Safety Assessment of Botanicals and Botanical Preparations Overview of EFSA s activities. Bernard Bottex Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit

Similar documents
EU regulatory update on botanical substances and preparations in animal nutrition

Scientific Opinion on a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach for the safety assessment of botanicals and botanical preparations 1

Food additives and nutrient sources added to food: developments since the creation of EFSA

Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion and Toxicology

Guidance on Safety assessment of botanicals and botanical preparations intended for use as ingredients in food supplements 1

EFSA Principles and Tools related to Risk Assessment of Food Enzymes

Composition-based risk (and benefit) assessment

Guidance on the review, revision and development of EFSA s cross-cutting guidance documents

Dr. Josef Schlatter Member of the Scientific Committee and EFSA s WG on Novel Foods

EU policy on acrylamide in food reducing human exposure to ensure a high level of human health protection

Decision tree for the safety assessment of botanical cosmetic ingredients. Personal Care Products Council CIR Science and Support Committee

Emanuela Turla Scientific Officer Nutrition Unit - EFSA

1 OJ L 354, , p OJ L 80, , p. 19.

The regulatory landscape. The now and the not yet

TECHNICAL REPORT OF EFSA. List of guidance, guidelines and working documents developed or in use by EFSA 1

Prof. Marina Heinonen University of Helsinki Member of the NDA Panel and EFSA s WG on Novel Foods

SAFETY ASSESSMENT OF FOOD CONTACT MATERIALS. Threshold of Toxicological Concern Lisette Krul

Introduction. Dietary Exposure Assessment Tools for Prioritizing Food Safety Concerns. Workshop on. Stephen S. Olin

Criteria for toxicological characterization metabolites and testing strategy

CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR A TIERED APPROACH TO RISK RANKING AND PRIORITIZATION

Practical guidance for applicants on the submission of applications on food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings

Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) an EFSA Tool for Microbial Safety Assessment

European Union legislation on Food additives, Food enzymes, Extractions solvents and Food flavourings

Use of TTC and Human Relevance George E. N. Kass, PhD

Statement on the preparation of guidance for the assessment of plant/herbal products and their constituents used as feed additives 1

FSE s approach to novel foods BELFRIT List

Bioinformatic analyses: methodology for allergen similarity search. Zoltán Divéki, Ana Gomes EFSA GMO Unit

Dr. Joerg Feesche November 2016 How to Determine Safety of a Food Contact Adhesive

Risk Classification of Excipients. Presentation to Stakeholders Meeting Brussels 14 th May 2009 Frithjof Holtz

Incorporating Computational Approaches into Safety Assessment

Federation of EU Specialty Food Ingredients Industries

Better Training for Safer Food

Safety Assessment of Botanicals and Botanical Preparations. Dr. Balasubramanian

SUMMARY REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE FOOD CHAIN AND ANIMAL HEALTH HELD IN BRUSSELS ON 10 DECEMBER 2012 (Section General Food Law)

European Food Safety Authority

Welcome and introduction to EFSA

Fruit Juice and Vegetable Juice as Color Additives in Food: Guidance for Industry

Regarding Establishment of a Uniform Limit in a Positive List System concerning Agricultural Chemicals Residues in Food etc.

1st SETAC Europe Special Science Symposium

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU)

Global Regulation of Food Additives

CONDUCTING AN EFFECTIVE ANIMAL FEED HAZARD EVALUATION

HOMEOPATHIC MEDICINAL PRODUCT WORKING GROUP (HMPWG)

Guidance on the application of Commission Recommendation 2013/165/EU on the presence of T-2 and HT-2 toxin in cereals and cereal products

EFSA s perspective on risk assessment of chemical mixtures

Participants. 1. Welcome and opening. The list of participants is annexed to this report.

Food Safety Modernization Act - Impacts on the Grain and Feed Industry

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) (Question No EFSA-Q )

Provisional Translation Original: Japanese

Final Rule for Preventive Controls for Animal Food

Outcome of the public consultation on the draft guidance on the assessment of the safety of feed additives for the target species

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) 2,3

Guidance notes on the classification of food extracts with colouring properties Last update [ ]

Draft Statement on Exposure Assessment of Food Enzymes

Sea buckthorn leaves and the process of novel food evaluation

Genotoxicity Testing Strategies: application of the EFSA SC opinion to different legal frameworks in the food and feed area

Legal Requirements for the Control of Contaminants in Herbal Medicinal Products and Related Areas

COMMISSION DELEGATED REGULATION (EU).../... of XXX

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) 2, 3. European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Parma, Italy

Risk Assessment and FCMs the Role of EFSA

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) Adopted on 4 June 2009

Questions and Answers on Candidates for Substitution

FÜR RISIKOBEWERTUNG BUNDESINSTITUT

Thought Starter Combined Exposures to Multiple Chemicals Second International Conference on Risk Assessment

