Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Malt

The kilning of malt occurs at different temperatures, depending on the desired color and aromas. Higher temperatures applied during kilning can be involved in polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) formation in malt. PAHs are undesirable and designated as health hazards, it is important to quantify and qualify them in different malts. Since the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) gave strict recommendations about PAHs in different foods, but omitted malt as a potential hazardous raw material that can cause health damage to beer consumers, the aim of this investigation was to assess the presence of 16 PAHs (naphthalene (Nap), acenaphthylene (Anl), acenaphthene (Ane), fluorene (Flu), anthracene (Ant), phenanthrene (Phen), fluoranthene (Flt), benz[a]anthracene (BaA), pyrene (Pyr), chrysene (Chry), benzo[b]fluoranthene (BbF), benzo[k]fluoranthene (BkF), benzo[a]pyrene (BaP), dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DahA), benzo[ghi]perylene (BghiP), and indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene (InP)) in different, commercially available malts (amber, black, pilsner, and cara-120). The results showed that PAHs are present in different malts, with some in high amounts (BaA in black malt was 737 µg/kg). Minimal levels of BaA were detected in the amber malt, 60.53 µg/kg. The PAH4 (BaP, BaA, BbF, and Chry) sums are identical to the BaA concentrations in all malts and greatly exceed the EFSA prescribed levels for PAH4 in processed cereal-based foods (1 µg/kg).

Xylella fastidiosa (Pierce's disease of grapevines).

Xylella fastidiosa has a wide plant host range and spectrum of insect species capable of serving as vectors which should increase the bacterium's invasiveness and make it difficult to prevent introduction via live plants from the tropical or subtropical Americas. The spread of phony disease of peach within the south-eastern USA from the 1890s until about 1930 and of citrus variegated chlorosis disease of orange throughout Brazil in the 1990s indicates that new strains of X. fastidiosa have the potential to spread over a few years to cause increasing damage. Intersubspecific homologous recombination of strains is implicated in the potential for invasion of new host plants (Nunney et al., 2014). X. fastidiosa represents a very serious threat for the EPPO region. In 2013 the bacterium was reported causing serious damage to olive trees in Puglia, Italy. It was also detected in numerous other host plants (mainly ornamentals). Colonisation of a host with X. fastidiosa does not always equate to disease development and an endophytic life stage has been suggested (Chatterjee et al., 2008). These non-symptomatic hosts and hosts which are slow to develop symptoms can limit the effectiveness of quarantine procedures and may provide a reservoir for maintenance of the pathogen in the wider environment. According to the EFSA Panel on Plant Health (European Food Safety Authority, 2015), establishment and spread of X. fastidiosa in the EU is very likely. The consequences are considered to be major because yield losses and other damage would be high and require costly control measures. X. fastidiosa is included in the EPPO A1 list of pests recommended for regulation as quarantine pests. Among potential insect vectors, only Homalodisca vitripennis, Xyphon fulgida, Draeculacephala minerva and Graphocephala atropunctata are also listed in the EPPO A1 list. The European Food Safety Authority suggests that all xylem sap feeder insects should be regarded as potential vectors of X. fastidiosa. Elbeaino et al. (2014b) detected X. fastidiosa in the phloem feeder Euscelis lineolatus in Italy, suggesting that potential vectors may include phloem feeding insects. Further studies are needed to confirm transmission in E. lineolatus. Newly introduced isolates of X. fastidiosa are likely to be transmitted by endemic vector species even without the introduction of non-native vectors (Almeida et al., 2005).In summary, X. fastidiosa may have the potential to invade agro-ecosystems in Mediterranean regions wherever suitable vectors (overwintering in the adult stage and thus able to inoculate vines during spring) are endemic or become established. The same may be true for tropical-subtropical Asia and Africa.

