Search

Abstract Endorsement date 21 January 2021 Implementation date 27 March 2021 This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of new substances that are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups and an assessment 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 was adopted by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) on 16 May 2018. Upon request from EFSA, the present guidance has been revised to inform applicants of new provisions set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for silicon dioxide and silicates. The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) recently provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that the absorption of silicates and talc was very low; there was no indication for genotoxicity or developmental toxicity for calcium and magnesium silicate and talc; and no confirmed cases of kidney effects have been found in the EudraVigilance database despite the wide and long‐term use of high doses of magnesium trisilicate up to 4 g/person per day over decades. However, the Panel considered that accumulation of silicon from calcium silicate in the kidney and liver was reported in rats, and reliable data on subchronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity of silicates and talc were lacking. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a(i)), magnesium trisilicate (E 553a(ii)) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives cannot be assessed. The Panel considered that there is no mechanistic rationale for a group ADI for silicates and silicon dioxide and the group ADI established by the SCF is obsolete. Based on the food supplement scenario considered as the most representative for risk characterisation, exposure to silicates (E 552–553) for all population groups was below the maximum daily dose of magnesium trisilicate used as an antacid (4 g/person per day). The Panel noted that there were a number of approaches, which could decrease the uncertainties in the current toxicological database. These approaches include – but are not limited to – toxicological studies as recommended for a Tier 1 approach as described in the EFSA Guidance for the submission of food additives and conducted with an adequately characterised material. Some recommendations for the revision of the EU specifications were proposed by the Panel.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of monacolins in red yeast rice (RYR) and to provide advice on a dietary intake of monacolins that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health. The Panel reviewed the scientific evidences available as well as the information provided by interested parties in response of a public ‘Call for data’ launched by EFSA. The Panel considered that monacolin K in lactone form is identical to lovastatin, the active ingredient of several medicinal products authorised for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in the EU. On the basis of the information available, the Panel concluded that intake of monacolins from RYR via food supplements, could lead to estimated exposure to monacolin K within the range of the therapeutic doses of lovastatin. The Panel considered that the available information on the adverse effects reported in humans were judged to be sufficient to conclude that monacolins from RYR when used as food supplements were of significant safety concern at the use level of 10 mg/day. The Panel further considered that individual cases of severe adverse reactions have been reported for monacolins from RYR at intake levels as low as 3 mg/day. The Panel concluded that exposure to monacolin K from RYR could lead to severe adverse effects on musculoskeletal system, including rhabdomyolysis, and on the liver. In the reported cases, the product contained other ingredients in addition to RYR. However, these reported effects in particular musculoskeletal effects, have both occurred after ingestion of monacolin K and lovastatin independently. On the basis of the information available and several uncertainties highlighted in this opinion, the Panel was unable to identify a dietary intake of monacolins from RYR that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health, for the general population, and as appropriate, for vulnerable subgroups of the population.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of extracts of rosemary (E 392) when used as a food additive. Extracts of rosemary (E 392) was evaluated by the AFC Panel in 2008. Following this EFSA evaluation, extracts of rosemary (E 392) was authorised for use as a food additive in the EU in several food categories with maximum levels. In 2015, the ANS Panel provided a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed extensions of use for extracts of rosemary (E 392) in fat‐based spreads. In 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has evaluated this food additive and established a temporary acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–0.3 mg/kg body weight (bw) for rosemary extract, expressed as carnosic acid plus carnosol. Based on the data provided by food industry, the Panel was able to refine the exposure estimates of extracts of rosemary (E 392). The highest mean refined exposure estimate (non‐brand loyal scenario) was 0.09 mg/kg bw per day in children (3–9 years) and the highest 95th percentile of exposure was 0.20 mg/kg bw per day in children. Taking uncertainties into account, the Panel concluded that these exposure estimates very likely overestimate the real exposure to extracts of rosemary (E 392) from its use as a food additive according to Annex II. Margins of safety were estimated for children and adults using the refined exposure estimate; these are higher than the ones calculated in 2015. Intake of carnosic acid and carnosol from natural diet (herbs) was estimated. It was maximally 1.66 mg/kg bw per day (p95).

