Search

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

International audience; Benzophenone [FL-no: 07.032] has been evaluated as a flavouring substance, in FGE.69, by the EFSA Panelon Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food in 2008. Benzophenone was evaluated also by JECFA ([, 2011]) and by IARC ([, 2013]) based on studies that were not considered in the EFSA opinion on FGE.69. Therefore, the Commission requested the CEF Panelto carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of this flavouring substance. In the framework of the evaluation of benzophenone as a food contact material, the CEF Panelestablished a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day (2009). In the present Opinion, the Panelconsidered the already existing evaluations by EFSA, JECFA, IARC and available literature data on benzophenone toxicity. Moreover, new data on the use levels of benzophenone as a flavouring substance have been provided. The Panelconsiders that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The Panelconsiders the endocrine activities of benzophenone and its metabolite 4-hydroxybenzophenone as weak and not directly related to the observed toxic effects including the neoplastic effects in rodents. The Panelconfirms that the conservative approach taken by EFSA (2009) to derive a TDI of 0.03mg/kg bw for benzophenone is appropriate to cover the non-neoplastic effects in the chronic toxicity studies and the neoplastic effects induced in the rodent carcinogenicity studies. The TDI is in the same order of magnitude as the chronic dietary exposure of adults and children to benzophenone (10-20 mu g/kg bw per day) for the amount of added flavouring substance. The Panelconsiders that the calculated TDI and exposure estimate are based on conservative assumptions. The Panelconcludes that there is no safety concern for benzophenone under the current condition of use as a flavouring substance.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate 53 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07, including four new substances but‐3‐en‐2‐ol, non‐1‐en‐e‐ol, hex‐1‐en‐3‐one and 1‐nonene‐3‐one [FL‐nos: 02.131, 02.187, 07.161 and 07.210] in this Revision 5, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. None of the 53 substances was considered to have genotoxic potential. 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 all 53 substances do not give 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 50 substances, further information is required based on comparison of the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 2 (FGE.208Rev2). In FGE.208Rev1, the CEF Panel evaluated genotoxicity studies on p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117], the representative substance for FGE.19 subgroup 2.2. The Comet assay performed in liver showed a positive result, and therefore, the Panel concluded that p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117] is genotoxic in vivo and that, accordingly, there is a safety concern for its use as flavouring substance. Since p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117] is representative for the nine remaining substances of subgroup 2.2 (p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐ol [FL‐no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL‐no: 02.091], myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106], 2,6,6‐trimethyl‐1‐cyclohexen‐1‐carboxaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.121], myrtenyl formate [FL‐no: 09.272], p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐yl acetate [FL‐no: 09.278], myrtenyl acetate [FL‐no: 09.302], myrtenyl‐2‐methylbutyrate [FL‐no: 09.899] and myrtenyl‐3‐methylbutyrate [FL‐no: 09.900]), the Panel concluded in the previous revision of FGE.208 (FGE.208Rev1) that there is a potential safety concern for these substances. Subsequently, the industry has submitted genotoxicity studies on five substances of FGE.19 subgroup 2.2: p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐ol [FL‐no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL‐no: 02.091], myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106], p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐yl acetate [FL‐no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL‐no: 09.302], which are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.208 (FGE.208Rev2). The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐ol [FL‐no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL‐no: 02.091], p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐yl acetate [FL‐no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL‐no: 09.302], which will be evaluated through the Procedure. Genotoxicity data on myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] were considered equivocal, therefore, it cannot be evaluated through the Procedure, presently. p‐Mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117] and four substances not supported by industry (2,6,6‐trimethyl‐1‐cyclohexen‐1‐carboxaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.121], myrtenyl formate [FL‐no: 09.272], myrtenyl‐2‐methylbutyrate [FL‐no: 09.899] and myrtenyl‐3‐methylbutyrate [FL‐no: 09.900]) have been deleted from the Union List.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4‐amino‐5‐(3‐(isopropylamino)‐2,2‐dimethyl‐3‐oxopropoxy)‐2‐methylquinoline‐3‐carboxylic acid [FL‐no: 16.130], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 407 (FGE.407), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as both the parent compound and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt as a flavouring substance with modifying properties in specific categories of food. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 882 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 547 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. A 90‐day dietary administration study in rats showed no adverse effects for doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 16.130] and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier as requested and when used at the levels as specified for foods from different food categories.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety assessment of the flavouring substances caffeine [FL‐no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL‐no: 16.032] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 49, Revision 1. Consequent to the 2015 scientific opinion from the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the safety of caffeine from all dietary sources, the CEF Panel considered it inappropriate to evaluate the two substances through the Procedure. For caffeine, the Panel based its assessment on the safety threshold of 5.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults, except pregnant/lactating women, and 3 mg/kg bw per day for children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, as established by the NDA Panel. The safety evaluation of theobromine takes into account that approximately 11% of an oral dose of caffeine is metabolised to theobromine and that both substances have a similar pharmacological profile. For the exposure assessment, a brand loyalty model was chosen. In this model, it was assumed that a consumer is exposed on a long‐term basis to a specific category of food (i.e. non‐alcoholic beverages), containing caffeine or theobromine at their respective maximum use levels. For the rest of the categories, normal use levels applied. Daily dietary exposure to caffeine and theobromine (excluding systemic exposure) added as a chemically defined flavouring substance ranged 0–2.3 and 0–0.4 mg/kg bw, respectively, across all population groups. The Panel concluded that caffeine [FL‐no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL‐no: 16.032] would not be expected to present safety concern based on their estimated levels of intake from their use as flavouring substances.