ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026
Statement on the findings presented in the Toxicological Profile for Mercury issued by the US ATSDR.
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.
- Statement on the findings presented in the Toxicological Profile for Mercury issued by the US ATSDR.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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was requested by the European Commission to deliver a statement on the findings presented in the Toxicological Profile for Mercury issued by the US Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) in 2024. The statement was endorsed by the CONTAM Panel before approval by EFSA. Although some key methodological steps were not fully reported in the ATSDR document, it is unlikely that any major or relevant publications would have been missed. Based on the results presented by ATSDR (2024), including a new 28-day study in rats, there is no need for an update of the 2012 EFSA risk assessment for inorganic mercury, because EFSA considered this study not suitable to derive a reference point for dietary risk assessment. Consequently, the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 4 μg/kg body weight (bw), expressed as mercury, is still valid. For methylmercury, varying reporting approaches on the rationale for the methodological choices made during hazard characterisation appear to be the main driver of the differing guidance values. There is no clear indication that the minimal risk level (MRL) for methylmercury derived by ATSDR (0.1 μg Hg/kg bw/day, corresponding to 0.7 μg Hg/kg bw/week) is scientifically more robust than the TWI (1.3 μg/kg bw per week, expressed as mercury) established by EFSA in 2012. Consequently, the current EFSA TWI of 1.3 μg/kg bw per week, expressed as mercury, remains valid. Despite this, the advances in risk assessment methodology and the new evidence becoming available since the last EFSA assessment might merit an update of the 2012 Opinion.
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.