Abstract The present opinion deals with the evaluation of the proposed increase of the currently authorised maximum amounts of ferric sodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a novel food ingredient used as a source of iron, and its extension of use in processed cereal‐based foods and baby foods. The applicant also provided information on two forms of ferric sodium EDTA, one previously assessed by EFSA and a new one of finer consistency. To support the proposed changes to the uses of ferric sodium EDTA, the applicant proposed a revision of the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) for EDTA, derived from that set for the food additive calcium disodium EDTA (E 385). The Panel confirmed that ferric sodium EDTA is a source from which iron is bioavailable. In assessing the safety of the proposed revision to the existing specifications for the novel food ingredient ferric sodium EDTA, the Panel noted that this would not discriminate between the previously evaluated substance and the one of finer consistency. In particular, the Panel noted that particle size was not one of the proposed parameters for the revised specifications. The Panel noted that it was not possible to determine whether particles of ferric sodium EDTA in the nano range were present in the product with finer consistency in the solid form. The toxicological data submitted did not add any new relevant information to the database on which the current ADI for EDTA is based. Consequently, the Panel concluded that there was no sound scientific justification to increase the ADI for EDTA and hence increase the use levels of ferric sodium EDTA or introduce additional uses as proposed by the applicant. The Panel recommended that additional toxicological data should be provided to address the shortcomings in the available toxicity database prior to the re‐evaluation of calcium disodium EDTA (E 385).

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 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 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 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 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 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 The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) when used as a food additive. In 1996, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for propane‐1,2‐diol. Propane‐1,2‐diol is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal and is expected to be widely distributed to organs and tissues. The major route of metabolism is oxidation to lactic acid and pyruvic acid. At high concentrations, free propane‐1,2‐diol is excreted in the urine. No treatment‐related effects were observed in subchronic toxicity studies. The available data did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity. Haematological changes suggestive of an increased red blood cell destruction with a compensatory increased rate of haematopoiesis were observed at the highest dose level (5,000 mg/kg bw per day) in a 2‐year study in dogs. No adverse effects were reported in a 2‐year chronic study in rats with propane‐1,2‐diol (up to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day). The SCF used this study to derive the ADI. No adverse effects were observed in the available reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) is authorised according to Annex III in some food additives, food flavourings, enzymes and nutrients and it is then carried over to the final food. Dietary exposure to E 1520 was assessed based on the use levels and analytical data. The Panel considered that for the food categories for which information was available, the exposure was likely to be overestimated. Considering the toxicity database, the Panel concluded that there was no reason to revise the current ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel also concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand‐loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) at the reported use levels and analytical results.

Abstract 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 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 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 The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sodium, potassium and calcium salts of fatty acids (E 470a) and magnesium salts of fatty acids (E 470b) when used as food additives. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for the fatty acids (myristic‐, stearic‐, palmitic‐ and oleic acid) and their salts. The sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium salts of fatty acids are expected to dissociate in the gastrointestinal tract to fatty acid carboxylates and their corresponding cations. There were no data on subchronic toxicity, chronic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity of the salts of fatty acids. There was no concern for mutagenicity of calcium caprylate, potassium oleate and magnesium stearate. From a carcinogenicity study with sodium oleate, a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) could not be identified but the substance was considered not to present a carcinogenic potential. Palmitic‐ and stearic acid which are the main fatty acids in E 470a and E 470b were already considered of no safety concern in the re‐evaluation of the food additive E 570. The fatty acid moieties of E 470a and E 470b contributed maximally for 5% to the overall intake of saturated fatty acids from all dietary sources. Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI and that the food additives sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium salts of fatty acids (E 470a and E 470b) were of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract 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 The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. According to the applicant, glucosylated steviol glycosides preparations consist of not less than 95% (on anhydrous basis) total steviol glycosides, made up of glucosylated steviol glycosides of different molecular weights as well as any remaining steviol glycosides. The applicant proposed that glucosylated steviol glycosides and parent steviol glycosides undergo a common metabolic process in pathway following ingestion and suggested that data from steviol glycosides can be used for read‐across to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The limited evidence provided in the application dossier did not demonstrate the complete hydrolysis of the glucosylated steviol glycosides. No toxicological studies on glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations under evaluation have been provided for its assessment. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to assess the safety of the glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations to be used as a new food additive.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxyanthracene derivatives and to provide advice on a daily intake that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health. Hydroxyanthracene derivatives are a class of chemical substances naturally occurring in different botanical species and used in food to improve bowel function. The ANS Panel reviewed the available scientific data on a possible relationship between hydroxyanthracene derivatives exposure and genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. On the basis of the data currently available, the Panel noted that emodin, aloe‐emodin and the structurally related substance danthron have shown evidence of in vitro genotoxicity. Aloe extracts have also been shown to be genotoxic in vitro possibly due to the presence of hydroxyanthracene derivatives in the extract. Furthermore, aloe‐emodin was shown to be genotoxic in vivo and the whole‐leaf aloe extract and the structural analogue danthron were shown to be carcinogenic. Epidemiological data suggested an increased risk for colorectal cancer associated with the general use of laxatives, several of which contain hydroxyanthracene derivatives. Considering the possible presence of aloe‐emodin and emodin in extracts, the Panel concluded that hydroxyanthracene derivatives should be considered as genotoxic and carcinogenic unless there are specific data to the contrary, such as for rhein, and that there is a safety concern for extracts containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives although uncertainty persists. The Panel was unable to provide advice on a daily intake of hydroxyanthracene derivatives that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health.

Abstract Low‐substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L‐HPC) is a low‐substituted poly(hydroxypropyl) ether of cellulose. L‐HPC is proposed for use as a food additive in food supplements in solid form (tablet), with a maximum use level of 20,000 mg/kg and a typical use level of 10,000 mg/kg. Exposure estimates to L‐HPC from its proposed use were calculated for both typical and maximum use levels. Due to the close chemical relationship between L‐HPC and other celluloses recently re‐evaluated by EFSA, the Panel decided to read‐across the biological data already evaluated in the context of the re‐evaluation programme. The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern from the proposed use and use levels of L‐HPC.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) when used as a food additive. The Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473). In the 2010 opinion, the Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additional use of the sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) may lead to exposures in excess of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) and sucroglycerides (E 474) established by EFSA in 2004. In 2012, an update on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) was delivered as new data were submitted to EFSA providing use levels of sucrose esters of fatty acids as a surface treatment for fresh fruits and the resulting residual levels in fruit. This assessment also resulted in exposure estimates of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeding the ADI, although considerably lower than those estimated in 2010. The current exposure assessment is based on the recent methodology used in the re‐evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2014. New consumption data were also available since then. The Panel noted that the current exposure estimates to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeded the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for many population groups; especially toddlers and children and that assuming that sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) is not used in the 24 food categories where data was not provided, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473).

