimates of dietary exposure
96000.497.9151.3PAH8
99000.345.3234.5PAH4
95000.172.7718.0PAH2
108000.071.006.5BaP
MOEBMDL10
(mg/kg
b.w. per day)
Exposure ratio to
BaP
Median EU estimated 97.5%ile dietary exposure
(ng/kg b.w. per day)
Marker for the carcinogenic PAH
in food
170000.497.3628.8PAH8
175000.344.9719.5PAH4
159000.172.7310.7PAH2
179000.071.003.9BaP
MOEBMDL10
(mg/kg b.w. per day)
Exposure ratio to
BaP
Median EU estimated mean dietary exposure (ng/kg
b.w. per day)
Marker for the carcinogenic PAH
in food
Hungary 2008 35
What do the MOEs tell us about the risk of PAHs to human health ?
• A low concern for consumer health at the meanestimated dietary exposures
• For high level consumers the MOEs are close to or less than 10,000, which as proposed by the EFSA
Scientific Committee indicates a potential concern for
consumer health and a possible need for risk management action
• Comparison of the MOEs for benzo[a]pyrene, PAH2, PAH4 and PAH8, indicates that PAH2, PAH4 and PAH8can be used as alternatives to benzo[a]pyrene as markers of the carcinogenicity of the genotoxic and
carcinogenic PAHs, and would be equally effective
Hungary 2008 36
Which of the PAH combinations is the best marker ?
1.MOEs indicated that benzo[a]pyrene, PAH2, PAH4 and PAH8 were equally effective as markers of the
carcinogenicity. Occurrence data were more influential
in the overall conclusion.
2. PAH4 and PAH8 were better indicators of the occurrence and toxicity of the genotoxic and
carcinogenic PAHs than benzo[a]pyrene or PAH2.
3. Based on the current pattern of occurrence in different food categories PAH8 did not provide much added
value compared to PAH4.
Hungary 2008 37
Main conclusion
“CONTAM Panel concluded that
benzo[a]pyrene is not a suitable indicator for the occurrence of PAHs in food. Based on the currently available data relating to occurrence and toxicity, the CONTAM Panel concluded that
PAH4 and PAH8 are the most suitable indicators of PAHs in food, with PAH8 not providing much added value compared to PAH4.“
Hungary 2008 38
General EFSA Website :
http://www.efsa.europa.eu
CONTAM activities: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/ScientificPanels/efsa_local
e-1178620753812_CONTAM.htm
Register of requested opinions :
http://registerofquestions.efsa.europa.eu/roqFrontend/quest
ionsList.jsf
Join EFSA's Scientific Committee or Panels
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_JoinEFSAScientificCommitteeorPanels.htm
EFSA websites