Humans and wildlife are exposed to an intractably large number of different combinations of chemicals via food, water, air, consumer products, and other media and sources. This raises concerns about their impact on public and environmental health. The risk assessment of chemicals for regulatory purposes mainly relies on the assessment of individual chemicals. If exposure to multiple chemicals is considered in a legislative framework, it is usually limited to chemicals falling within this framework and co-exposure to chemicals that are covered by a different regulatory framework is often neglected. Methodologies and guidance for assessing risks from combined exposure to multiple chemicals have been developed for different regulatory sectors, however, a harmonised, consistent approach for performing mixture risk assessments and management across different regulatory sectors is lacking. At the time of this publication, several EU research projects are running, funded by the current European Research and Innovation Programme Horizon 2020 or the Seventh Framework Programme. They aim at addressing knowledge gaps and developing methodologies to better assess chemical mixtures, by generating and making available internal and external exposure data, developing models for exposure assessment, developing tools for in silico and in vitro effect assessment to be applied in a tiered framework and for grouping of chemicals, as well as developing joint epidemiological-toxicological approaches for mixture risk assessment and for prioritising mixtures of concern. The projects EDC-MixRisk, EuroMix, EUToxRisk, HBM4EU and SOLUTIONS have started an exchange between the consortia, European Commission Services and EU Agencies, in order to identify where new methodologies have become available and where remaining gaps need to be further addressed. This paper maps how the different projects contribute to the data needs and assessment methodologies and identifies remaining challenges to be further addressed for the assessment of chemical mixtures.

Dietary (co)-exposure to mycotoxins is associated with human and animal health concerns as well as economic losses. This study aims to give a data-based insight from the scientific literature on the (co-)occurrence of mycotoxins (i.e., parent and modified forms) in European core cereals, and to estimate potential patterns of co-exposure in humans and animals. Mycotoxins were mainly reported in wheat and maize showing the highest concentrations of fumonisins (FBs), deoxynivalenol (DON), aflatoxins (AFs), and zearalenone (ZEN). The maximum concentrations of FB₁+FB₂ were reported in maize both in feed and food and were above legal maximum levels (MLs). Similar results were observed in DON-food, whose max concentrations in wheat, barley, maize, and oat exceeded the MLs. Co-occurrence was reported in 54.9% of total records, meaning that they were co-contaminated with at least two mycotoxins. In the context of parental mycotoxins, co-occurrence of DON was frequently observed with FBs in maize and ZEN in wheat; DON + NIV and DON + T2/HT2 were frequently reported in barley and oat, respectively. Apart from the occurrence of ZEN and its phase I and phase II modified forms, only a limited number of quantified data were available for other modified forms; i.e., mainly the acetyl derivatives of DON. Data gaps are highlighted together with the need for monitoring studies on multiple mycotoxins to identify co-occurrence patterns for parent mycotoxins, metabolites, and their modified forms.

Current approaches to risk assessment in bees do not take into account co-exposures from multiple stressors. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is deploying resources and efforts to move towards a holistic risk assessment approach of multiple stressors in bees. This paper describes the general principles of pesticide risk assessment in bees, including recent developments at EFSA dealing with risk assessment of single and multiple pesticide residues and biological hazards. The EFSA Guidance Document on the risk assessment of plant protection products in bees highlights the need for the inclusion of an uncertainty analysis, other routes of exposures and multiple stressors such as chemical mixtures and biological agents. The EFSA risk assessment on the survival, spread and establishment of the small hive beetle, Aethina tumida, an invasive alien species, is provided with potential insights for other bee pests such as the Asian hornet, Vespa velutina. Furthermore, data gaps are identified at each step of the risk assessment, and recommendations are made for future research that could be supported under the framework of Horizon 2020. Finally, the recent work conducted at EFSA is presented, under the overarching MUST-B project ("EU efforts towards the development of a holistic approach for the risk assessment on MUltiple STressors in Bees") comprising a toolbox for harmonised data collection under field conditions and a mechanistic model to assess effects from pesticides and other stressors such as biological agents and beekeeping management practices, at the colony level and in a spatially complex landscape. Future perspectives at EFSA include the development of a data model to collate high quality data to calibrate and validate the model to be used as a regulatory tool. Finally, the evidence collected within the framework of MUST-B will support EFSA's activities on the development of a holistic approach to the risk assessment of multiple stressors in bees. In conclusion, EFSA calls for collaborative action at the EU level to establish a common and open access database to serve multiple purposes and different stakeholders.

The internal validity of conclusions about effectiveness or impact in systematic reviews, and of decisions based on them, depends on risk of bias assessments being conducted appropriately. However, a random sample of 50 recently-published articles claiming to be quantitative environmental systematic reviews found 64% did not include any risk of bias assessment, whilst nearly all that did omitted key sources of bias. Other limitations included lack of transparency, conflation of quality constructs, and incomplete application of risk of bias assessments to the data synthesis. This paper addresses deficiencies in risk of bias assessments by highlighting core principles that are required for risk of bias assessments to be fit-for-purpose, and presenting a framework based on these principles to guide review teams on conducting risk of bias assessments appropriately and consistently. The core principles require that risk of bias assessments be Focused, Extensive, Applied and Transparent (FEAT). These principles support risk of bias assessments, appraisal of risk of bias tools, and the development of new tools. The framework follows a Plan-Conduct-Apply-Report approach covering all stages of risk of bias assessment. The scope of this paper is comparative quantitative environmental systematic reviews which address PICO or PECO-type questions including, but not limited to, topic areas such as environmental management, conservation, ecosystem restoration, and analyses of environmental interventions, exposures, impacts and risks.