TM-AD-07-004-EN-C EFSA SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM SUMMARY

EFSA SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM

SUMMARY REPORT

EUROPEAN FOOD CONSUMPTION DATABASE: CURRENT AND MEDIUM

TO LONG-TERM STRATEGIES

28-29 April 2005, Brussels, Belgium

TM-A

D-07-004

-EN

-C

Largo N. Palli 5/A I-43100 Parma Italy

Tel: +39 0521 036 111Fax: +39 0521 036 [email protected]

EF

SA

SC

IEN

TIF

IC C

OL

LO

QU

IUM

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

TE

UR

OP

EA

N FO

OD

CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

DA

TAB

AS

E

3IS

SN

1830-4737

3

3 EFSA SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM

SUMMARY REPORT

EUROPEAN FOOD CONSUMPTION DATABASE – CURRENT AND MEDIUM TO LONG-TERM STRATEGIES28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium

4. Summary Report EFSA Scientifi c Colloquium 3, 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium

© European Food Safety Authority – March 2008

Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated.

The views or positions expressed in this booklet do not necessarily represent in legal terms the official position of the European Food Safety Authority. The European Food Safety Authority assumes no responsibility or liability for any errors or inaccuracies that may appear.

ISBN: 978-92-9199-070-2

Summary Report EFSA Scientifi c Colloquium 3, 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium 5.

About EFSA

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was established and funded by the European Community as an independent agency in 2002 following a series of food scares that caused the European public to voice concerns about food safety and the ability of regulatory authorities to fully protect consumers.In close collaboration with national authorities and in open consultation with its stakeholders, EFSA provides objective scientifi c advice on all matters with a direct or indirect impact on food and feed safety, including animal health and welfare and plant protection. EFSA is also consulted on nutrition in relation to Community legislation. EFSA’s work falls into two areas: risk assessment and risk communication. In particular, EFSA’s risk assessments provide risk managers (EU institutions with political accountability, i.e. the European Commission, European Parliament and Council) with a sound scientifi c basis for defi ning policy-driven legislative or regulatory measures required to ensure a high level of consumer protection with regard to food and feed safety.EFSA communicates to the public in an open and transparent way on all matters within its remit.Collection and analysis of scientifi c data, identifi cation of emerging risks and scientifi c support to the Commission, particularly in case of a food crisis, are also part of EFSA’s mandate, as laid down in the founding Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 of 28 January 2002.

For more information about EFSA, please contact:

European Food Safety Authority

Largo N. Palli 5/AI-43100 ParmaItaly

Tel: +39 0521 036 111Fax: +39 0521 036 [email protected] www.efsa.europa.eu



CONTENTS

I INTRODUCTION 9

II SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS 11

1. Food Consumption data needs for exposure assessment 11

2. Comparison of food consumption for food groups 12

3. Common methodology for collection of food consumption data in the EU – Issues identifi ed at the EFCOSUM project 12

4. Potential of the standardized EPIC dietary methodology for exposure assessment in Europe 13

5. Concise EU Food Consumption database, under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment 13

6. WHO Experience with food consumption data 14

7. EUROSTAT activities in the fi eld of food consumption 15

III SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION RESULTS 16

1. Introduction 16

2. Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data for dietary exposure assessment – Report from Discussion Groups 1 & 2 17

3. Are different data needed for the various areas covered by EFSA e.g. microbes, pesticides, food contact materials – Report from Discussion Group 3 & 4 19

IV CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS 26

V ANNEXES 29

Annex 1: Programme of the EFSA Colloquium 33

Annex 2: Participants at the Colloquium 37

Annex 3: Presentations made at the Colloquium 43

Annex 4: Slides of the discussion groups 141



Introduction

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has a role in promoting and co-ordinating the development of uniform risk assessment methodologies. Exposure assessment is a crucial and integral part of risk assessment and the quality of available data both on food consumption and on occurrence levels may have a major impact on the outcome of risk assessment. For European exposure assessment it is important to make use of existing national data that is somewhat comparable at European level. At present however there is a lack of internationally comparable data on food consumption. The ultimate aim is to have harmonised food consumption data collected and available in the future. In the meanwhile, the establishment of a common database on food consumption based on data currently available would improve the consistency and reliability of exposure assessment carried out by the various panels of EFSA and by other experts in Europe. Such database will also improve the consistency of EU participations in international assessments.

To support the establishment of a common database on food consumption, EFSA organised a scientifi c colloquium on the 28th and 29th of April 2005 in Brussels, Belgium. The objective of the colloquium was to have an open scientifi c debate on the state of the art of harmonised approaches to food consumption data collection and the development of a comprehensive database on food consumption at European and international level. Consideration was given to approaches to distinguish vulnerable subsets of the population and the diversity of needs for the various areas of food safety.

Format of the colloquium

The colloquium programme is presented in Annex 1. About 100 participants (Annex 2) representing relevant expertise in the area of food consumption and exposure assessment participated in an active debate. The format of the colloquium included an introductory plenary session with presentations (Annex 3) following which participants were split into discussion groups to address specifi c aspects in more detail. Participants were provided with guidance on the remit of the discussion groups (Annex 4).

On day 1 discussion groups focused on addressing the following two issues:

Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data for dietary �exposure assessment

Are different data needed for the various areas covered by EFSA e.g. �microbes, pesticides, food contact materials?

The outcome of the debate from each group was presented back to the plenary (see section 3.0, Summary of Discussion Results).

I. INTRODUCTION


On day 2 discussion groups focused on:

The implications for the concise EU food consumption database for �preliminary exposure assessment and for medium and long-term strategies.

The fi nal session was dedicated to discussion on the fi nal outcomes of the discussion groups and focused on arriving at the conclusions and recommendations of the colloquium.

Summary of Presentations


II. SUMMARY OF PRESENTATIONS

In order to focus the colloquium in the area of exposure assessment and food consumption, a number of brief presentations were provided by those with expertise in the area. The presentations highlighted the current situation (including limitations and potential) in relation to:

the needs of food consumption data for exposure assessment, a. the different results that can be obtained when using different data sources, b. experience from research projects and international institutions (EFCOSUM, c. EPIC-SOFT, WHO, EUROSTAT), and information from the EFSA concise EU food consumption database. d.

These presentations served to generate much debate and information for the discussion groups that followed. The main points of each presentation are summarised below and a copy of the slides is provided in Annex 3.

2.1 Food consumption data needs for exposure assessment (Catherine Leclercq)2.2 Comparison of food consumption data for some food groups (Wulf Becker)2.3 Common methodology for collection of food consumption data in the EU – Issues

identifi ed at the EFCOSUM project (Karin Hulshof)2.4 Potential of the standardized EPIC dietary methodology for exposure assessment

in Europe (Nadia Slimani)2.5 Concise EU Food Consumption database, under development by EFSA for

preliminary exposure assessment (Philippe Verger)2.6 WHO Experience with food consumption data (Gerard Moy)2.7 EUROSTAT activities in the fi eld of food consumption (Lourdes Llorens-Abando)

2.1. Food consumption data needs for exposure assessment Catherine Leclercq, Research Group Food Safety-Exposure Analysis, National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition, INRAN, Rome, Italy.

Catherine Leclercq provided an overview on exposure assessment within the risk analysis process. In particular, the needs in terms of food consumption data were presented and discussed. Ideally, in order to assess exposure, food consumption data should be recent, codifi ed at a high level of detail and representative of the whole population and, eventually, of subsets particularly at risk (e.g. infant, pregnant women, etc.). However incomplete food consumption data sets can be used to estimate exposure by making conservative assumptions. Access to raw data (data per subject) and availability of a database manager with good knowledge of the data are crucial to perform dietary exposure assessments. In any case it is very important to always characterise uncertainty of the food consumption data in a transparent way.


2.2. Comparison of food consumption data for some food groups Wulf Becker, National Food Administration, Uppsala, Sweden

Wulf Becker has given a presentation on the different food consumption data sources available in the EU. In particular, he presented the different characteristics of the following data sources: Food Balance Sheets (e.g. FAO), Household Budget Surveys (e.g. DAFNE-project) and Food Consumption / Dietary Surveys (e.g. national surveys and EPIC-project).The implications of using such data for exposure assessments were highlighted. It was noted that the use of food consumption data from different sources may produce highly variable exposure estimates.The levels of consumption were presented for a number of different foods (milk, yogurt, cheese, fruit and vegetables, and fi sh) showing that (i) different data sources may give different pictures of food consumption patterns in a country and that (ii) food patterns differ between males and females, age groups, etc., but not consistently across countries. It was fi nally concluded that harmonised data collections are needed to enable consistent exposure assessment across Europe.

2.3. Common methodology for collection of food consumption data in the EU - Issues identifi ed at the EFCOSUM projectKarin Hulshof, TNO Quality of Life, Zeist, The Netherlands

Karin Hulshof introduced the audience to the European Food Consumption Survey Method (EFCOSUM) project which was performed from 2000 to 2002. It represents a framework of the EU Programme on Health Monitoring and its fi ndings and recommendations were published in 2002 on the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition (issue 56, suppl.2).The aims of the EFCOSUM were (i) to defi ne a method for monitoring food consumption in nationally representative samples of all age-sex categories in Europe in a comparable way, (ii) to indicate how to make existing food consumption data comparable and, (iii) to defi ne a (minimum) set of dietary components which are relevant indicators of health.Activities included plenary sessions, desk research and working group activities, building on existing experience from and in co-operation with the EPIC and DAFNE project on food consumption, food classifi cation and food composition.The EFCOSUM consensus provided recommendations for a European Food Consumption Surveillance in terms of dietary method (two non-consecutive 24-h recalls and a food list to assess the proportion non-users for infrequently consumed food), data collection software, sample size, sampling procedures, recruitment, fi eld work procedures, biomarkers, training / quality control and statistical aspects.



2.4. Potential of the standardised EPIC dietary methodology for exposure assessment in EuropeNadia Slimani, Nutrition and Hormone Group, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC-WHO), Lyon, France

Nadia Slimani presented the standardised dietary methodology developed within the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition project (EPIC). In particular, she drew attention to the computer-assisted 24-hour dietary recall method (EPIC-SOFT) used to collect measurements from 10 different countries within the study. The objective of EPIC-SOFT was to standardise procedures across countries to describe, quantify, probe and calculate food and beverage intakes (including food supplements). Data from nutritional studies which have used EPIC-SOFT were presented to highlight the potentialities of this instrument for exposure assessment studies. Certain aspects of EPIC-SOFT were discussed in more detail (e.g. the food description system, the food quantifi cation system and validity measurements) together with current limitations.The EPIC-SOFT needs to be upgraded according to the comments received from end-users and the EU recommendations (EFCOSUM) and also according to changes on the food market or food habits (e.g. foods, recipes, food portions, food supplements, brand names, etc).A new release of the EPIC-SOFT software and databases is therefore planned and needs for its use in exposure assessment studies have already been identifi ed. In particular, it was highlighted the necessity to validate further EPIC-SOFT according to designs relevant for risk exposure assessments.

2.5. Concise EU food consumption database, under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment Philippe Verger, INRA, Research unit 1204 – Met@risk

Philippe Verger presented rationale for the development of a concise EU food consumption database for preliminary exposure assessment by EFSA.EFSA panels need international food consumption data for risk assessment, but not all opinions need an accurate international estimation of the intake. Currently there are food consumption data available in the majority of European countries, however, it is diffi cult to compare the data directly between the countries due to the wide varying methodologies used in the surveys (e.g. sampling methodologies, survey duration, clustering of different age groups and using different categorisation systems for food groups). International committees currently use data based on the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) - regional food diets that have been developed comprising raw and semi-processed food commodities - as well as on SCOOP data (Scientifi c cooperation tasks).


Two possible ways for improvement were proposed: (i) a refi nement of the GEMS Food diets and (ii) a “combination” of national data, considering similar age groups defi nitions and food categorisation systems. Preliminary fi sh consumption results from 6 European countries were presented and compared with the corresponding GEMS data. Provisional conclusions show such data to be consistent at that level of aggregation for the considered countries independently of the survey methodology. Moreover, GEMS food consumption values did not represent systematically an overestimate for food consumption. Methods of supporting short term improvements were presented and, in order to move forward, it was suggested to (i) collect data in the EU by EFSA (ii) develop a more comprehensive database (considering more detailed food categories, subpopulations, etc.) and (iii) create a network of database managers in the EU.

2.6. WHO Experience with Food Consumption DataGerard Moy, Food Safety Department, World Health Organisation (WHO)

Gerard Moy presented the food regional diet approach developed within the Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS) programme. He explained that all sanitary measures for food shall be based on a risk assessment and that the risk assessment shall take into account risk assessment techniques developed by the relevant international organisations. The importance was stressed to consider also the food chain (whether the food is raw, semi-processed, or processed) when consumption data are used to assess dietary exposure.In the GEMS / Food regional diet approach, raw and semi processed agricultural commodities are considered. The food daily intake in grams per capita is characterised for fi ve different regions: the Middle Eastern, Far Eastern, African, Latin American and European type by using the FAO food balance sheets. In 1997, new diets were also developed based on a cluster analysis approach using major food groups. Five-year average intakes for most foods in the 13 GEMS / Food Consumption Cluster Diets were available from the FAO Food Balance Sheet data for the period 1997-2001.The risk assessment bodies working with GEMS / Food diets are the Joint FAO / WHO expert committee on food additives (JECFA), the Joint FAO / WHO expert meetings on pesticides (JMPR) and other ad hoc study groups and consultants. The Codex Committee also uses GEMS / food-based estimates provided by JMPR and JECFA.Results obtained by the GEMS / Food regional approach concerning corn consumption were demonstrated as an example and some problems discussed. Some of the issues which arose during this exercise included failure of matching Codex and FAO codes, missing commodities and processed foods, obsolete and non representative data, together with exclusion of high percentile consumers.



