Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Maged Younes is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Maged Younes.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Guidance on the use of the weight of evidence approach in scientific assessments

Anthony Hardy; Diane Benford; Thorhallur Halldorsson; Michael Jeger; Helle Katrine Knutsen; Simon J. More; Hanspeter Naegeli; Hubert Noteborn; Colin Ockleford; Antonia Ricci; Guido Rychen; Josef Schlatter; Vittorio Silano; Roland Solecki; Dominique Turck; Emilio Benfenati; Qasim Chaudhry; Peter S. Craig; Geoff K Frampton; Matthias Greiner; Andrew Hart; Christer Hogstrand; Claude Lambré; Robert Luttik; David Makowski; Alfonso Siani; Helene Wahlstroem; Jaime Aguilera; J.L.C.M Dorne; Antonio Fernandez Dumont

Abstract 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 EFSAs 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 EFSAs 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.


EFSA Journal | 2018

Guidance on Uncertainty Analysis in Scientific Assessments

Diane Benford; Thorhallur Halldorsson; Michael Jeger; Helle Katrine Knutsen; Simon J. More; Hanspeter Naegeli; Hubert Noteborn; Colin Ockleford; Antonia Ricci; Guido Rychen; Josef Schlatter; Vittorio Silano; Roland Solecki; Dominique Turck; Maged Younes; Peter S. Craig; Andrew Hart; Natalie Von Goetz; Kostas Koutsoumanis; Alicja Mortensen; Bernadette Ossendorp; Laura Martino; Caroline Merten; Olaf Mosbach‐Schulz; Anthony Hardy

Abstract Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSAs scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision‐making. 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 Journal | 2017

Guidance on the assessment of the biological relevance of data in scientific assessments

Anthony Hardy; Diane Benford; Thorhallur Halldorsson; Michael Jeger; Helle Katrine Knutsen; Simon J. More; Hanspeter Naegeli; Hubert Noteborn; Colin Ockleford; Antonia Ricci; Guido Rychen; Josef Schlatter; Vittorio Silano; Roland Solecki; Dominique Turck; Maged Younes; Jean-Louis Bresson; John W. Griffin; Susanne Hougaard Benekou; Henk van Loveren; Robert Luttik; Antoine Messéan; André Penninks; Giuseppe Ru; J.A. Stegeman; Wopke van der Werf; Johannes Westendorf; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Fulvio Barizzone; Bernard Bottex

Abstract EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document providing generic issues and criteria to consider biological relevance, particularly when deciding on whether an observed effect is of biological relevance, i.e. is adverse (or shows a beneficial health effect) or not. The guidance document provides a general framework for establishing the biological relevance of observations at various stages of the assessment. Biological relevance is considered at three main stages related to the process of dealing with evidence: Development of the assessment strategy. In this context, specification of agents, effects, subjects and conditions in relation to the assessment question(s): Collection and extraction of data; Appraisal and integration of the relevance of the agents, subjects, effects and conditions, i.e. reviewing dimensions of biological relevance for each data set. A decision tree is developed to assist in the collection, identification and appraisal of relevant data for a given specific assessment question to be answered.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Re‐evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium, ammonium and calcium salts (E 400–E 404) as food additives

Maged Younes; Peter Aggett; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Metka Filipič; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; David Gott; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Gunter Georg Kuhnle; Claude Lambré; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Inger Therese Lillegaard; Peter Moldeus; Alicja Mortensen; Agneta Oskarsson; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; Leon Brimer; Oliver Lindtner; Pasquale Mosesso; Anna Christodoulidou; Zsuzsanna Horvath; Federica Lodi; Birgit Dusemund

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium, ammonium and calcium salts (E 400–E 404) when used as food additives. Alginic acid and its salts (E 400–E 404) are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404), and that there was no safety concern at the level of the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) as food additives. The Panel further concluded that exposure of infants and young children to alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) by the use of these food additives should stay below therapeutic dosages for these population groups at which side‐effects could occur. Concerning the use of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in ‘dietary foods for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants’ (Food category 13.1.5.1) and ‘in dietary foods for babies and young children for special medical purposes as defined in Directive 1999/21/EC’ (Food category 13.1.5.2), the Panel further concluded that the available data did not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in infants and young children consuming the food belonging to the categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2.