Caffeine Health Claims on Sports Supplement Labeling. Analytical Assessment According to EFSA Scientific Opinion and International Evidence and Criteria

Caffeine is a food supplement widely consumed by athletes, but it has not been established. So far, the veracity of their labeling in terms of the dosage and cause/effect relationship aimed at the consumer. The aim is to analyze the health claims and the dosage presented on the labeling of caffeine supplements and to evaluate if they follow the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and international criteria. A descriptive cross-sectional study of a sample of caffeine supplements was carried out. The search was done through the Amazon and Google Shopping web portals. In order to assess the adequacy of the health claims, the guidelines of reference established by European Food Safety Authority were compared to the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, International Olympic Committee, and Australian Institute of Sport guidelines; in addition, recent systematic reviews were addressed. A review of labels of 42 caffeine supplements showed that, in less than 3% of the products were the health claims supported by the recommendations and by the labeled quantity of caffeine. The claims that fully complied the recommendations were, “improves or increases endurance performance”, “improves strength performance”, or “improves short-term performance”. In most cases, the recommended dosage was 200 mg/day for these products, which is the minimum for the caffeine effects to be declared. The rest of the health claims were not adequate or need to be modified. Most of the health claims identified indicated an unproven cause and effect, which constitutes consumer fraud, and so must be modified or eliminated.

The role of the European Food Safety Authority in the active substance approval and renewal procedures within the EU pesticide policy

The EU decentralised agencies are involved in various sectorial EU policies and related composite procedures. One of the agencies, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), has a prominent role in the composite procedures within the EU pesticide policy - the active substance approval and renewal procedures. These procedures represent the initial steps in the complex administrative process of placing on the market and control of use of plant protection products. The procedures are arranged under the linear risk analysis model within which the scientific risk assessment is performed by Member States and the EFSA, while the political risk management is performed by the Commission and Member States in the comitology procedure. After a brief analysis of the key stages and outcomes of the procedures, the paper discusses two topics. The first relates to the properties of three key aspects of the EFSA's role in the procedures: 1) involvement in adopting guidance documents; 2) publishing appropriate documents and deciding on confidentiality requests; and 3) preparing and submitting the conclusion, its main scientific output related to active substance. The second topic includes five elements of confidence in the EFSA regarding the course and outcome of the procedure: efficiency, independence, transparency, high scientific quality and effective risk communication. The paper discusses the properties of the elements, the main identified challenges associated with them, as well as ongoing and future responses to these challenges, especially those introduced by the Transparency Regulation, adopted in 2019 and applicable from 27 March 2021.

EFSA under Revision: Transparency and Sustainability in the Food Chain

In a time of structural challenges to the integrity, validity, and reliability of science, the new Regulation 2019/1381 aims to rethink the risk assessment phase for greater transparency and sustainability in the food chain. The novel set of provisions calls, inter alia, for Member States’ and civil society’s involvement in the management structure and scientific panels of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Using the European process of ‘agencification’ as a theoretical background, this analysis addresses which problems the reformed legal framework aims to solve as regards EFSA’s governance and which new questions it simultaneously brings to the forefront.

Why did EFSA not reduce its ADI for aspartame or recommend its use should no longer be permitted?

On behalf of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Kass and Lodi recently published a letter purporting to ‘refute’ our July 2019 analysis of EFSA’s December 2013 assessment of the risks of aspartame. We had previously claimed inter alia that the EFSA panel had evaluated studies that had indicated that aspartame might be harmful far more sceptically than those that had not indicated harm. We reported that EFSA had deemed every one of 73 studies suggesting harm to have been unreliable. Kass and Lodi provided a tabulation with figures that differed from ours in every detail. This commentary shows that, while Kass and Lodi provided a response to our analysis, they have not come close to refuting it. Our analysis provided detailed characterisations of each of the studies and how the panel interpreted them, but Kass and Lodi provide no corresponding information at all. Kass and Lodi claim that EFSA deemed 21 of 35 studies that had indicated possible harm to have been reliable. But if that is so, we now ask: why did the EFSA panel not recommend that aspartame should be banned, or at least tightly restricted?