2.7. EUROSTAT activities in the fi eld of food consumptionLourdes Llorens-Abando, DG EUROSTAT, Luxembourg

Lourdes Llorens-Abando introduced the activities of EUROSTAT in the fi eld of food consumption data collection. The Food Safety statistics working group decided to include food consumption as one of the priority themes and a Task Force on Food consumption was included in the EUROSTAT working programme for 2005. The general objective of this group is the identifi cation of the needs for food safety statistics and the analysis of the possibility to establish regular data collection on food consumption within the Environmental Stewardship Scheme (ESS).To analyse food consumption patterns and their statistical distribution, the real food intakes have to be considered as a main variable whereas retailers’ sales in volume, purchases by households and food availability, have to be considered as proxy variables. The Task Force already identifi ed a number of basic needs for food consumption data which were systematically sorted into the following fi ve categories: food market management, health and nutrition, diet related diseases, food safety and environmental issues.In particular, it was decided that environment issues and consumer’s needs must be taken into consideration when collecting food consumption data. Data must be updated every fi ve years for Health, Nutrition and Food Safety issues whereas economical variables should be updated on a yearly basis. A standard food classifi cation system is needed but disaggregation might be necessary for some special cases. Finally, consumption data must be discriminated with respect to geographic location, type of settlement, education, age and sex. Populations at greater risk should be given a particular focus in particular children, pregnant women and elderly people.Three main statistical sources of the data were mentioned. Advantages and problems were discussed in detail in relation to dietary surveys, household budget surveys and supply balance sheets.Based on all of these considerations, the main priority for EUROSTAT is to design a strategy to collect Food consumption statistics within the ESS. A mixed data collection strategy has been considered as advisable. This would mean (i) to keep annual data availability with respect to Supply Balance Sheets, (ii) to collect data on household food purchases in a systematic and harmonised way, and (iii) to harmonise the dietary surveys techniques and food items classifi cations. EUROSTAT will produce a document on “ESS strategy on food consumption statistics” and launch grants to develop a harmonised way to collect food consumption statistics at EU level.


III. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION RESULTS

3.1. Introduction

Following the introductory presentations (Annex 3), participants were split into discussion groups to debate specifi c issues in more detail. Participants were provided with guidance on the remit of the discussion groups via a presentation by Juliane Kleiner (Annex 4).

On day one, participants were divided into four groups to allow two parallel discussion groups to address each of the following themes:

Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data for dietary �exposure assessment

Are different data needed for the various areas covered by EFSA e.g. �microbes, pesticides, food contact materials?

The discussion group themes and questions were as follows.

Specifi c Issues Methodological issues in the

use of food consumption data

for dietary exposure

assessment

Are different data needed for

the various areas covered by

EFSA e.g. microbes, pesticides,

food contact materials?

Groups Discussion Group 1Discussion Group 2

Discussion Group 3Discussion Group 4

DAY 1 1) What are the minimum quality criteria for a food survey to be used for Exposure Assessment?

2) Is there a pragmatic approach to deal with high percentiles?

3) How to deal with limitations of data?

4) How to address consumer loyalty to particular food items?

1) What are the general needs for exposure assessment?

2) What are specifi c needs for exposure assessment in the various areas?

3) Which food consumption data are available for specifi c purposes?

4) What are the possible ways for improvement of data quality?

Summary of discussion results


The outcome of the discussion from each group was presented back to the plenary for general discussion. On day 2 discussion groups continued using earlier discussions to focus on:

The implications for the concise EU food consumption database for �preliminary exposure assessment and for medium and long-term strategies.

DAY 2 5) What are the implications for the concise EU food consumption database currently under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment?

6) What are the implications for medium and long-term strategies?

5) What are the implications for the concise EU food consumption database currently under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment?

6) What are the implications for medium and long-term strategies?

The fi nal session was dedicated to the fi nal outcomes of the discussion groups and to reach conclusions and recommendations of the colloquium. This is presented in section 4.0 of this report.

A summary of the discussion is presented below under the specifi c themes. The reports of the discussion groups are presented in Annex 4.

3.2. Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data for dietary exposure assessment

The aims of the exposure assessment and of the food consumption survey were raised as points to consider in determining the minimum quality required for a food survey. The quality of the food survey data will depend on the aim of the exposure assessment, whether assessing acute or chronic exposure or whether being used to estimate exposure by conservative screening (using crude food consumption data) versus more accurate assessments of exposure (using actual food consumption data). Regarding the food consumption survey, it was raised that consideration needs to be given to whether it is being conducted for traditional nutritional purposes, exposure assessment or both. If it is being conducted for nutritional purposes primarily, consideration should be given as to whether the data will be acceptable to estimate the exposure of certain food chemicals.


The minimum quality criteria required for a food survey to be used in exposure assessment were intensively debated. It was fi rst recommended that guidelines should be developed on the minimum set of data to be collected in food consumption surveys. First of all, the target population needs to be represented by means of an adequate sample size. The reliability of the sample population was raised as being more important than the accuracy of the recorded amounts. It is essential that the whole diet is addressed, this means that also food eaten outside home, e.g. supplements and drinking water, must be considered. All aspects relevant to describe the food (e.g. processing, handling, preparation, packaging, meal situation, etc.) have to be taken into account. Where necessary, consideration should also be given to the days of the week surveyed and the time of year the study is conducted, in order to address variations in food consumption due to week-days and seasons.It was also highlighted that a large number of food groups is not needed as part of minimum quality criteria. The estimation of the average, median and high percentiles of exposure is needed together with the consumption levels of the relevant food items/ categories. Details need to be provided on the uncertainty of all these measurements.

Limitations of data, under-reporting and consumer loyalty

When dealing with a limitation of food consumption data it was suggested to consider the use of different dietary assessment methods. For example a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) could be particularly useful for food that is only rarely consumed. Probabilistic modelling was also raised as being useful but the importance of the modelling validation was also highlighted. Specifi c limitations can also be resolved by means of existing statistical methodologies developed to adjust the data. This is the case, for example, of the Nusser method that is used to estimate the distribution of usual dietary intake by short-term measurements. The promotion of new research on how to estimate chronic high exposure from short-term measurements should be considered. In any case, the underlying uncertainty needs to be characterised so that it can be taken into account by risk managers. When data on body weight are missing, it was suggested to use register data or a conservative mean.

Gross under-reporting can infl uence the usefulness of dietary data as a basis for exposure assessment. It was considered fundamental to reduce under-reporting at the minimum during the survey. This objective can be met by a proper training of fi eldwork staff and by food intake probing. In order to have a better understanding of under-reporting, it could also be useful to collect additional information on subjects apart from weight and height (e.g. information on subjects who are dieting or going on a diet, physical activity data, state of health, etc.). It is also important to consider the impact of under-reporting on the exposure assessment in terms of the estimations (e.g. effect on high percentiles).


Consumer loyalty to particular food items can have a signifi cant impact on exposure levels, but it is extremely diffi cult to identify by means of the available food consumption data. It was therefore recommended to collect more detailed consumption data (e.g. brand names, organic labelling, etc.). In alternative, the use of worst case deterministic methods and probabilistic modelling has been suggested. In particular, probabilistic modelling can be used by merging food consumption data with data from different sources, such as those from marketing research companies, consumer panels or household budget surveys.

Moreover in some cases, the agencies that requests risk assessment studies and food consumption surveys operate independently. Thus the potential uses and the resources used in a food consumption survey may not be used to their full capacity – more co-operation on such initiatives would be more cost effective and productive for both and would support the collection of more appropriate data.

3.3. Data needs for exposure assessment in various areas covered by EFSA

The fi rst point arose with respect to this theme is the level of detail required on the description of the products consumed. Different options can be adopted, for example consumption levels can be reported for food as eaten, food disaggregated into the main ingredients or into the primary agricultural products. It was highlighted that the level of food consumption data details required for an exposure assessment will depend on the agent in question (e.g. microbes, pesticides, nutrients, food contact materials, etc.) and on whether data are needed for screening purposes or more detailed exposure assessment. Many questions may be answered by means of crude screening methods and only if the estimated crude exposure assessment would give rise to any safety concern more refi ned methods are needed. It should be noted that careful consideration to the required level of detail is essential, since increasing the level of detail may also result in increasing uncertainties and amplifying the effect of variability. The agent under question study also determines the level of details needed from specifi c food or food group categories or specifi c aspects associated with the food (e.g. treatment, packaging, origin, fortifi cation, etc.). It was also pointed out that detailed information on specifi c types of food can be added separately from the consumption data only if this is really useful. The combination of data from different sources (e.g. at consumer or industry level) could be useful especially to check the validity of the available information.



Specifi c needs and availability of Food Consumption data

Data are available in Europe but are not always complete and comparable, especially regarding the food groups and the food descriptions. The adequacy of current databases was discussed. In general, detailed food consumption data should be accessible to all stakeholders. The only data that covers practically all European countries are household budget surveys, although some may cover expenditures only. National food consumption databases are available but should be kept separately and fed into a European database. Consideration needs to be given to how regional differences will be covered.

With respect to nutrition, the information on food composition is often inadequate for specifi c components, in particular for trans-fatty acids, dietary fi bre, some vitamins, and trace elements. It may be adequate for screening purposes, but sometimes composition data are completely missing for important foods, e.g. fast-food fries, producing an underestimate. Fortifi ed food and beverages can also be a problem since the levels of fortifi cation may be proprietary information. Data on the composition of nutritional supplements are also needed for proper intake assessment. Available food consumption data may not be suffi cient to assess exposure to food additives, fl avourings and food contact materials. There is little or no information on packaging or home storage containers. Especially in the case of food additives, brand name information is very useful. When dealing with food contact materials it is at least necessary to know whether food is packaged in order to perform a crude screening. Information on the type of packaging material (e.g. glass, plastic, paper, cans) is preferable including food contact material before / after purchase and surface to volume ratio.At present it is diffi cult to assess exposure to pesticide residues at a European level as the national databases differ in details provided.

Due to its aggregation level, existing food consumption survey data are generally not very useful for microbiological exposure assessment. In particular, meat consumption should be broken down at least to the level of animal species. In this case, the information considered as important, and that could be useful to obtain, are the following: heat treatment (including tap water) during industrial processing and preparation, storage conditions (time, temperature, etc.) after purchase and after preparation. Information on hygiene can theoretically be obtained from questionnaires but the reliability of these data is questionable.Moreover, the frequency of consumption and the portion sizes were also mentioned as necessary for microbiological exposure assessment.



The main problem in the case of chemical contaminants is that in most of the cases, the food categories used in food consumption survey do not match those in regulations. In particular, the origin of the food is often unknown.

Possible ways to improve the quality of food consumption data

In order to improve the quality of food consumption data, it was proposed to establish a network of food consumption survey managers / owners under the aegis of EFSA. This network could be used as a platform for exchange of information, validation, and provision of data, including national and other data at the European level. Information exchange with other relevant bodies interested in food safety issues (e.g. WHO, FAO, DG Research, EUROSTAT, industry, and other stakeholders) should also be maintained and promoted. An active cooperation with all relevant FP6 projects (e.g. EuroFir, SAFEFOOD, etc.) would also be useful to avoid duplication. The quality of food consumption data can also be increased by identifying the information that can be reported by the consumers in a reliable and cost-effective way. Specifi c data could be captured in separate databases from those collected within food consumption surveys, by means, for example, of special surveys (GMO, radiation, etc). The databases could then be linked to the food consumption data by means of statistical methodologies. This could be for example possible in the case of food brand name. However, missing information on food descriptions (i.e. treatment, packing, etc) are diffi cult to add to existing consumption data. A complete database could be obtained through modelling data from specifi c surveys or by a new pan-European food consumption survey.

When dealing with problems of food classifi cation, it could be useful to consider food regrouping with existing data. National database managers should be able to incorporate several food groups for different purposes.

3.4. The EFSA concise EU food consumption database

The discussion groups supported EFSA’s initiative related to the development of the concise EU food consumption database for preliminary exposure assessment. This was considered as a practical step in a tiered approach. Harmonisation and transparency were highlighted as being very important in the development of the database. It was proposed to quantify the level of conservativeness of this instrument. The concise database should be less conservative than previous screening methods such as the Budget method and should be based on real consumption data that is equivalent to the ones required for the 2nd step in exposure assessment.


The possible applications of the concise EU food consumption database were discussed and a number of suggestions were proposed. In particular, it was considered necessary that the database is publicly available, despite the fact that this could be a possible barrier for the data owners to provide data. The development of guidelines on how data can be used (and cannot) is fundamental to reassure data owners worried about the possible misuse of the information they provide. The limitations of this database need to be clearly defi ned. For example, if the diet was recorded for only 1 day high percentiles are likely to be overestimated.However, the concise food consumption database should not replace other current efforts for harmonised food consumption data collection. In particular, the use of WHO procedures in all exposure assessments was recommended. Comparison with GEMS / Food regional diet was also recommended in order to perform a sort of benchmarking. It was highlighted as being important to check whether the concise database works in the tiered approach for exposure assessment.

The national database managers need to be involved in the food group identifi cation and content process. A meeting is required with database compilers before the task of completing the database commences. A comprehensive user manual is required for compilers which should include details such as for example: survey characteristics, food groups (e.g. which items are included in each category, including details of country specifi c names). These details must be explicit for the database managers. Data from each survey should be entered separately, without aggregating all national data into one national dataset.National database managers should examine the possibility to disaggregate / group their foods according to different systems and participate in the validation of the database. The database could be improved by giving consideration and advice on the food grouping, in particular some more sub grouping was considered necessary for pesticide risk assessment. As a general suggestion, the EFCOSUM food codifi cation system was proposed as a standard. Moreover, a food consumption survey inventory should be completed starting from the work done within the EFCOSUM project. This inventory should include of all new food consumption surveys, e.g. Germany.It was also suggested to consider the possibility to organise the database according to clusters of countries using as an example the GEMS / Food Consumption Cluster Diets. The choice of age ranges to be considered in the concise database was also tackled. It was proposed to fi rst consider what is currently available.

The implications for medium and long-term strategies

The discussion groups agreed that in the short to medium term the concise database is needed. Feed-back and a report from the Member States and EFSA panels after use of the concise database would be valuable to the development of future strategies.


In the medium to long term more refi ned data are required which involves better standardisation of data. The development of a comprehensive database, in addition to the concise database, was proposed. With this prospective, the following points were considered as important:

Data at the level of the individual. �

Raw data and not summarized data. �

National / regional data. �

Data that were previously validated at national level. �

Demographic data on consumers (e.g. age, weight, sex, etc.) should be �included.

For the determinants of food choice, additional demographic information �(ethnic background, country of residence, education, household income, specifi c food preferences, e.g. organic food) are required to inform risk management strategies.

The food descriptors should be more detailed. The following information �should be included: processed or raw at purchase, detailed information on preparation and cooking, brand information and origin of primary products.

The long term needs and strategies were widely discussed. In particular, the incorporation of existing data into a refi ned database with no loss of existing data was recommended. The development of a EU prototype for monitoring studies of food consumption for risk assessment was recommended. This should be a multi-source collection database that includes various types of food consumption data such as individual surveys, household-based surveys (e.g. commercial, HBS, including DAFNE) and market share data.The discussion groups recommended that a Pan-European food consumption study should be carried out. In particular, it was suggested that:

Co-ordination should be performed by EFSA, e.g. within an exposure �assessment unit. The work should be linked to the other important aspects of exposure assessment such as occurrence data. Co-ordination should include regular and consistent reporting.

A stakeholder’s network should be established including the national food �consumption database managers, European Commission and EUROSTAT.

Funding at European level is required. �



A preliminary inventory of existing European studies (including total diet �studies) should be conducted.

Vulnerable groups should be included and consideration should be given to �the need for biomarkers for some components.