COMMISSION REGULATION (EU) / of XXX

ECPA position paper on the criteria for the determination of endocrine disrupting properties under Regulation

EUROPEAN COMMISSION DIRECTORATE-GENERAL FOR HEALTH AND FOOD SAFETY

Prof. Rosangela Marchelli University of Parma WG on Novel Foods NDA Panel ( )

Consultation Response

COMMITTEE ON HERBAL MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (HMPC) FINAL

International 59th Meat Conference in Serbia Better food Better life

Risk assessment of mycotoxins: the EFSA approach. Katleen Baert Scientific officer, EFSA

Update on the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) Food Labelling Modernization Initiative

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food. (Question No EFSA-Q )

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) Adopted on 14 May 2009

Which foods may carry nutrition and health claims? Update from EFSA

Setting of new MRLs for fluxapyroxad (BAS 700 F) in various commodities of plant and animal origin 1

DOSE SELECTION FOR CARCINOGENICITY STUDIES OF PHARMACEUTICALS *)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Public Assessment Report for a Traditional Herbal Medicinal Product for Human Use

ASSESSING ENDOCRINE DISRUPTING SUBSTANCES

Risk profile of plant food supplements

Ongoing review of legislation on cadmium in food in the EU: Background and current state of play

1 OJ L 354, , p OJ L 80, , p. 19.

Agenda Item 3(a) CX/FA 16/48/3 November 2015

Evaluation of active substances in plant protection products Residues Anja Friel European Food Safetey Authority, Parma/ Italy

SAFETY ASSESSMENT. Product: Bath Potions Range (Ancient Wisdom) Product variants:

EU Framework for the Scientific Assessment of Food Additives and Enzymes

The role of JECFA for CCFA

Scientific opinion on pirolizidine alkaloides in tea infusions on the Croatian market

TECHNICAL REPORT OF EFSA 1 on Scientific Cooperation between EFSA and Member States: Taking Stock and Looking Ahead

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food. (Question No EFSA-Q )

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR THE UTILIZATION OF VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCTS (VPP) IN FOODS

Trigger values for active substances, relevant and non-relevant metabolites in Ground Water/ Drinking water

EUROPEAN COMMISSION. Modus Operandi for the management of new food safety incidents with a potential for extension involving a chemical substance

Roadmap to review the Nutrition and Health Claims legislation expression of interest to contribute to the upcoming external study

SCIENTIFIC OPINION. Scientific Statement of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) (Question No EFSA-Q )

ANNEX III ASEAN GUIDELINES ON LIMITS OF CONTAMINANTS FOR TRADITIONAL MEDICINES

OpenFoodTox and Other Open Source In silico EFSA. Jean Lou Dorne Senior Scientific Officer Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit EFSA

Transcription:

Safety Assessment of Botanicals and Botanical Preparations Overview of EFSA s activities Bernard Bottex Scientific Committee and Emerging Risks Unit EFSA Info session on applications - FEED Technical meeting with stakeholders, 5-6 May 2015

Toolkit for assessing the safety of botanicals Guidance document for the safety assessment of botanicals and botanical preparations intended for use as ingredients in food supplements Data requirements for the assessment (technical, exposure, toxicological data) Science-based framework for the assessment (tiered approach) o Level A: safety presumed based on available knowledge o Level B: evaluation of additional data 2

Toolkit for assessing the safety of botanicals ESCO Report Examples how to apply the EFSA safety assessment approach Botanical Preparation Possible safety issue Citrus aurantium L. ssp. aurantium L. Camellia sinensis (L.) O. Kuntze Hydroalcoholic extract of dried peel Dried green tea extract Misidentification / adulteration Liver toxicity Ocimum tenuiflorum L. Dry leaves extract Reproduction toxicity Foeniculum vulgare Mill. ssp. vulgare var. vulgare Dried fruits (water extracts) Genotoxic carcinogen Linum usitatissimum L. Dried ripe seeds Phytoestrogens Triticum aestivum L. Wheat Bran Low concern presumption of safety 3

Compendium Version 2 Published May 2012 Compendium of botanicals reported to contain naturally occurring substances of possible concern for human health when used in food and food supplements The compendium is a hazard database; it does not bring any judgment whether these botanicals are safe or not safe for food applications. The compendium has no legal status and may not be used as support or evidence in any disagreement or dispute pertaining to the legal classification of products or substances 4

Compendium Version 2 Published May 2012 Annex A: Botanicals for which not enough information on possible substances of concern or adverse effects could be found, or for which the information present could not be verified Annex B: Botanicals for which data are available but the Scientific Committee could not identify substances of concern, or other reasons for the inclusion in the compendium 5

Compendium Version 3 Convert the compendium in a database format, searchable on the EFSA website and compatible with the EFSA chemical hazard database Expand the existing compendium 700 botanical species still pending for review for possible inclusion in the compendium 300 exotic plant species to be inserted Provide information on toxic/adverse effects in a systematic manner Timeframe: mid 2015 for part 1, then regular information upload until end of 2016 6

