ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026
Response to a report published by the Office for Risk Assessment & Research of the Netherlands Food and Product Safety Authority on three EFSA quantitative pest risk assessments.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Response to a report published by the Office for Risk Assessment & Research of the Netherlands Food and Product Safety Authority on three EFSA quantitative pest risk assessments.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A report commenting on three quantitative pest risk assessments (qPRA) of the EFSA PLH Panel (Panel) was published in November 2025 by the Office for Risk Assessment & Research (BuRO) of the Netherlands Food and Product Safety Authority. In that report, the approaches applied by the Panel in three qPRA were narratively scrutinised against an unpublished protocol. According to the conclusions of the BuRO's report, all three qPRA approaches were methodologically valid and appropriate in substance. However, several assumptions made by the Panel in its assessments were debated and individual values of model parameters were questioned and/or replaced by BuRO calculations. This Panel statement responds to the specific comments, mathematically reviews the calculations in the BuRO's report and highlights how quantitative assessments under uncertainty may slightly differ in their output values when different risk assessors find different consensus interpretations of available background evidence. Some quantitative recalculations by BuRO required mathematical correction. Other recalculations depended on alternative ad hoc assumptions or parameter interpretations that the Panel does not consider sufficiently substantiated to replace those used in the assessments. Therefore, the conclusions of the three qPRA by the Panel remain unchanged. The Panel proposes recommendations to facilitate future commenting by external assessors on Panel outputs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.