A strategy for the collection and access to food consumption data at the �European level needs to be developed. Details such as sampling, methods and frequency need to be addressed.

With respect to the food consumption surveys already in place, data collection strategies should be adapted to allow a number of uses of the information collected at national, EU and international level. This is the case, for example, of the food consumption data that can be used to address food safety issues as well as nutritional issues for a population.In this context attention must be given to the level of detail needed on the collected data. Accurate descriptions of food are essential to allow it being correctly identifi ed and classifi ed. Different type of information may be required to allow assessment of issues in relation to the different types of substances. For example, information about packaging could be useful in the case of indirect food additives (contact material), brand name for food and feed additives and the geographical origin for contaminants and pesticides.

In general, cooperation was raised as being crucial to future progress at national, EU and international levels with the following points being highlighted:

Full support and co-operation of Member States is essential. �

Co-operation is required with relevant international organisations and �different projects and programmes at national and international level.

All stakeholders need to be involved – industry, consumers, others. �

Close collaboration is required with European statistical systems to �improve information exchange, data collection and harmonisation and avoid duplication.

Consider the collection of data from other national or regional sources. �

EFSA has a role in monitoring ongoing research programmes and utilise �their outputs.

Networking needs to improve to ensure all risk assessors are aware of work �being conducted and to support progress and developments in this area.



The role of EFSA in the enactment of many of the proposed strategies was highlighted in relation to a number of areas:

to co-ordinate a Pan European food consumption survey. �

to provide feedback and a report on the use of the concise database on �exposure assessment.

to co-ordinate the use of modelling tools to estimate exposure. �

to work with Member States, Commission and others on medium to long �term strategies.

to monitor ongoing research programmes and utilise their outputs �

to disseminate information on EFSA food consumption database to �EFSA panels.


IV. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

The discussions of the participants led to the agreement that harmonisation of food consumption data was the ultimate requirement in addressing exposure assessment at the European level. It was recommended however that consideration be given to how food consumption data could support other aims of a Member State such as the collection of data for nutrition and public health purposes. The Colloquium was in favour of a Pan-European food consumption survey and recommended that EFSA take a lead role in the co-ordination and completion of associated tasks in meeting this initiative. A number of specifi c recommendations were made in moving towards this ultimate goal.

The Colloquium acknowledged the importance of co-operation and communication 1. in the success of this initiative at national, EU and international levels. Co-operation and communication need to be addressed by means of strategic recommendations on harmonising food consumption data at EU level.

The Colloquium recommended that the inventory currently being conducted on 2. food consumption data and other data available in Member States of the European Union should be completed. This would establish the baseline situation in terms of availability of food consumption data and the type of data available and would help to develop a strategy for access to data.

A European network of national food consumption database managers should be 3. established. Such a network founded with an ethos of collaboration would support managers in their role, support consistency and greater accuracy in the collection of data and support a commitment to the development of a Pan-European food consumption survey.

Comprehensive Guidelines need to be developed to support food consumption 4. database managers in the type of data to be collected.

The Colloquium recommended that work is to be conducted on the use of modelling 5. of exposure for risk assessment and sensitivity analysis to determine the main contributors to exposure.

The Colloquium concluded that recommendations on how to ensure validation of 6. the food consumption surveys needs to be defi ned.

A major proposal of the Colloquium is to develop recommendations and guidance 7. on the description, classifi cation and categorisation of food to be assessed in any food consumption survey.


In terms of the 8. EFSA concise food consumption database – the Colloquium supports the completion of this initiative.

In terms of a 9. comprehensive food consumption database – the Colloquium recommends the development of a strategy to develop a more comprehensive food consumption database. The expertise of other Member States in their collection of food consumption data was acknowledged as being fundamental in supporting the development of a comprehensive food consumption database.



ANNEXES



V. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Programme of the EFSA Colloquium

Annex 2: Participants at the Colloquium

Annex 3: Presentations made at the Colloquium

Annex 4: Slides of the Discussion groups

Annexes


Annex 1 - Programme of the EFSA Colloquium


Annex 1: Programme of the EFSA Colloquium

EFSA Scientifi c Colloquium on European Food Consumption Database:Current and medium to long-term strategies28-29 April 2005, Brussels, Belgium

PROGRAMME

Chair: Bo JanssonCo-chair: Ada KnaapRapporteurs: Paul Finglas, Gerhard Heinemeyer

Thursday 28 April 2005

10:00-10:30 Briefi ng meeting with overall chairs and discussion group chairs and rapporteurs

10:30-12:50 Session 1: INTRODUCTORY PLENARY SESSION

10:30-10:50 Introduction to EFSA and to the work of the Exposure group of the Scientifi c Committee

Herman Koëter

10:50-11:10 Food consumption data needs for exposure assessment

Catherine Leclercq

11:10-11:20 Discussion

11:20-11:40 Comparison of food consumption data for some food groups

Wulf Becker


11:50-12:10 Common methodology for collection of food consumption data food in the EU - Issues identifi ed at the EFCOSUM project

Karin Hulshof


12:20-12:40 Potential of the standardized EPIC dietary methodology for exposure assessment in Europe

Nadia Slimani


12:50-13:50 LUNCH


13:50-14:30 Continuation of session 1

13:50-14:10 Concise EU Food Consumption database,under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment

Philippe Verger


14:20-14:30 Introduction to discussion groups Juliane Kleiner

14.30-16.00 Session 2: DISCUSSION GROUPS (DG) Four parallel discussion groups to address questions related to:

DG 1 & DG 2

Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data for dietary exposure assessment

DG 1

Chair:Rapporteur:

Max FeinbergWulf Becker

DG 2

Chair:Rapporteur:

Alan ReillyJoseph Shavila

DG 3 & DG 4

Are different data needed for the various areas covered by EFSA, e.g. microbes, pesticides, food contact materials

DG 3

Chair:Rapporteur:

Anders MøllerRuth Charrondière

DG 4

Chair:Rapporteur:

Sam PageArie Havelaar

16:30-17:00 COFFE / TEA BREAK

Annex 1 - Programme of the EFSA Colloquium


17:00-18:20 Session 3:REPORT BACK FROM DISCUSSION GROUPS TO PLENARY

17:00-17:10 Report back from discussion group 1 Wulf Becker

17:10-17:20 Report back from discussion group 2 Joseph Shavila


17:40-17:50 Report back from discussion group 3 Ruth Charrondière

17:50-18:00 Report back from discussion group 4 Arie Havelaar


20:00 DINNER

Friday 29 April 2005

09:00-10:00 Session 4:

PLENARY

09:00-09:20 WHO experience with regional diets Gerry Moy


09:30-09:50 EUROSTAT activities in the fi eld of

food consumption

Lourdes Llorens Abando


10:00-13:00 Session 5:

CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION GROUPS TO DISCUSS

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CONCISE EU FOOD CONSUMPTION

DATABASE FOR PRELIMINARY RISK ASSESSMENT AND FOR

MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM STRATEGIES

11:00-11:30 COFFE / TEA BREAK


13:00-14:00 LUNCH

14:00-16:30 Session 6:

REPORT BACK FROM DISCUSSION GROUPS TO

PLENARY AND FINAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

14:00-14:20 Report back from discussion group 1

and discussion

Wulf Becker


and discussion

Joseph Shavila


and discussion

Ruth Charrondière


and discussion

Arie Havelaar

15:20-16:30 General discussion and conclusions and recommendations

16:30 COLLOQUIUM ADJOURNS

Annex 2 - Participants at the Colloquium


Annex 2: Participants at the Colloquium

Name Affi liation Country

Discussion

Group

(DG)

Dr. Davide Arcella National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition

IT 1

Prof. Herman Autrup University of Aarhus DK 4

Dr. Martine Bakker National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

NL 1

Dr. Wulf Becker National Food Administration SE 1

Mr. Philippe Becquet FEFANA BE 1

Mr. Sami Belkhira Dow Corning BE 3

Mrs. Maaike Bilau University of Ghent BE 2

Dr. Achim Boenke European Commission BE 3

Mr. Alexander Boss Food Standards Agency UK 4

Mr. Bernard Bottex International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI)

BE 3

Ms. Daniele Bubits Agency for Health and Food Safety

AT 2

Mr. Patrice Buche Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 2

Ms. Irene Bustos European Environmental Citizens Organisation for Standardisation

BE 3

Mrs. Esther Camenzind-Frey

Federal Offi ce of Public Health CH 1

Ms. Ute Ruth Charrondière

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

IT 3

Dr. George Chryssochoidis

Agricultural University of Athens

GR 4

Ms. Rosanna D’Amario European Commission BE 2

Dr. Jan Demyttenaere European Flavour & Fragrance Association

BE 1



Discussion

Group

(DG)

Mr. Claude Dequatre BP Chemicals FR 2

Mrs. Catherine Dervin Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 1

Mrs. Anna-Maria De Smet

The Brewers of Europe BE 1

Dr. Stefanie De Vriese Institute for Public Health BE 2

Mr. Dan Dils European Flavour & Fragrance Association

BE 2

Mr. Alexander Döring European Feed Manufacturers Federation

BE 3

Dr. Roberto Fanelli Mario Negri Institute IT 2

Dr. Max Feinberg Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 1

Dr. Paul Finglas Institute of Food Research UK 4

Dr. Eva Gelencser Central Food Research Institute HU 1

Mrs. Ieva Gudanaviciene National Nutrition Centre under Ministry of Health

LI 2

Mrs. Anne-Marie Hamelton

PlasticsEurope BE 3

Dr. Andy Hart Central Science Laboratory UK 3

Dr. Arie Havelaar National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

NL 4

Dr. Gerhard Heinemeyer German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

DE 2

Mrs. Marise Herve Federation of European Food Additives and Food Enzymes Industries

BE 2

Mr. Klaus Hinrichs Product Safety and Regulation DE 4

Dr. Tero Hirnoven National Public Health Institute FI 2

Dr. Karin Hulshof TNO Quality of Life NL 1

Mrs. Inge Huybrechts University of Ghent BE 2




Discussion

Group

(DG)

Prof. Bo Jansson University of Stockholm SE 2

Mr. Christian Jassogne CEFIC BE

Dr. Lars Johansson Directorate for Health and Social Affairs

NO 1

Dr. Michael Kaethner Bayer Crop Science DE 4

Mr. Martin Klatt Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority

NL 4

Dr. Ada Knaap National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (RIVM)

NL 3

Prof. Kitty Koelemeijer Nyenrode University NL 1

Dr. Mariella Kuilman DSM Food Specialties NL 1

Mr. Lionel Lafay French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)

FR 2

Dr. Jean-Charles Leblanc Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 2

Dr. Catherine Leclercq National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition (INRAN)

IT

Dr. Cinzia Le Donne National Research Institute for Food and Nutrition (INRAN)

IT 4

Mrs. Petra Lehner Federal Chamber of Labour AT 4

Dr. Pierre Le Neindre Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 3

Dr. Rene Lesuis Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority

NL 4

Mr. Oliver Lindter Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

DE 4

Dr. Thomas Lyall Freshfel Europe BE 4

Ms. Lourdes Llorens Abando

European Commission BE 2

Dr. Sinéad McCarthy Institute of European Food Studies

IE 1



Discussion

Group

(DG)

Dr. Ulrich Moser DSM Nutritional Products Europe

CH 2

Dr. Anders Møller Institute for Food and Veterinary Research

DK 3

Dr. Gerald Moy World Health Organization (WHO)

CH 1

Mrs. Dana Müllerova University of Pilsen CZ 2

Dr. Marga Ocke National Institute of Public Health and the Environment

NL 2

Dr. Peter Oldring Valspar UK 2

Dr. Samuel W. Page World Health Organization (WHO)

CH 4

Prof. Kimmo Peltonen National Veterinary and Food Research Institute (EELA)

FI 3

Mr. Pedro Picciochi Food Safety Agency PT 1

Dr. Monique Raats University of Surrey UK 3

Dr. Udo Rabe BASF AG DE 1

Mr. Alan Reilly Food Safety Authority IE 2

Dr. Jiri Ruprich National Institute for Public Health

CH 1

Dr. Dace Santare Food and Veterinary Service LT 3

Dr. Annette Schaefer European Commission BE 4

Dr. Bettina Schmidt-Faber

Federal Offi ce for Consumer Protection and Food Safety

DE 3

Dr. Joseph Shavila Food Standards Agency UK 2

Dr. Derek Shrimpton European Federation of Astions of Health Product Manufacturers

UK 4

Dr. Wolfgang Sichert-Hellert

Research Institute for Child Nutrition

DE 1

Mr. Martin Slayne European Commission BE 4

Dr. Nadia Slimani International Agency for Research on Cancer

FR 1




Discussion

Group

(DG)

Dr. David Tennant Food Chemical Risk Analysis UK 1

Mrs. Clara Thompson CIAA BE

Dr. Ariane Titz Association of the European Self-Medication Industry

BE 3

Mrs. Jessica Tressou Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 3

Mrs. Aida Turrini National Institute of Public Health and the Environment (INRAN)

IT 1

Prof. Mieke Uyttendaele University of Ghent BE 3

Mrs. Sirje Vaask Tallinn University of Technology EST 2

Dr. Sandrine Valentin French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)

FR 4

Dr. Jacob Van Klaveren Institute of Food Safety (RIKILT) NL 3

Prof. Herman Van Oyen Institute of Public Health BE 3

Dr. Philippe Verger Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA)

FR 3

Mrs. Jeannie Vergnettes European Commission BE

Mr. Jean-Luc Volatier French Food Safety Agency (AFSSA)

FR 1

Mr. Georg Bernhard Zechendorf

European Commission BE 4

Dr. Marcel Zwietering Wageningen University NL 4


EFSA Staff

Dr. Jan Bloemendal International and Institutional Affairs

Mrs. Marie-Noëlle Costa Scientifi c Committee

Mrs. Anja Friel Panel on Pesticide Risk Assessment Peer Review

Dr. Leng Heng Panel on dietetic products, nutrition and allergies

Dr. Claudia Heppner Panel on contaminants in the food chain

Mrs. Laura Soriano Scientifi c Committee

Dr. Liisa Vahteristo Panel on additives and products or substances used in animal feed

Mrs. Vanessa Descy Scientifi c Expert Services

Dr. Juliane Kleiner Scientifi c Expert Services

Dr. Djien Liem Scientifi c Committee

Ms. Valérie Rolland Scientifi c Committee

Dr. Herman Koëter Director of Science

Ms. Irère Van Geest Communication

Annex 3: Presentations made at the Colloquium


INTRODUCTION TO EFSA

HERMAN B.W.M. KOËTER

EFSA Deputy Executive Director

and

Director of Science


EFSA’s Mission and Tasks [Reg 178/2002] :

… provide � scientifi c advice and scientifi c and technical support… [Art. 22. 2]

… shall provide � scientifi c opinions… [Art. 22.6]

