This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended.

The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. AbstractUncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSA's scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decisionmaking. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail.

EFSA requested the Scientific Committee to develop a guidance document on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments for use in all areas under EFSA's remit. The guidance document addresses the use of weight of evidence approaches in scientific assessments using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Several case studies covering the various areas under EFSA's remit are annexed to the guidance document to illustrate the applicability of the proposed approach. Weight of evidence assessment is defined in this guidance as a process in which evidence is integrated to determine the relative support for possible answers to a question. This document considers the weight of evidence assessment as comprising three basic steps: (1) assembling the evidence into lines of evidence of similar type, (2) weighing the evidence, (3) integrating the evidence. The present document identifies reliability, relevance and consistency as three basic considerations for weighing evidence.

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion (AIC) has been introduced instead of the log-likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose-response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose-response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound (BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach.

To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

The Scientific Committee confirms that the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a pragmatic screening and prioritisation tool for use in food safety assessment. This Guidance provides clear step-bystep instructions for use of the TTC approach. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined and the use of the TTC decision tree is explained. The approach can be used when the chemical structure of the substance is known, there are limited chemical-specific toxicity data and the exposure can be estimated. The TTC approach should not be used for substances for which EU food/feed legislation requires the submission of toxicity data or when sufficient data are available for a risk assessment or if the substance under consideration falls into one of the exclusion categories. For substances that have the potential to be DNA-reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens based on the weight of evidence, the relevant TTC value is 0.0025 lg/kg body weight (bw) per day. For organophosphates or carbamates, the relevant TTC value is 0.3 lg/kg bw per day. All other substances are grouped according to the Cramer classification. The TTC values for Cramer Classes I, II and III are 30 lg/kg bw per day, 9 lg/kg bw per day and 1.5 lg/kg bw per day, respectively. For substances with exposures below the TTC values, the probability that they would cause adverse health effects is low. If the estimated exposure to a substance is higher than the relevant TTC value, a non-TTC approach is required to reach a conclusion on potential adverse health effects.

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity.

The EFSA has updated the Guidance on risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain, human and animal health. It covers the application areas within EFSA's remit, including novel foods, food contact materials, food/feed additives and pesticides. The updated guidance, now Scientific Committee Guidance on nano risk assessment (SC Guidance on Nano-RA), has taken account of relevant scientific studies that provide insights to physico-chemical properties, exposure assessment and hazard characterisation of nanomaterials and areas of applicability. Together with the accompanying Guidance on Technical requirements for regulated food and feed product applications to establish the presence of small particles including nanoparticles (Guidance on Particle-TR), the SC Guidance on Nano-RA specifically elaborates on physico-chemical characterisation, key parameters that should be measured, methods and techniques that can be used for characterisation of nanomaterials and their determination in complex matrices. The SC Guidance on Nano-RA also details aspects relating to exposure assessment and hazard identification and characterisation. In particular, nanospecific considerations relating to in vitro/in vivo toxicological studies are discussed and a tiered framework for toxicological testing is outlined. Furthermore, in vitro degradation, toxicokinetics, genotoxicity, local and systemic toxicity as well as general issues relating to testing of nanomaterials are described. Depending on the initial tier results, additional studies may be needed to investigate reproductive and developmental toxicity, chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity, immunotoxicity and allergenicity, neurotoxicity, effects on gut microbiome and endocrine activity. The possible use of read-across to fill data gaps as well as the potential use of integrated testing strategies and the knowledge of modes or mechanisms of action are also discussed. The Guidance proposes approaches to risk characterisation and uncertainty analysis.