QPS approach for botanicals Generic assessment system allowing for priority setting among botanicals to be evaluated The EFSA guidance for the safety assessment of botanicals foresees that botanicals for which an adequate body of knowledge exists could benefit from a presumption of safety without any need for further testing The applicability for botanical species of a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach, similar to that developed for the assessment of selected microorganisms referred to EFSA and added to the food chain was considered The use of botanicals and botanical preparations in animal feed is excluded from consideration at this stage 7

What is QPS? QPS is based on four principle considerations : Taxonomy definition of the taxonomic unit (species/genus) for which QPS status is sought Body of knowledge whether there is sufficient knowledge concerning the group of botanicals to reach a decision on their safety Toxicity whether the taxonomic unit contains naturally occurring substances of concern. If so, whether sufficient is known about their toxicity to identify a dose under which such substance(s) could be concluded as being of no concern End use the presence of a substance of concern in a given botanical does not necessarily mean that this substance will also be present in the botanical preparation and, if present, that it is at a dosage causing a health concern 8

Botanical species, part(s) of plant and preparation(s) of interest Step 1 compositional/toxicological/use data available Excluded from QPS approach Step 2 Uncharacterised substances Reported adverse effect(s) no substance of concern identified Substances of concern Substances with known structure but unknown toxicity profile Adequate chemical characterisation no reported adverse effect History of safe use at traditional exposure levels n-thresholded substances Thresholded substances Validated In-silico / Read across approaches Excluded from QPS approach Suitable for QPS without qualification Excluded from QPS approach Suitable for QPS with qualification established health-based guidance value Established health-based guidance value S t e p Step 4: Iteration with other species, plant parts and/or preparations of interest Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data Toxicity data and/or history of safe use at specific exposure levels Exposure below relevant TTC Step 4: Iteration with other species, plant parts and/or preparations of interest 3 Excluded from QPS approach Suitable for QPS with qualification

Botanical species, part(s) of plant and preparation(s) of interest Step 1 compositional/toxicological/use data available Excluded from QPS approach Step 2 Step 1: Defining the botanical species, part(s) of plant and preparation(s) of interest Crucial step given the variation in composition that may exist: Between different subspecies/varieties of a botanical species Between botanicals grown under different environmental conditions Between different parts of the same botanical Between preparations made using different manufacturing processes Step 2: Evaluating the compositional/toxicological/use data Define all biologically active substances, including their actual levels Define the percentage of the material that has been characterised, and the percentage of the preparation that remains unidentified History of use should also be considered as part of the body of knowledge

Step 3 Evaluating the compositional/toxicological data Adequate chemical characterisation no reported adverse effect Suitable for QPS without qualification Step 4: Iteration with other species, plant parts and/or preparations of interest 11

Step 3 Evaluating the compositional/toxicological data Substances of concern Substances with known structure but unknown toxicity profile Adequate chemical characterisation no reported adverse effect Validated In-silico / Read across approaches Excluded from QPS approach 12

Step 3 Evaluating the compositional/toxicological data Substances of concern n-thresholded substances Thresholded substances Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity data established health-based guidance value Established healthbased guidance value Excluded from QPS approach Exposure below relevant TTC Toxicity data and/or history of safe use at specific exposure levels Suitable for QPS with qualification Step 4: Iteration with other species, plant parts and/or preparations of interest 13

Step 3 Evaluating the compositional/toxicological data Uncharacterised substances Reported adverse effect(s) no substance of concern identified History of safe use at traditional exposure levels Excluded from QPS approach Suitable for QPS with qualification Step 4: Iteration with other species, plant parts and/or preparations of interest 14

Step 4 iterative process When positive conclusions on safety have been reached, either with qualifications or not, it may be relevant to repeat the process in an iterative way to other species/plant parts/preparations. Step 4 should therefore include a consideration about whether there are similar preparations from other subspecies/varieties/ species for which the assessment could be relevant and if the safety evaluation could be extended to other preparations from other species/varieties, thus extending the number of botanical preparations for which the QPS status would hold. The grouping should preferably include plants relevant for food consumption and with a history of safe use. 15

QPS approach for botanicals Reiterative applications of the assessment scheme to related botanicals or different botanical preparations obtained from the same plant variety can allow a QPS status to be derived for specific botanical groupings. The particularity of botanicals makes the possibility of establishing QPS status at high taxonomic levels quite limited. Still, the structured safety assessment scheme provides a practical method of implementing the Level A of the 2009 EFSA Guidance the QPS approach, while possible, offers only limited advantages over the existing procedure and may not be cost-effective in the short term 16

Upcoming Safety assessment of alkenylbenzenes (estragole, methyleugenol, safrole) Present in a lot of plants Weak genotoxic carcinogenic compounds Margin of Exposure quite low for certain population groups Thank you! 17