… provide the best possible scientifi c opinions in all cases provided for by �Community legislation and on any question within its mission… [Art. 23(a)]

… � collect and analyse data to allow the characterization and monitoring of risks… [Art. 22.4]

… promote and co-ordinate the � development of uniform risk assessment

methodologies [Art. 23(b)]

… commission � scientifi c studies… [Art. 23(d)]

… undertake action to � identify emerging risks… [Art. 23(f)]

Provide � scientifi c and technical assistance with a view to improve co-operation [Art. 23(i)]

EFSA stands for

Independency �

Scientifi c excellence �

Openness and transparency �

Co-operation �

Scientifi c activities (work theme 1) :

Providing scientifi c opinions, guidance and advice in response to questionsMost questions from the Commission, but also from European Parliament �and Member States;

Questions can be broad (e.g. guidance document on allergenicity assessment �of GMO’s) or focused (e.g. risk assessment of SEM in baby food in glass);

Questions have ‘terms of reference’ and deadlines for response. �

Annex 3 – Presentation by H. Koëter



Assessing the risk of regulated substances and development of proposals for risk-related factors

Chemical categories include : �

Food additives, smoke fl avourings, enzymes, food supplements; �

Food dye stuffs; �

Food contact materials; �

Additives for use in animal nutrition; �

Existing and new Pesticides; �

Genetically modifi ed organisms in food and feed �

Risk related factors include MRL’s �

Deadlines for opinions are strict and often very short (e.g. for GMO’s, feed �additives)


Monitoring of specifi c risk factors and diseasesGeographical BSE risk assessment; �

BSE / TSE testing and validation of tests; �

Monitoring of zoonoses and zoonotic agents; �

Containment and eradication of animal diseases (e.g. AI, foot and mouth �disease, rabies)


Development, promotion and application of new and harmonized scientifi c approaches and methodologies for hazard and risk assessment of food and feed

Harmonization of detection methodology for chemical and microbiological �contaminants in food / feed;

Harmonized approach for environmental hazard and risk assessment; �

Harmonized approach for human health risk assessment; �


Harmonization of methodology for the monitoring and reporting �of animal diseases;

Exposure assessment modeling and data collection �(chemical and microbiological);

Improving transparency of the risk assessment process. �

Projects initiated by the Scientifi c Committee :Assessment of genotoxic carcinogens; �

Use of benchmark dose levels for assessment; �

Assessment of botanicals and botanical products; �

Applying the QMRA; �

Early warnings of emerging risks; �

Assessment of micro-organisms deliberately introduced in food (QPS); �

Guidance on exposure assessment �

Working Group on Exposure assessment was established in December 2003 �

Members include : 9 members (2 members from the SC and 7 members �from Panels)

Draft opinion was discussed by SC on 28 February – 1 March 2005 �(Guidance Document on human exposure assessment);

A number of changes were recommended on format and presentation of �the GD as well as on the recommendations on how to share responsibilities in this area

It was alos suggested to consider the outcome of the 3rd Colloquium in �the revised draft Guidance Document

Invest in fore-front science through :

Organisation of open scientifi c EFSA meetings, to discuss in-depth topical �and sensitive issues related to EFSA’s mission : EFSA Scientifi c Colloquiums;

Adequate follow-up on EFSA Scientifi c Colloquiums (e.g. development of �Guidance Documents).


Annex 3 – Presentation by H. Koëter

The Colloquium is:

An interactive event rather than only a passive listening to lectures; �

A platform for scientists to have in-depth discussions on current and medium �to long-term strategies for food consumption data collection and the development of a comprehensive international database on food consumption;

How to distinguish vulnerable subsets of the population and the diversity �of needs;

A way to build common views and understanding and for EFSA to pick �your brains.

The Colloquium is not:

An attempt to agree on the details of a preferred strategy or approach, if any �

An attempt to fi nalise a blue print for the work ahead of us; �

A “who is right and who is wrong” discussion. �

EFSA Colloquium 1

“Methodologies and Principles for Setting Tolerable Intake Levels for Dioxins, Furans and Dioxin-like PCBs”

18-29 June 2004, Brussels

EFSA Colloquium 2

“Micro-organisms in Food and FeedQualifi ed Presumption of Safety – QPS”

13-14 December 2004, Brussels



WHICH ARE OUR NEEDS IN TERMS OF FOOD

CONSUMPTION DATA WHEN WE PERFORM

EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ?

CATHERINE LECLERCQ

Research Group Food Safety-Exposure Analysis

INRAN

National Research Institute on Food and Nutrition


RISK ANALYSIS

Risk assessment �exposure assessment

Risk management �

Risk communication �

High intake of any substance (natural or artifi cial, nutrient or non nutrient) can constitute a health hazard.

Chemical hazards need to be ranked not only according to their toxicity but according to the level of risk deriving from their presence in the diet.

Heavy metalsToxic substances

Preservatives

lead

cadmium

mercury

dioxine

acrilamidemycotoxins

Allyl caproate

Eucalyptol

Isoa

lyl a

ceta

te

Furfuryl alcohol

Flavourings

Natural toxicants

cyanogenic glycosides

solanine

lectins

canthaxanthin

tartrazine

xanthophylls Colours

nitrite

nitratesodium sulfite

Sweetening agents

sucralose

aspartame alitame

acesulfame K

saccharinantimony trioxide

polyethylene silver zeolite A

Food ContactMaterial


Annex 3 – Presentation by C. Leclercq

Exposure is compared with the safety limits established for the various substances present in the diet that may constitute a health hazard for the consumers (risk characterization).

Exposure assessment is therefore crucial in order to discriminate the substances that are likely to pose a safety risk from those which are not.

A safety limit for CHRONIC TOXICITY: the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)

“The amount of a food additive, expressed on a mg/kg body weight basis, that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without incurring any appreciable health risk, and is based on an evaluation of available toxicological data”

Scientifi c Commitee for Food, 1991.

Intake must be assessed as mean intake within a long period of time: CHRONIC EXPOSURE

A safety limit for ACUTE TOXICITY:the Acute Reference Dose (expressed per kg body weight)

Exposure must be assessed within a restricted time interval (meal or day): ACUTE EXPOSURE

Dietary exposure =

Sum (Food chemical concentration x Food consumption)

body weight


Impact of body weight on exposure

CYCLAMMATE ADI: 7 mg/kg body weightMaximum Permitted Level in sugar free beverages: 400 mg/l

30 kg

ADI reached through daily consumption of 0.5 litre of beverage

50 kg

ADI reached through daily consumption of 0.9 litre of beverage

60 kg

ADI reached through daily consumption of 1 litre of beverage

Age Body weight Average energy requirement

Child (3-4 years) 15 kg 94 kcal/kgChild (9-10 years) 30 kg 68 kcal/kgSedentary Adult 60 kg 35 kcal/kg

European RDAs (Nutrient and energy intakes for the European Community, 1993)

The ratio of food consumption / body weight is higher in children than in adults. If the chemical concentration is the same in their diet, exposure is higher in children.

In order to protect the health of all consumers there is the need to ensure the safety of the diet of the whole population, including high consumers (for hazardous chemicals) and low consumers (for nutrients) of the different food items.



We need to estimate the highest percentiles

of mean daily intake/kg body weight

Example of a food chemical intake distribution

The issue of what proportion of the population would have to exceed the ADI before action (i.e. risk management decision) is considered necessary to reduce exposure is:

a � scientifi c question: (sample size needed to assess the 95°, 97.5°, 99° percentiles of exposure)

a � political / ethical question (can we exclude 5%, 2.5%, 1% of the European population from the risk assessment?)

The number of chemical substances that should be monitored is huge

For example:

The food additives authorized in the EU are more than 300 �

More than 2800 different fl avouring substances are claimed by industry �to be added to foods and beverages in Europe

95thMean

90th

99th

High percentiles


Exposure varies with AGE and PHYSIOLOGICAL STATUS

Working group on exposure assessment

European Food Safety AuthoritySCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE

Panel on food

additives,

fl avourings,

processing aids

and materials in

contact with food

Panel on plant

health, plant

protection

products and their

residues

Panel on additives

and products or

substances used

in animal feed

Panel on

genetically

modifi ed

organisms

Panel on dietetic

products,

nutrition and

allergies

Panel on

contaminants in

the food chain

Panel on

biological hazards

(including

TSE / BSE issues)

Panel on animal

health and

welfare



Exposure varies with FOOD CHOICE

Exposure varies with GEOGRAPHICAL AREA


Stepwise procedure:

In order to target detailed dietary exposure estimates to chemicals which might be of health concern for the general population or for certain critical groups.

At step 1, exposure is fi rst assessed by using methods based on conservative

assumptions. If the conclusion is “no safety concern” no further assessment is performed.

Source: REPORT OF THE JOINT FAO / WHO CONSULTATION ON FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICALS, Geneva, 10-14 February 1997.

At the fi rst step of chronic exposure, hypothetical food consumption data are

used. The techniques are easy to use and pragmatic but they differ according to

the category of substance.

They need to be validated:

Are they really conservative? Which percentile of exposure do they assess?

They could be harmonized:

In order to harmonize the level of protection of consumers for the different categories of substances.

Source: REPORT OF THE JOINT FAO / WHO CONSULTATION ON FOOD CONSUMPTION AND EXPOSURE

Improved Consumption Data Quality

Improved Residue Data Quality

Best

EstimateMethods Used For Estimating Exposure

Model Diets

Regional Diets

National Diets

Estimate

First

Maximum Levels in Standards

Monitored Levels

As Consumed Levels

Household andIndividual Diets

Single Point Method Probabilistic Method

Least quality,greatest uncertainty,

and least cost.

Best quality,least uncertainty,and greatest cost



Food consumption data are needed to check for the underlying assumptions

of step 1 methods

Residues of food contact materials: a 60 kg subject may consume 1 kg of food /

beverage in contact with 600 cm2 of the relevant food contact material -> need to assess the ratio of contact surface to mass in packaged food available on the market.

Flavourings: each single fl avouring is consumed by 32 millions of consumers in Europe (“per capita” method) -> need to assess the market of fl avoured food and their distribution among foods.

If exposure at the fi rst step is high, more accurate assessments of exposure are needed, based on actual food consumption data.

The study of exposure from diet must take into special consideration individuals who consume relatively large quantities of foods containing higher concentrations of the food chemical of interest.

Food consumption data needs in terms of data quality:

recent �

individual level �

representative of the population �

adequate dimension of the sample �

covering the whole diet (foods eaten out of home, supplements, drinking �water)

referred to short term and long term consumption �

with individual body weights �

codifi ed into highly disaggregated food categories: �

brand (additives and fl avourings) �

type of packaging (residues of packaging material) �

cooking method (toxic substances related to processing) �


Food consumption data needs in terms of data availability:

In order to perform refi ned exposure assessment to single substances we need

easy access to raw data (food consumption for each single subject) �

database manager (to assign chemical concentration to the correct �food groups)

Food consumption data available at EU level for exposure assessment are highly variable:

Household Budget Surveys �

Food consumption surveys aimed at assessing nutrient intake (dietary �history, Food Frequency Questionnaire, 24 h recall, 48 h recall, 2 day record, 3 day record, 7 day record)

14 day consumer surveys at brand level �

How can we use incomplete data sets?

By making conservative assumptions:

total brand loyalty of subjects to the food items containing the highest �concentration of substance can be assumed

low standard body weight (60 kg in the adult) can be used instead of �measured body weight

databank of large portion sizes may be used. �

By correcting data:

chronic exposure can be derived from short term surveys �

individual consumption can be derived from household consumption �



Need to account for uncertainty

“uncertainties… should be explicitly considered at each step in the risk assessment and documented in a transparent manner. Expression of uncertainty… may be qualitative or quantitative, but should be quantifi ed to the extent that is scientifi cally achievable”

Codex Working Principles on Risk Analysis, 2003

Uncertainties in food consumption data

Measurement uncertainties �

food types, weights and portion sizes �

under-reporting and recall error �

Sampling uncertainty �

when survey is biased or too small to assess extreme consumers �

Extrapolation uncertainty �

extrapolation to different years, seasons, regions, population groups etc. �

extrapolation from short to long term exposure �

A good survey design allows to reduce uncertainty

Characterising uncertainty in exposure assessment

Qualitative: �

list sources of uncertainty affecting the assessment �

evaluate direction and magnitude of each �

discuss combined impact on exposure estimate �

Quantitative: �

uncertainty factors & worst case assumptions �

sensitivity analysis �

probabilistic analysis, e.g. Monte Carlo or Bayesian methods �

60. Summary Report EFSA Scientifi c Colloquium 3, 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium60. Summary Report EFSA Scientifi c Colloquium 3, 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium



The EFSA Journal (2004)46




Which are our needs in terms

of food consumption data

when we perform

exposure assessment ?


FOOD CONSUMPTION IN EUROPE –

DATA FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES.

