Search

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 14 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 80 (FGE.80), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirteen substances have already been considered in FGE.80 and its revision and in FGE.96 [FL-no: 10.005, 10.024, 10.025, 10.050, 10.061, 10.069, 10.070, 10.072, 10.169, 13.009, 13.012, 13.161 and 16.055]. The remaining flavouring substance 3a,4,5,7a-tetrahydro-3,6-dimethylbenzofuran-2(3H)-one [FL-no: 10.057] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.217Rev3 and it is considered in this revision 2 of FGE.80. The substance [FL-no: 10.057] was evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 10.057] does not give rise to safety concerns at its levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered and the information provided was complete for [FL-no: 10.057]. However, for the flavouring substance [FL-no: 10.057] in the present revision and for eight substances evaluated in previous revisions, the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are above the TTC for their structural class (III). For four substances previously evaluated in FGE.80Rev1 and in FGE.96, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 13 flavouring substances, data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. For [FL-no: 10.050, 10.069 and 13.161], information on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures is needed., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 55 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07 (FGE.07), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Fifty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.07 and its revisions. This revision 6 includes two additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2 (4-methyl-3-hepten-5-one [FL-no: 07.261]) and FGE.204Rev1 (non-2-en-4-one, [FL-no: 07.187]). The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 55 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Normal and maximum use levels were available for all flavouring substances. For 52 substances, including the newly included substances [FL-no: 07.187 and 07.261], their 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) estimates were above the TTC for their structural classes (I and II). Therefore, for these 52 flavouring substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 43 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 63 (FGE.63), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-nine substances have already been considered in FGE.63 and its revisions ([FL-no: 02.023, 02.099, 02.104, 02.136, 02.155, 02.252, 07.015, 07.069, 07.081, 07.099, 07.100, 07.101, 07.102, 07.114, 07.123, 07.151, 07.190, 07.240, 07.247, 07.249, 07.256, 09.281, 09.282, 09.657, 09.658, 09.923, 09.924, 09.925 and 09.936]). The remaining 14 flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.204Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.177, 07.188 and 07.244]) and they are considered in this revision 4 of FGE.63. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 43 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for 43 flavouring substances. However, for 14 of these flavouring substances in the present revision and for 10 of the substances in the previous revision (FGE.63Rev3), the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are equal to or above the TTCs for their structural classes (I and II). For 15 substances previously evaluated in FGE.63Rev3, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 39 flavouring substances, more data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 35 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 69 (FGE.69), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirty-two substances have already been considered in FGE.69 [FL-no: 02.033, 02.034, 02.036, 02.064, 02.065, 02.080, 07.004, 07.013, 07.022, 07.023, 07.025, 07.026, 07.028, 07.029, 07.032, 07.038, 07.040, 07.042, 07.070, 07.079, 07.086, 07.087, 09.144, 09.178, 09.179, 09.189, 09.200, 09.231, 09.249, 09.476, 09.486 and 09.501]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.024 and 07.027] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.215Rev1 and are considered in this revision FGE.69Rev1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach, namely the Procedure, that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel considered that for 33 flavouring substances evaluated through the Procedure the specifications are adequate and the Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' when based on the MSDI approach. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 07.038 and 07.042], there is insufficient information on their chemical identity to reach a final conclusion. For six substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.013, 07.024, 07.028, 07.032 and 07.086], there is no concern when the exposure was estimated based on the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) approach. For 28 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. For one substance [FL-no: 07.027], more reliable data on uses and use levels are required in order to finalise the safety evaluation., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty-four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91: two ([FL-no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL-no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL-no: 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL-no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL-no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL-no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL-no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 31 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 substances more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 12 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 39 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.020 and 05.076], the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 29 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 70 (FGE.70), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Seven substances have already been considered in FGE.70 [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. The remaining 22 substances [FL-no: 02.049, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172, 09.947, 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.057, 05.064, 05.071, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.140, 05.141, 05.173 and 09.573] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and FGE.203Rev2 and are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 29 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 09.371 and 09.840]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Data on the identity and contents of secondary components should be requested for [FL no: 09.260]. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for seven flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. For six flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.057, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172 and 09.947] further information is required based on the comparison of the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This includes more reliable data on use and use levels and then, if required, additional toxicological data., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Risk assessments for pesticide and veterinary drug residues in food are performed respectively by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The models used by the two Committees to assess chronic dietary exposure are based on different data and assumptions which may be confusing, particularly for risk managers, when the same compound is used to treat plants and animals. This publication details the results of combined chronic dietary exposure assessments for eight compounds used both as pesticide and veterinary drugs. It compares the results from models in use by JMPR and JECFA with those from national estimates performed by 17 countries. Results show that the JECFA model is better reflecting less than lifetime dietary exposure by considering consumption of children and high consumers. The JMPR model is a suitable model for estimating average chronic (lifetime) exposure to residues present in widely and regularly consumed staple commodities. However, it is suitable neither for estimating children's exposure nor more generally for assessing less than lifetime dietary exposure. In order to select the appropriate exposure model related to the occurrence of adverse effects i.e. effects occurring over less-than-lifetime or effects occurring only over lifetime, this paper proposes criteria to match the toxicological profile of the compound and the appropriate exposure scenarios. These approaches will continue to be harmonized to ensure the most scientifically sound basis for the risk assessment for pesticides and veterinary drug residues and consequently for other chemicals in food.

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. For the following substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of this FGE is on the assessment of recently submitted toxicity data on methyl propyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.020], being the representative for a group of seven additional flavouring substances: diallyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.009], dimethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.013], dipropyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.023], methyl allyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.045], diallyl polysulfides [FL-no: 12.074], methyl ethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.155] and diisopropyl trisulphide [FL-no: 12.280]. Specifications have been provided for all substances. The Panel decided that the 90-day study submitted for [FL-no: 12.020] can be considered only once it is clearly demonstrated that the material tested is representative of the material of commerce and that potential reaction products of the components are not of safety concern. Therefore, no conclusion on the safety of the eight flavouring substances [FL-no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155 and 12.280] can be reached. For 2-methyl-4-oxopentane-2-thiol [FL-no: 12.169] and 2-mercapto-2-methylpentan-1-ol [FL-no: 12.241], additional subchronic toxicity data are required. The remaining nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] in this FGE are not considered of safety concern under the intended conditions of use., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The aluminium (Al) content of Japanese confectionery and foods containing flour was investigated. Some of these items were investigated in previous studies, which examined foods that made use of baking powder containing aluminium potassium sulfate (Alum). Al was detected in 41 of the 123 samples at levels ranging from 0.01 (limit of quantitation) to 0.40 mg/g. The detection rate of Al in almost all confectionery (except Japanese confectionery) was decreased as compared with previous studies. However, the detection rate of Al in Japanese confectionery and foods containing flour was high. For 4 of the 41 samples tested, consuming one serving once a week would result in an Al intake exceeding the PTWI for young children (body weight=16 kg).

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of FGE.73 concerns the inclusion of four additional flavouring substances ( p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302]) evaluated by JECFA at the 59th meeting. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach integrating information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological thresholds of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated 22 and one candidate substances via the A and the B-side of the Procedure, respectively, and concluded for all substances 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Adequate specifications, including complete purity criteria and identity data, are available for 22 out of the 23 JECFA substances evaluated in this FGE. For [FL-no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For the six substances with [FL-no: 02.060, 02.091, 09.034, 09.278, 09.302 and 09.712] evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For two substances [FL-no: 09.034, and 09.712], the mTAMDI estimates were above the TTC for their structural class and more detailed information is needed to finalise their evaluation. For the remaining 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment in order to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The risk assessment of residues of veterinary drugs in food is a field that continues to evolve. The toxicological end-points to be considered are becoming more nuanced and in light of growing concern about the development of antimicrobial resistance, detailed analysis of the antimicrobial activity of the residues of veterinary drugs in food is increasingly incorporated in the assessment. In recent years, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has refined its approaches to provide a more comprehensive and fit-for-purpose risk assessment. This publication describes in detail the consideration of acute and chronic effects, the estimation of acute and chronic dietary exposure, current approaches for including microbiological endpoints in the risk assessment, and JECFA's considerations for the potential effects of food processing on residues from veterinary drugs. JECFA now applies these approaches in the development of health-based guidance values (i.e. safe exposure levels) for residues of veterinary drugs. JECFA, thus, comprehensively addresses acute and chronic risks by using corresponding estimates for acute and chronic exposure and suitable correction for the limited bioavailability of bound residues by the Gallo-Torres model. On a case-by-case basis, JECFA also considers degradation products that occur from normal food processing of food containing veterinary drug residues. These approaches will continue to be refined to ensure the most scientifically sound basis for the establishment of health-based guidance values for veterinary drug residues.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of four flavouring substances consisting of isopulegone and three other substances evaluated by JECFA at the 55th meeting. This revision is made due to additional toxicity data available for (1 R ,2 S ,5 R )-isopulegol [FL-no: 02.067]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. p -Mentha-1,4(8)-dien-3-one [FL-no: 07.127] is no longer supported by the flavour industry and was not evaluated. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated the candidate substances in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE) via the B-side of the Procedure. Based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a 90-day oral toxicity study on [FL-no: 02.067], adequate margins of safety for the three candidate substances could be calculated. Therefore, the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For the three substances evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For [FL-no: 02.067 and 07.067], the mTAMDI exceeds the toxicological threshold of concern for their structural classes and need more refined exposure assessment to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Using the procedure devised by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), we performed safety evaluations on four flavoring substances structurally related to menthol (L-menthyl 2-methylbutyrate, DL-menthyl octanoate, DL-menthyl palmitate, and DL-menthyl stearate) uniquely used in Japan. While no genotoxicity study data were available in the literature, all four substances had no chemical structural alerts predictive of genotoxicity. Moreover, they all four are esters consisting of menthol and simple carboxylic acids that were assumed to be immediately hydrolyzed after ingestion and metabolized into innocuous substances for excretion. As menthol and carboxylic acids have no known genotoxicity, it was judged that the JECFA procedure could be applied to these four substances. According to Cramer's classification, these substances were categorized as class I based on their chemical structures. The estimated daily intakes for all four substances were within the range of 1.54-4.71 μg/person/day and 60-1250 μg/person/day, using the methods of Maximized Survey-Derived Intake and Single Portion Exposure Technique, respectively, based on the annual usage data of 2001, 2005, and 2010 in Japan. As the daily intakes of these substances were below the threshold of concern applied to class I substances viz., 1800 μg/person/day, it was concluded that all four substances raise no safety concerns when used for flavoring foods under the currently estimated intake levels., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Residual styrene present in polystyrene food packaging may migrate into food at low levels. To assure safe use, safe exposure levels are derived for consumers potentially exposed via food using No/Low Adverse Effect Levels from animal and human studies and assessment factors proposed by European organisations (EFSA, ECHA, ECETOC). Ototoxicity and developmental toxicity in rats and human ototoxicity and effects on colour discrimination have been identified as the most relevant toxicological properties for styrene health assessments. Safe exposure levels derived from animal studies with assessment factors of EFSA and ECHA were expectedly much lower than those using the ECETOC approach. Comparable safe exposure levels were obtained from human data with all sets of assessment factors while ototoxicity in rats led to major differences. The safe exposure levels finally selected based on criteria of science and health protection converged to the range of 90-120 mg/person/d. Assuming a consumption of 1 kg food/d for an adult, this translates to 90 mg styrene migration into 1 kg food as safe for consumers. This assessment supports a health based Specific Migration Limit of 90 ppm, a value somewhat higher than the current overall migration limit of 60 ppm in the European Union., (Copyright © 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

To assess the potential risk of human exposure to carcinogenic leucomalachite green (LMG) due to fish consumption, the probabilistic risk assessment was conducted for adolescent, adult and senior adult consumers in Taiwan. The residues of LMG with the mean concentration of 13.378±20.56 μg kg(-1) (BFDA, 2009) in fish was converted into dose, considering fish intake reported for three consumer groups by NAHSIT (1993-1996) and body weight of an average individual of the group. The lifetime average and high 95th percentile dietary intakes of LMG from fish consumption for Taiwanese consumers were estimated at up to 0.0135 and 0.0451 μg kg-bw(-1) day(-1), respectively. Human equivalent dose (HED) of 2.875 mg kg-bw(-1) day(-1) obtained from a lower-bound benchmark dose (BMDL10) in mice by interspecies extrapolation was linearly extrapolated to oral cancer slope factor (CSF) of 0.035 (mgkg-bw(-1)day(-1))(-1) for humans. Although, the assumptions and methods are different, the results of lifetime cancer risk varying from 3×10(-7) to 1.6×10(-6) were comparable to those of margin of exposures (MOEs) varying from 410,000 to 4,800,000. In conclusions, Taiwanese fish consumers with the 95th percentile LADD of LMG have greater risk of liver cancer and need to an action of risk management in Taiwan., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Subsistence farmers are exposed to a range of mycotoxins. This study applied novel urinary multi-mycotoxin LC-MS/MS methods to determine multiple exposure biomarkers in the high oesophageal cancer region, Transkei, South Africa. Fifty-three female participants donated part of their maize-based evening