EFSA Guidance on Lead, Arsenic, Mercury, Cadmium, and Nickel: European Limits and Scientific Basis

Overview

Clinicians, food retailers, manufacturers, and regulatory professionals should understand current European Union (EU) limits for lead (Pb), inorganic arsenic (iAs), mercury (Hg, particularly methylmercury), cadmium (Cd), and nickel (Ni) in foods, and the scientific risk assessments behind them. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 (consolidated to July 2025) sets legally enforceable maximum levels (MLs) for these contaminants in various foods.^[1] These MLs are risk-management tools (not “safe” thresholds) intended to be As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) while considering dietary exposure risks.^[2] The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) provides the scientific basis for threshold toxins like Cd and Hg; EFSA establishes health-based guidance values (Tolerable Daily/Weekly Intakes, or TDI/TWI), whereas for non-threshold effects (Pb, iAs) EFSA uses benchmark dose modeling and Margin of Exposure (MOE) analysis.^[3][4]Translating this science to practice, food business operators must manage supply chains (e.g., ingredients like rice, cocoa, seaweed, fish) to meet limits, thereby avoiding costly recalls and protecting consumer health. A proactive testing and certification program can reduce recall risk and demonstrate due diligence in heavy metal control.

Regulatory Frame

EU Legal Limits: The backbone of EU contaminant regulation is Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915, which repealed the earlier Regulation 1881/2006. It contains a consolidated list of MLs for contaminants in food, with heavy metals covered in Annex I Section 3.^[5] Table A provides a snapshot of some key MLs from Annex I (e.g., Pb in infant formula, Cd in cocoa, Hg in fish, iAs in rice, Ni in seaweed). These limits are updated via amendments as new data emerge (for example, nickel limits were introduced by Regulation (EU) 2024/1987, applicable from 1 July 2025).^[6] It is crucial to refer to the latest consolidated text on EUR-Lex to capture all amendments in force.

Risk Assessment vs. Management: EFSA, through its CONTAM Panel, conducts risk assessments and advises on tolerable intakes or reference points, but it does not set regulations. The European Commission and Member States (Standing Committee) serve as risk managers – they consider EFSA’s scientific opinions alongside factors like food occurrence data and achievable levels to set MLs. In practice, if EFSA identifies health concerns (e.g., MOE too low or TWI exceeded for certain foods^[7]), the Commission may tighten an ML or add a new category limit. Conversely, feasibility and trade impacts are considered – MLs are often set at a level that well-managed businesses can realistically meet, using good agricultural and manufacturing practices. Notably, an ML exceedance makes the food non-compliant (illegal to market), irrespective of whether acute illness would result. Thus, MLs incorporate safety margins and are a tool to progressively reduce exposure to contaminants.

Risk-Assessment Foundations

BMD, BMDL, and MOE: When a contaminant has no clear safe threshold (often carcinogens or neurotoxins like lead and inorganic arsenic), EFSA uses the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach. A dose-response model identifies a BMD associated with a small effect (e.g., 1% increased risk or 5% response), and the lower confidence limit of that dose (BMDL) is taken as a conservative Reference Point. For example, EFSA derived a BMDL01 for lead corresponding to a 1% IQ reduction in children.^[8] The Margin of Exposure (MOE) is then calculated as the ratio of BMDL to the estimated dietary exposure: MOE = BMDL / Exposure. A high MOE signifies low relative risk, whereas an MOE approaching 1 (or below an EFSA benchmark like 10 or 100, if defined) indicates potential concern. EFSA generally considers MOEs <10 (for genotoxic carcinogens) or <1 (for other adverse effects) as inadequate, warranting risk management action.^[9][10]

TDI, TWI, ARfD: For contaminants exhibiting a threshold (typically non-carcinogenic toxicities), EFSA establishes Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs). The Tolerable Daily (or Weekly) Intake is an estimate of lifelong exposure that is expected to be without appreciable health risk. Cadmium and methylmercury are regulated by weekly limits due to cumulative toxicity (TWI = tolerable weekly intake), while nickel’s chronic limit is given as a daily TDI(TDI = tolerable daily intake). Acute Reference Doses (ARfD) apply to single-meal exposures; for example, EFSA may set an ARfD if a high one-day intake could trigger toxicity (notably, an ARfD was not set for nickel, but an acute LOAEL was identified for nickel-allergic individuals^[11]). These values are typically derived by applying uncertainty factors to experimental or epidemiological NOAELs/LOAELs or BMDLs. Table B summarizes EFSA’s key HBGVs and reference points for the five metals.

Applying MOE vs. HBGVs: In risk characterization, if a contaminant has a TDI/TWI, regulators compare population exposure estimates to that HBGV (exposures below the TWI are of low concern, whereas exceedances flag a potential risk). For non-threshold contaminants assessed via MOE, EFSA does not define a “safe intake” – instead, the goal is to reduce exposure as much as reasonably achievable. For instance, EFSA concluded that any reduction in lead exposure would benefit public health, since no threshold for neurodevelopmental toxicity could be established.^[12][13]

Substance-by-Substance Analysis

Risk Topic	Evidence & Implications
Lead (Pb) — Critical effects & MOE	Lead’s most sensitive endpoint is neurodevelopment; EFSA identified a BMDL01 of 12 µg/L blood lead, ≈0.5 µg/kg day for a 1-point IQ decrement in children.[14] Small adult cardiovascular effects had a BMDL01 ≈1.5 µg/kg day, so protecting children’s IQ is protective overall.[15] No TWI applies; EFSA uses MOE, and European children’s exposures often yield MOEs ≪10, indicating concern.[16]
Lead (Pb) — Occurrence, vulnerable groups & retail implications	Major contributors are cereals, vegetables, and water; infants/toddlers are most vulnerable, while some spices and wild game can be high (soil/adulterants; ammunition).[17] EU MLs are strict for baby foods (e.g., 0.010 mg/kg in liquid infant formula) and higher for bark spices (2.0 mg/kg).[18] Vigilance for turmeric, cinnamon, cocoa, and imported candies plus “low-Pb” sourcing (e.g., better-managed spice farms; wines post-2016) reduces recall risk.[19]
Inorganic arsenic (iAs) — Critical effects & MOE	iAs (Group 1 carcinogen) causes lung/skin/bladder cancers and vascular/dermal effects; genotoxicity precludes a safe threshold.[20] EFSA’s 2024 update set a reference point ≈0.06 µg/kg day (BMDL05 for skin cancer), within typical European exposure ranges and thus of lifetime concern.[21] No TWI; EFSA applies MOE, where MOE <~10 (5% effect) or ~1 (1% effect) signals high concern; high-rice and some child diets approach MOE≈1.[22]
Inorganic arsenic (iAs) — Occurrence, vulnerable groups & retail implications	Rice/rice-based products dominate exposure; seaweed and millet contribute, and infants on rice cereals or high-rice consumers are most exposed.[23] EU MLs include 0.15 mg/kg for polished rice and 0.30 mg/kg for rice cakes; baby foods may be as low as 0.02 mg/kg.[24] Require arsenic testing for rice origins/polishing; ensure algae products quantify iAs; non-compliance (e.g., rice >0.20 mg/kg) can trigger border rejections and costly recalls.
Cadmium (Cd) – Critical effects & TWI	Cadmium targets renal tubules and contributes to bone effects; EFSA set a TWI of 2.5 µg/kg week, anchored to urinary Cd linked to early tubular proteinuria (β2-microglobulin).[25] This ≈0.36 µg/kg day supports keeping most adults <1 µg cd g creatinine by age 50.[26] Many Europeans, especially vegetarians/children/heavy cereal-veg consumers, are near/above the TWI; mixture risks with Pb amplify kidney concerns.[27][28]
Cadmium (Cd) – Occurrence, vulnerable groups & retail implications	Soil origin (including phosphate fertilizers); cereals/vegetables dominate intake, with higher levels in sunflower/flaxseed, wild mushrooms, and molluscs; cocoa from some Latin American soils elevates Cd in chocolate.[29] EU tightened MLs (e.g., 0.60 mg/kg in cocoa powder for drinking) and set very low infant food limits (to 0.005 mg/kg for liquid infant formula).[30] Vet cereal/cocoa suppliers, prefer low-Cd regions/agronomy, and maintain surveillance to avoid chocolate/infant product recalls.
Mercury (Hg)/Methylmercury – Critical effects & TWIs	MeHg (in fish) is a developmental neurotoxin; EFSA set a TWI of 1.3 µg/kg week for MeHg and 4 µg/kg week for inorganic Hg (less absorbed; renal toxicity).[31] Mean MeHg exposure is usually below 1.3 µg/kg week, but high fish consumers, toddlers, and some children may exceed it in surveys; advice to limit top predators aims to balance benefits/risks.[32]
Mercury (Hg) – Occurrence, vulnerable groups & retail implications	Chronic oral Ni has a TDI of 13 µg/kg day (BMDL10 ≈1.3 mg/kg day from rat post-implantation loss).[33] For sensitized humans, an acute LOAEL of 0.3 mg/person (≈4.3 µg/kg bw) can trigger systemic contact dermatitis; no ARfD was set, but this guides acute risk characterization.[34] Average adult exposure ≈1 µg/kg day, with higher percentiles for children still typically under the TDI.[35]
Nickel (Ni) – Critical effects, TDI & acute reference point	Chronic oral Ni has a TDI of 13 µg/kg day (BMDL10 ≈1.3 mg/kg day from rat post-implantation loss).[36] For sensitized humans, an acute LOAEL of 0.3 mg/person (≈4.3 µg/kg bw) can trigger systemic contact dermatitis; no ARfD was set, but this guides acute risk characterization .[37] Average adult exposure ≈1 µg/kg day, with higher percentiles for children still typically under the TDI.[38]
Nickel (Ni) – Occurrence, regulatory status & retail implications	Plant foods are higher in Ni; cocoa, nuts/oilseeds, legumes, and certain roots are notable; water/pipe contact can add Ni, and sensitized individuals may follow low-Ni diets.[39] The EU amended Reg. 2023/915 in 2024 to introduce Ni MLs from 2025, such as 10 mg/kg for walnuts/Brazil nuts/cashews and 15 mg/kg for cocoa powder, with cereals and infant formula limits phasing in (e.g., 0.8 mg/kg for many grains by 2026; 0.25 mg/kg powder infant formula).[40] Proactive supplier controls/testing are needed to prevent border rejections and dermatology-linked complaints.