IMPLICATIONS FOR EXPOSURE ASSESSMENTS

W. BECKER

National Food Administration

Uppsala, Sweden


Data sources on food consumption

FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS) �

Food availability / market supply �

Household Budget Surveys �

Food brought into the household �

Food consumption / dietary surveys �

Food and drink eaten during a specifi ed period �

FAO Food Balance Sheets (FBS)

Food availability / market supply �

not � purchase or eating

primary, raw commodities �

Regularly updated �

Inherent unsystematic differences vis-à-vis national data �

Primarily used for trends �

Used in exposure assessment �

Household Budget Surveys

Food and drink brought into the household �

not � eating

May cover only expenditures �

Meals outside home may not be included or recorded as expenditures �

Household composition varies �

Used in exposure assessment �


Annex 3 – Presentation by W. Becker

Food consumption surveys

Food and drink � consumed by individuals during a specifi c period by individuals

Various methodolgies affect results �

Record, Interview, Food Frequency Questionnaires �

Level of detail of food coverage and description �

Population sampled �

Mis- and / or under-reporting is common �

Nationally representative surveys not available in all countries �

Data available in Europe

FBS: FAO, Eurostat, (OECD) �

HBS: all countries (?), DAFNE-project �

Food Consumption Surveys �

national surveys in several countries, with different methodologies �

multi-centre studies: SENECA, EPIC �

National food consumption studies used

Name Age Method

N 1997 Norkost 1997 16-79 yr FFQ

SE 1997-98 Riksmaten 18-74 yr 7-d rec

DK 2000/01 Danskernes kostvaner 15-75 yr 7-d rec

D 1998 GeNuS 18-79 yr DH

UK 2000-01 NDNS 19-64 yr 7-d rec

NL 1997-98 DFCS 1-65+ yr 48-h rec

F 1999 INCA 15-65+ yr 7-d rec


EPIC Collaborating Centres

Availability of milk, FAO FBS 2000

66 Summary Report EFSA Scientific Colloquium 3 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels Belgium

N SE DK D UK NL B-Lx F P E GR I0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

1100

ml/p

ers/

year



Milk consumption in Dafne countries, 1990

Consumption of milk and yoghurt, EPIC

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Norway

Sweden

Denm

ark

Germ

any

UK NL

Fran

ce

Spain

Greec

eIta

ly

g/d

ay

women

men


Milk and cheese consumption among elderly, SENECA

Consumption of milk according to EPIC and national FCS


0

100

200

300

400

500

DK/Rosk

ilde

NL/Culem

borg

B/Ham

me

F/Hag

F/Rom

ans

P/Coim

braP/V

F

E/Bet

anzo

s

I/Pad

ua

g/d

ay

women

men

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Norway Sweden Denmark Germany UK NL France

g/d

ay

EPIC

National FCS

women

womenincl.

cheese



Availability of vegetables and fruit, FAO FBS 2000

Total fruit and vegetable consumption, EPIC

Summary Report EFSA Scientific Colloquium 3 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels Belgium 69

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

N SE DK D UK NL B-Lx F P E GR I

g/p

ers/

year

Fruit

Veg

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Norway

Sweden

Denm

ark

Germ

any NL

UK

Fran

ce

Spain

Greec

eIta

ly

g/d

ay

women

men


Fruit and vegetable consumption among elderly, SENECA

Consumption of fruit & vegetables in EPIC and national FCS


0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

DK/Rosk

ilde

NL/Culem

borg

B/Ham

me

F/Hag

F/Rom

ans

P/Coim

braP/V

F

E/Bet

anzo

s

I/Pad

ua

g/d

ay

F&G, men

F&V, women

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Norway Sweden Denmark Germany NL UK France

g/d

ay

EPIC

National FCS

women

women



Availability of fi sh (round fi sh) in some European countries, FAO FBS - 2000

Fish consumption in EPIC study

Summary Report EFSA Scientific Colloquium 3 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels Belgium

0

50

100

150

200

250

N SE DK D UK NL B-Lx F P E GR I

g/p

ers/

year

0

20

40

60

80

100

Norway

Sweden

Denm

ark

Germ

any

UK NL

Fran

ce

Spain

Greec

eIta

ly

g/d

ay

women

men


Fish consumption among elderly, SENECA

Fish consumption according to EPIC and national FCS


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

DK/Rosk

ilde

NL/Culem

borg

B/Ham

me

F/Hag

F/Rom

ans

P/Coim

braP/V

F

E/Bet

anzo

s

I/Pad

ua

g/d

ay

women men

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Norway Sweden Denmark Germany UK NL France

g/d

ay

EPIC

National FCSwomen

women



Conclusions

Different data sources may give different pictures of food consumption �patterns in a country

Food patterns differ between males and females, age groups etc., but not �consistently across countries

Conclusions: EA

Use of food consumption data from different sources in EA may produce �highly variable estimates

Available food consumption data at the individual level are in many cases not �directly comparable due to methodological issues

Use of available food consumption data in EA should be explored �

Harmonised data collections are needed to enable consistent EA across �Europe

Some References

FAO Food balance sheets for year 2000. FAOSTAT, www.fao.org. �

Anonymous (1998): Zo eet Nederland. Resultaten van de Voedselconsumptie- �peiling 1997-1998. Den Haag: Voedingscentrum.

Becker W , Pearson M. Dietary habits and nutrient intake in Sweden 1997-98. �National Food Administration, Uppsala 2002.

Fagt S, Matthiessen J, Trolle E, Lyhne N et al. (2002): 2. Dietary habits of the �Danish Population 2000-2001. Fødevarerapport 2002:10. Søborg: The Danish Food Directorate.

National Diet & Nutrition Survey 2000-2001. Volume 1. Types and quantities �of food consumed. HMSO 2002.

Johansson L, Sovoll K (1999): Norkost 1997. National dietary survey among �men and women 16-79 years of age (In Norwegian). Report 3/1999. Oslo, National Council on Nutrition and Physical Activity.


Mensink GBM, Thamm M, Haas K (1999): Die Ernährung in Deutschland 1998. �Gesundheitswesen 61, S201-S206.

Volatier JL et al. (2000): Enquête INCA individuelle et nationale �sur les consommations alimentaires. Technique & Documentation, Londres / Paris / New York.

Seneca investigators. Food patterns of elderly Europeans. �Eur J Clin Nutr 1996; 50 (Suppl. 2): S86-S100.

EPIC calibration study, Public Health Nutr. 2002 Dec;5(6B) �

DAFNE Initiative. Public Health Nutr 2001; 4(5B) �


KARIN HULSHOF

TNO - Quality of Life

COMMON METHODOLOGY FOR COLLECTION

OF FOOD CONSUMPTION DATA IN THE EU.

ISSUES IDENTIFIED AT THE EFCOSUM PROJECT


EFCOSUM project 2000-2002

European Food Consumption Survey Method (EFCOSUM)

Framework of EU Programme on Health Monitoring

Findings and recommendations published in EJCN 2002;56, suppl.2

Participating European countries

EFCOSUM - starting points

23 participating European countries �

co-operation with EPIC, DAFNE �

building on European actions on food classifi cation and food composition �


Annex 3 – Presentation by K. Hulshof

Aims of EFCOSUM

to defi ne a method for monitoring food consumption in nationally �representative samples of all age-sex categories in Europe in a comparable way

to indicate how to make existing food consumption data comparable �

to defi ne a (minimum) set of dietary components which are relevant �indicators of health

International comparable data on

consumption of foods as well as nutrients to get insight into average intake �and their distribution in well-defi ned groups of individuals

usual as well as acute intake �

existing as well as new data �

Relevant dietary indicators* based on EURODIET

vegetables, excl. potatoes �

fruit, incl. fresh, excl. bottled / canned juices �

bread �

fi sh, shellfi sh �

saturated fatty acids (%energy) �

total fat (total lipids) (%energy) �

alcohol (g/day) �

biomarkers for folate, iron, vitamin D, iodine, sodium �

* very minimum set


Inventarisation of available food consumption data at the individual level

most European countries have carried out national dietary surveys which �provide valuable information for usage in national nutrition policy and nutritional surveillance

period 1985-2001: 21 European countries - 45 surveys: �huge differences in population groups, age categories, duration of the study and dietary methods

e.g. 23 dietary records (16x 7d; 5x 2-4 d; 2x 1d)

9 dietary recalls (7x 1d; 1x 2d; 1x 3d)

7 dietary history

6 food frequency questionnaire

Harmonisation of existing data

pragmatic guidelines were developed to permit available data to be made �comparable in a transparent way:

population groups - adults

age of survey - 5-10 years

type of survey - 1 day

food categorization - EFG (COST action 99)

� about 15 countries could provide food consumption data that were available and can be made reasonably comparable at the level of food groups (‘raw edible ingredient level’) for the whole adult population

for comparability at the nutrient level it was recommended to wait for a �European nutrient database



Method for comparable new data

individual data using 24-hour recall and biomarkers �

2 repeated, non-consecutive (computerised) 24-hour recalls, over 1 year, �including all week days

quantifi cation of portion sizes with picture book and additional data �

strictly standardised procedures with (upgraded version of) EPIC-SOFT �as software of choice (if EPIC-SOFT cannot be used at least the rules for standardisation and data control should be used)

FFQ if necessary to obtain % non-users �

use of modelling techniques �

Motivation 24-hour recall method

applicable for broad populations of different ethnicity �

no literacy requirement �

relatively low burden for respondent as well as interviewer �

information possible on meal occasions, place and indoor / outdoor consumption �

open-ended �

procedure does not alter food intake pattern �

administration time is short �

method is cost-effective �


24-hour recall and intake calculations

suffi ces to get population mean intakes and distributions for observed intake �

allows determination of usual intakes and distributions when using at least �two non-consecutive 24-hour recalls and a food list to assess the proportion non-users for infrequently consumed food

Comparability of food classifi cation systems

level of comparability �

food commodities, ingredients, as consumed �

grouping systems �

EPIC, DAFNE, EFG �

recommendation: coding at ‘raw edible ingredient �level’ EFG system

observedusual

Intake

norm



Comparability of food composition databases

National food composition databases are not comparable, �not even on macro nutrient level

European Food Information Resource (EuroFIR) is started in 2005. �Principal objective is:“to build and disseminate a comprehensive, coherent and validated databank providing a single, authoritative source of food composition in Europe for nutrients, and newly emerging bioactive compounds with putative health benefi ts”

Operationalisation of a European Food Consumption Surveillance

In EFCOSUM consensus also recommendations have been set up for:

data collection software �

sampling procedures �

recruitment �

fi eld work procedures �

biomarkers �

training, quality control �

Statistical aspects

minimum sample size ~ 2000 adults per country �

2x 24-h recall; FFQ for % users infrequently consumed food �

mean, median, quartiles, P5 and P95 �


Overall conclusions EFCOSUM

available datasets on dietary intake are not comparable on European level �

existing data from 15 countries can be made comparable on the level of �food groups

fi rst choice: a new Pan-European food consumption surveillance on �individual level using 2x 24-hour recall

second choice: 24-hour recall for calibration �

How to proceed?

several European countries adopted the EFCOSUM �approach in new studies

further development and validation of a �trans-European method to be used for estimation of the intake of foods, nutrients and potentially hazardous chemicals within the European population including children

include further developments within EuroFIR �(food grouping, food composition database)

resources… �



Participants

Prof dr JA Abaravicius, LV Dr MRH Löwik, NL

Prof JA Amorim Cruz, PT Dr A Møller, DK

Dr W Becker, SW Prof O Moreiras, ES

Prof dr G Biró, HU Dr L Ovesen, DK

Dr H Boeing, DE Dr J Ruprich, CZ

Ms HAM Brants, NL Dr W Sekula, PL

Dr JH Brussaard, NL Dr N Slimani / Dr UR Charrondière, FR

Dr S De Henauw, BE Ms G Smithers, UK

Sr AMJ van Erp, NL Dr L Steingrímsdóttir, IS

Dr K Holciková, SV Dr A Trichopoulou, GR

Dr KFAM Hulshof, NL Dr A Turrini, IT

Dr S Jacob, CH Dr LM Valsta, SF

Dr L Johansson, NO Dr Ph Verger, FR

Dr A Kaic-Rak, HR Dr JL Volatier, FR

Dr J Kearney, IE Dr DC Welten, NL

Dr JS Koenig, AT



N. SLIMANI

Nutrition and Hormone Group

International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC-WHO)

Lyon, France

POTENTIAL OF THE STANDARDIZED EPIC

DIETARY METHODOLOGY FOR EXPOSURE

ASSESSMENT IN EUROPE


European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC)

10 European Countries �

23 Centres �

Over 520 000 participants �

Ranging in age from 35-75 years. �

Tromsø

Umeå Malmö

Aarhus Copenhagen

Oxford Cambridge

Potsdam Heidelberg

Utrecht Bilthoven

Paris (nationwide)

Turin Milan Florence Naples Ragusa

Oviedo San Sebastian Pamplona Murcia Granada

Athens (nationwide)

ö

Umeå

(Iarc) Lyon

Paris

Florence

Milan

Ragusa

Turin

NaplesBarcelona

Oviedo

Granada

Murcia

Pamplona

San sebastian

Cambridge

Oxford

Athens

Heidelberg

Potsdam

Aarhus

Copenhagen

Tromsø

Bilthoven

Utrecht

Malm


Annex 3 – Presentation by N. Slimani

Ex

tern

al a

ctiv

itie

s

EPIC-SOFT asReference?

Special issue of EJCN, 2002

Concept andversions

development

10 EPIC-SOFTversions

Special issue of PHN, 2002 EPIC Nutrient

DataBase (ENDB)

Analyses on the EPIC-SOFT data

Validation of the EPIC-SOFT

measurements

Field work(n=37,000)

EUROFIRNew BelgiumVersion,

Upgrade of theDutch one

EFCOSUM

Several regional and national surveys

1992 1995 2000 2002 2004 2005

Inte

rnal

act

ivit

ies

Main features of EPIC-SOFT

Standardised procedures across countries to � describe, quantify, probe and calculate food and beverage intakes (incl. food supplements)

11 translated versions with the same interface adapted to each country �

Calculate food quantities in a common basis �

Systematic quality controls before, during and after data collection �

Standardized procedures to classify, store, retrieve and export data �

Standardized procedures to update EPIC-SOFT databases (58 fi les) �

Harmonized nutrient databases (ENDB), outside EPIC-SOFT �


Potentials of EPIC-SOFT satisfying needs for exposure assessment (summarized from C. Leclerq, EFCOSUM, ILSI)

Standardised open-ended dietary methodology on individuals tested in �different study contexts and populations (within / outside EPIC)

Detailed and fl exible system of food description and quantifi cation which can �potentially be adapted to specifi c exposures

Information on � meal occasions, time and place and related frequency of consumption (e.g. for investigating foods taken out of home, meal patterns)

Validated measurements (evaluated at population level in EPIC) �

Detailed and standardised data exports for analyses ( � raw standardized data which can according to different exposures or hypotheses of interest)

Flexible system to upgrade individual databases and prepare new country- or �study-specifi c EPIC-SOFT versions

Nutritional studies using EPIC-SOFT within or outside EPI

See table following pagewing pagSee table follow



Co

un

try

(da

tes)

Stu

dy n

am

es

(in

sti

tute

in

vo

lve

d)

Ty

pe o

f

stu

dy

Su

bje

cts

Inte

rvie

w

me

tho

d

No

of

24

-HD

Rs

Pa

rtic

ipa

tio

n

Ra

tes (*

)

EP

IC(1

99

5-2

00

0)

EP

IC (

23 c

entr

es)

Cal

ibra

tio

n37

,00

0 a

du

lts

Face

-to

-fac

eE

xcep

t N

orw

ay1

57%

to

92

%(h

alf

ce

ntr

es

>8

0%

)

Sp

ain

(20

01-2

002

)S

pan

ish

bla

dd

er a

nd

ca

nce

r st

ud

yV

alid

atio

n21

7, a

du

lts

Face

-to

-fac

e7-

972

% (

60

%)

No

rway

(20

02-2

003

)N

orw

egia

n W

om

en a

nd

C

ance

r st

ud

yV

alid

atio

n28

6, w

om

enTe

lep

ho

ne

49

9%

(5

7%

)

Ger

man

y(2

002

-20

03)

Bav

aria

n f

oo

d c

on

sum

pti

on

su

rvey

IIR

egio

nal

surv

ey10

50, 1

4-8

0 y

Tele

ph

on

e3

85%

(7

1%

)

(At

leas

t 2

x 24

-HD

Rs)

Sp

ain

(20

03-2

00

4)

Bas

qu

e co

un

try

surv

ey a

mo

ng

ch

ildre

n a

nd

ad

ole

scen

tsR

egio

nal

surv

ey10

00,

ch

ildre

n

and

ad

ole

scen

tsFa

ce-t

o-f

ace

2?

