Dataset Information

Is scientific assessment a scientific discipline?: A reflection paper on EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

ABSTRACT: EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, was established in 2002 as the EU's independent risk assessment body for food and feed safety. This paper takes stock of what has been achieved and what challenges lie ahead. To do so, it first reviews scientific assessments conducted by EFSA from the perspective of a scientific experiment. This includes a hypothesis that is examined by scientific experts using existing evidence and employing agreed-upon assessment methods, the results of which are made public. Next, it considers a number of characteristics legitimising this work: quality, consistency, independence and impartiality, as well as transparency and openness. Other key considerations are relevance, evolving expectations and innovations, fitness-for-purpose and efficiency, along with sustainability of the system. By and large, the scientific assessment process in place at EFSA can be understood to mimic the conduct of a scientific experiment. However, being a regulatory support mechanism, it has some distinct characteristics. Therefore, its legitimising characteristics are not necessarily identical to those used in academic research. In conclusion, since its creation 15 years ago, EFSA has very much delivered on its mission. Whatever the achievements, the EU cannot rest on its laurels though.

SUBMITTER: Deluyker H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7009995 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is scientific assessment a scientific discipline?: A reflection paper on EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

Deluyker Hubert H

EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority 20171115 11

EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority, was established in 2002 as the EU's independent risk assessment body for food and feed safety. This paper takes stock of what has been achieved and what challenges lie ahead. To do so, it first reviews scientific assessments conducted by EFSA from the perspective of a scientific experiment. This includes a hypothesis that is examined by scientific experts using existing evidence and employing agreed-upon assessment methods, the results of which are made ...[more]

PMID: 32625362

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMON89788 was the first genetically engineered soybean worldwide to express a Bt toxin. Under the brand name Intacta, Monsanto subsequently engineered a stacked trait soybean using MON89788 and MON87701-this stacked soybean expresses an insecticidal toxin and is, in addition, tolerant to glyphosate. After undergoing risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the stacked event was authorised for import into the EU in June 2012, including for use in food and feed. This review discusses the health risks associated with Bt toxins present in these genetically engineered plants and the residues left from spraying with the complementary herbicide.ResultsWe have compared the opinion published by EFSA [1] with findings from other publications in the scientific literature. It is evident that there are several issues that EFSA did not consider in detail and which will need further assessment: (1) There are potential combinatorial effects between plant components and other impact factors that might enhance toxicity. (2) It is known that Bt toxins have immunogenic properties; since soybeans naturally contain many allergens, these immunogenic properties raise specific questions. (3) Fully evaluated and reliable protocols for measuring the Bt concentration in the plants are needed, in addition to a comprehensive set of data on gene expression under varying environmental conditions. (4) Specific attention should be paid to the herbicide residues and their interaction with Bt toxins.ConclusionsThe case of the Intacta soybeans highlights several regulatory problems with Bt soybean plants in the EU. Moreover, many of the issues raised also concern other genetically engineered plants that express insecticidal proteins, or are engineered to be resistant to herbicides, or have those two types of traits combined in stacked events. It remains a matter of debate whether the standards currently applied by the risk assessor, EFSA, and the risk manager, the EU Commission, meet the standards for risk analysis defined in EU regulations such as 1829/2003 and Directive 2001/18. While this publication cannot provide a final conclusion, it allows the development of some robust hypotheses that should be investigated further before such plants can be considered to be safe for health and the environment. In general, the concept of comparative risk assessment needs some major revision. Priority should be given to developing more targeted approaches. As shown in the case of Intacta, these approaches should include: (i) systematic investigation of interactions between the plant genome and environmental stressors as well as their impact on gene expression and plant composition; (ii) detailed investigations of the toxicity of Bt toxins; (iii) assessment of combinatorial effects taking into account long-term effects and the residues from spraying with complementary herbicides; (iv) investigation into the impact on the immune and hormonal systems and (v) investigation of the impact on the intestinal microbiome after consumption. Further and in general, stacked events displaying a high degree of complexity due to possible interactions should not undergo a lower level of risk assessment than the parental plants.

Project description:EFSA and EMA have jointly reviewed measures taken in the EU to reduce the need for and use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals, and the resultant impacts on antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Reduction strategies have been implemented successfully in some Member States. Such strategies include national reduction targets, benchmarking of antimicrobial use, controls on prescribing and restrictions on use of specific critically important antimicrobials, together with improvements to animal husbandry and disease prevention and control measures. Due to the multiplicity of factors contributing to AMR, the impact of any single measure is difficult to quantify, although there is evidence of an association between reduction in antimicrobial use and reduced AMR. To minimise antimicrobial use, a multifaceted integrated approach should be implemented, adapted to local circumstances. Recommended options (non-prioritised) include: development of national strategies; harmonised systems for monitoring antimicrobial use and AMR development; establishing national targets for antimicrobial use reduction; use of on-farm health plans; increasing the responsibility of veterinarians for antimicrobial prescribing; training, education and raising public awareness; increasing the availability of rapid and reliable diagnostics; improving husbandry and management procedures for disease prevention and control; rethinking livestock production systems to reduce inherent disease risk. A limited number of studies provide robust evidence of alternatives to antimicrobials that positively influence health parameters. Possible alternatives include probiotics and prebiotics, competitive exclusion, bacteriophages, immunomodulators, organic acids and teat sealants. Development of a legislative framework that permits the use of specific products as alternatives should be considered. Further research to evaluate the potential of alternative farming systems on reducing AMR is also recommended. Animals suffering from bacterial infections should only be treated with antimicrobials based on veterinary diagnosis and prescription. Options should be reviewed to phase out most preventive use of antimicrobials and to reduce and refine metaphylaxis by applying recognised alternative measures.

Project description:EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub-questions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and - not covered in this guidance - generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone 'template' for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

Project description:EFSA is requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notification for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended), and the completeness of the body of knowledge are assessed. Identified safety concerns for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. The list of QPS recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore becomes the valid list. The 2016 update reviews previously assessed microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts and viruses used for plant protection purposes following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. The taxonomic units related to the new notifications received since the 2013 QPS opinion, were periodically evaluated for a QPS status and the results published as Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel. Carnobacterium divergens, Lactobacillus diolivorans, Microbacterium imperiale, Pasteuria nishizawae, Pediococcus parvulus, Bacillus flexus, Bacillus smithii, Xanthomonas campestris and Candida cylindracea were recommended for the QPS list. All taxonomic units previously recommended for the 2013 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well their qualifications with the exception of Pasteuria nishizawae for which the qualification was removed. The exclusion of filamentous fungi and enterococci from the QPS evaluations was reconsidered but monitoring will be maintained and the status will be re-evaluated in the next QPS Opinion update. Evaluation of bacteriophages should remain as a case-by-case procedure and should not be considered for QPS status.

Dataset Information

Is scientific assessment a scientific discipline?: A reflection paper on EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

Publications

Is scientific assessment a scientific discipline?: A reflection paper on EFSA, the European Food Safety Authority.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets