In June 2005, a World Health Organization (WHO)-International Programme on Chemical Safety expert meeting was held in Geneva during which the toxic equivalency factors (TEFs) for dioxin-like compounds, including some polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), were reevaluated. For this reevaluation process, the refined TEF database recently published by Haws et al. (2006, Toxicol. Sci. 89, 4–30) was used as a starting point. Decisions about a TEF value were made based on a combination of unweighted relative effect potency (REP) distributions from this database, expert judgment, and point estimates. Previous TEFs were assigned in increments of 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, etc., but for this reevaluation, it was decided to use half order of magnitude increments on a logarithmic scale of 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, etc. Changes were decided by the expert panel for 2,3,4,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.3), 1,2,3,7,8-pentachlorodibenzofuran (PeCDF) (TEF = 0.03), octachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin and octachlorodibenzofuran (TEFs = 0.0003), 3,4,4′,5-tetrachlorbiphenyl (PCB 81) (TEF = 0.0003), 3,3′,4,4′,5,5′-hexachlorobiphenyl (PCB 169) (TEF = 0.03), and a single TEF value (0.00003) for all relevant mono-ortho–substituted PCBs. Additivity, an important prerequisite of the TEF concept was again confirmed by results from recent in vivo mixture studies. Some experimental evidence shows that non-dioxin–like aryl hydrocarbon receptor agonists/antagonists are able to impact the overall toxic potency of 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD) and related compounds, and this needs to be investigated further. Certain individual and groups of compounds were identified for possible future inclusion in the TEF concept, including 3,4,4′-TCB (PCB 37), polybrominated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, mixed polyhalogenated dibenzo-p-dioxins and dibenzofurans, polyhalogenated naphthalenes, and polybrominated biphenyls. Concern was expressed about direct application of the TEF/total toxic equivalency (TEQ) approach to abiotic matrices, such as soil, sediment, etc., for direct application in human risk assessment. This is problematic as the present TEF scheme and TEQ methodology are primarily intended for estimating exposure and risks via oral ingestion (e.g., by dietary intake). A number of future approaches to determine alternative or additional TEFs were also identified. These included the use of a probabilistic methodology to determine TEFs that better describe the associated levels of uncertainty and “systemic” TEFs for blood and adipose tissue and TEQ for body burden.

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.

Ever since the interest in organic environmental contaminants first emerged 50years ago, there has been a need to present discussion of such chemicals and their transformation products using simple abbreviations so as to avoid the repetitive use of long chemical names. As the number of chemicals of concern has increased, the number of abbreviations has also increased dramatically, sometimes resulting in the use of different abbreviations for the same chemical. In this article, we propose abbreviations for flame retardants (FRs) substituted with bromine or chlorine atoms or including a functional group containing phosphorus, i.e. BFRs, CFRs and PFRs, respectively. Due to the large number of halogenated and organophosphorus FRs, it has become increasingly important to develop a strategy for abbreviating the chemical names of FRs. In this paper, a two step procedure is proposed for deriving practical abbreviations (PRABs) for the chemicals discussed. In the first step, structural abbreviations (STABs) are developed using specific STAB criteria based on the FR structure. However, since several of the derived STABs are complicated and long, we propose instead the use of PRABs. These are, commonly, an extract of the most essential part of the STAB, while also considering abbreviations previously used in the literature. We indicate how these can be used to develop an abbreviation that can be generally accepted by scientists and other professionals involved in FR related work. Tables with PRABs and STABs for BFRs, CFRs and PFRs are presented, including CAS (Chemical Abstract Service) numbers, notes of abbreviations that have been used previously, CA (Chemical Abstract) name, common names and trade names, as well as some fundamental physico-chemical constants.

