Heavy metal and nitrogen concentrations in mosses are declining across Europe whilst some "hotspots" remain in 2010

In recent decades, naturally growing mosses have been used successfully as biomonitors of atmospheric deposition of heavy metals and nitrogen. Since 1990, the European moss survey has been repeated at five-yearly intervals. In 2010, the lowest concentrations of metals and nitrogen in mosses were generally found in northern Europe, whereas the highest concentrations were observed in (south-)eastern Europe for metals and the central belt for nitrogen. Averaged across Europe, since 1990, the median concentration in mosses has declined the most for lead (77%), followed by vanadium (55%), cadmium (51%), chromium (43%), zinc (34%), nickel (33%), iron (27%), arsenic (21%, since 1995), mercury (14%, since 1995) and copper (11%). Between 2005 and 2010, the decline ranged from 6% for copper to 36% for lead; for nitrogen the decline was 5%. Despite the Europe-wide decline, no changes or increases have been observed between 2005 and 2010 in some (regions of) countries.

Country-specific correlations across Europe between modelled atmospheric cadmium and lead deposition and concentrations in mosses

Previous analyses at the European scale have shown that cadmium and lead concentrations in mosses are primarily determined by the total deposition of these metals. Further analyses in the current study show that Spearman rank correlations between the concentration in mosses and the deposition modelled by the European Monitoring and Evaluation Programme (EMEP) are country and metal-specific. Significant positive correlations were found for about two thirds or more of the participating countries in 1990, 1995, 2000 and 2005 (except for Cd in 1990). Correlations were often not significant and sometimes negative in countries where mosses were only sampled in a relatively small number of EMEP grids. Correlations frequently improved when only data for EMEP grids with at least three moss sampling sites per grid were included. It was concluded that spatial patterns and temporal trends agree reasonably well between lead and cadmium concentrations in mosses and modelled atmospheric deposition.

Looking beyond borders: integrating best practices in benefit-risk analysis into the field of food and nutrition

An integrated benefit-risk analysis aims to give guidance in decision situations where benefits do not clearly prevail over risks, and explicit weighing of benefits and risks is thus indicated. The BEPRARIBEAN project aims to advance benefit-risk analysis in the area of food and nutrition by learning from other fields. This paper constitutes the final stage of the project, in which commonalities and differences in benefit-risk analysis are identified between the Food and Nutrition field and other fields, namely Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics and Marketing-Finance, and Consumer Perception. From this, ways forward are characterized for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition. Integrated benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition may advance in the following ways: Increased engagement and communication between assessors, managers, and stakeholders; more pragmatic problem-oriented framing of assessment; accepting some risk; pre- and post-market analysis; explicit communication of the assessment purpose, input and output; more human (dose-response) data and more efficient use of human data; segmenting populations based on physiology; explicit consideration of value judgments in assessment; integration of multiple benefits and risks from multiple domains; explicit recognition of the impact of consumer beliefs, opinions, views, perceptions, and attitudes on behaviour; and segmenting populations based on behaviour; the opportunities proposed here do not provide ultimate solutions; rather, they define a collection of issues to be taken account of in developing methods, tools, practices and policies, as well as refining the regulatory context, for benefit-risk analysis in Food and Nutrition and other fields. Thus, these opportunities will now need to be explored further and incorporated into benefit-risk practice and policy. If accepted, incorporation of these opportunities will also involve a paradigm shift in Food and Nutrition benefit-risk analysis towards conceiving the analysis as a process of creating shared knowledge among all stakeholders.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: food and nutrition

Benefit-risk assessment in food and nutrition is relatively new. It weighs the beneficial and adverse effects that a food (component) may have, in order to facilitate more informed management decisions regarding public health issues. It is rooted in the recognition that good food and nutrition can improve health and that some risk may be acceptable if benefit is expected to outweigh it. This paper presents an overview of current concepts and practices in benefit-risk analysis for food and nutrition. It aims to facilitate scientists and policy makers in performing, interpreting and evaluating benefit-risk assessments. Historically, the assessments of risks and benefits have been separate processes. Risk assessment is mainly addressed by toxicology, as demanded by regulation. It traditionally assumes that a maximum safe dose can be determined from experimental studies (usually in animals) and that applying appropriate uncertainty factors then defines the 'safe' intake for human populations. There is a minor role for other research traditions in risk assessment, such as epidemiology, which quantifies associations between determinants and health effects in humans. These effects can be both adverse and beneficial. Benefit assessment is newly developing in regulatory terms, but has been the subject of research for a long time within nutrition and epidemiology. The exact scope is yet to be defined. Reductions in risk can be termed benefits, but also states rising above 'the average health' are explored as benefits. In nutrition, current interest is in 'optimal' intake; from a population perspective, but also from a more individualised perspective. In current approaches to combine benefit and risk assessment, benefit assessment mirrors the traditional risk assessment paradigm of hazard identification, hazard characterization, exposure assessment and risk characterization. Benefit-risk comparison can be qualitative and quantitative. In a quantitative comparison, benefits and risks are expressed in a common currency, for which the input may be deterministic or (increasingly more) probabilistic. A tiered approach is advocated, as this allows for transparency, an early stop in the analysis and interim interaction with the decision-maker. A general problem in the disciplines underlying benefit-risk assessment is that good dose-response data, i.e. at relevant intake levels and suitable for the target population, are scarce. It is concluded that, provided it is clearly explained, benefit-risk assessment is a valuable approach to systematically show current knowledge and its gaps and to transparently provide the best possible science-based answer to complicated questions with a large potential impact on public health.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: introduction