Toxicology | 1999

Free Radicals and Reactive Oxygen Species

Maged Younes

Publisher Summary This chapter reveals that free radicals are generated during a number of physiological processes, as well as under certain pathophysiological conditions. They represent the toxic principle of a variety of xenobiotics, because their high reactivity makes them capable of interacting with vital cellular molecules like membrane phospholipids, DNA, and functional proteins, resulting eventually in an impairment of their function. A number of cellular defense mechanisms have the potential of inactivating free radicals. The degree of free-radical damage will ultimately depend on the balance between radical formation and radical inactivation. The interaction of free radicals with cellular components may lead to the formation of secondary radicals derived from proteins, lipids, or nucleic acids. These may, in turn, react with other cellular macromolecules, and initiate and thus maintain a chain reaction. Consequently, cellular damage may be exacerbated to a large extent.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Re‐evaluation of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive

Alicja Mortensen; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Alessandro Di Domenico; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; David Gott; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Claude Lambré; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Oliver Lindtner; Peter Moldeus; Pasquale Mosesso; Agneta Oskarsson; Dominique Parent‐Massin; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; Maged Younes; Leon Brimer; Paul Peters; Jacqueline Wiesner; Anna Christodoulidou; Federica Lodi; Alexandra Tard; Birgit Dusemund

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. In the EU, guar gum was evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1970, 1974 and 1975, who allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’. Guar gum has been also evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1977 who endorsed the ADI ‘not specified’ allocated by JECFA. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Guar gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested; no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral intake of guar gum was well tolerated in adults. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for guar gum (E 412), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. The Panel considered that for uses of guar gum in foods intended for infants and young children the occurrence of abdominal discomfort should be monitored and if this effect is observed doses should be identified as a basis for further risk assessment. The Panel considered that no adequate specific studies addressing the safety of use of guar gum (E 412) in food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of guar gum (E 412) in infants and young children consuming these foods for special medical purposes.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Re‐evaluation of glycerol (E 422) as a food additive

Alicja Mortensen; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Alessandro Di Domenico; Birgit Dusemund; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; David Gott; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Oliver Lindtner; Peter Moldeus; Pasquale Mosesso; Dominique Parent‐Massin; Agneta Oskarsson; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; Maged Younes; P.E. Boon; Dimitrios Chrysafidis; Rainer Gürtler; Paul Tobback; Ana Maria Rincon; Alexandra Tard; Claude Lambré

Abstract The ANS Panel provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of glycerol (E 422) used as a food additive. In 1981, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) endorsed the conclusion from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1976 of ‘acceptable daily intake (ADI) for man not specified’. The Panel concluded that glycerol has low acute toxicity and that local irritating effects of glycerol in the gastrointestinal tract reported in some gavage studies was likely due to hygroscopic and osmotic effects of glycerol. Glycerol did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity and was of no concern with regard to carcinogenicity. Reproductive and prenatal developmental studies were limited to conclude on reproductive toxicity but no dose‐related adverse effects were reported. None of the animal studies available identified an adverse effect for glycerol. The Panel conservatively estimated the lowest oral dose of glycerol required for therapeutic effect to be 125 mg/kg bw per hour and noted that infants and toddlers can be exposed to that dose by drinking less than the volume of one can (330 mL) of a flavoured drink. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI and no safety concern regarding the use of glycerol (E 422) as a food additive at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses. The Panel also concluded that the manufacturing process of glycerol should not allow the production of a food additive, which contains genotoxic and carcinogenic residuals at a level which would result in a margin of exposure below 10,000. The Panel recommended modification of the EU specifications for E 422. The Panel also recommended that more information on uses and use levels and analytical data should be made available to the Panel.


EFSA Journal | 2018

Re‐evaluation of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) as a food additive

Maged Younes; Peter Aggett; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Birgit Dusemund; Metka Filipič; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; David Gott; Ursula Gundert-Remy; Gunter Georg Kuhnle; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Inger Therese Lillegaard; Peter Moldeus; Alicja Mortensen; Agneta Oskarsson; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; P.E. Boon; Dimitrios Chrysafidis; Rainer Gürtler; Pasquale Mosesso; Dominique Parent‐Massin; Paul Tobback; Ana Maria Rincon; Alexandra Tard; Claude Lambré