meal and first void morning urine, which was analysed both with sample clean-up (single and multi-biomarker) and by a 'dilute-and-shoot' multi-biomarker method. Results were corrected for recovery with LOD for not detected. A single biomarker method detected fumonisin B1 (FB1) (87% incidence; mean±standard deviation 0.342±0.466 ng/mg creatinine) and deoxynivalenol (100%; mean 20.4±49.4 ng/mg creatinine) after hydrolysis with β-glucuronidase. The multi-biomarker 'dilute-and-shoot' method indicated deoxynivalenol-15-glucuronide was predominantly present. A multi-biomarker method with β-glucuronidase and immunoaffinity clean-up determined zearalenone (100%; 0.529±1.60 ng/mg creatinine), FB1 (96%; 1.52±2.17 ng/mg creatinine), α-zearalenol (92%; 0.614±1.91 ng/mg creatinine), deoxynivalenol (87%; 11.3±27.1 ng/mg creatinine), β-zearalenol (75%; 0.702±2.95 ng/mg creatinine) and ochratoxin A (98%; 0.041±0.086 ng/mg creatinine). These demonstrate the value of multi-biomarker methods in measuring exposures in populations exposed to multiple mycotoxins. This is the first finding of urinary deoxynivalenol, zearalenone, their conjugates, ochratoxin A and zearalenols in Transkei., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The screening and careful selection of excipients is a critical step in paediatric formulation development as certain excipients acceptable in adult formulations, may not be appropriate for paediatric use. While there is extensive toxicity data that could help in better understanding and highlighting the gaps in toxicity studies, the data are often scattered around the information sources and saddled with incompatible data types and formats. This paper is the second in a series that presents the update on the Safety and Toxicity of Excipients for Paediatrics ("STEP") database being developed by Eu-US PFIs, and describes the architecture data fields and functions of the database. The STEP database is a user designed resource that compiles the safety and toxicity data of excipients that is scattered over various sources and presents it in one freely accessible source. Currently, in the pilot database data from over 2000 references/10 excipients presenting preclinical, clinical, regulatory information and toxicological reviews, with references and source links. The STEP database allows searching "FOR" excipients and "BY" excipients. This dual nature of the STEP database, in which toxicity and safety information can be searched in both directions, makes it unique from existing sources. If the pilot is successful, the aim is to increase the number of excipients in the existing database so that a database large enough to be of practical research use will be available. It is anticipated that this source will prove to be a useful platform for data management and data exchange of excipient safety information., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Hazard characterisation is largely based on an approach of (statistically) comparing dose groups with the controls in order to derive points of departure such as no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) or lowest-observed-adverse-effect levels (LOAELs). This approach suggests the absence of any relevant effect at the NOAEL. The NOAEL approach has been debated for decades. A recent Scientific Opinion by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) concluded that the Benchmark Dose (BMD) approach should be preferred over the NOAEL approach for deriving human (health-based) limit or guidance values. Nonetheless, the BMD approach is used infrequently within European regulatory frameworks. The reason for this may lie in legislation or guidelines requiring the use of the NOAEL approach. In this context, various EU regulatory frameworks were examined on such demands. Interestingly, no single legislation was identified containing statutory requirements in conflict with the use of the BMD approach., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The first aim of the study was to evaluate calculated dietary intake and concentrations measured in blood or urine of essential and toxic elements in relation to nutritional and toxicological reference values. The second aim was to identify patterns of the element concentrations in blood and urine and to identify possible dietary determinants of the concentrations of these elements. Adults with a known high consumption of environmental contaminants (n=111), and a random sample of controls (n=76) answered a validated food frequency questionnaire (FFQ). Complete data on biological measures were available for 179 individuals. Blood and urine samples were analyzed for selenium, iodine, arsenic, mercury, cadmium and lead. Principal component analysis was used to identify underlying patterns of correlated blood and urine concentrations. The calculated intakes of selenium, iodine, inorganic arsenic and mercury were within guideline levels. For cadmium 24% of the high consumer group and 8% of the control group had intakes above the tolerable weekly intake. Concentrations of lead in blood exceeded the bench-mark dose lower confidence limits for some participants. However, overall, the examined exposures did not give rise to nutritional or toxicological concerns. Game consumption was associated with lead in blood (B(ln) 0.021; 95%CI:0.010, 0.031) and wine consumption. Seafood consumption was associated with urinary cadmium in non-smokers (B(ln) 0.009; 95%CI:0.003, 0.015). A novel finding was a distinct pattern of positively associated biological markers, comprising iodine, selenium, arsenic and mercury (eigenvalue 3.8), reflecting seafood intake (B 0.007; 95%CI:0.004, 0.010). The study clearly demonstrates the significance of seafood as a source of both essential nutrients and toxic elements simultaneously and shows that exposure to various essential and toxic elements can be intertwined., (© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