From Science to Limits

EFSA’s risk assessments (summarized in Table B) inform the EU’s contaminant limits, but the translation isn’t one-to-one. Risk managers consider not only the hazard but also food consumption patterns and achievability. For instance, EFSA flagged inorganic arsenic as of high concern; consequently, the Commission set specific MLs for rice and even infant rice foods at 0.10 mg/kg.^[41] For cadmium, EFSA’s TWI (2.5 µg/kg/week) was frequently being approached by EU consumers^[42]; risk managers tightened MLs in staples like cereals and vegetables in 2021–2023 (including new MLs for certain wild mushrooms and “tiger nuts”). Feasibility is taken into account: during stakeholder consultations, industry provides data on what percentage of products would comply at a proposed level. Often MLs are set so that the majority of products in compliance with good practices will pass, while the highest 5–10% (the outliers) are eliminated from the market.^[43] This “tailoring” removes excessive exposures without unduly disrupting food supply. It’s also why MLs differ by commodity: e.g., the Pb limit for leafy herbs is higher than for most vegetables, acknowledging that herbs naturally uptake more Pb but are consumed in small quantities. Importantly, food businesses must check the current consolidated Regulation before releasing products, as limits can change (e.g., the introduction of nickel limits or changes to cadmium limits for chocolate). Staying abreast of EFSA opinions and subsequent regulatory amendments is now a key part of compliance strategy in food safety management.

Sampling, Analytics, and Due Diligence

Once limits are set, enforcement hinges on proper sampling and analysis. The EU has uniform protocols (Commission Regulation (EC) No 333/2007 and amendments) for sampling plans and analytical methods for metals.^[44] Official control labs use validated methods, typically ICP-MS or AAS, with low detection limits to measure down to µg/kg levels (essential for infant food MLs). Food business operators should likewise contract ISO/IEC 17025 accredited labs for their testing – this ensures proven method performance (e.g., a lab might use ICP-MS with collision-cell technology to resolve arsenic from chloride interference). Speciation analysis is often crucial: the ML for arsenic applies to inorganic arsenic only, so labs must separate iAs from organic arsenicals (like arsenobetaine in fish). Similarly, total mercury can serve as a proxy for MeHg in fish (often ~100% MeHg in predatory fish^[45]), but if needed, specific methylmercury analysis (e.g., GC-ICP-MS) can be done for precision.