Deoxynivalenol (DON) is a mycotoxin primarily produced by Fusarium fungi, occurring predominantly in cereal grains. Following the request of the European Commission, the CONTAM Panel assessed the risk to animal and human health related to DON, 3‐acetyl‐DON (3‐Ac‐DON), 15‐acetyl‐DON (15‐Ac‐DON) and DON‐3‐glucoside in food and feed. A total of 27,537, 13,892, 7,270 and 2,266 analytical data for DON, 3‐Ac‐DON, 15‐Ac‐DON and DON‐3‐glucoside, respectively, in food, feed and unprocessed grains collected from 2007 to 2014 were used. For human exposure, grains and grain‐based products were main sources, whereas in farm and companion animals, cereal grains, cereal by‐products and forage maize contributed most. DON is rapidly absorbed, distributed, and excreted. Since 3‐Ac‐DON and 15‐Ac‐DON are largely deacetylated and DON‐3‐glucoside cleaved in the intestines the same toxic effects as DON can be expected. The TDI of 1 μg/kg bw per day, that was established for DON based on reduced body weight gain in mice, was therefore used as a group‐TDI for the sum of DON, 3‐Ac‐DON, 15‐Ac‐DON and DON‐3‐glucoside. In order to assess acute human health risk, epidemiological data from mycotoxicoses were assessed and a group‐ARfD of 8 μg/kg bw per eating occasion was calculated. Estimates of acute dietary exposures were below this dose and did not raise a health concern in humans. The estimated mean chronic dietary exposure was above the group‐TDI in infants, toddlers and other children, and at high exposure also in adolescents and adults, indicating a potential health concern. Based on estimated mean dietary concentrations in ruminants, poultry, rabbits, dogs and cats, most farmed fish species and horses, adverse effects are not expected. At the high dietary concentrations, there is a potential risk for chronic adverse effects in pigs and fish and for acute adverse effects in cats and farmed mink.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific evaluation on the risks to human health related to the presence of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in food. Regarding PFOS and PFOA occurrence, the final data set available for dietary exposure assessment contained a total of 20,019 analytical results (PFOS n = 10,191 and PFOA n = 9,828). There were large differences between upper and lower bound exposure due to analytical methods with insufficient sensitivity. The CONTAM Panel considered the lower bound estimates to be closer to true exposure levels. Important contributors to the lower bound mean chronic exposure were ‘Fish and other seafood’, ‘Meat and meat products’ and ‘Eggs and egg products’, for PFOS, and ‘Milk and dairy products’, ‘Drinking water’ and ‘Fish and other seafood’ for PFOA. PFOS and PFOA are readily absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract, excreted in urine and faeces, and do not undergo metabolism. Estimated human half‐lives for PFOS and PFOA are about 5 years and 2–4 years, respectively. The derivation of a health‐based guidance value was based on human epidemiological studies. For PFOS, the increase in serum total cholesterol in adults, and the decrease in antibody response at vaccination in children were identified as the critical effects. For PFOA, the increase in serum total cholesterol was the critical effect. Also reduced birth weight (for both compounds) and increased prevalence of high serum levels of the liver enzyme alanine aminotransferase (ALT) (for PFOA) were considered. After benchmark modelling of serum levels of PFOS and PFOA, and estimating the corresponding daily intakes, the CONTAM Panel established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 13 ng/kg body weight (bw) per week for PFOS and 6 ng/kg bw per week for PFOA. For both compounds, exposure of a considerable proportion of the population exceeds the proposed TWIs.

Concentrations of 24 elements including metals in the 2006 UK Total Diet Study (TDS) were measured and dietary exposures estimated. Composite samples for the 20 TDS food groups (bread, fish, fruit, etc.) were collected from 24 UK towns and analysed for their levels of aluminium, antimony, arsenic, barium, bismuth, cadmium, chromium, copper, germanium, indium, lead, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, palladium, platinum, rhodium, ruthenium, selenium, strontium, thallium, tin, and zinc. Concentrations of each of the elements in the food groups were lower than or similar to those reported in the previous TDS survey, conducted in 2000, with the exception of aluminium, barium, and manganese. Dietary exposures to the 24 elements were estimated for UK consumers and compared with previous estimates made over the last 30 years in order to examine any trends in exposure to these elements in the typical UK diet. Population exposures to the elements have generally declined over time, and exposures to most of these elements remain at low levels. The independent UK Government scientific Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT) commented on the estimated dietary exposures, taking into account their previous evaluations (in 2003 and 2008), and identified no major concerns for the health of consumers, but did advise that there was a need for more information on aluminium and barium, and also commented that dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic and to lead should continue to be reduced.