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of microcrystalline cellulose (E 460(i)), powdered cellulose (E 460(ii)), methyl cellulose (E 461), ethyl cellulose (E 462), hydroxypropyl cellulose (E 463), hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (E 464), ethyl methyl cellulose (E 465), sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466), enzymatically hydrolysed carboxy methyl cellulose (E 469) and cross‐linked carboxy methyl cellulose (E 468) as food additives. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for unmodified and modified celluloses. Celluloses are not absorbed and are excreted intact in the faeces; in addition, microcrystalline cellulose, powdered and modified celluloses could be fermented by the intestinal flora in animals and humans. Specific toxicity data were not always available for all the celluloses evaluated in the present opinion and for all endpoints. Given their structural, physicochemical and biological similarities, the Panel considered it possible to read‐across between all the celluloses. The acute toxicity of celluloses was low and there was no genotoxic concern. Short‐term and subchronic dietary toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 462, E 463, E 464, E 466 and E 469 at levels up to 10% did not indicate specific treatment related adverse effects. In chronic toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 463, E 464, E 465 and E 466, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) values reported ranged up to 9,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No carcinogenic properties were detected for microcrystalline cellulose and modified celluloses. Adverse effects on reproductive performance or developmental effects were not observed with celluloses at doses greater than 1,000 mg/kg bw by gavage (often the highest dose tested). The combined exposure to celluloses (E 460–466, E 468 and E 469) at 95th percentile of the refined (brand‐loyal) exposure assessment for the general population was up to 506 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI and that there would be no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for the unmodified and modified celluloses (E 460(i); E 460(ii); E 461–466; E 468 and E 469). The Panel considered an indicative total exposure of around 660–900 mg/kg bw per day for microcrystalline, powdered and modified celluloses.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The forms of synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) used as E 551 include fumed silica and hydrated silica (precipitated silica, silica gel and hydrous silica). The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for silicon dioxide and silicates. SAS materials used in the available biological and toxicological studies were different in their physicochemical properties; their characteristics were not always described in sufficient detail. Silicon dioxide appears to be poorly absorbed. However, silicon‐containing material (in some cases presumed to be silicon dioxide) was found in some tissues. Despite the limitations in the subchronic, reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, including studies with nano silicon dioxide, there was no indication of adverse effects. E 551 does not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. In the absence of a long‐term study with nano silicon dioxide, the Panel could not extrapolate the results from the available chronic study with a material, which does not cover the full‐size range of the nanoparticles that could be present in the food additive E 551, to a material complying with the current specifications for E 551. These specifications do not exclude the presence of nanoparticles. The highest exposure estimates were at least one order of magnitude lower than the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) identified (the highest doses tested). The Panel concluded that the EU specifications are insufficient to adequately characterise the food additive E 551. Clear characterisation of particle size distribution is required. Based on the available database, there was no indication for toxicity of E 551 at the reported uses and use levels. Because of the limitations in the available database, the Panel was unable to confirm the current ADI ‘not specified’. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 551.

Abstract The present scientific opinion deals with the safety of orthosilicic acid‐vanillin complex (OSA‐VC) as a novel food ingredient for use as a source of silicon (Si) in food supplements and with the bioavailability of Si from this source. OSA‐VC is stable in liquid solution at low pH values. OSA from OSA‐VC was available as revealed by the increase in plasma Si concentrations after oral ingestion in human volunteers. The toxicological data provided in support of the current application were not in accordance with the Tier 1 requirement of the ‘Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations’; however, this was considered justified by the Panel given that OSA‐VC at pH 6.8 dissociates into orthosilicic acid and vanillin. The daily consumption of OSA‐VC at the dose recommended by the applicant would provide a supplemental intake of Si of approximately 10–18 mg Si/day which would result in an estimated total intake of roughly 30–70 mg Si/day. The maximum vanillin intake resulting from the consumption of OSA‐VC would be less than 5% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for vanillin of 10 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 2002. The Panel concluded that there would be no safety concern with the proposed use and use level of OSA‐VC as a novel food ingredient intended to be used as a source of Si in food supplements for the adult population. The Panel concluded that OSA, measured as Si, is bioavailable following ingestion of OSA‐VC and appears similar to values reported in the literature for other established sources of OSA.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (PEFA) (E 475) when used as a food additive. In 1978, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) endorsed an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Absorption of intact PEFA in the gastrointestinal tract was extremely low. PEFA was rapidly and almost fully hydrolysed to polyglycerols and fatty acids in the gastrointestinal tract. The safety of polyglycerols and specific fatty acids has recently been assessed and no adverse effects were identified in the available studies. No adverse effects of PEFA at any dose have been observed in short‐term, subchronic or chronic toxicity studies. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 9,000 mg/kg bw per day was identified from subchronic studies and of 2,500 mg/kg bw per day from chronic studies, the highest doses tested. No genotoxic potential of PEFA was identified from the limited information available. The reproductive toxicity studies showed no adverse effects of PEFA but had major limitations. Clinical chemistry and urinalysis, from a clinical study with limited information, did not reveal any adverse effects in volunteers receiving up to 300 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks. The highest exposure to PEFA used as a food additive was 2.6 and 6.4 mg/kg bw per day in children at the mean and the 95th percentile, respectively, for the non‐brand loyal scenario. Considering all the above, the Panel concluded that the food additive PEFA (E 475) was not of safety concern at the reported uses and use levels and that there was no need for a numerical ADI. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 475.

