Search

Sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466) was re-evaluated in 2018 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of E 466 for its uses as a food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories (FC) 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) in line with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population, including the safety assessment for FC 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 (Dietary foods for babies and young children for special medical purposes as defined in directive 1999/21/EC). The process involved the publication of a call for data. Based on the received data, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the interested business operator support an amendment of the specifications for sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466) laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The interested business operators declared that E 466 is not used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age and in FC 13.1.5.1. Due to the lack of data, an assessment has not been performed for this FC and age group. The interested business operators did not provide biological and toxicological data to support the uses of E 466 in FC 13.1.5.2. Due to the almost unchanged database compared to the situation before the call for data, the FAF Panel confirmed the previous EFSA ANS Panel conclusion according to which the available data did not allow for an adequate assessment of the safety of use of sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466) in infants and young children consuming foods belonging to the FC 13.1.5.2. (c) 2022 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone - neohesperidine - which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13-week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter- and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.

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.

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.

International audience; The substance isobutane is intended to be used as a foaming agent at max 4.5% to produce expanded polystyrene (EPS) to be used for packaging foods, such as fruits, vegetables, meat, fish and cheese, at room temperature or lower. Isobutane is approved in Europe as a food additive (E943b) to be used quantumsatis as a gas propellant only in vegetable oil pan spray (for professional use only) and water-based emulsion spray according to Regulation (EC) No1333/2008. The purity requirements for the use of isobutane as a food additive are described in Commission Regulation (EU) No231/2012. The substance is a gas at room temperature. It is a saturated hydrocarbon, obtained with a high level of purity, and is not expected to react under the processing conditions used to make foamed polystyrene materials and articles. Data on migration of isobutane from trays at 20 degrees C for 10days ranged from 0.2 to 0.4mg/kg food. Considering the intended applications, estimated exposure is extremely low based on migration data. In the absence of genotoxicity alerts and given the very low toxicity following repeated exposure with no observed adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) of several thousands of mg/m(3) by inhalation, it was considered that the use of isobutane as a foaming agent, at the expected exposure from food, does not raise a safety concern.

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process EstPak Plastik (EU register No RECYC150), which is based on the Starlinger Decon technology. The decontamination efficiency of the process was demonstrated by a challenge test. The input of this process is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, mainly bottles, containing no more than 5% of PET from non‐food consumer applications. In this technology, washed and dried PET flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor (one single reactor or several reactors in parallel) at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the continuous SSP reactor (step 3) are the critical steps that determine the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters that control the performance of the process are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time and gas flow for steps 2 and 3. Under these conditions, it was demonstrated that the recycling process under evaluation, using the Starlinger Decon technology, is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process intended to be used up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill, is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens.

International audience; This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Gneuss 1 (EU register No RECYC0143). The input is washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, containing no more than 5% of PET from non-food applications. They are extruded under vacuum into pellets or sheets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the decontamination in the extruder under vacuum degassing is the critical step for the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control its performance are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time, throughput rate, rotor speed and satellite screws speed. The operating parameters of this step are at least as severe as those obtained from the challenge test. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 mu g/kg food. Therefore, the recycled PET obtained from the process Gneuss 1 intended for the manufacture of articles made with up to 100% recycled post-consumer PET and intended for contact for long-term storage at room temperature with all types of foodstuffs is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens.