Net

her

lan

ds

(20

03)

Pilo

t st

ud

y o

f th

e D

utc

h

nat

ion

al c

on

sum

pti

on

su

rvey

Pilo

t st

ud

y75

0, y

ou

ng

adu

lts

Tele

ph

on

e2

95%

(4

2%

)

Bel

giu

m(2

00

4-2

005

)B

elg

ium

Fo

od

co

nsu

mp

tio

n s

urv

eyN

atio

nal

surv

ey32

00,

15

and

o

lder

Face

-to

-fac

e2

? (4

2%

)

Net

her

lan

ds

(20

05-2

006

)T

he

Du

tch

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n

Su

rvey

in C

hild

ren

Nat

ion

alsu

rvey

128

0, 2

-6 y

2-d

ay p

re-s

tru

ctu

red

dia

ry(E

PIC

-SO

FT

as

dat

a en

try

syst

em)

In p

rep

arat

ion

Ger

man

y(2

005

-20

06 ?

)G

erm

an N

atio

n-w

ide

Foo

d

Co

nsu

mp

tio

n S

urv

ey (

NV

S II

)N

atio

nal

surv

ey20

,00

0, 1

4-8

0 y

Tele

ph

on

e2

In p

rep

arat

ion

(*) :

Par

tici

pat

ion

rate

s to

the

EPIC

-SO

FT 2

4-H

DR

inte

rvie

w (

s) (

gre

y fi g

ure

s), a

nd

over

all p

arti

cip

atio

n ra

tes

(ora

ng

e fi g

ure

s)


What can we learn from these different study designs?

EPIC-SOFT can be used in different geographical regions, study designs �and on representative samples

Relatively high participation rates to the dietary interviews (57% to 99%), �despite different study designs, populations and number of repeated measurement and overall participation

Possibility to collect single or repeated 24-HDRs using alternative �approaches, i.e. face-to-face and telephone, data entry (?)

Potential to evaluate the reliability of measurements in other study groups �and contexts then EPIC

Short-time interview (~30-35 minutes) �

Importance of these studies as benefi cial experiences for improving EPIC-SOFT and possible study design(s) for pan-European monitoring surveys to be further investigated

Some selected aspects of the EPIC-SOFT programme or measurements

The EPIC-SOFT food description system �

The EPIC-SOFT food quantifi cation system �

Some insights on the validity of the EPIC-SOFT measurements �



Food / recipe search and identifi cation

Food description: facets / descriptors approach


Food quantifi cation

Selected photo from the EPIC-SOFT picture book

EPIC-SOFT picture book containing 140 common photo series…



Final collected 24-HDR interview


Flexibility of the food description system…

PRESERVATION METHOD

NEW DESCRIPTORS ADDED !!!

ADD NEW FOOD !!!

NEW PHOTOS ADDED !!! 3000 to 13,000 food + facet / descriptor strings

PHYSICAL STATE

COOKING METHOD

FACETS / DESCRIPTORSFOOD LIST

- Fish n.s.- Anchovy- Bass, sea- Carp .- Salmon

- Undefi ned- Canned- Frozen - Fresh . .

- Undefi ned- Fillet- Whole- Small pieces- Slice / steak .

- Cooked n.s.- Fried- Boiled.- Steamed

.

.

.- Griddled fl at,

over heat

.

DONELESS

Veal thin (photo 1) Veal thin (photo 2)..Veal thick (photo x)

NEW ADDED FACET !!!



EPIC-SOFT facets / descriptors and (methodological) food classifi cation system

Facets (No of descriptors) Food groups (No sub / sub-groups)

• Source (21) • Unclassifi ed (0)

• Physical state (28) • Potato and other tubers (3)

• Cooking method (28) • Vegetables (10)

• Preservation method (14) • Legumes ( (14)

• Packing medium (24) • Fruits (5)

• Flavoured / added components (33) • Dairy products (12)

• Sugar content (5) • Cereals and products (10)

• Fat content (29) • Meat and products (19)

• Type of packing (4) • Fish and shellfi sh (4)

• Food production (12) • Eggs and products (2)

• Enriched / fortifi ed (6) • Fat (7)

• Brand name / product name (open list) • Sugar and confectionary (10)

• Skin consumed (3) • Cakes (3)

• Visible fat consumed (3) • Non-alcohol beverages (10)

• Type of fat used (open list) • Alcoholic beverages (8)

• Type of milk / liquid used (12) • Condiments and sauces (10)

• Soups, bouillon (3)

• Miscellaneous (6)

Standardisation and (relative) validity of the EPIC-SOFT at population level (n=37,000)

This has been evaluated by three main ways:

1. Level of standardisation of dietary measurements across the interviewers �(Slimani et al. 2000 )

2. Degree of under- or over-estimation by comparing mean total energy �intake and EI:BMR and its confi dence intervals across centres (Ferrari et al., 2002)

3. Using independent biomarkers such as urinary nitrogen �(Slimani et al. 2003 ) or plasma carotenoids (Al-Delaimy, submitted)


Ad

juste

d c

en

tre

me

an

en

erg

y i

nta

ke

s i

n t

he

24

-HD

Rs,

aft

er

exclu

sio

n: W

om

en

mmary Report EFSA Scientific Colloquium 3 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels Belgium

Ferr

ari

et a

l., 2

002

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

2200

Greec

eAstu

rias Gra

nada M

urcia Nav

arra

San S

ebas

tian

Flore

nce Vares

e RagusaTu

rin Naples Fr

a: North

-Eas

t

Fra:

North-W

est

Fra:

South

Fra:

South co

ast Heid

elber

gPo

tsdam

Bilthove

n Utrech

t

UK (G) UK (H)

Aarhus

Copenhag

en

Malm

ö Umea

Nor: South

& E

ast

Nor: North

& W

est



We

igh

ted

Pe

ars

on

’s c

orr

ela

tio

n b

etw

ee

n g

en

de

r-sp

ecifi

c c

en

tre

alg

ori

thm

ic m

ea

ns

of

24

-h u

rin

ary

N a

nd

me

an

N f

rom

24

-HD

Rs (

N=

22

)

Summary Report EFSA Scientific Colloquium 3, 28-29 April 2005 - Brussels, Belgium 97.

Slim

ani e

t al

., 20

03

Cam

Hei

Oxf

Pot

Gre

Flo

Bil

Tur

Var

Rag

Bil

Cam

Flo

HeiPa

r

Nap

Oxf

Pot

Rag

Tur

Var

Gre

1.8

22.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

3

1.8

22.

22.

42.

62.

83

Loga

rith

mic

mea

n N

uri

ne

Logarithmic mean N 24-HDRs

Y =

1.2

9x -

0.9

7

r =

0.8

6

ra =

0.94

Mal

e

Fem

ale


Sp

ea

rma

n ’s c

orr

ela

tio

n b

etw

ee

n m

ea

n 2

4-H

DR

s a

nd

DQ

s f

ruit

an

d

ve

ge

tab

le i

nta

ke

s a

nd

me

an

pla

sm

a c

aro

ten

oid

leve

ls (

n=

16

)

Lute

inZ

eaxa

nth

inB

eta

Cry

pto

xan

thin

Lyco

pen

eA

lph

aca

rote

ne

Bet

aca

rote

ne

Tota

lca

rote

no

ids

Fru

its

& V

eg.

0.8

4

0.6

8

0.8

7

0.6

8

0.8

3

0.6

7

0.6

7

0.5

6

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

0.7

1

0.5

6

Veg

etab

les

0.69

n.s

.

0.68

n.s

.

0.61

n.s

.

0.54

n.s

.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

0.64

n.s

.

Fru

its

0.8

0

0.7

6

0.8

7

0.7

1

0.8

4

0.6

8

0.64

0.6

4

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.

n.s

.

0.6

7

0.6

1

Cit

rus

fru

its

0.58

0.6

9

0.67

0.6

4

0.9

0

0.7

0

n.s

.0

.61

-0.6

7n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

Tota

l car

rot

-0.6

4n

.s.

-0.7

8 n

.s.

-0.8

0n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

0.7

1

0.6

1

n.s

.

n.s

.

n.s

.

n.s

.

All

tom

ato

coo

ked

0.71

n.s

.

0.53

n.s

.

0.52

n.s

.

0.7

8

0.6

9

n.s

.n

.s.

n.s

.n

.s.

0.74

n.s

.

: S

tan

dar

diz

ed 2

4-H

DR

s :

No

n-s

tan

dar

diz

ed E

PIC

DQ

s

Al d

elai

my

et a

l., s

ub

mit

ted




Current limitations

EPIC-SOFT versions are not available for all EU countries �

EPIC-SOFT and its databases need to be adapted to different �population groups (e.g. children, adolescents, ethnic groups)

In Children, EPIC-SOFT might be used as data entry system � feasibility study on going in NL (Ocké & Hulshof)

EPIC-SOFT measurements need to be validated for the specifi c �needs of risk exposure assessment

EPIC-SOFT needs to be reprogrammed on a modern window environment �

Additional EPIC-SOFT modules need to be developed for an easier �maintenance of the EPIC-SOFT databases (58 fi les per version)

Future needs for risk exposure assessment

Evaluate the (specifi c) needs for exposure assessments precisely �and the possibilities of upgrading EPIC-SOFT databases (and structure)

Upgrade EPIC-SOFT and its databases according to comments from �EPIC-SOFT end- users and EU recommendations (EFCOSUM) to improve further the programme and the interview procedures

Upgrade the EPIC-SOFT databases according to changes on the food �market or food habits (e.g. foods, recipes, food portions, food supplements, brand names, etc…)

Develop other EPIC-SOFT versions and upgrade / adapt the �software / databases to other countries / different population groups

Validate further EPIC-SOFT according to designs relevant for risk �exposure assessments

Find resources… �



PHILIPPE VERGER

Research unit INRA 1204 – Met@risk

CONCISE E.U. FOOD CONSUMPTION DATABASE

UNDER DEVELOPMENT BY EFSA FOR

PRELIMINARY EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT


Practical defi nition for international dietary exposure assessment

Accumulation of arguments from national data to estimate the “real” �exposure of the general population: in general not based on one fi gure but on consistent results from various origin.

Needs for EFSA panels

Risk assessment needs international food consumption data �

A vast majority of the EFSA opinions’ do not need a �sophisticated assessment

Protecting countries without any data (reasonable overestimation) �

Acceptability of the opinions by stakeholders �

Few opinions need an accurate international estimation of the intake �

Current situationFood consumption data are available in a majority of European countries �

BUT

The comparison of food consumption obtained at national level can not �be done directly

Main reasons for observed differences

Various survey methodologies �

Various sampling methodologies �

Various survey duration �

Various clustering of age groups �

Various categorisation systems �


Annex 3 – Presentation by Ph. Verger

Data currently used by international committees

GEMS Food diets (5 diets) �

SCOOP data (Scientifi c cooperation tasks) �

Task 4.1 specifi c for food intake data �

Other tasks (not always consistent) �

Possible improvement: 2 ways

“Disintegration” of the GEMS Food diets (13 diets or more) �

“Combination” of national data �

Same age groups �

Same food categorisation �

Adults and children

Two age groups �

3 to 14 years old �

15 and over �


European Food Grouping (EFG)

• Main categories • Sub categories

• Cereals & cereal products • Fruit juices

• Sugar & sugar products • Soft drinks, excl fruit juice

• Fats (vegetable and animal) • Bottled water

• Vegetables, nuts and pulses

• Starchy roots or potatoes • Beer

• Fruits • Wine

• Fruit juices, soft drinks and bottled water • Other alcoholic beverages

• Coffee, tea, cocoa

• Alcoholic beverages • Meat and meat products

• Meat and meat products, offal • Offal

• Fish and seafood • Seafood

• Eggs • Fish

• Milk

• Cheese and other milk products • Control of consistency

• Tap water • All solid foods

• All beverages

• Food non classifi ed



Preliminary results: fi sh consumption in Europe

Data from 6 countries �

Italy �

France �

UK �

Sweden �

Norway �

Netherlands �

Total fi sh consumption (all fi shes including those not identifi ed �by the consumer)

Average consumption, high percentiles and portion size �for consumers only.

Percentage of consumers �

Mean intake (consumers only)

Sweden: 29 ± 21 g �

Netherlands: 34 ± 25 g �

France: 36 ± 29 g �

UK: 43 ± 36 g �

Italy: 48 ± 41 g �

Norway: 77 g (FFQ with standard portion) �

GEMS Food Europe (5 diets): 47 g �

GEMS Food (13 diets): �

Cluster B: 41 g (Italy) �

Cluster E: 25 g (France & UK) �

Cluster F: 45 g (Sweden) �


High percentiles (95th or 99th)

Sweden: 113 g �

Netherlands: 123 g �

UK: 136 g �

France: 141 g �

Norway: 174 g �

Italy: 190 g �

GEMS Food Europe + WHO procedure: 3 * 47 g = 141 g �

Average portion size

Netherlands: 99 g �

Sweden: 114 g �

France: 118 g �

Italy: 129 g �

Percentage of consumers for fi sh

Netherlands*: 15 % �

France: 78 % �

Italy: 84 % �

Sweden: 98 % �* Two days



Fis

h c

on

su

mp

tio

n b

y s

pe

cie

s

Co

nsu

mp

tio

nM

ean

FR

g/d

ay

Mea

n

ITg

/day

Mea

n

NL

g/d

ay

Mea

n

NW

g/d

ay

Mea

n

SW

g/d

ay

Mea

n

UK

g/d

ay

99th

FR

g/d

ay

99th

IT

g/d

ay

99th

N

Lg

/day

95th

N

Wg

/day

99th

S

Wg

/day

97.5

th

UK

g/d

ay

Sal

mo

n15

1419

85

1963

6065

1427

66

Her

rin

g11

2030

35

1942

6694

730

53

Tun

a11

1514

83

1631

6155

3127

52

Tro

ut

3230

05

-22

5587

014

-53

Car

p0

80

00

-0

80

00

-

Pilc

har

d-

Sar

din

a10

220

00

1547

700

00

62

Mac

kere

l13

2516

40

1754

245

4010

047

Oth

er fi

shes

3143

33-

18-

9919

010

1-

75-

No

n s

pec

ifi e

d

fi sh

29-

39-

--

129

-10

7-

--

Tota

l Fis

h36

48

3477

2943

141

190

123

174

113

136


Provisional conclusions

Data on average intake, high percentiles and average portion size �for consumers only are consistent at that level of aggregation for the considered countries independently of the survey methodology

GEMS Diets do not represents an overestimate for fi sh consumption �

Short term improvements

Comparable estimation of frequency of consumption �

Comparable estimation of percentage of consumers �

Table on large portions �

Estimation of high intake for chemicals in more than one food category �(SCOOP 4.2)



Step forward

Collection of data in the EU by EFSA �

Registration in an EFSA AMI list �(see EFSA web under Opportunities / Procurements)

Calls for tender for each country addressed to eligible experts / Institutes �

Validation procedure for 3 countries �

Test assumption high consumer of max. 2 categories �

Preliminary comparison with GEMS Food regional diets �

Test applicability through different compounds �

EFSA staff contract 3 months (up to 18 months) �

Initial screening of intake �

Accessibility to EFSA Panels / SC for preliminary exposure assessment as �well as publication on EFSA web

Further development �

More comprehensive database (food categories, subpopulations etc.) �

Creation of a network of database managers �

Starting point for a network with food consumption database managers �in the EU

EFSA contact : [email protected]



GERALD G. MOY

Food Safety Department

World Health Organization

WHO EXPERIENCE WITH

FOOD CONSUMPTION DATA



Annex 3 – Presentation by G. Moy

Risk Analysis Paradigm

SPS Agreement

Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures �

All sanitary measures for food shall be based on risk assessment (Article 5.1) �

Risk assessment shall take into account “risk assessment techniques �developed by the relevant international organizations”

Risk Assessment

* Science basedRisk Management

* Policy based

Risk Communication

* Interactive exchange of information and opinions


Exposure Assessment

The qualitative and / or quantitative evaluation of the likely intake of biological, chemical, and physical agents via food as well as exposures from other sources if relevant.