Risk-taking is normal in everyday life if there are associated (perceived) benefits. Benefit-Risk Analysis (BRA) compares the risk of a situation to its related benefits and addresses the acceptability of the risk. Over the past years BRA in relation to food and food ingredients has gained attention. Food, and even the same food ingredient, may confer both beneficial and adverse effects. Measures directed at food safety may lead to suboptimal or insufficient levels of ingredients from a benefit perspective. In BRA, benefits and risks of food (ingredients) are assessed in one go and may conditionally be expressed into one currency. This allows the comparison of adverse and beneficial effects to be qualitative and quantitative. A BRA should help policy-makers to make more informed and balanced benefit-risk management decisions. Not allowing food benefits to occur in order to guarantee food safety is a risk management decision much the same as accepting some risk in order to achieve more benefits. BRA in food and nutrition is making progress, but difficulties remain. The field may benefit from looking across its borders to learn from other research areas. The BEPRARIBEAN project (Best Practices for Risk-Benefit Analysis: experience from out of food into food; http://en.opasnet.org/w/Bepraribean) aims to do so, by working together with Medicines, Food Microbiology, Environmental Health, Economics & Marketing-Finance and Consumer Perception. All perspectives are reviewed and subsequently integrated to identify opportunities for further development of BRA for food and food ingredients. Interesting issues that emerge are the varying degrees of risk that are deemed acceptable within the areas and the trend towards more open and participatory BRA processes. A set of 6 'state of the art' papers covering the above areas and a paper integrating the separate (re)views are published in this volume.

State of the art in benefit-risk analysis: food microbiology

Over the past years benefit-risk analysis (BRA) in relation to foods and food ingredients has gained much attention; in Europe and worldwide. BRA relating to food microbiology is however a relatively new field of research. Microbiological risk assessment is well defined but assessment of microbial benefits and the weighing of benefits and risk has not been systematically addressed. In this paper the state of the art in benefit-risk analysis in food microbiology is presented, with a brief overview of microbiological food safety practices. The quality and safety of foods is commonly best preserved by delaying the growth of spoilage bacteria and contamination by bacterial pathogens. However, microorganisms in food can be both harmful and beneficial. Many microorganisms are integral to various food production processes e.g. the production of beer, wine and various dairy products. Moreover, the use of some microorganisms in the production of fermented foods are often claimed to have beneficial effects on food nutrition and consumer health. Furthermore, food safety interventions leading to reduced public exposure to foodborne pathogens can be regarded as benefits. The BRA approach integrates an independent assessment of both risks and benefits and weighs the two using a common currency. Recently, a number of initiatives have been launched in the field of food and nutrition to address the formulation of the benefit-risk assessment approach. BRA has recently been advocated by EFSA for the public health management of food and food ingredients; as beneficial and adverse chemicals can often be found within the same foods and even the same ingredients. These recent developments in the scoping of BRA could be very relevant for food microbiological issues. BRA could become a valuable methodology to support evaluations and decision making regarding microbiological food safety and public health, supplementing other presently available policy making and administrative tools for microbiological food safety management.

Mosses as biomonitors of atmospheric heavy metal deposition: spatial patterns and temporal trends in Europe

In recent decades, mosses have been used successfully as biomonitors of atmospheric deposition of heavy metals. Since 1990, the European moss survey has been repeated at five-yearly intervals. Although spatial patterns were metal-specific, in 2005 the lowest concentrations of metals in mosses were generally found in Scandinavia, the Baltic States and northern parts of the UK; the highest concentrations were generally found in Belgium and south-eastern Europe. The recent decline in emission and subsequent deposition of heavy metals across Europe has resulted in a decrease in the heavy metal concentration in mosses for the majority of metals. Since 1990, the concentration in mosses has declined the most for arsenic, cadmium, iron, lead and vanadium (52-72%), followed by copper, nickel and zinc (20-30%), with no significant reduction being observed for mercury (12% since 1995) and chromium (2%). However, temporal trends were country-specific with sometimes increases being found.