Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings of the EFSA was requested to update Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 using the Procedure as outlined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, to include an evaluation of the flavouring substances 2‐ethyl‐5‐methylfuran [FL‐no: 13.125] and 2‐octylfuran [FL‐no: 13.162]. FGE.13 revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3) deals with 26 flavourings substances of which 24 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern. For [FL‐no: 13.125] and [FL‐no: 13.162], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.13Rev1. This concern could be ruled out based on new genotoxicity data on supporting substances in FGE.67Rev3. Subsequently, [FL‐no: 13.125 and 13.162] were evaluated, through a stepwise approach that integrates intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity, along the B‐side of the Procedure, making use of a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived this BMDL from an oral subchronic toxicity study with the supporting substance 2‐pentylfuran [FL‐no: 13.059]. Using this BMDL, for [FL‐no: 13.125 and 13.162], adequate margins of safety were calculated based on the MSDI approach. The Panel concluded that the 26 candidate substances in FGE.13Rev3 do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 26 substances. Data on uses and use levels are needed for [FL‐no: 13.130]. For 21 flavouring substances [FL‐no: 13.011, 13.102, 13.108, 13.113, 13.114, 13.122, 13.125, 13.127, 13.129, 13.132, 13.133, 13.135, 13.136, 13.139, 13.141, 13.143, 13.146, 13.149, 13.162, 13.178 and 13.185], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2‐pentylfuran [FL‐no: 13.059] and 2‐acetylfuran [FL‐no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL‐no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI‐B [FL‐no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL‐no: 13.054] and [FL‐no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B‐side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2‐acetylfuran and 2‐pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL‐no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme is a protease complex, containing trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4), chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1), pancreatic elastase (EC 3.4.21.36) and carboxypeptidase B (EC 3.4.17.2), obtained from porcine pancreas by Neova Technologies Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used for hydrolysis of whey proteins employed as ingredients of infant formulae, follow-on formulae and in food for special medical purposes (tube feeding). Based on maximum use levels and the maximum permitted protein content in infant formula, dietary exposure to the food enzyme--total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 36 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants. The Panel estimates that this value covers all population groups. In the toxicological evaluation, clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations containing pancreatic enzymes were considered. Hypersensitivity to the pharmaceuticals was identified as the major side effect. However, the intact enzymes are removed during preparation of food products; therefore, the Panel considers that the likelihood of adverse effects of the intact enzyme to occur is small. Low molecular weight peptides derived from the enzyme are still likely to be present in the protein hydrolysate. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to these peptides after consumption of products prepared by hydrolysis of milk, cannot be excluded in infants, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided by the applicant, supported by the evaluation of clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations based on pancreatic enzymes, the Panel concluded that the porcine pancreatic enzymes do not give rise to safety concern under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme is a serine protease complex, containing trypsin (EC 3.4.21.4) and chymotrypsin (EC 3.4.21.1), obtained from porcine pancreas by Neova Technologies Inc. The serine protease complex is intended to be used for hydrolysis of whey proteins employed as ingredients of infant formulae and follow-on formulae. Based on maximum use levels and the maximum permitted protein content in infant formulae, dietary exposure to the food enzyme--total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be 18 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants. In the toxicological evaluation, clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations containing pancreatic enzymes were considered. Hypersensitivity to the pharmaceuticals was identified as the major side effect. However, allergic reactions to porcine pancreatic enzymes in hydrolysed foods have not been reported. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic sensitisation to this food enzyme after consumption of products prepared by hydrolysis of milk cannot be excluded in infants, but considers the likelihood to be low. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of animals, the data provided by the applicant, supported by the evaluation of clinical studies with pharmaceutical preparations based on pancreatic enzymes, the Panel concluded that the porcine pancreatic enzymes do not give rise to safety concern under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) when used as a food additive. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain additives and considered that: adequate exposure estimates were available; the margin of safety (MOS)/margin of exposure (MOE) for arsenic was between 0.5-14 and 8.5 for lead; the exhaustions of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for cadmium would be 165%, 10% for mercury, whereas the exhaustion of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for nickel would be 9%; the absorption is limited and part of polydextrose is fermented in the large intestine into short-chain fatty acids (SCFA); adequate toxicity data were available; there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity; no adverse effects were reported in subchronic studies in rats, dogs or monkeys nor in chronic or carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the highest doses tested of up 12,500 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and 15,000 mg/kg bw per day, respectively; the nephrocalcinosis in dogs given high doses of polydextrose was considered to be a treatment-related but a secondary effect related to diarrhoea, and hence not relevant for the risk assessment; no adverse effects were reported in reproductive or developmental toxicity studies in rats administered up to 10,000 mg polydextrose/kg bw per day, or in a developmental toxicity study in rabbits up to 1,818 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested). Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for polydextrose (E 1200), and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of polydextrose as a food additive. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers to lower the maximum limit for lead and to introduce limits for arsenic, cadmium and mercury in the EU specifications for polydextrose (E 1200), and to verify that polydextrose-N as a food additive (E 1200) is no longer marketed in the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201, PVP) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202, PVPP) when used as food additives. One request for extension of use of PVP (E 1201) in foods for special medical purposes was also considered in this assessment. The Panel followed the conceptual framework under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and considered that: the exposure assessment was based on the reported use and use levels (one food category out of the two food categories in which PVP and PVPP are authorised); the 95th percentile of exposure to PVP and PVPP of maximally 23.7 and 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children, respectively, was overestimated, because it was assumed that 100% of the food supplements consumed contained PVP or PVPP at the maximum reported use levels; the extension of use of PVP (E 1201) to foods for special medical purposes (FC 13.2) would result in an exposure of PVP of 4.3 mg/kg bw per day for children; the absorption of PVP and PVPP is very low; sufficient toxicity data were available for PVP; there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of PVP and PVPP; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in rats at a dose of 2,500 mg PVP/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there is no need for chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity data for PVPP for the safety assessment of PVPP given the chemical similarity between PVP and PVPP, and the lack of adverse effects in the available repeated dose toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for PVP and PVPP, and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of PVP and PVPP as food additives. The Panel further concluded that the proposed extension of use is not expected to be of safety concern at the proposed maximum permitted level (MPL) and recommended consumption level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive. E 900 was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and agreed with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. Dimethyl polysiloxane was only absorbed to a very limited extent from the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration and the vast majority was excreted unchanged in the faeces. Corneal opacities and other effects on cornea were observed in studies in rats. These effects are considered to be caused by direct contact with the test substance in the feed and/or with the test substance in the faeces and not due to systemic exposure. The Panel considered that oral exposure of dimethyl polysiloxane did not result in any systemic adverse effects in any species and dose tested and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). From a 26‐month toxicity study in rats, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,742 and 2,055 mg dimethyl polysiloxane/kg bw per day for female and male, respectively, was identified. Using the NOAEL 1,742 mg/kg bw per day, the Panel established an ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900 by applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Accordingly, the ADI for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) of 1.5 mg/kg bw per day, established by SCF in 1990, is withdrawn. The exposure estimates for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900. The Panel concluded that there is not a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations for the EU specifications to be amended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read‐across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) when used as a food additive. Hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene is of low acute toxicity and does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, were not available; therefore, the Panel based the derivation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) identified in the subchronic study in rats and established an ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day. Dietary exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Mean exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive ranged from no exposure in infants to 2.35 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants and adults to 6.69 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The exposure estimates in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario did not exceed the ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) does not raise a safety concern when used at the maximum permitted levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 24 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 73 (FGE.73), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.73 and its four revisions ([FL‐no: 02.114, 02.141, 05.098, 05.112, 08.067, 09.289, 09.488, 09.534, 09.615, 05.119, 05.123, 08.034, 08.060, 09.028, 09.536, 05.104, 09.034, 09.712, 09.305, 02.060, 02.091, 09.278, 09.302]). The remaining substance myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.208Rev3 and is considered in this revision 5 of FGE.73. 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 24 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 23 substances. For [FL‐no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For two substances [FL‐no: 09.034, and 09.712], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class (I). For 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, no normal and maximum use levels are available. Therefore, for these 19 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of oat lecithin for use as a new food additive in the proposed food category (FC05.1) ‘cocoa and chocolate products’. Oat lecithin is an oil, containing polar lipids (≥ 35% w/w) and non-polar lipids (55–65% w/w), obtained by ethanol extraction and subsequent fractionation (water/ethanol) from oat suitable for food consumption. This lecithin does not meet the specification parameter for the authorised food additive lecithins (E 322) of ‘not less than 60% of substances insoluble in acetone’ which represents the polar lipid content (phospholipids and glycolipids). Oat lecithin is expected to undergo hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract and this hydrolysis resembles that of other edible vegetable oils. Oat lecithin did not induce gene mutations or structural chromosomal aberrations in the absence or presence of metabolic activation. No treatment-related adverse effects were observed with oat lecithin in 28-day studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested. The toxicological database for oat lecithin was limited. Considering the composition of oat lecithin (similar components in different ratio) and the fact that it undergoes the same biotransformation, resulting in similar metabolites as those from lecithins (E 322) re-evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (EFSA ANS) in 2017, the Panel considered the possibility to use the read-across approach from toxicological data on lecithins (E 322). Based on the toxicological data provided for oat lecithin along with read across from lecithins (E322) to oat lecithin no additional toxicological data were required. Therefore, the Panel considered that the previous conclusion for lecithins (E322) equally applies to oat lecithin to be used as food additive. Mean exposure ranged from < 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 7.1 mg/kg bw per day in children. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 22.5 mg/kg bw per day in children. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI and there is no safety concern for oat lecithin to be used as a food additive at the proposed use (FC 05.1) and use levels. The Panel recommended that the European Commission considers including specifications for oat lecithin as a new food additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In vitro studies are increasingly proposed to replace in vivo toxicity testing of substances. We set out to apply physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to predict the in vivo dose of amiodarone that leads to the same concentration–time profile in the supernatant and the cell lysate of cultured primary human hepatic cells (PHH). A PBPK human model was constructed based on the structure and tissue distribution of amiodarone in a rat model and using physiological human parameters. The predicted concentration–time profile in plasma was in agreement with human experimental data with the unbound fraction of amiodarone in plasma crucially affecting the goodness-of-fit. Using the validated kinetic model, we subsequently described the in vitro concentration–time data of amiodarone in PHH culture. However, this could be only appropriately modeled under conditions of zero protein binding and the very low clearance of the in vitro system in PHH culture. However, these represent unphysiological conditions and, thus, the main difference between the in vivo and the in vitro systems. Our results reveal that, for meaningful quantitative extrapolation from in vitro to in vivo conditions in PBPK studies, it is essential to avoid non-intended differences between these conditions. Specifically, clearance and protein binding, as demonstrated in our analysis of amiodarone modeling, are important parameters to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) when used as a food additive. Polyethylene glycols were evaluated by several international bodies and the AFC Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety polyethylene glycol (E 1521). In 2006, the Panel concluded that based on all the data, consumption of PEG through use as plasticisers in film‐coating formulations for food supplement tablets and/or capsules at the intended use level are not of safety concern. In 2007, in another opinion of the AFC Panel related to d‐alpha‐tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) in use for food for particular nutritional purposes, the Panel noted that TPGS intakes would correspond to intake to PEG 1000 at levels equivalent to 3.3–8.5 mg/kg body wieght (bw) per day which are within the range of group acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) of the SCF ( ) and JECFA (1980). This assessment could only take into account the use of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) in food supplements and thus the food supplements consumers only scenario was performed. It resulted in exposure estimates of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) up to 3.5 mg/kg bw per day at the mean and up to 6.1 mg/kg bw per day at the high level. The current exposure assessment is based on the methodology used in the re‐evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2017. Considering the uncertainties of the exposure assessment, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to polyethylene glycol (E 1521). The Panel also noted that the highest calculated exposure estimate falls within the range of the group ADI previously established by SCF (5 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 300–4000) and of the one set by JECFA (10 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 200–10000). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. 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. Based on the reported use levels, a refined exposure of up to 72.4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile was estimated. Gellan gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and would not be fermented by human intestinal microbiota. There is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. No adverse effects were reported in chronic studies at the highest doses tested in mice and rats (3,627 and 1,460 mg gellan gum/kg bw per day, respectively). Repeated oral intake up to 200 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks had no adverse effects in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for gellan gum (E 418), and that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses and use levels of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. The Panel recommended to better define the specifications of gellan gum including the absence of viable cells of the microbial source and the presence of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), protein and residual bacterial enzymatic activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 μg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 μg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 μg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di‐magnesium malate (DMM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of magnesium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of magnesium from this source. Additional information was sought from the applicant during the assessment process. However, despite several requests, the applicant did not provide the additional data. Consequently, the Panel performed this assessment on the basis of the available data and concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as DMM and magnesium malate already authorised as a source of magnesium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DMM as a novel food ingredient. The Panel concluded that based on the data provided it was not possible to assess the dissociation of DMM into magnesium and malic acid. The Panel further concluded that if DMM dissociates, magnesium would be available following ingestion of DMM and the availability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of magnesium already permitted. Finally, the Panel noted that the proposed use levels could result in exposures to magnesium greater than its upper level (UL) (250 mg/day) for food supplements and for food for special medical purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Whenever new substances are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups, EFSA is requested by the European Commission to perform an assessment of their safety and of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance document should replace the previous guidance issued by the Scientific Committee for Food and published in 2001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di‐calcium malate (DCM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of calcium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of calcium from this source. The structural formula of the proposed complex is based on expert judgement and not supported by any analytical data. On the basis of the available data, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as di‐calcium malate (DCM) and calcium malate already authorised as a source of calcium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DCM as a novel food ingredient. On the basis of the results provided, the Panel considered that DCM does not completely dissociate into calcium and malic acid. The Panel concluded that when DCM dissociates, calcium would be available following ingestion of DCM and the bioavailability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of calcium already permitted. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that on the basis of the information available it was not possible to calculate the exposure to DCM as a source of calcium to foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and FSMP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA ANS Panel was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins from dietary sources including preparations such as food supplements and infusions. Green tea is produced from the leaves of Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, without fermentation, which prevents the oxidation of polyphenolic components. Most of the polyphenols in green tea are catechins. The Panel considered the possible association between the consumption of (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), the most relevant catechin in green tea, and hepatotoxicity. This scientific opinion is based on published scientific literature, including interventional studies, monographs and reports by national and international authorities and data received following a public 'Call for data'. The mean daily intake of EGCG resulting from the consumption of green tea infusions ranges from 90 to 300 mg/day while exposure by high-level consumers is estimated to be up to 866 mg EGCG/day, in the adult population in the EU. Food supplements containing green tea catechins provide a daily dose of EGCG in the range of 5-1,000 mg/day, for adult population. The Panel concluded that catechins from green tea infusion, prepared in a traditional way, and reconstituted drinks with an equivalent composition to traditional green tea infusions, are in general considered to be safe according to the presumption of safety approach provided the intake corresponds to reported intakes in European Member States. However, rare cases of liver injury have been reported after consumption of green tea infusions, most probably due to an idiosyncratic reaction. Based on the available data on the potential adverse effects of green tea catechins on the liver, the Panel concluded that there is evidence from interventional clinical trials that intake of doses equal or above 800 mg EGCG/day taken as a food supplement has been shown to induce a statistically significant increase of serum transaminases in treated subjects compared to control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of the safety of food‐grade carrageenan (E 407) and processes Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) used as food additives. Because of the structural similarities, the Panel concluded that processed Eucheuma seaweed can be included in the evaluation of food‐grade carrageenan. Poligeenan (average molecular weight 10–20 kDa) has not been authorised as a food additive and is not used in any food applications. In its evaluation of carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a), the Panel noted that the ADME database was sufficient to conclude that carrageenan was not absorbed intact; in a subchronic toxicity study performed with carrageenan almost complying with the EU specification for E 407 in rats, the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) was 3,400–3,900 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested; no adverse effects have been detected in chronic toxicity studies with carrageenan in rats up to 7,500 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there was no concern with respect to the carcinogenicity of carrageenan; carrageenan and processed Eucheuma seaweed did not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity; the NOAEL of sodium and calcium carrageenan for prenatal developmental dietary toxicity studies were the highest dose tested; the safety of processed Eucheuma seaweed was sufficiently covered by the toxicological evaluation of carrageenan; data were adequate for a refined exposure assessment for 41 out of 79 food categories. However, the Panel noted uncertainties as regards the chemistry, the exposure assessment and biological and toxicological data. Overall, taking into account the lack of adequate data to address these uncertainties, the Panel concluded that the existing group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) of 75 mg/kg bw per day should be considered temporary, while the database should be improved within 5 years after publication of this opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety and bioavailability of silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. Silver hydrosol is a suspension comprised of a mixture of positively charged silver ions and silver metal particles in water. The study report submitted, being a gastric disappearance study performed in six individuals, did not provide information on the systemic absorption of silver as such, and was not able to provide information on the bioavailability of silver from silver hydrosol. If silver from silver hydrosol is systematically available a complete toxicological evaluation is needed for its assessment. The application dossier was limited to an acute toxicity study with silver hydrosol and references to toxicological studies performed with forms of silver (e.g. salts of silver) which were considered neither relevant nor adequate to the risk assessment of silver hydrosol. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to characterise the silver hydrosol regarding its nano specific properties and to assess either the bioavailability of silver from the source or the safety of the silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960). The applicant asked to amend the existing EU specifications for steviol glycosides to allow for the inclusion of all steviol glycosides identified in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves, including both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ glycosides, that may comprise the assay value of not less than 95% total steviol glycosides. According to the applicant, all steviol glycosides are subject to microbial metabolism in a similar manner, ultimately generating the common primary metabolite steviol. There are uncertainties on the rate and extent of the metabolism of different steviol glycosides to steviol in the evidence provided and they did not allow the Panel to endorse the applicant's argumentation that all steviol glycosides generate the common metabolite steviol when subjected to microbial metabolism under realistic conditions. The available information was not sufficient to assess the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for E 960 and the conclusions on the previous assessments on steviol glycosides cannot be extrapolated to any other mixture of steviol glycosides (containing not less than 95% of any steviol glycosides) extracted from S. rebaudiana Bertoni leaves. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the submitted data were insufficient to assess the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]