Measurement Uncertainty: Analytical results for contaminants are reported with an uncertainty interval. In EU enforcement, an analytical tolerance is usually applied – for example, a sample is considered non-compliant if the result minus the expanded uncertainty still exceeds the ML. This guards against penalizing a producer for lab variability. For businesses, it means internal targets might be set slightly below the legal ML (to provide a safety cushion). For instance, if the lead ML in spices is 2.0 mg/kg, a company might set an internal action level of ~1.8 mg/kg to account for lab uncertainty and natural variation. Robust internal QC (including duplicate sampling and use of certified reference materials) further underpins due diligence. Due Diligence & Records: Companies should maintain heavy metal testing records for high-risk ingredients and final products. If a regulator queries a product, being able to show recent lab results demonstrating compliance can be invaluable. Additionally, supply chain controls – such as requiring suppliers to implement Good Agricultural Practices (e.g., avoiding orchards treated with arsenical pesticides historically, or using rice strains that uptake less arsenic) – should be documented as part of Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) plans or supplier quality assurance programs.

Certification & Retailer Economics

Proactively managing heavy metal risks is not just about avoiding fines; it’s about economic risk mitigation. A major recall due to excess Cd or Pb (for example, a baby food found with lead above the ML) can cost millions in product losses, logistics, and brand damage – far outweighing the routine cost of testing and quality control. Retailers increasingly demand “Heavy Metal Tested” certificates from suppliers, especially for product categories that have seen past issues (like rice, infant cereals, protein powders, spices, & cocoa). Certification schemes aim to verify that products consistently meet strict heavy metal criteria, often well below regulatory MLs. Such programs provide an extra margin of safety and can be a marketing differentiator (“tested free of harmful levels of heavy metals”).

From an economics perspective, cost-of-control vs. cost-of-failure is the key consideration. Investing in sourcing from cleaner regions (e.g., low-arsenic rice from certain growers) and periodic lab tests adds to ingredient cost, but it prevents the much larger costs associated with non-compliance – border rejection of an import lot, destruction of product, liability claims, or lost consumer trust. Retailers have recall insurance and contractual indemnities, but preventing a heavy metal exceedance in the first place is far preferable. There’s also a regulatory trend toward lower limits (as analytical technology improves and health benchmarks tighten, limits may drop further), so a forward-looking retailer will push suppliers to continuously improve (e.g., through soil management, selective breeding of low-accumulating crops, etc.). In summary, rigorous heavy metal management – underpinned by scientific guidance from EFSA and compliance with EU limits – is a prudent investment that protects public health and the business bottom line alike.

Table A: EU Maximum Levels (MLs) at a Glance (Selected Examples)

Contaminant	Commodity/Matrix (Annex I category)	ML (mg/kg)	Legal citation (Reg. 2023/915 Annex I)
Lead	Infant formula (placed on market as liquid)	0.010	Annex I, point 3.1.24.2[46]
Lead	Dried spices – bark spices (e.g., cinnamon)	2.0	Annex I, point 3.1.12.3[47]
Cadmium	Cocoa powder (for drinking chocolate)	0.60	Annex I, point 3.2.15.4[48]
Cadmium	Fish muscle meat – predatory species (e.g., tuna, swordfish)	1.0	Annex I, point 3.2.14.6[49]
Mercury	Fish muscle meat – general (excluding listed species)	0.50	Annex I, point 3.3.1.1[50]
Mercury	Fish muscle meat – predatory species (e.g. tuna, swordfish)	1.0	Annex I, point 3.3.1.2[51]
Inorganic As	Polished (white) rice (non-parboiled)	0.15	Annex I, point 3.4.1.1[52]
Inorganic As	Rice cakes, crackers, and similar	0.30	Annex I, point 3.4.1.4[53]
Nickel	Wakame seaweed (dry)	40	Annex I, point 3.6.8.2[54]
Nickel	Cocoa powder (consumer or ingredient use)	15	Annex I, point 3.6.12.3[55]

Table B: EFSA Health-Based Guidance Values & Reference Points

Contaminant	HBGV / Approach	Value (units)	Critical Endpoint (basis)	EFSA Reference (year)
Lead (Pb)	BMDL01 (MOE approach)	0.50 µg/kg bw per day[56]	1% decrease in children’s IQ (neurodevelopment)	EFSA CONTAM Panel (2010)[57]
Inorganic As	BMDL05 (MOE approach)	0.06 µg/kg bw per day[58]	5% increased skin cancer risk (epidemiology)	EFSA CONTAM Panel (2024)[59]
Cadmium (Cd)	TWI (weekly)	2.5 µg/kg bw per week[60]	Kidney tubular damage (β2-microglobulin proteinuria)	EFSA CONTAM Panel (2009; reaffirmed 2011)[61]
Mercury (MeHg)	TWI (weekly)	1.3 µg/kg bw per week[62]	Developmental neurotoxicity (fetal brain)	EFSA CONTAM Panel (2012)[63]
Nickel (Ni)	TDI (daily) & acute RP	13 µg/kg bw per day; acute LOAEL 4.3 µg/kg bw[64]	Post-implantation loss in rats (chronic); eczematous skin flare in sensitized humans (acute)	EFSA CONTAM Panel (2020)[65]

