Scientific Opinion on Priority topics for the development of risk assessment guidance by EFSA’s Scientific Committee

Tabs

Article
EFSA Journal
EFSA Journal 2013;11(8):3345 [20 pp.].
doi
10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3345
Panel members at the time of adoption
Jan Alexander, Diane Benford, Qasim Chaudhry, Anthony Hardy, Michael John Jeger, Robert Luttik, Ambroise Martin, Bernadette Ossendorp, Simon More, Alicja Mortensen, Birgit Nørrung, Joe Perry, Iona Pratt, John Sofos, Josef Schlatter, Kristen Sejrsen
Acknowledgements

The Scientific Committee wishes to thank the members of the Standing Working Group on Guidance Review for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion: Diane Benford, Metka Filipič, Anthony Hardy, Christer Hogstrand, Michael John Jeger, Sirpa Kärenlampi, Catherine Leclercq, Claude Lambré, Robert Luttik, Birgit Nørrung, Josef Schlatter, John Sofos, Hans Herman Thulke, Hans Verhagen, and EFSA staff: Christina Ehlert, Djien Liem, Carla Martino, Daniela Maurici for the support provided to this scientific opinion.

Type
Opinion of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel
On request from
EFSA
Question Number
EFSA-Q-2012-00785
Adopted
17 July 2013
Published in the EFSA Journal
1 August 2013
Affiliation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy
Note
Abstract

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) asked its Scientific Committee to review its own cross cutting risk assessment Guidance Documents to identify gaps requiring either the development of new guidance or the revision of existing guidance. The Scientific Committee identified topics for further strategic discussion without ranking their priority. Four topics were identified as gaps requiring the development of new guidance: the interpretation of epidemiological studies; the use of weight of evidence approach in risk assessment; the identification of biological relevance in toxicology; import risk assessment. Two topics were identified where existing guidance documents require updating or follow up: harmonisation of the assessment of human exposure; terminology in risk assessment. Work for the development of guidance documents is already ongoing on environmental risk assessment, and uncertainty in risk assessment. The assessment of food allergenicity was identified as a further topic where the development of guidance document would be beneficial to applicants and for risk assessment by EFSA. There are some developing scientific issues (e.g. omics, synthetic biology) which the Scientific Committee considers to be too premature for the development of meaningful guidance but which EFSA should keep under review and, when appropriate, should evaluate their importance for food safety risk assessment. The topics identified in this opinion will be discussed further within EFSA to develop its multiannual workplan, the strategic work programme of the Scientific Committee and future priorities.

Keywords
risk assessment, guidance document, guidance
Print on demand
Number of Pages
20