Search

Abstract The present opinion is the follow‐up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle‐TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano‐specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non‐brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re‐evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of the two food additives argon (E 938) and helium (E 939). Argon (Ar) and helium (He) are two noble gases, highly stable single atoms. Their chemical inertness is well known. Their physicochemical properties have served as a basis for their previous evaluations by SCF and JECFA, which have considered the use of these food additives safe even in the absence of a toxicological evaluation. No business operator or other interested party provided information in response to the call for data published by EFSA to support the re‐evaluation of these two food additives with respect to their identity and specifications, manufacturing process (including the identification and quantification of potential impurities) and how they are applied to food to exert their technological function. One business operator replied to the call for data issued by EFSA reporting use levels of E 938 as a packaging gas in one food category. Based on their physicochemical properties, both gases are considered by the Panel to be of low toxicological concern when used as food additives. No information was available on the potential presence of impurities of toxicological concern resulting from the manufacturing process(es) applied to the production of the food additives E 938 and E 939. The Panel however noted that a minimum purity of 99.0% is required to comply with existing specifications. The Panel concluded that the use of argon (E 938) and helium (E 939) as food additives does not raise a safety concern. The Panel recommended an amendment of the existing EU specifications to introduce the respective CAS numbers.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of curdlan as a new food additive used as firming and gelling agent, stabiliser, thickener. Curdlan is a high molecular weight polysaccharide consisting of β‐1,3‐linked glucose units, produced by fermentation from Rhizobium radiobacter biovar 1 strain NTK‐u. The toxicological dataset consisted of sub‐chronic, chronic and carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies as well as genotoxicity. In vivo data showed that curdlan is not absorbed as such but is extensively metabolised by the gut microbiota into CO2 and other innocuous compounds. Curdlan was not genotoxic and was well‐tolerated with no overt organ‐specific toxicity. Effects observed at very high doses of curdlan, such as decreased growth and increased cecum weight, are common for indigestible bulking compounds and therefore considered physiological responses. In a combined three‐generation reproductive and developmental toxicity study, decreased pup weight was observed during lactation at 7500 mg curdlan/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. The Panel considered the observed effects as treatment‐related and adverse, although likely secondary to nutritional imbalance and identified a conservative no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2500 mg/kg bw per day. Despite the limitations noted in the dataset, the Panel was able to conclude applying the margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Given that curdlan and its break‐down products are not absorbed and that the identified adverse effect is neither systemic nor local, no adjustment factor was deemed necessary. Thus, an MOE of at least 1 was considered sufficient. The highest exposure estimate was 1441 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile of the proposed maximum use level exposure assessment scenario. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of curdlan as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of shellac (E 904) when used as a food additive and with the new application on the extension of use of shellac (E 904) in dietary foods for special medical purposes. The Panel derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for wax‐free shellac (E 904) produced by physical decolouring, based on a NOAEL of 400 mg/kg bw per day and applying an uncertainty factor of 100. The Panel concluded that the ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day should be considered temporary for wax‐free shellac (E 904) produced by chemical bleaching, while new data are generated on the identity and levels of the organochlorine impurities in E 904. This ADI is not applicable for wax‐containing shellac as a food additive. For several age groups, the ADI was exceeded at the 95th percentile in the non‐brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario and maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Considering the low exceedance and the fact that both the exposure estimation and the toxicological evaluation of shellac were conservative, the panel concluded that the calculated exceedance of the ADI does not indicate a safety concern. The Panel recommended to the European Commission separating specifications for E 904 depending on the manufacturing process, chemical bleaching and physical decolouring, because they result in different impurities; revising the definition of the food additive to include a description of each manufacturing process; deleting information on wax‐containing shellac from the EU specifications; revising the acid value for wax‐free shellac produced by chemical bleaching; lowering the maximum limit for lead; to consider introducing limits for other toxic elements potentially present in shellac; including a maximum limit for chloroform and total inorganic chloride in the EU specification for shellac produced by chemical bleaching.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the ‘safe levels of intake’ established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162).

Abstract Guar gum (E 412) 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 Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of guar gum (E 412) 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). 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. In the response to EFSA requests, one IBO stated that E 412 is not used in food categories 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1, but it is present in products under food category 13.1.5.2. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are not sufficient to support the safe use of guar gum (E 412) in food for infants (below and above 16 weeks of age) and young children under FC 13.1.1, 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2. Additionally, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the IBO support further amendments of the specifications for E 412 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 2‐methyl‐1‐(2‐(5‐(p‐tolyl)‐1H‐imidazol‐2‐yl)piperidin‐1‐yl)butan‐1‐one [FL‐no: 16.134] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and is chemically synthesised. In food, it is intended to be used as a flavouring substance only in chewing gum. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] was estimated to be 45 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 28.4 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.134] did not show genotoxicity in a bacterial reverse mutation test and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus assay. Based on the submitted toxicokinetic and metabolism data, it can be predicted that the flavouring substance is metabolised to innocuous products only. The Panel derived a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 0.71 mg/kg bw per day for a 20% increase in the relative thyroid (including parathyroid) weight observed in a 90‐day toxicity study in rats. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 887 and 374 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.134], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure, based on the intended use and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste and mouthwash is also not of safety concern.

Abstract Quillaia extract (E 999) was re‐evaluated in 2019 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF). EFSA derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow‐up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs) to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 999. Additionally, this opinion deals with the assessment of the proposed extension of use for E 999 in food supplements supplied in a solid and liquid form, excluding food supplements for infants and young children and, as a carrier in botanical nutrients. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use, if authorised, could result in an exceedance of the ADI at the maximum of the ranges of the mean for children, adolescents and the elderly, and for all populations at the 95th percentile. An additional proposed extension of use for E 999 to be used as a carrier for glazing agents on entire fresh fruits and vegetables has been received. Since no information on the proposed use levels of E 999 on a saponins content basis has been provided by this applicant, the Panel was not able to evaluate the safety of this extension of use. Considering the technical data submitted, the Panel recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 999, mainly to lower the limits for lead, mercury and arsenic and to include a maximum limit for cadmium and for calcium oxalate. The Panel also recommended that the limits would be expressed on a saponins basis. The Panel proposed to revise the definition of E 999 to better describe the composition in a qualitative way.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of naringenin [FL‐no: 16.132] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. No other substances with sufficient structural similarity have been identified in existing FGEs that could be used to support a read‐across approach. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 16.132] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with naringenin, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The use of naringenin as a flavouring substance at added portions exposure technique (APET) exposure levels is unlikely to pose a risk for drug interaction. For the toxicological evaluation of naringenin, the Panel requested an extended one‐generation toxicity study on naringenin, in line with the requirements of the Procedure and to investigate the consequence of a possible endocrine‐disrupting activity. The Panel considered that changes in thymus weight, litter size, post‐implantation loss and a consistent reduced pup weight in the high‐dose F2 generation could not be dismissed and selected therefore, the mid‐dose of 1320 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the parental males as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of the study. The exposure estimates for [FL‐no: 16.132] (31,500 and 50,000 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were above the threshold of toxicological of concern (TTC) for its structural class (III). Using the NOAEL of 1320 mg/kg bw per day at step A4 of the procedure, margins of exposure (MoE) of 1590 and 630 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. Based on the calculated MoEs, the Panel concluded that the use of naringenin as a flavouring substance does not raise a safety concern.