Suchergebnisse

Monitoring and Quality Assurance in the Food Supply Chain is a Network of Excellence funded by the European Union. This Network of Excellence aims to make food safer by harmonizing the quality of methods used for food control. Part of this process involves the development and validation of new methods, including rapid methods and emerging technologies; the production of practical harmonized guidance on method validation and criteria for analytical methods; and the production of reference and testing materials to be used for food control. New technologies and analytical research enable us to measure new and emerging food contaminants and other chemicals that may be a threat to the health of the consumer. Once risk assessment confirms the threat, legislation may be enacted to limit the amount of these chemicals present in food that is sold. In order to enforce this legislation it is necessary to be able to detect the presence of chemical and measure its concentration in food. Hence, the consumer protection provided by enforcement depends on how well the measurement method performs. We need to be confident that measurement methods are performing sufficiently well to protect the consumer, without leading to the rejection of large quantities of food that comply with legislation. A number of approaches that can be used to provide confidence include: the use of standard methods, the use of analytical criteria that describe the performance of a method, and consideration of fitness for purpose based on measurement uncertainty. This paper examines the utility and ease of application of the different approaches. In addition a simple method for assessing fitness for purpose, the uncertainty profile, is discussed.

Following a request from the German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), the EFSA Panel for Contaminants in the Food Chain was asked to deliver a statement on the presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in food, with particular focus on seafood. Primary microplastics are plastics originally manufactured to be that size, while secondary microplastics originate from fragmentation. Nanoplastics can originate from engineered material or can be produced during fragmentation of microplastic debris. Microplastics range from 0.1 to 5,000 μm and nanoplastics from approximately 1 to 100 nm (0.001–0.1 μm). There is no legislation for microplastics and nanoplastics as contaminants in food. Methods are available for identification and quantification of microplastics in food, including seafood. Occurrence data are limited. In contrast to microplastics no methods or occurrence data in food are available for nanoplastics. Microplastics can contain on average 4% of additives and the plastics can adsorb contaminants. Both additives and contaminants can be of organic as well of inorganic nature. Based on a conservative estimate the presence of microplastics in seafood would have a small effect on the overall exposure to additives or contaminants. Toxicity and toxicokinetic data are lacking for both microplastics and nanoplastics for a human risk assessment. It is recommended that analytical methods should be further developed for microplastics and developed for nanoplastics and standardised, in order to assess their presence, identity and to quantify their amount in food. Furthermore, quality assurance should be in place and demonstrated. For microplastics and nanoplastics, occurrence data in food, including effects of food processing, in particular, for the smaller sized particles (< 150 μm) should be generated. Research on the toxicokinetics and toxicity, including studies on local effects in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract, are needed as is research on the degradation of microplastics and potential formation of nanoplastics in the human GI tract.

Abstract
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a safety assessment approach for microorganisms intended for use in food or feed chains. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. The TUs in the QPS list were updated based on a verification, against their respective authoritative databases, of the correctness of the names and completeness of synonyms. A new procedure has been established to ensure the TUs are kept up to date in relation to recent taxonomical insights. Of 83 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2023 and March 2024 (47 as feed additives, 25 as food enzymes or additives, 11 as novel foods), 75 were not evaluated because: 15 were filamentous fungi, 1 was Enterococcus faecium, 10 were Escherichia coli, 1 was a Streptomyces (all excluded from the QPS evaluation) and 48 were TUs that already have a QPS status. Two of the other eight notifications were already evaluated for a possible QPS status in the previous Panel Statement: Heyndrickxia faecalis (previously Weizmannia faecalis) and Serratia marcescens. One was notified at genus level so could not be assessed for QPS status. The other five notifications belonging to five TUs were assessed for possible QPS status. Akkermansia muciniphila and Actinomadura roseirufa were still not recommended for QPS status due to safety concerns. Rhizobium radiobacter can be recommended for QPS status with the qualification for production purposes. Microbacterium arborescens and Burkholderia stagnalis cannot be included in the QPS list due to a lack of body of knowledge for its use in the food and feed chain and for B. stagnalis also due to safety concerns. A. roseirufa and B. stagnalis have been excluded from further QPS assessment.