Guidance on risk–benefit assessment of foods
-
Published:2024-07
Issue:7
Volume:22
Page:
-
ISSN:1831-4732
-
Container-title:EFSA Journal
-
language:
-
Short-container-title:EFS2
Author:
,More Simon John,Benford Diane,Hougaard Bennekou Susanne,Bampidis Vasileios,Bragard Claude,Halldorsson Thorhallur Ingi,Hernández‐Jerez Antonio F.,Koutsoumanis Kostas,Lambré Claude,Machera Kyriaki,Mullins Ewen,Nielsen Søren Saxmose,Schlatter Josef,Schrenk Dieter,Turck Dominique,Naska Androniki,Poulsen Morten,Ranta Jukka,Sand Salomon,Wallace Heather,Bastaki Maria,Liem Djien,Smith Anthony,Ververis Ermolaos,Zamariola Giorgia,Younes Maged
Abstract
Abstract
The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose–response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value‐based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk–benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability‐Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality‐Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice.
Reference176 articles.
1. Ecology or health‐how to successfully promote palm oil free products: A comparison between Spain and Poland;Adamczyk;Food,2021 2. PASSCLAIM: Consensus on criteria;Aggett;European Journal of Nutrition,2005 3. Multi‐criteria decision analysis in food safety risk management: The case of dioxins in baltic fish;Ali;Food,2022 4. Alvito, P., Brazão, R., Carmona, P., Carvalho, C., Correia, D., Fernandes, P., Jakobsen, L. S., Lopes, C., Martins, C., Membré, J.‐M., Monteiro, S., Nabais, P., Thomsen, S. T., Torres, D., Pires, S. M., Boué, G., & Assunção, R. (2019). RiskBenefit4EU – Partnering to strengthen risk‐benefit assessment within the EU using a holistic approach. EFSA Supporting Publications, 16, 1768E. https://doi.org/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN‐1768 5. Amin, L., Azad, M. A. K., Gausmian, M. H., & Zulkifli, F. (2014). Determinants of public attitudes to genetically modified salmon. PLoS One, 9, e86174. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0086174
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|