Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain: human and animal health

The EFSA has updated the Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain, human and animal health. It covers the application areas within EFSA's remit, including novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The updated guidance, now Scientific Committee Guidance on nano risk assessment (SC Guidance on Nano-RA), has taken account of relevant scientific studies that provide insights to physico-chemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials and areas of applicability. Together with the accompanying Guidance on Technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles (Guidance on Particle-TR), the SC Guidance on Nano-RA specifically elaborates on physico-chemical characterisation, key parameters that should be measured, methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. The SC Guidance on Nano-RA also details aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vitro/in vivo toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. Furthermore, in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, local and systemic toxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials are described. Depending on the initial tier results, additional studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity and allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read-across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes or mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis.

Factors Affecting the Perception of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in the Ecotoxicology Community

Given current legislative mandates to assess the safety of thousands of chemicals and the slow pace at which conventional testing proceeds, there is a need to accelerate chemical risk assessment. Governments and businesses are increasingly interested in new approach methodologies (NAMs) that promise to reduce costs and delays. We explore 5 sociological factors within the ecotoxicology community that can influence the perception of NAMs: 1) professional profile (educational cohort, employer), 2) internal science communication within professional forums, 3) concern for "error cost," 4) collaboration across stakeholders, and 5) fundamental beliefs regarding toxicology. We conducted an online survey (n = 171; 2018) asking participants about their experiences and perspectives at events of the Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) to assess 1) how NAMs are discussed compared to conventional testing and 2) how respondents perceive their viability. We developed ordered logistic regression (OLR) models to understand the influence of exploratory variables (cohort, core views on toxicology, frequency of collaboration) on respondents' evaluation of the viability of different NAMs. Our results showed that 1) NAMs were more likely than conventional methods to be challenged in forum discussions, which may be fueled by concerns for error costs in regulatory decision making; 2) perceptions of the viability of NAMs tended to follow a "pattern of familiarity," whereby respondents that were more knowledgeable about a test method tended to find it more viable; 3) respondents who agreed with the Paracelsus maxim had a greater likelihood of finding conventional testing viable; and 4) the more a respondent reported collaborating with industry on alternative testing strategies, the more likely she or he was to report that NAMs were less viable. These results suggest that there are professional and organizational barriers to greater acceptance of NAMs that can be addressed through a social learning process within the professional community. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2020;16:269-281. © 2020 SETAC.

Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain: Part 1, human and animal health

The European Food Safety Authority has produced this Guidance on human and animal health aspects (Part 1) of the risk assessment of nanoscience and nanotechnology applications in the food and feed chain. It covers the application areas within EFSA's remit, e.g. novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The Guidance takes account of the new developments that have taken place since publication of the previous Guidance in 2011. Potential future developments are suggested in the scientific literature for nanoencapsulated delivery systems and nanocomposites in applications such as novel foods, food/feed additives, biocides, pesticides and food contact materials. Therefore, the Guidance has taken account of relevant new scientific studies that provide more insights to physicochemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials. It specifically elaborates on physicochemical characterisation of nanomaterials in terms of how to establish whether a material is a nanomaterial, the key parameters that should be measured, the methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. It also details the aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vivo/in vitro toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. It describes in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials. Depending on the initial tier results, studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, immunotoxicity, allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read‐across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes/mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis, and provides recommendations for further research in this area.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1430/full

Safety assessment of food-contact paper and board using a battery of short-term toxicity tests: European union BIOSAFEPAPER project

An European Union (EU)-funded project QLK1-CT-2001-00930 (BIOSAFEPAPER) involves the development, validation and intercalibration of a short-term battery of toxicological tests for the safety assessment of food-contact paper and board. Dissemination of the results to industry, legislators (e.g. DG Consumer Protection, DG Enterprises, DG Research), standardization bodies such as CEN, and consumers will create an agreed risk evaluation procedure. The project involves pre-normative research in order to establish a set of in-vitro cytotoxicity and genotoxicity tests that will be easily adaptable to food-contact fibre-based materials and have endpoints relevant to consumer safety, including sub-lethal cellular events. These tests will be performed on samples representing actual migration conditions from food-contact paper and board with respect to different foodstuffs, and should form an experimental basis for scientifically sound recommendations for a harmonized system of risk evaluation and product testing.

An investigation of new toxicity test method performance in validation studies: 2. Comparison of three measures of toxicity test performance

An area that requires further research is how best to measure test method performance in validation studies and how to set criteria that should be used to judge the adequacy of this performance. The studies reported here were designed to begin an investigation of these questions. Computer simulations were used to generate data sets similar to those that might be obtained from a large validation study. These data were then analysed using three procedures including determination of the 95% prediction interval (PI), calculation of Pearson's correlation coefficient and calculation of the contingent probability statistics (CPS), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The results of this work suggest that of the three approaches examined, quantitative measurements with calculation of the 95% PI provide the most information to allow discrimination between the performance of several different NTMs. The results also suggest that dividing data sets into positive and negative toxicity classifications followed by the calculation of CPS leads to considerable information loss. This loss of information may be so significant that it is not possible in certain circumstances to distinguish between NTMs that are adequate and those that are not.