Codex, 1997

Exposure Assessment (single food)

Dietary Exposure = C x F

C = Concentration of food chemicalF = Amount of food consumed

Hazard Characterization Exposure Assessment

Risk Characterization

Hazard Identifi cation

Risk Assessment Process



Exposure Assessment (multiple foods)

Dietary Exposure = Σ Ci x F

i

Ci = Concentration of food chemical in a specifi c foodFi = Amount of that food consumed

Potential exposure scenarios

Toxic Concern Exposure Route

single chemical single food

single chemical multiple foods

single chemical multiple media

multiple chemicals with the same mechanism of action (toxicity)

single food


multiple foods


multiple media


Exposure

Assessment

TARGET GROUP / BODY WEIGHT- Foetus- Infant- Children mean or

standard deviation- Adults mean or

standard deviation

FOOD CHEMICAL DATA- Maximum

permitted- Highest reported- Trial mean or

median- Monitoring data- Processing factors

applied- As consumed

FOOD CONSUMPTION(including drinking water)- Highest reported- High percentile- Mean (eaters only)- Mean population

OTHER FACTORS- Nutritional status,

esp. malnutrition- Occupation- Health status- Age- Gender- Genetics- Multimedia

HAZARD CHARACTERIZATION- ADI- PTWI / PTDI- Potency- Acute Reference

Dose

EXPOSURE TIME- Lifetime- Year- Month- Week- Day- One meal



Hazard Characterization

Acceptable Daily Intake �

Provisional Tolerable Daily Intake or Weekly Intake �

Carcinogenic Potency �

Acute Reference Dose �

Target Group Body Weight

Foetus �

Infant �

Children �

Adults �

Vulnerable groups �

Exposure Time

Lifetime �

Year �

Month �

Week �

Day �

One meal �

Other Factors

Nutritional status, �esp. malnutrition

Gender �

Genetics �

Multimedia �

Other �

Occupation �

Health status �

Age �


Food Chemical Data

Maximum permitted �

Highest reported �

Mean or median �

Monitoring data �

Processing factors �

As consumed �

Food Consumption

Highest reported �

High percentile �

Mean or median (eaters) �

Mean or median (population) �

Consumption Data

Population methods �

Food balance sheets �

Per capita production �

Household methods �

Purchase records �

Food disappearance �

Individual methods �

Food record survey �

24-hour recall survey �

Food frequency questionnaire �

Meal-based diet history survey �

Food habit questionnaire �



Food Chain Considerations

Raw agricultural commodities �

Semi-processed commodities �

Processed foods �

Foods as consumed �

Single commodity �

Mixed commodity �

GEMS / Food Regional Diets

Raw and semi-processed agricultural commodities �

Use FAO Food Balance Sheets �

Per capita daily intake �

Grams per person per day �


Eg

yp

tia

n F

oo

d B

ala

nce

Sh

ee

t -

19

98

PE

R C

AP

ITA

PR

OD

UC

TP

RO

DU

CT

ION

IMP

OR

TS

EX

PO

RT

ST

OTA

L S

UP

PLY

FEE

DS

EE

DW

AS

TE

SU

PP

LY (

G/D

AY

)

Wh

eat

6093

,15

7413

,33

7,8

1225

8,6

811

61,5

924

512

91,0

539

7,0

Mai

ze54

30,4

930

54,5

1,04

8183

,96

3593

,77

2974

0,39

151,

1

So

rgh

um

900

0,2

080

0,2

450

571

,48

11,4

Po

tato

es19

84,

0160

,18

233,

918

10,7

919

820

3,22

58,4

Su

gar

Can

e14

352,

783,

3314

349,

4514

3514

467

,3

Su

gar

(R

aw E

qu

ival

ent)

1171

1101

,09

1,57

2032

,47

84,

4

Pu

lses

, Oth

er56

1,6

142,

075,

2967

8,38

113,

4527

35,6

920

,8

Tom

ato

es57

53,2

86,

8721

,357

38,8

557

5,33

214,

4

Veg

etab

les,

Oth

er57

09,4

52,

6290

,99

5662

,95

0,35

566,

4621

1,6

Ora

ng

es, M

and

arin

es18

63,4

60,

9421

7,76

164

6,6

418

6,35

60,6

Lem

on

s, L

imes

300

012

,49

287,

5130

10,7

Ban

anas

600

11,6

0,01

611,

661

,16

22,8

Ap

ple

s38

8,46

38,9

90,

0842

7,37

42,7

116

,0

Dat

es83

9,8

0,23

0,67

839,

368

431

,4

Gra

pes

957,

7314

,61

0,86

971,

49

95,7

836

,2

Fru

its,

Oth

er10

47,6

516

,53

26,7

510

37,4

310

0,05

38,9

Bo

vin

e M

eat

483

,02

130,

90,

5663

8,41

26,5

Po

ult

ry M

eat

522,

560,

060,

3252

2,3

21,7

Fres

hw

ater

Fis

h27

6,62

0,22

027

6,8

411

,5

Pel

agic

Fis

h78

,07

230,

190

308,

2531

,58

11,5

Ric

e (M

illed

Eq

uiv

alen

t)29

68,

310,

68

417,

6930

50,3

690

,04

83,

3818

0,39

110,

8

Su

gar

& S

wee

ten

ers

1250

,22

1106

,81

5,07

2113

,91

87,7

Pu

lses

588,

8516

4,07

9,45

723,

4711

3,45

33,4

536

22,4

Veg

etab

le O

ils11

1,8

724,

057,

46

814,

2917

,3

Milk

- E

xclu

din

g B

utt

er34

81,2

632

2,24

8,4

636

09,4

957

7,79

174,

0611

8,5



Five GEMS / Food Regional Diets

Middle Eastern �

Far Eastern �

African �

Latin American �

European-type �

Risk Assessment Bodies Using GEMS / Food Diets

Joint FAO / WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) �

Joint FAO / WHO Expert Meetings on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) �

Ad hoc Study Groups and Consultations �

Corn Consumption by GEMS / Food Region (g/person/day)

Middle

Eastern

Far Eastern

African

Latin

American

European

0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Problems with the GEMS / Food Regional Diets

Codex and FAO codes do not match �

Some commodities missing �

Some processed food missing �

Too old �

Not representative �

Does not include high percentile consumers �

GEMS / Food Consumption Cluster Diets

FAO / WHO Exposure Assessment Consultation, February 1997, Geneva �

Peterson and Barraj paper �

Use average 1997-2001 FBS �

9 original clusters �

13 proposed consumption cluster diets �

Proposed Revised GEMS / Food Regional / Cultural Dietary Clusters



Corn Consumption (g/person/day)

GEMS / Food Cluster H

250 versus 40

Bolivia � Mexico �

El Salvador � Nicaragua �

Fiji � Panama �

Guatemala � Paraguay �

Haiti � Peru �

Honduras � Saint Kitts & Nevis �

St Vincent & Grenadine �

0

50

100

150

200

250

A B C D E F G H I J K L M

Proposed Revised GEMS / Food Region


GEMS / Food Cluster I

250 versus 100

Botswana � South Africa �

Cape Verde � Swaziland �

Ghana � Togo �

Kenya � Tanzania �

Lesotho � Zambia �

Malawi � Zimbabwe �

Mozambique �

Namibia �

Codex Committees

Codex Committee on Pesticide Residues �

Uses GEMS / Food-based exposure estimates provided by JMPR �

Presented with proposed new diets in 2005 �

Will issue Circular Letter requesting missing data �

Will consider again with worked examples in 2006 �

Codex Committee on Food Additives and Contaminants �

Uses GEMS / Food-based exposure estimates for contaminants �provided by JECFA

Uses GEMS / Food-based exposure assessments to decide �which commodities maximum levels will be considered



97.5 Percentile Consumption of Corn Products (g/person/day)

97.5 Percentile Consumption of Corn Products (g/kg bw/day)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

Sweet Corn Corn Flour Corn Popcorn

Children

General

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Sweet Corn Corn Flour Corn Popcorn

Children

General



LOURDES LLORENS-ABANDO

Eurostat

EUROSTAT WORK ON

FOOD CONSUMPTION STATISTICS

Conclusions of the Task Force meeting and the way forward


Contents

Background �

Mandates �

Needs for food consumption statistics �

Main Statistical sources �

Priorities �

Working plan �

Background

The Food Safety statistics working group decided to include food �consumption as one of the priority themes

In 2003 the working group approved to carry out a Task Force on Food �consumption in 2005

Food consumption data collection is included in the EUROSTAT working �programme for 2005

The Food Safety working group approved the launching of the Food �Consumption Task Force and the work programme for it in December 2004

Ten countries are working as volunteers in this Task Force �

Mandates

General goal �

Examine the needs for food safety statistics and analyse the possibility �to establish a regular data collection on food consumption within ESS

Specifi c tasks �

Analyse needs �

Analyse statistical sources �

Establish priorities �


Annex 3 – Presentation by L. LLorens-Abando

Basic needs (1)

The basic needs for food consumption data are based on: �

Commission and other bodies monitoring and assessment of �the policy making

Evaluation and drafting of legislation and actions at the EU level �

The main themes are: �

Food market management �

Health and nutrition �

Food related diseases �

Food safety �

Environmental issues �

Basic needs (2)

Market management �

Main objectives related to economic objectives �

The data will be used to make economic analysis to evaluate the �Community Agricultural Policy

It requires variables linked to economic and social indicators. �

Main variables required �

Retailers’ sales -

Purchases by households -

Food availability -

Prices -

Organic farming products -

It does not require individual real food intake


Basic needs (3)

Health and nutrition Diet related diseases and Food Safety �

Objectives �

Analysis of food consumption patterns and their statistical distribution -

It requires the estimation of derived variables: calorie intake, micro and -macro-nutrients, etc.

Main variables �

Real food intake -

Proxy variables �

Retailers’ sales in volume -

Purchases by households -

Food availability -

Although it can be proxies the individual real food intake is an essential variable

Basic needs (4)

Environment �

Objective: to analyse the infl uence of consumption patterns on �the environment

Consumption of organic products -

Consumption of GMOs -

Waste in the distribution Chain -

Consumer’s needs �

The consumer must be taken into consideration when collecting food -consumption data.



Basic needs: summary

Needs Main variable Proxies

Market management • Retailers’ sales (volume and value)

• Households’ Purchases(volume and value)

• Food availability• Food prices • Consumption of

products with distinctive marks

Health and nutrition • Individual food intake Sales in volumePurchases in volume

Diet related diseases • Individual food intake Sales in volumePurchases in volume

Food safety • Individual food intake Sales in volumePurchases in volumeRaw availability

Environmental issues • Waste• Consumption of organic

and GMO products

Basic needs (5)

Needs for data updating �

Health, Nutrition and Food Safety: updating of the main variable �every fi ve years

Market management : updating of the economic related variables yearly �

Food items classifi cation �

Health, Nutrition and Food Safety: EFG, proposed by EFCOSUM �

Market Management: more stages within the �production / consumption chain

For some cases special disaggregation might be needed �


Basic needs (6)

Needs for consumption determinants �

Household related �

Geographical -

Type of settlement -

Education -

Individual related �

Age -

Sex -

Education… -

Needs for population segmentation �

Population at greater risk �

Children -

Pregnant women -

Elderly people -



Main statistical sources

Dietary surveys �

Household Budget surveys and other Household surveys �

Supply balance sheets �

Main statistical sources (1)

Dietary surveys �

Advantages �

Data on individual food intake -

Allows the estimation of the statistical distribution -

Give very detailed information about the individual characteristics -

Problems �

Frequency is very scarce -

They are very expensive -

The data collection techniques are different and they do not produce -harmonised results

The data must be collected by very specialised interviewers -

Harmonisation is diffi cult since every country wants to keep time -comparability

The informant burden is enormous -



Household budget surveys �

Advantages �

They are regularly collected -

They give information about household purchases and this uses a -harmonised classifi cation COICOP-HBS

Give very good information about household characteristics and -composition

Problems �

Not individual data. It must be estimated -

Some countries do not collect data about volume -

There is a lack of data of consumption out of home -

There is a risk to lose the food volume data in the future -


Supply balance sheets �

Advantages �

They are annually collected -

They use a harmonised classifi cation -

There is an international comparison -

Problems �

They give only food availability -

There are some doubts about their quality -

There is a risk to lose data on some of the items because the agricultural -statistics have a negative priorities



Priorities (1)

Commission services need data on food consumption harmonised. �

The Member State would use these data to benchmark their own policies �and improve data collection strategies

The main priority is to design a strategy to collect Food consumption �statistics within the ESS

To keep the data already available �

To develop a mixed data collection strategy �

Priorities (2)

The mixed data collection would mean: �

Supply Balance Sheets: to keep annual data availability �

Household Surveys: to collect data on food purchases in a systematic �and harmonised way

Dietary surveys. There are several initiatives to harmonise �the data collection techniques and food items classifi cations. It is crucial to follow with work already done

The food classifi cations and the consumption determinants

should be harmonised

Working plan 2005

EUROSTAT and the experts of the Task Force will produce a document �on “ESS strategy on food consumption statistics”

The strategy will be approved by the Working Group on Food Safety statistics �

EUROSTAT will launch grants to develop a harmonised way to collect food �consumption statistics at EU level

EUROSTAT will follow an open procedure where everybody

willing to collaborate is welcome



JULIANE KLEINER

EFSA

INSTRUCTIONS FOR DISCUSSION GROUPS

(DG)


Organisational Details

4 parallel discussion groups �

14:30-16:30 DG 1st round – specifi c aspects �

17:00-18:20 Report back to Plenary + discussions �

10:00-13:00 DG 2nd round – implications �

14:00-16:30 Final Plenary session – conclusion and recommendations �

Meeting package

Hand-outs of presentations �

Briefs for discussion groups �

Description of concise EU food consumption database currently under �development by EFSA

Additional background information �

The DAFNE initiative provided by Antonia Trichopoulou �

Considerations on methodological issues for food consumption data �by Max Feinberg

Discussion group 1 + 2 Methodological issues in the use of food consumption data

for dietary EA

What are minimum quality criteria for a food survey to be used in EA �

Is there a pragmatic approach to deal with high percentiles �

How to deal with limitations of data �

How to address consumer loyalty to particular food items �


Annex 3 - Instructions for discussion groups

Discussion group 3 + 4 Data needs for the various areas to be covered by EFSA

General needs for EA �

Specifi c needs for EA in the various areas �

Which food consumption data are available for the specifi c purposes �

Possible ways for improvement of data quality �

Discussion groups 2 nd day

What are the implications for the � concise EU food consumption database (EFSA)

What are the implications for medium and long-term strategies �for the development of a comprehensive food consumption database

Gaps and uncertainties �

Ways for cooperation with other national, European and international bodies �

Conclusions and recommendations �

It is not the aim of the colloquium to reiterate the achievements from the various projects but to concentrate on the issues which can help to

build up a concise food consumption database as a fi rst step and a comprehensive food consumption database at a later stage.