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) when used as a food additive. In 1996, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for propane‐1,2‐diol. Propane‐1,2‐diol is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal and is expected to be widely distributed to organs and tissues. The major route of metabolism is oxidation to lactic acid and pyruvic acid. At high concentrations, free propane‐1,2‐diol is excreted in the urine. No treatment‐related effects were observed in subchronic toxicity studies. The available data did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity. Haematological changes suggestive of an increased red blood cell destruction with a compensatory increased rate of haematopoiesis were observed at the highest dose level (5,000 mg/kg bw per day) in a 2‐year study in dogs. No adverse effects were reported in a 2‐year chronic study in rats with propane‐1,2‐diol (up to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day). The SCF used this study to derive the ADI. No adverse effects were observed in the available reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) is authorised according to Annex III in some food additives, food flavourings, enzymes and nutrients and it is then carried over to the final food. Dietary exposure to E 1520 was assessed based on the use levels and analytical data. The Panel considered that for the food categories for which information was available, the exposure was likely to be overestimated. Considering the toxicity database, the Panel concluded that there was no reason to revise the current ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel also concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand‐loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) at the reported use levels and analytical results.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Approach followed for the refined exposure assessment as part of the safety assessment of food additives under re‐evaluation

Alicja Mortensen; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Alessandro Di Domenico; Birgit Dusemund; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; David Gott; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Claude Lambré; Oliver Lindtner; Peter Moldeus; Pasquale Mosesso; Dominique Parent‐Massin; Agneta Oskarsson; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; Maged Younes; P.E. Boon; Christina Tlustos; Davide Arcella; Alexandra Tard; Jean-Charles Leblanc

Abstract This statement describes the approach followed by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) for performing refined exposure assessment in the framework of the re‐evaluation of already permitted food additives. Estimation of exposure is obtained through combination of different type of data originating from different sources: food additive concentration is obtained from information provided to EFSA on use levels and/or information obtained by means of analytical measurements. In recent years, the use of market research data has also been used. The statement provides also a description of the three different scenarios used for the exposure assessment of food additives under re‐evaluation, from the more conservative regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario to more refined ones. Lastly, a description is provided on the approach used for the uncertainty analysis which accompanies the exposure assessment.


EFSA Journal | 2017

Safety of nisin (E 234) as a food additive in the light of new toxicological data and the proposed extension of use

Maged Younes; Peter Aggett; Fernando Aguilar; Riccardo Crebelli; Birgit Dusemund; Metka Filipič; Maria Jose Frutos; Pierre Galtier; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Gunter Georg Kuhnle; Claude Lambré; Jean-Charles Leblanc; Inger Therese Lillegaard; Peter Moldeus; Alicja Mortensen; Agneta Oskarsson; Ivan Stankovic; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Rudolf Antonius Woutersen; Matthew Wright; Lieve Herman; Paul Tobback; Fabiola Pizzo; Camilla Smeraldi; Alexandra Tard; Adamantia Papaioannou; David Gott

Abstract The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of nisin (E 234) in the light of new toxicological data and with the proposed extension of use in unripened cheese and heat‐treated meat products. Nisin (E 234) is currently an authorised food additive in the EU under Annex II of Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 for use in several food categories. The safety of nisin (E 234) as a food additive has been evaluated in 2006 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food, where an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.13 mg/kg body weight (bw) was confirmed as previously established by Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). In addition to the studies previously evaluated by EFSA in 2006, the Panel considered in the present opinion, data from a new subchronic toxicity study. No adverse effects were observed in a repeated dose oral toxicity study in which rats were administered nisin A for 90 days. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 225 mg nisin A/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, was identified for this study. Using this NOAEL, an ADI of 1 mg nisin A/kg bw per day for nisin (E 234) was calculated applying a default uncertainty factor of 200 for extrapolation of subchronic to chronic exposure and inter‐ and intra‐species variability. The Panel calculated exposure estimates for both the current and the proposed uses based on the data available in the EFSA Comprehensive Database. The Panel considered that the overall exposure estimate was below the new ADI for nisin A for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use of nisin (E 234) as a food additive in unripened cheese (at maximum level of 12 mg/kg) and in heat‐treated meat products (at maximum level of 25 mg/kg) would not be of safety concern.

Collaboration


Dive into the Maged Younes's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Peter Moldeus

European Food Safety Authority

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Agneta Oskarsson

Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

David Gott

European Food Safety Authority

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Riccardo Crebelli

Istituto Superiore di Sanità

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Fernando Aguilar

European Food Safety Authority

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Pierre Galtier

European Food Safety Authority

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jean-Charles Leblanc

Institut national de la recherche agronomique

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Birgit Dusemund

Federal Institute for Risk Assessment

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge