Search

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of four flavouring substances [FL‐no: 10.023, 10.030, 10.057 and 13.012] from subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19. For three of these substances [FL‐no: 10.023, 10.030 and 13.012], the concern for genotoxicity has been ruled out in previous revisions of Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 (FGE.217). However, in FGE.217Rev2, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out for 3a,4,5,7a‐tetrahydro‐3,6‐dimethylbenzofuran‐2(3H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.057]. After publication of FGE.217Rev2, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies for [FL‐no: 10.057], which are evaluated in the present opinion FGE.217Rev3. The flavouring substance [FL‐no: 10.057] did not induce gene mutations or numerical or structural chromosomal aberrations in vitro. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for [FL‐no: 10.057]. Consequently, it can be evaluated through the Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of five flavouring substances from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19, in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 216 (FGE.216). In FGE.216 and in FGE.216Rev1, the CEF Panel requested additional genotoxicity data on 2‐phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.062], the representative for these five substances. New experimental data on [FL‐no: 05.062] were provided and are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.216 (FGE.216Rev2). Based on the new data, the Panel concluded that, for all the five substances, the concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out by the negative results observed in an in vivo gene mutation assay and in an in vivo comet assay, respectively. In vitro, [FL‐no: 05.062] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus studies were inconclusive and cannot be used to rule out potential aneugenicity of [FL‐no: 05.062] in vivo. Therefore, the Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for this substance. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 05.062] at the reported use levels in several food categories would raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances in this FGE [FL‐no: 05.099, 05.100, 05.175 and 05.222], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. For these four substances, individual data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. Accordingly, it is currently not appropriate to assess any of these five substances through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 215, Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1). In FGE.215, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requested in vivo data for the two representative substances 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [FL‐no: 07.024] and 1‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)pent‐1‐en‐3‐one [FL‐no: 07.030]. The Flavour Industry has provided additional genotoxicity studies for both representative substances [FL‐no: 07.024] and [FL‐no: 07.030]. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for the representative substance [FL‐no: 07.024] and for the structurally related substances 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐ol [FL‐no: 02.066] and 3‐methyl‐4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [FL‐no: 07.027] which can accordingly be evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.69. For the representative substance 1‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)pent‐1‐en‐3‐one [FL‐no: 07.030], the Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 07.030] is aneugenic in vitro. For such substances, there is currently no agreed follow‐up strategy to finalise their safety assessment. The Panel is aware that the EFSA Scientific Committee is going to address this issue and a statement clarifying the assessment of in vitro aneugenic substances is under preparation. The Panel concluded therefore that, for the time being, the representative substance 1‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)pent‐1‐en‐3‐one [FL‐no: 07.030] and the structurally related substances vanillylidene acetone [FL‐no: 07.046] and 1‐(4‐methoxyphenyl)‐4‐methylpent‐1‐en‐3‐one [FL‐no: 07.049] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. The Panel further concluded that 4‐(2,3,6‐trimethylphenyl)but‐3‐en‐2‐one [FL‐no: 07.206] is to be considered as a stand‐alone substance due to the presence of the methyl groups, therefore, in vitro genotoxicity data were requested for [FL‐no: 07.206]. Industry communicated that the evaluation of [FL‐no: 07.206] is not supported any longer, therefore additional data were not submitted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the flavouring substances from subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 (FGE.204). In the present revision of this FGE (FGE.204Rev1), the FAF Panel evaluated new data provided by Industry following a request from the former Panel on Food Contact materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel). This request followed from positive results in an in vitro micronucleus test for clastogenicity and a negative result, but with no proof of bone marrow exposure, in an in vivo micronucleus assay for the representative substance 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177]. Subsequently, the Industry submitted an in vivo comet assay which was considered equivocal in the liver. The study was repeated confirming that 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177] did not induce primary DNA damage in the liver and duodenum. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for [FL‐no: 07.177] and the 15 structurally related substances [FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.187, 07.188, 07.244, 07.258] which can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 5 flavouring substances in Flavouring Group Evaluation 210 Revision 3 (FGE.210Rev3). In FGE.210, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the genotoxic potential could not be ruled out for any of the flavouring substances. In FGE.210Rev1, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for eight substances [FL‐no: 02.105, 07.007, 07.009, 07.011, 07.036, 07.088, 07.091 and 07.170]. In FGE.210 Rev2, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for allyl α‐ionone [FL‐no: 07.061]. In the present revision of FGE 210 (FGE.210Rev3), additional in vitro and in vivo data on the representative substance α‐damascone [FL‐no: 07.134] are evaluated. To investigate equivocal and positive results observed in in vitro micronucleus studies, an in vivo combined micronucleus (bone marrow) and comet assay (liver and duodenum) was performed. α‐Damascone did not induce micronuclei in bone marrow and no primary DNA damage in duodenum; however, an increase in primary DNA damage was observed in liver. This positive result was attributed by the applicant to a high level of peroxides in the sample tested. Therefore, the comet assay was repeated with a new sample of α‐damascone, confirming the negative results observed in duodenum, but equivocal results were observed in liver. Two additional in vivo comet assays in liver were performed in order to clarify the potential impact of peroxides on the obtained results from the genotoxicity testing. However, the materials studied in these tests were not suitable to establish the potential role of peroxides in the genotoxicity of α‐damascone. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity cannot be ruled out for α‐damascone [FL‐no: 07.134] and the four structurally related substances [FL‐no: 07.130, 07.225, 07.226 and 07.231]. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 12 flavouring substances from subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 (FGE.217). Based on experimental data, in previous versions of this FGE (FGE.217 and FGE217Rev1), for 6‐methylcoumarin [FL‐no: 13.012] and 5‐ethyl‐3‐hydroxy‐4‐methylfuran‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.023] the concern for genotoxicity was ruled out. 6‐Methylcoumarin was evaluated using the Procedure in FGE.80Rev1. For 5‐ethyl‐3‐hydroxy‐4‐methylfuran‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.023] and the structurally related substance 3‐hydroxy‐4,5‐dimethylfuran‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.030], no further EFSA considerations were needed because these substances were evaluated by JECFA before 2000. Also based on experimental data, in FGE217Rev1, the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out for furan‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.066] and 3,4‐dimethyl‐5‐pentylidenefuran‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.042], which later substance represents the following flavourings: [FL‐no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170]. In the current revision of this FGE (FGE217Rev2), based on the results of additional genotoxicity studies, the FAF Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 10.066] is genotoxic in vivo. Therefore, furan‐2(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.066] cannot be evaluated according to the Procedure. For [FL‐no: 10.042] in order to rule out a concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact, the FAF Panel requests results from an in vivo comet assay in duodenum. In addition, [FL‐no: 10.042] has also been identified as an aneugenic substance in vitro. Until the concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact for [FL‐no: 10.042] and the concern for aneugenicity can be ruled out, this substance and [FL‐no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3). In FGE.208Rev1, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) evaluated genotoxicity studies on the representative substance p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117], which was found to be genotoxic in vivo. The Panel concluded that there was a potential safety concern for the nine substances in this FGE that were all represented by [FL‐no: 05.177]. Consequently, substance [FL‐no: 05.117], as well as four substances ([FL‐no: 05.121, 09.272, 09.899 and 09.900]), no longer supported by industry were deleted from the Union List. In FGE.208Rev2, the Panel assessed genotoxicity studies submitted on five flavouring substances [FL‐no: 02.060, 02.091, 05.106, 09.278 and 09.302] and concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for these substances, except from myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] for which the available data were considered equivocal. Thus, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies (a bacterial reverse mutation assay and a combined in vivo bone marrow erythrocytes micronucleus test and Comet assay in liver and duodenum) for this substance which were evaluated in the present opinion, FGE.208Rev3. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106]. Subsequently, this substance can be evaluated through the Procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider in this revision 2 of Flavouring Group Evaluation 201, the additional data on genotoxicity submitted by the Industry on two substances, 2‐methylpent‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.090] and 2 methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095], from subgroup 1.1.2 of FGE.19. In FGE.201Rev1, the Panel concluded that further data were required in order to clarify the genotoxic potential of this subgroup and considered the testing of 2‐methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095] in a comet assay in liver and duodenum, the first site of contact, as a preferred option to further investigate the genotoxicity in vivo. New genotoxicity studies have been submitted for both 2‐methylpent‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.090] and 2‐methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095]. 2‐Methylpent‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.090] tested in a combined micronucleus/comet assay did not induce DNA damage, overruling the weak gene mutation effect observed in bacteria and confirming the negative results observed in the in vitro micronucleus assay. 2‐Methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095] did not induce gene mutations in liver and glandular stomach of transgenic rats. In addition, 2‐methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095] tested in an in vivo comet assay in liver and duodenum, it did not induce DNA damage. Overall, the Panel concluded that the genotoxic evidence observed in vitro, was not confirmed in vivo for the representative substances 2‐methylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.095] and 2‐methylpent‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.090], therefore all the 10 substances in this subgroup [FL‐no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107, 05.126, 07.261, 12.065 and 12.079] can be evaluated through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 74 flavouring substances from subgroup 1.1.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 200 Revision 1 (FGE.200 Rev1). In FGE.200, genotoxicity studies were provided for one representative substance, namely hex‐2(trans)‐enal [FL‐no: 05.073], and for other two substances in the same subgroup, namely 2‐dodecenal [FL‐no: 05.037] and 2‐nonenal [FL‐no: 05.171]. The Panel concluded that the concern still remains with respect to genotoxicity for the substances of this subgroup and requested an in vivo Comet assay performed in duodenum and liver for hex‐2(trans)‐enal [FL‐no: 05.073]. For the two other representative substances of subgroup 1.1.1 (nona‐2(trans),6(cis)‐dienal [FL‐no: 05.058] and oct‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.060]), the Panel requested a combined in vivo Comet assay and micronucleus assay. These data have been provided and are evaluated in the present opinion FGE.200 Rev1. Industry submitted genotoxicity studies on trans‐2‐octenal [FL‐no: 05.190], instead of oct‐2‐enal [FL‐no: 05.060]. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for hex‐2(trans)‐enal [FL‐no: 05.073], trans‐2‐octenal [FL‐no: 05.190] and nona‐2(trans),6(cis)‐dienal [FL‐no: 05.058], therefore all the 74 substances [FL‐no: 02.020, 02.049, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.192, 02.210, 02.231, 05.037, 05.058, 05.060, 05.070, 05.072, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.111, 05.114, 05.120, 05.144, 05.150, 05.171, 05.172, 05.179, 05.184, 05.189, 05.190, 05.191, 05.195, 06.025, 06.031, 06.072, 09.054, 09.097, 09.109, 09.119, 09.146, 09.233, 09.244, 09.247, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.312, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.400, 09.410, 09.411, 09.469, 09.482, 09.489, 09.492, 09.493, 09.498, 09.678, 09.701, 09.719, 09.741, 09.790, 09.841, 09.866, 09.947, 09.948, 13.004] can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]