References

1. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
2. Combined chronic dietary exposure to four nephrotoxic metals exceeds tolerable intake levels in the adult population of 10 European countries.. Sprong RC, van den Brand AD, van Donkersgoed G, Blaznik U, Christodoulou D, Crépet A, da Graça Dias M, Jensen BH, Morretto A, Rauscher-Gabernig E, Ruprich J, Sokolić D, van Klaveren JD, Luijten M, Mengelers MJB.. (Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2023)
3. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
4. Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (EFSA Journal, 22, e8488)
5. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
6. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
7. Combined chronic dietary exposure to four nephrotoxic metals exceeds tolerable intake levels in the adult population of 10 European countries.. Sprong RC, van den Brand AD, van Donkersgoed G, Blaznik U, Christodoulou D, Crépet A, da Graça Dias M, Jensen BH, Morretto A, Rauscher-Gabernig E, Ruprich J, Sokolić D, van Klaveren JD, Luijten M, Mengelers MJB.. (Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2023)
8. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
9. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
10. Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (EFSA Journal, 22, e8488)
11. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
12. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
13. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
14. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
15. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
16. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
17. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
18. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
19. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
20. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
21. Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (EFSA Journal, 22, e8488)
22. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
23. The first harmonised total diet study in Portugal: Arsenic, cadmium and lead exposure assessment.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Chemosphere. 2025)
24. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
25. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
26. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
27. Combined chronic dietary exposure to four nephrotoxic metals exceeds tolerable intake levels in the adult population of 10 European countries.. Sprong RC, van den Brand AD, van Donkersgoed G, Blaznik U, Christodoulou D, Crépet A, da Graça Dias M, Jensen BH, Morretto A, Rauscher-Gabernig E, Ruprich J, Sokolić D, van Klaveren JD, Luijten M, Mengelers MJB.. (Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2023)
28. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
29. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
30. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
31. Mercury Exposure Assessment from the First Harmonised Total Diet Study in Portugal.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Exposure and Health. 2025)
32. Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM).. (EFSA Journal. 2012)
33. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
34. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
35. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
36. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
37. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
38. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
39. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
40. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
41. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
42. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
43. Combined chronic dietary exposure to four nephrotoxic metals exceeds tolerable intake levels in the adult population of 10 European countries.. Sprong RC, van den Brand AD, van Donkersgoed G, Blaznik U, Christodoulou D, Crépet A, da Graça Dias M, Jensen BH, Morretto A, Rauscher-Gabernig E, Ruprich J, Sokolić D, van Klaveren JD, Luijten M, Mengelers MJB.. (Food Additives & Contaminants: Part A. 2023)
44. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
45. Mercury Exposure Assessment from the First Harmonised Total Diet Study in Portugal.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Exposure and Health. 2025)
46. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
47. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
48. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
49. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
50. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
51. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
52. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
53. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
54. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
55. Maximum levels for certain contaminants in food and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1881/2006. Commission Regulation (EU) 2023/915 of 25 April 2023. (Official Journal of the European Union, L 119, 5 May 2023, p. 103.)
56. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
57. Statement on the effects of lead on maternal health:. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT).. (Establishment of a health-based guidance value. 2013.)
58. Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (EFSA Journal, 22, e8488)
59. Update of the risk assessment of inorganic arsenic in food.. EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM). (EFSA Journal, 22, e8488)
60. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
61. Statement on the potential risks from cadmium in the maternal diet.. Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food. (Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). November 2022. Statement 05/22.)
62. Mercury Exposure Assessment from the First Harmonised Total Diet Study in Portugal.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Exposure and Health. 2025)
63. Mercury Exposure Assessment from the First Harmonised Total Diet Study in Portugal.. Vasco E, Dias MG, Oliveira L.. (Exposure and Health. 2025)
64. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)
65. Discussion paper for the EFSA Public Consultation on the draft “Update of the risk assessment of nickel in food and drinking water.”. EFSA. (Committee on Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment (COT). July 2020.)