Abstract The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of nisin (E 234) in the light of new toxicological data and with the proposed extension of use in unripened cheese and heat‐treated meat products. Nisin (E 234) is currently an authorised food additive in the EU under Annex II of Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 for use in several food categories. The safety of nisin (E 234) as a food additive has been evaluated in 2006 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food, where an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.13 mg/kg body weight (bw) was confirmed as previously established by Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). In addition to the studies previously evaluated by EFSA in 2006, the Panel considered in the present opinion, data from a new subchronic toxicity study. No adverse effects were observed in a repeated dose oral toxicity study in which rats were administered nisin A for 90 days. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 225 mg nisin A/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, was identified for this study. Using this NOAEL, an ADI of 1 mg nisin A/kg bw per day for nisin (E 234) was calculated applying a default uncertainty factor of 200 for extrapolation of subchronic to chronic exposure and inter‐ and intra‐species variability. The Panel calculated exposure estimates for both the current and the proposed uses based on the data available in the EFSA Comprehensive Database. The Panel considered that the overall exposure estimate was below the new ADI for nisin A for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use of nisin (E 234) as a food additive in unripened cheese (at maximum level of 12 mg/kg) and in heat‐treated meat products (at maximum level of 25 mg/kg) would not be of safety concern.

Abstract The present scientific opinion deals with the safety of the extension of use of lycopene (E 160d) in certain meat preparations, meat products and fruit and vegetable preparations. Lycopene (E 160d) is an authorised food additive in the EU for use in several food categories and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was established. In the present opinion, the Panel decided that a comparison of the exposure resulting from the current uses and use levels with the exposure resulting from this additional proposed extension of uses would be sufficient to address the safety of lycopene. The Panel calculated that, considering the current maximum permitted levels (MPLs) and the proposed extension of uses and use levels, the mean dietary exposure to lycopene (E 160d) in the total population ranged from 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.82 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. At the high level, dietary exposure to lycopene (E 160d) ranged from 0.03 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 1.39 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of uses of lycopene (E 160d) as a food additive in meat preparations, meat products and fruit and vegetable preparations up to 60 mg/kg would not add significantly to the intake of the food additive at its current MPL. However, the Panel noted that the overall intake at the MPL scenario would exceed the currently established ADI. The Panel acknowledged the uncertainties in the current estimates which could result in an overestimation of the exposure to lycopene (E 160d) as a food additive in European countries and therefore concluded that a refined exposure estimate would be recommended focusing on food categories contributing the most to its estimates, in order to decrease uncertainties in its current estimates.

