Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs

Abstract Different organisations have undertaken risk assessments of dioxins resulting in the issuance of a range of health‐based guidance values. This report examines the approaches taken by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: European Food Safety Authority
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wiley 2015-05-01
Series:EFSA Journal
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4124
_version_ 1818390546269339648
author European Food Safety Authority
author_facet European Food Safety Authority
author_sort European Food Safety Authority
collection DOAJ
description Abstract Different organisations have undertaken risk assessments of dioxins resulting in the issuance of a range of health‐based guidance values. This report examines the approaches taken by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and how these differing approaches impact on the final derivation of a numerical value. SCF and JECFA concluded that the critical studies for derivation of a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) were animal studies, whereas the US EPA selected the human data, as their preference is to use human data where available. SCF and JECFA applied a body burden one‐compartment kinetics approach to derive a HBGV from rat data, whereas US EPA applied physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of blood levels estimated from epidemiology studies. An uncertainty factor of 3 was applied by SCF and JECFA as the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (LOAEL) was close to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) (observed in another animal study), as opposed to the US EPA applying their default uncertainty factor of 10 for extrapolation from a LOAEL in the absence of a NOAEL. This resulted in the reference dose set by US EPA being 3‐fold lower than the tolerable weekly intake (TWI)/provisional tolerable monthly intake (PMTI). In view of the different approaches used in the most recent assessments undertaken by the authorities, it would appear appropriate to undertake a comprehensive risk assessment on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of dioxins and dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl‐PCBs) in feed and food.
first_indexed 2024-12-14T04:59:21Z
format Article
id doaj.art-d03e3a7c36b54481a57bafa5555f1408
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 1831-4732
language English
last_indexed 2024-12-14T04:59:21Z
publishDate 2015-05-01
publisher Wiley
record_format Article
series EFSA Journal
spelling doaj.art-d03e3a7c36b54481a57bafa5555f14082022-12-21T23:16:16ZengWileyEFSA Journal1831-47322015-05-01135n/an/a10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4124Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBsEuropean Food Safety AuthorityAbstract Different organisations have undertaken risk assessments of dioxins resulting in the issuance of a range of health‐based guidance values. This report examines the approaches taken by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF), the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) and how these differing approaches impact on the final derivation of a numerical value. SCF and JECFA concluded that the critical studies for derivation of a health‐based guidance value (HBGV) were animal studies, whereas the US EPA selected the human data, as their preference is to use human data where available. SCF and JECFA applied a body burden one‐compartment kinetics approach to derive a HBGV from rat data, whereas US EPA applied physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of blood levels estimated from epidemiology studies. An uncertainty factor of 3 was applied by SCF and JECFA as the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (LOAEL) was close to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) (observed in another animal study), as opposed to the US EPA applying their default uncertainty factor of 10 for extrapolation from a LOAEL in the absence of a NOAEL. This resulted in the reference dose set by US EPA being 3‐fold lower than the tolerable weekly intake (TWI)/provisional tolerable monthly intake (PMTI). In view of the different approaches used in the most recent assessments undertaken by the authorities, it would appear appropriate to undertake a comprehensive risk assessment on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of dioxins and dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl‐PCBs) in feed and food.https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4124dioxins2378‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin (TCDD)dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl‐PCB)
spellingShingle European Food Safety Authority
Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
EFSA Journal
dioxins
2
3
7
8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin (TCDD)
dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl‐PCB)
title Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
title_full Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
title_fullStr Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
title_full_unstemmed Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
title_short Scientific statement on the health‐based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs
title_sort scientific statement on the health based guidance values for dioxins and dioxin like pcbs
topic dioxins
2
3
7
8‐tetrachlorodibenzo‐p‐dioxin (TCDD)
dioxin‐like polychlorinated biphenyls (dl‐PCB)
url https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4124
work_keys_str_mv AT europeanfoodsafetyauthority scientificstatementonthehealthbasedguidancevaluesfordioxinsanddioxinlikepcbs