Sulfur dioxide–sulfites (E 220–228) were re‐evaluated in 2016, resulting in the setting of a temporary ADI of 0.7 mg SO₂ equivalents/kg bw per day. Following a European Commission call for data, the present follow‐up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs) and additional evidence identified in the publicly available literature. No new biological or toxicological data addressing the data gaps described in the re‐evaluation were submitted by IBOs. Taking into account data identified from the literature search, the Panel concluded that there was no substantial reduction in the uncertainties previously identified in the re‐evaluation. Therefore, the Panel considered that the available toxicity database was inadequate to derive an ADI and withdrew the current temporary group acceptable daily intake (ADI). A margin of exposure (MOE) approach was considered appropriate to assess the risk for these food additives. A lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose of 38 mg SO₂ equivalents/kg bw per day, which is lower than the previous reference point of 70 mg SO₂ equivalents/kg bw per day, was estimated based on prolonged visual evoked potential latency. An assessment factor of 80 was applied for the assessment of the MoE. At the estimated dietary exposures, when using a refined exposure scenario (Data set D), MOEs at the maximum of 95th percentile ranges were below 80 for all population groups except for adolescents. The dietary exposures estimated using the maximum permitted levels would result in MOEs below 80 in all population groups at the maximum of the ranges of the mean, and for most of the population groups at both minimum and maximum of the ranges at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that this raises a safety concern for both dietary exposure scenarios. The Panel also performed a risk assessment for toxic elements present in sulfur dioxide–sulfites (E 220–228), based on data submitted by IBOs, and concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for arsenic, lead and mercury should be lowered and a maximum limit for cadmium should be introduced.

Biomonitoring has been widely used in assessing exposures in both occupational and public health complementing chemical risk assessments because it measures the concentrations of chemical substances in human body fluids (e.g., urine and blood). Biomonitoring considers all routes and sources of exposure. An occupational biomonitoring guidance document has been elaborated (OECD Occupational Biomonitoring Guidance) within the OECD framework and specifically, the Working Parties on Exposure and Hazard Assessment by scientific experts from 40 institutes and organizations representing 15 countries. The guidance provides practical information for assessing chemical exposures in occupational settings including the three common routes of exposure: inhalation, skin absorption and ingestion due to hand to mouth contact. The elaborated stepwise approach for conducting biomonitoring is tailored for occupational health professionals, scientists, risk assessors, and regulators. It includes methods for selecting appropriate biomarkers, devising sampling strategies, and assessing laboratories for validated analytical methods for the biomarker of interest, and ensuring timely feedback of results. Furthermore, it describes procedures for setting up efficient biomonitoring programs based on the Similar Exposure Group (SEG) approaches. Derived health-based human exposure biomarker assessment values called Occupational Biomonitoring Levels (OBLs) are proposed for use in occupational exposure and risk assessment. It also helps with the interpretation of biomonitoring results routinely collected and procedures for communicating biomonitoring results at individual, collective, and workplace levels. Ethical considerations associated with biomonitoring are also discussed. The ultimate goal of this biomonitoring approach is to promote harmonized application and interpretation of biomarkers as well as evidence-based occupational risk management measures.

Antibody Drug Conjugates (ADCs) are complex multi-domain biotherapeutics which combine, with the aid of a chemical linker, tumor-targeting antibodies with potent small molecule cytotoxicants (also called warhead or payload) for the treatment of cancer. ADCs are a rapidly growing class of pharmaceuticals with nine FDA-approved drugs already on the market and over eighty at different stages of clinical development, and also an increasing number under evaluation for non-oncological indications. Off-target toxicity and a narrow therapeutic index has been a problem with ADCs. This has driven the search for better targeting (disease models, cell surface antigens), linker stability, and payload specificity. Analysis of regulatory approval documents, scientific publications and ICH guidance shows that safety evaluation of ADCs requires novel integrated strategies different from both standard chemotherapy and antibody-based products, e.g. development and validation of ADC analytical assays. There is no ADC-specific guidance on safety evaluation; current guidance emphasises the need for an adaptive approach but more ADC-specific guidance is now arguably possible. The data now available will help to optimize primary target specificity, select appropriate combination partners, develop in silico models, and provide guidance for preclinical and clinical safety evaluation for the next generation of this class of multi-domain therapeutics.

Chemical skin sensitizers produce allergic contact dermatitis, which is one of the most frequent occupational diseases associated with chemical exposures. Skin exposure is the major route of exposure when using plant protection products (PPPs). Therefore, skin sensitization is an important factor to be addressed during the regulatory risk assessment of PPPs. The main regulatory decision criterion considered when performing risk assessment for skin sensitizers is the dose applied. The equally important criteria "potency of the substance" is insufficiently considered by two potency categories as potency may vary up to five orders of magnitude. "Frequency of exposure" to the skin sensitizer is not considered at all. Consequently, an improved risk assessment methodology is essential to adequately assess health risks from skin sensitizers, especially for agricultural operators using PPPs. A quantitative risk assessment (QRA) approach for addressing PPPs sensitizing potential is proposed here. This QRA combines a methodology to derive a substance-specific threshold for skin sensitizers, a Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL), and an agricultural exposure model used for assessing chronic health risks of PPPs. The proposed QRA for skin sensitizing PPPs is a clear improvement over current risk assessment to ensure the safe use of skin sensitizers in an occupational context.

Processed meat (PM) intake is associated with health risks, but data are lacking in Switzerland. Using national representative data from a recent menuCH Survey, we first aimed to quantify intake of PM and its subtypes, and second to investigate associations with sociodemographic and lifestyle factors by multivariable regression analysis. PM was consumed by 72% of the population, and mean daily intake was 42.7 g/day (standard error of the mean (SEM) 1.2 g/day), ranging considerably across PM subtypes: highest intake of sausages 18.1 g/day (SEM 0.7 g/day) and lowest of bacon 2.0 g/day (SEM 0.2 g/day). PM intake by women was 4.7 g/1000 kcal lower than men (95% confidence interval (CI): −6.7; −2.7) and 2.9 g/1000 kcal lower in the French- language region compared with the German region (95% CI: 2.4; 8.7). Among sociodemographic and lifestyle factors examined, BMI (obese vs. normal: 5.5 g/1000 kcal, 95% CI: 2.4; 8.7) and current smoking (vs. never smoked: 3.1 g/kcal, 95% CI: 0.6; 5.6) were independently associated with PM intake. The results are a first description of PM intake, separate from other meat types, and which identified associations with two unhealthy lifestyle factors in Switzerland. Such data will contribute to better nutritional recommendations and guidance for public health interventions.