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of the substance phosphorous acid, mixed 2,4‐bis(1,1‐dimethylpropyl)phenyl and 4‐(1,1‐dimethylpropyl)phenyl triesters. The substance was evaluated by the CEF Panel in 2011 and 2,4‐di‐tert‐amylphenol, an impurity and hydrolysis product was re‐evaluated by the CEF Panel in 2015. In this application, the applicant requested an increase of the specific migration limit of the substance, currently established at 5 mg/kg food, to 10 mg/kg food, and provided new toxicological studies. Findings from three new in vitro mutagenicity assays on the oxidation products support the conclusion from 2011 that the substance and its oxidation products are not genotoxic. A new toxicokinetic study on the substance supports the consideration from the evaluation in 2011 that the substance does not raise concern for accumulation. The outcome of a new delayed neurotoxicity study on a structurally related substance, phosphorous acid, tris (2,4‐di‐tert‐butylphenyl) ester, which was considered not to cause neurotoxicity in hens, strengthens the conclusion of the Panel in 2011 that the substance does not represent a concern for neurotoxicity. From a new two‐generation reproduction toxicity study and a prenatal developmental toxicity study on the substance, a new subchronic toxicity study on its oxidation products that completes the one submitted in 2011 on the substance itself, and a 2‐year oral toxicity study on the structurally related substance, the lowest NOAEL was 58–147 mg/kg bw per day (from the 2‐year oral toxicity study). Compared to the requested increase of the migration limit, this gives an acceptable margin of safety of 348. Therefore, the CEF Panel concluded that an increase of the specific migration limit of the substance from 5 to 10 mg/kg food is not a safety concern for the consumer.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of buffered vinegar as a new food additive. Buffered vinegar is a liquid or dried product prepared by adding sodium/potassium hydroxides (E 524 to E 525) and sodium/potassium carbonates (E 500 to E 501) to vinegar, compliant with European Standard EN 13188:2000 and exclusively obtained from an agricultural source origin (except wood/cellulose). The primary constituents of buffered vinegar are acetic acid and its salts. No biological or toxicological data obtained with the proposed food additive were submitted by the applicant as part of the dossier as, following oral ingestion, buffered vinegar dissociates into the acetic anion and acetate a natural constituent of the diet, and of the human body for which extensive data on their biological effects exist and for which EFSA in 2013 has previously concluded that the establishment of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not considered necessary. At the proposed maximum/typical use levels, the mean exposure to buffered vinegar from its use as a food additive expressed as acetic acid equivalents ranged from 8.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 280.3 mg/kg bw per day in children. The 95th percentile of exposure to buffered vinegar ranged from 27.9 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 1,078 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of buffered vinegar as a food additive at the proposed maximum/typical use levels. The Panel could not conclude on the safety for the proposed uses at quantum satis as Group I food additive since the resulting exposure could not be estimated.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF) assessed the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of a mixture of glucosylated steviol glycosides, containing 1-20 additional glucose units bound to the parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of not less than 95% (on dry, dextrin-free, basis) of total steviol glycosides, comprised of glucosylated and parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides are produced via enzymatic bioconversion using cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferase (CGTase) (EC 2.4.1.19), derived from a non-genetically modified strain of Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, that catalyses the transfer of glucose from starch to steviol glycosides mixtures isolated from the dried leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana. The Panel considered that the metabolism of glucosylated steviol glycosides is sufficiently similar to the already authorised steviol glycosides, and thus, the toxicological data previously assessed by the ANS Panel for steviol glycosides (E 960) were considered to support their safety as food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides (E 960) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day expressed as steviol can also be applied to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of glucosylated steviol glycosides as a new food additive at the proposed use and use levels. The Panel recommended some modifications to the specifications proposed by the applicant for glucosylated steviol glycosides with respect to the assay, the definition of the proposed new food additive and the proposed maximum limits for arsenic.

Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring was requested to assess mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) for its use as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants). In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive in 2017 when used in food for the general population. The Panel considered that there is no indication of adverse effects from the available animal studies at the highest dose tested and from the post marketing data. A comparison was made between the daily exposure to the sum of mono- and di-acylglycerols from breast milk and that resulting from the use of E 471 in the infant formula. The Panel noted that the resulting exposures are in the same order of magnitude. Overall, the Panel concluded that there is no reason for a safety concern when E 471 used as food additive in FC 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1 and according to the Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The risk assessment for toxic elements and impurities clearly indicated the need to lower the current maximum limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury and to include limits for glycidyl esters, 3-monochloropropane diol and erucic acid in the EU specifications of E 471. © 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications on smoke flavouring primary products. This guidance describes the scientific data to be included in the applications for the authorisation of new smoke flavouring primary products, as well as for the renewal or for the modification of existing authorisations, submitted respectively under Articles 7, 12 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: the characterisation of the primary product, including the description of the source materials, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications and stability; the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure; the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the identified components and of the unidentified fraction of the primary product, toxicological data other than genotoxicity and information on the safety for the environment. For the toxicological studies a tiered approach is applied, for which the testing requirements, key issues and triggers are described. A description of the standard uncertainties relevant for the evaluation of primary products and how these are considered in the standardised risk assessment procedure is also included. The applicant should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the smoke flavouring primary product. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the primary product and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment under the proposed conditions of use.

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. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re‐evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re‐evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre‐systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns.

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.