In the last years, consumption of organic foods has become increasingly popular. Nevertheless, safety of organic foods is still unclear, and needs to be thoroughly evaluated. Patulin is a mycotoxin mainly present in rotten apples and apple-based products. The aim of this study is to analyse the content of patulin in apple juices and purees derived from organic and conventional production systems, in order to assess the risk to consumers, particularly in children. A total of 93 apple-based products marketed in Catalonia were analysed, 49 of which were derived from conventional and 44 from organic farming. The results showed higher incidence of positive samples and higher concentration of patulin in organic apple purees when comparing with conventional ones. In the case of juices, significant differences were found between conventional and organic samples, but applying a multivariate analysis the type of agriculture did not seem to have a relevant contribution to patulin occurrence, being cloudiness the main factor involved. The estimated daily intake of patulin for infants and young children (0-3 years old), children (4-18 years old) and adults (19-66 years old), were below the provisional maximum tolerable daily intake (PMTDI) of 0.4 μg/kg bw in all scenarios considered., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Mycotoxins are abiotic hazards produced by certain fungi that can grow on a variety of crops. Consequently, their prevalence in plant raw materials may be relatively high. The concentration of mycotoxins in finished products is usually lower than in raw materials. In this review, occurrence and toxicology of the main mycotoxins are summarised. Furthermore, methodological approaches for exposure assessment are described. Existing exposure assessments, both through contamination and consumption data and biomarkers of exposure, for the main mycotoxins are also discussed., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Great attention has been paid to chloropropanols like 3-monochloro-1,2-propanediol and the related substance glycidol due to their presence in food and concerns about their toxic potential as carcinogens. The other chloropropanols 2-monochloro-1,3-propanediol, 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol and 2,3-dichloro-1-propanol have been found in certain foods, but occurrence data are generally limited for these compounds. 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol has the most toxicological relevance showing clear carcinogenic effects in rats possibly via a genotoxic mechanism. The dietary exposure to 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol is quite low. Calculated "Margins of Exposure" values are above 10,000. It is concluded that the 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol exposure is of low concern for human health. The toxicology of 2,3-dichloro-1-propanol has not been adequately investigated. Its toxicological potential regarding hepatotoxic effects seems to be lower than that of 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol. Limited data show that 2,3-dichloro-1-propanol occurs only in trace amounts in food, indicating that exposure to 2,3-dichloro-1-propanol seems to be also of low concern for human health. The dietary 2-monochloro-1,3-propanediol burden appears to be lower than that of 3-monochloro-1,2-propanediol. An adequate risk assessment for 2-monochloro-1,3-propanediol cannot be performed due to limited data on the toxicology and occurrence in food. This article reviews the relevant information about the toxicology, occurrence and dietary exposure to the chloropropanols 2-monochloro-1,3-propanediol, 1,3-dichloro-2-propanol and 2,3-dichloro-1-propanol., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The absorption, urinary excretion, and the biliary excretion of a single oral dose of 10 or 1000 mg/kg bw of (14)C-polyethylene glycol-polyvinyl alcohol (PEG-PVA) grafted copolymer were studied in adult male and female rats. In a balance/excretion experiment, the total excretion of ingested radioactivity was determined over a period of 168 h and residual radioactivity was detected in selected tissues and the carcass. In a biliary excretion experiment, excretion of radioactivity via the bile duct was determined over a period of 48 h after administration of the substance to cannulated rats. Most, if not all, of the radioactivity (>100%) was excreted within 48 h via the feces regardless of sex or dose. Urinary excretion was very limited: 0.45-0.50% of dose at the low dose and 0.22-0.27% of dose at the high dose. At both dose levels, residual radioactivity in the carcass and all organs and tissues after 168 h was ≤ 0.02% of dose. Biliary excretion was 0.01-0.02% of dose. Based on these findings, the bioavailability of PEG-PVA grafted copolymer was determined to be <1% demonstrating that absorption was virtually negligible following a single oral administration to male and female rats., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)