After the Colloquium

Draft summary report of colloquium to be prepared by rapporteurs �

1 � st review by DG chairs and rapporteurs

Review of revised draft by all participants �

Publication of summary report and power point presentations on EFSA �website (10/05) and in EFSA Science Colloquium Report Series



DISCUSSION GROUP 1

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF

FOOD CONSUMPTION DATA FOR DIETARY EA

DAY 2 - RESULTS

Annex 4: Slides of discussion groups


Minimum quality criteria

Depends on aim: acute vs chronic exposure, screening vs refi ned EA �

Develop guidelines on minimum set of data to be collected in food �consumption surveys

Representative and large enough for target population �

Allow calculation of high percentiles and uncertainty of measurements, �or distribution, of relevant food items / categories

Food coverage �

all foods consumed necessary for the EA, incl. drinking water, supplements �

Study design adequate to capture, where necessary, variations in �consumption due to week-days and season

Cover relevant aspects of foods and food consumption circumstances �in terms of of the components that are assessed

descriptors (e.g. Langual) for processing, handling, preparation, �packaging etc.

meal situation �

Consider the reliability of a sample population rather than the accuracy of �the recorded amounts

Develop ”Quality control index” for existing / new surveys �

High percentiles and Limitations of data

Mis / Under-reporting �

Multiple informants / instruments �

Field work / training: probing of food intake �

Additional information on subjects: slimming, physical activity data, �state of health

Check how it affects EA, e.g. high percentiles �

Annex 4 – Slides of Discussion Groups


Long-term exposure from short-term measurements �

Combination of different dietary assessment methods, �e.g. FFQ for foods that are consumed more rarely

Statistical approaches (Nusser) �

Probabilistic methods should be explored and validated �

Relationship between the risk assessment study and the quality of �consumption data. Who decides?

BW: use register data or conservative mean �

Consumer loyalty to food items

Deterministic, worst case, estimates �Modelling using data from other sources, e.g. market share data, consumer panels, HBSCollect data on brand names, organic labelling

Concise database

Support concise DB as a step in a tiered approach. �Comprehensive user manual need for compilers, e.g. details on survey characteristics, data collection, food group specifi c comments (which items are included in each category, incl. country specifi c names).Meeting with compilers before completing DB to be organised.

Age categories / ranges: choice? Depends on what is available �How to report BW, e.g. for an age range of 3-14 yr?

How conservative should we be? �Proposed concise DB less conservative than previous screening methods, e.g. Danish budget method. Based on real consumption data, 2nd level EA. Should not replace current methods.

Transparency important, e.g. for third countries and international bodies �

Clustering of countries in DB? GEMS �

Validation important if it works in the tiered approach. Compare with GEMS. �

Always use WHO procedures in EA �


Long term needs / strategies �

Multi-source collection DB including various types of food consumption data �

individual surveys -

household-based (commercial, HBS, incl. DAFNE) -

market share data -

A Pan-European food consumption study should be carried out. �Establish a network of the DB managers, COM, Eurostat and other stakeholders for this purpose.Coordination by EFSA, e.g. within an exposure assessment unit. Link to work on occurrence data. Regular and consistent reporting.Funding at European level needed. Cover vulnerable groups.Biomarkers needed for some components. Inventory of existing European studies.Total diet studies.

Draft a strategy for collection and access to food consumption data at the �European level. Sampling, methods, frequency.

Adapt data collection strategies to cover various substances: food safety �aspects should be considered in addition to nutrients. Food identifi cation and description important.

Indirect food additives (contact material): packaging �

Food and feed additives: brand name �

Contaminants: geographical origin �

Pesticides: geographical origin, organically produced �

Veterinary drugs �

Nutrients �

Bioactive substances �

Naturally occurring toxins �

Micro-organisms �



Feed-back from MS and EFSA Panels after use of concise DB: �Evaluation report

Encourage research in how to estimate chronic high exposure from �short-term measurements

Develop a EU prototype monitoring studies on food consumption for RA �

individual based �



DISCUSSION GROUP 2

METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES IN THE USE OF

FOOD CONSUMPTIONDATA FOR DIETARY EA

DAY 2 - RESULTS


Implications of a concise European Food Consumption Database?

Screening step to allow preliminary exposure analyses �(1st step in EA) – tends to give excessive estimate

Rapid exposure assessment (refi ned exposure assessment 2 � nd step)

A more detailed exposure assessment may still be required (3 � rd step)

Most practical way forward �

EFCOSUM codifi cation of foods – aggregation of categories �

Harmonisation �

To enable correlation between detailed MS surveys where they exist and �other MS to make the exposure assessment pan-European

Information on total diet study to be incorporated �

Implication for medium / long-term strategies for the development of a comprehensive food consumption database

Short – medium term concise �

Medium – long term more refi ned requiring better standardisation of data �

EFSA to co-ordinate the use of modeling tools to estimate exposure �

EFSA to work with MS, Commission and others on medium – long term strategy �

Incorporation of existing data into refi ned database with no loss �of existing data



Cooperation: national, EU and international

Full support and co-operation of MS essential �

Co-operation with relevant international organisations �

Involvement of all stakeholders – industry, consumers, others �

Close collaboration with European statistical system to improve exchange �of information, data collection and harmonisation – avoid duplication

Collection of data from other national or regional sources �

EFSA to monitor ongoing relevant research programmes and utilise outputs �

Improve networking among ‘experts’ �

Conclusion and recommendations

EFSA to consider establishing a task force to evaluate the use of modeling �of exposure for risk assessment and sensitivity analysis to determine main contributors to exposure

EFSA needs to communicate their strategy to develop the proposed concise �database to MS and get their support

EFSA needs to communicate relevance of exposure assessment and its �relationship to risk to Member States and consumers

Use of EFSA extranet for rapid compilation of data from MS �

EFSA to develop guidelines for MS database managers �

In the development of more refi ned database, EFSA should consider �how exposure could be used to establish a threshold approach on a case by case basis

EFSA to develop structure / content of any refi ned database with MS �and others

EFSA to request submission of possible food categories and other relevant �parameters in order to develop a harmonised structure for a refi ned database

Food consumption data for children and the amalgamation of existing data �should be a priority for EFSA

In the development of concise database EFSA should include methods of �food preparation etc.



DISCUSSION GROUP 3

DATA NEEDS FOR THE VARIOUS AREAS

TO BE COVERED BY EFSA

DAY 2 - RESULTS


Questions

What are the general needs for exposure assessment?1.

What are the specifi c needs for exposure assessment in the various areas?2.

Which food consumption data are available for the specifi c purposes?3.

What are possible ways for improvement of data quality?4.

What are the implications for the concise EU food consumption database 5. under development by EFSA for preliminary exposure assessment?

What are the implications for medium and long-term strategies?6.

For which components in risk assessment would we need improvements in 7. the concise EFSA food consumption database and which ones?

Data availability and submission

Requirement: �

individual data, �

national / regional (not necessarily representative), �

enter each survey separately (without aggregating all national data into �one national dataset)

previously validated at national level �

Complete FCS data owners, not present at this colloquium. EFSA should �contact additional data owners so that they register at AMI (not only passively put information on EFSA website and EFSA channels but active contacting)

Complete (newer and older) FCS inventory put together by EFCOSUM. �Examples of new FCS: Germany, regional Spanish, Ireland, Iceland, Italy, Belgium, Netherlands, France, UK, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, EPIC

Complete tables of the concise food consumption database �

FCS data owners should participate in the validation of the data �



Barrier for data owner to provide data: �

that publicly available (with possible misuse) �

newer data might not be submitted (but as very aggregated this risk might �be diminished)

Network of FCS compilers / owners under EFSA umbrella

Establish network for �

exchange of information, �

validation, �

provide data �

Include national and other data owner �

European level �

Active cooperation with FP6 projects (e.g. EuroFir, SAFEFOOD) to �avoid duplication

Information exchange incl. WHO / FAO, DG RESEARCH, EUROSTAT, industry, �other stakeholders

Use of the concise FCS database

Publicly available �

Provide guidelines of how data can be used (and how not) �

Database will have limitations, e.g. high percentiles of 1 day recall are �overestimated and of 3-7 days are underestimated

Possible improvements for the concise FCS database

The actual food groups are diffi cult to use for pesticide risk assessment. �Some more sub grouping would be necessary. National database managers should examine the possibility to disaggregate / group their foods according different systems. Good if EFSA would ask for that.

Age / sex distribution? �


Medium / long-term strategies propositions

Refi ne FCS percentiles for acute and chronic exposure assessment �

Validation of some assumptions of exposure models though network, �e.g. food additives

Evaluation and validation of models for food contact materials �

Use of mean body weight in screening phase in exposure assessment �(not sure how this would be used)

Deal with uncertainties, e.g. underreporting of certain population groups �(e.g. senior)

Investigate future collaboration of the network with other partners in exposure �assessment (e.g. DG SANCO, DG INDUSTRY, industrial associations)

Encourage harmonised data collection �

Extend study populations, e.g. ethnic groups �

FCS missing for some regions (e.g. Southern Europe, Baltic countries), �for population groups (e.g. infants, children, senior / older people)

Recommendations

Establish the EFSA concise food consumption database and stay �focused on it

Get commitment from EFSA to maintain EFSA concise food �consumption database

Establish strategy to develop a more comprehensive food �consumption database

Clarifi cation of defi nition of terms used �

Wide use of database beyond exposure assessment, e.g. nutrition �

Improve communication and advocacy �


DISCUSSION GROUP 4

DATA NEEDS FOR THE VARIOUS AREAS

TO BE COVERED BY EFSA

DAY 2 - RESULTS


European concise food consumption database

Possible use and suggested additions �

Demographic data on consumers: age, weight, sex, … �

Nutrition

May be adequate for screening purposes �

Missing information fast-food, fries so may underestimate calorie intake �

Food additives – functional

May be adequate for screening whether information on processed or not �at purchase is added

Food additives –non- functional (incl. food contact materials)

May be adequate for fi rst level screening if information is added on package. �Preferably also information on type of packaging material (glass, plastic, paper, cans).

Chemical contaminants

May be adequate for screening level risk assessment of environmental �contaminants if combined with occurrence data.

Not useful for regulated chemicals (e.g. pesticides, veterinary drugs) �or substances with very specifi c use within a major food category (e.g. only corn). Food categories do not match those in regulations.

Micro-organisms

Not useful unless some categories are disaggregated. In particular meat �consumption should be broken down to at least the level of animal species.

Also needs information on heat treatment during industrial processing �and preparation.

N.B. This may imply that it is not necessary to add information on number of eating occasions.



European comprehensive food consumption and behaviour database

General requirements

Needed for risk assessment

Needs level of detail in individual food consumption surveys �

Need full data instead of summary data �

Data should be available in more disaggregated food categories �for all domains

Processed or raw at purchase �

Detailed information on preparation and cooking �

Meal composition and frequency and weight per meal �

Brand information and origin of primary products can be applied in different �domains, but should be rather specifi c (e.g. diet coke vs. regular coke). May be obtained via barcode information but may miss local sales. Traceability barcodes are being developed.

Determinants of food choice to inform risk management strategies

Additional demographic information: ethnic background, country of residence, education, household income, specifi c food preferences, e.g. organic food, …

Nutrition

Fortifi cation, may be proprietary information

Nutritional supplements

Food additives – functional

Brand information is key


Food additives - non-functional (incl. food contact materials)

Food contact material before / after purchase

Surface to volume ratio

Chemical contaminants

Weighed records are essential for acute exposure assessment of pesticides to comply with existing regulations

Micro-organisms

Storage after purchase (time-temperature, sell-by or best before date) and after preparation

Can valid information on hygiene be obtained from questionnaires?

Conclusions and recommendations

Concise database

Concise database is a useful fi rst step towards harmonized European food �consumption data.

Concise database is useful for screening purposes, in particular for �macronutrients and environmental contaminants.

Current concise database does not cover the needs of microbiological �risk assessment.

Concise database can be very useful in threshold of toxicological �concern approaches.

Concise database is not appropriate for use in pre-market regulatory risk �assessment of regulated chemicals.



Comprehensive database

Conduct value of information analysis before investing in additions �to the database.

Development of comprehensive database should fi rst focus on �microbiological hazards.

Develop European food categorization system which embraces all �relevant details for risk assessment in different domains.

Anticipate developments in regulations before deciding on details of �comprehensive database.

EFSA would be the appropriate organization for database coordination. �

Ideally, a comprehensive database would also capture information on �determinants of dietary habits to guide risk management policies.

EFSA SCIENTIFIC COLLOQUIUM

SUMMARY REPORT

EUROPEAN FOOD CONSUMPTION DATABASE: CURRENT AND MEDIUM

TO LONG-TERM STRATEGIES

28-29 April 2005, Brussels, Belgium

TM-A

D-07-004

-EN

-C

Largo N. Palli 5/A I-43100 Parma Italy

Tel: +39 0521 036 111Fax: +39 0521 036 [email protected]

EF

SA

SC

IEN

TIF

IC C

OL

LO

QU

IUM

SU

MM

AR

Y R

EP

OR

TE

UR

OP

EA

N FO

OD

CO

NS

UM

PT

ION

DA

TAB

AS

E

3

ISS

N 1830

-4737

3