Suchergebnisse

Abstract
The European Commission asked EFSA for a risk assessment on small organoarsenic species in food. For monomethylarsonic acid MMA(V), decreased body weight resulting from diarrhoea in rats was identified as the critical endpoint and a BMDL10 of 18.2 mg MMA(V)/kg body weight (bw) per day (equivalent to 9.7 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as a reference point (RP). For dimethylarsinic acid DMA(V), increased incidence in urinary bladder tumours in rats was identified as the critical endpoint. A BMDL10 of 1.1 mg DMA(V)/kg bw per day (equivalent to 0.6 mg As/kg bw per day) was calculated as an RP. For other small organoarsenic species, the toxicological data are insufficient to identify critical effects and RPs, and they could not be included in the risk assessment. For both MMA(V) and DMA(V), the toxicological database is incomplete and a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied for risk characterisation. The highest chronic dietary exposure to DMA(V) was estimated in 'Toddlers', with rice and fish meat as the main contributors across population groups. For MMA(V), the highest chronic dietary exposures were estimated for high consumers of fish meat and processed/preserved fish in 'Infants' and 'Elderly' age class, respectively. For MMA(V), an MOE of ≥ 500 was identified not to raise a health concern. For MMA(V), all MOEs were well above 500 for average and high consumers and thus do not raise a health concern. For DMA(V), an MOE of 10,000 was identified as of low health concern as it is genotoxic and carcinogenic, although the mechanisms of genotoxicity and its role in carcinogenicity of DMA(V) are not fully elucidated. For DMA(V), MOEs were below 10,000 in many cases across dietary surveys and age groups, in particular for some 95th percentile exposures. The Panel considers that this would raise a health concern.

Abstract
In accordance with the EFSA Strategy 2027 outlining the need for fit‐for‐purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments, the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (PLH Panel) developed standard protocols to harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs for mandates addressing recurrent scientific questions. Three types of recurring EFSA plant health mandates require generic scientific assessments: (i) pest categorisation; (ii) commodity risk assessment for the purpose of derogation to provisions of the EU plant health law and (iii) quantitative pest risk assessment. The three standard protocols are tailored to the appropriate level of detail and build on the existing guidance documents laying out the methods for conducting risk assessment in the plant health domain. To develop a standard protocol for pest categorisation, the PLH Panel adapted the latest version of the standard template reporting the evidence needs and the assessment questions to conclude whether a pest fulfils the criteria for being considered a potential quarantine pest for the EU. To develop a standard protocol for commodity risk assessment, the PLH Panel adapted the procedure and standard templates used for commodity risk assessment of high risk plants. To develop a standard protocol for quantitative pest risk assessments (qPRA), the Panel reviewed the existing guidance document on qPRA and the qPRAs published by the PLH Panel. The hierarchy of assessment questions and sub‐questions used were identified and extracted. Based on this, a hierarchically organised IT‐tool was formulated as protocol for the planning and documentation of future qPRAs.