Abstract This statement describes the approach followed by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) for performing refined exposure assessment in the framework of the re‐evaluation of already permitted food additives. Estimation of exposure is obtained through combination of different type of data originating from different sources: food additive concentration is obtained from information provided to EFSA on use levels and/or information obtained by means of analytical measurements. In recent years, the use of market research data has also been used. The statement provides also a description of the three different scenarios used for the exposure assessment of food additives under re‐evaluation, from the more conservative regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario to more refined ones. Lastly, a description is provided on the approach used for the uncertainty analysis which accompanies the exposure assessment.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of 12 modified starches (E 1404, E 1410, E 1412, E 1413, E 1414, E 1420, E 1422, E 1440, E 1442, E 1450, E 1451 and E 1452) authorised as food additives in the EU in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 and previously evaluated by JECFA and the SCF. Both committees allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’. In humans, modified starches are not absorbed intact but significantly hydrolysed by intestinal enzymes and then fermented by the intestinal microbiota. Using the read‐across approach, the Panel considered that adequate data on short‐ and long‐term toxicity and carcinogenicity, and reproductive toxicity are available. Based on in silico analyses, modified starches are considered not to be of genotoxic concern. No treatment‐related effects relevant for human risk assessment were observed in rats fed very high levels of modified starches (up to 31,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day). Modified starches (e.g. E 1450) were well tolerated in humans up to a single dose of 25,000 mg/person. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of modified starches as food additives at the reported uses and use levels for the general population and that there is no need for a numerical ADI. The combined exposure to E 1404–E 1451 at the 95th percentile of the refined (brand‐loyal) exposure assessment scenario for the general population was up to 3,053 mg/kg bw per day. Exposure to E 1452 for food supplement consumers only at the 95th percentile was up to 22.1 mg/kg bw per day.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of glutamic acid–glutamates (E 620–625) when used as food additives. Glutamate is absorbed in the intestine and it is presystemically metabolised in the gut wall. No adverse effects were observed in the available short‐term, subchronic, chronic, reproductive and developmental studies. The only effect observed was increased kidney weight and increased spleen weight; however, the increase in organ weight was not accompanied by adverse histopathological findings and, therefore, the increase in organ weight was not considered as an adverse effect. The Panel considered that glutamic acid–glutamates (E 620–625) did not raise concern with regards to genotoxicity. From a neurodevelopmental toxicity study, a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 3,200 mg monosodium glutamate/kg body weight (bw) per day could be identified. The Panel assessed the suitability of human data to be used for the derivation of a health‐based guidance value. Although effects on humans were identified human data were not suitable due to the lack of dose–response data from which a dose without effect could be identified. Based on the NOAEL of 3,200 mg monosodium glutamate/kg bw per day from the neurodevelopmental toxicity study and applying the default uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as glutamic acid, for glutamic acid and glutamates (E 620–625). The Panel noted that the exposure to glutamic acid and glutamates (E 620–625) exceeded not only the proposed ADI, but also doses associated with adverse effects in humans for some population groups.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of xanthan gum (E 415) as 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 64 mg/kg bw per day in children for the general population, 38 mg/kg bw per day for children consumers only of food supplements at the high level exposure and 115 mg/kg bw per day for infants consuming foods for special medical purposes and special formulae (FSMPs), were estimated. Xanthan gum (E 415) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is expected to be fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported at the highest doses tested in chronic and carcinogenicity studies and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Repeated oral intake by adults of xanthan gum up to 214 mg/kg bw per day for ten days was well tolerated, but some individuals experienced abdominal discomfort, an undesirable but not adverse effect. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for xanthan gum (E 415), and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of xanthan gum (E 415) as food additive. Considering the outcome of clinical studies and post‐marketing surveillance, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern from the use of xanthan gum (E 415) in FSMPs for infants and young children at concentrations reported by the food industry. The current re‐evaluation of xanthan gum (E 415) as a food additive is not considered to be applicable for infants under the age of 12 weeks.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) as food additives. An acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ was allocated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) for E 440i and E 440ii. Pectin and amidated pectin would not be absorbed intact, but extensively fermented by intestinal microbiota in animals and humans; products formed from pectins in the gastrointestinal tract are similar to manufactured pectin‐derived acidic oligosaccharides (pAOS). There is no indication of genotoxicity for pectin and amidated pectin, although the available data were limited. No adverse effects were reported in a chronic toxicity study in rats at levels up to 5,000 mg pectin/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. No treatment‐related effects were observed in a dietary one‐generation reproductive toxicity study with pAOS in rats at up to 6,200 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. The Panel did not consider E 440i and E 440ii as having allergenic potential. A dose of 36 g/day (equivalent to 515 mg/kg bw per day) for 6 weeks in humans was without adverse effects. Exposure to pectins from their use as food additives ranged up to 442 mg/kg bw per day for toddlers at the 95th percentile (brand‐loyal scenario). The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) as food additives for the general population and that there is no need for a numerical ADI.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive. In the EU, tragacanth (E 413) has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF, 1989) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, 1987), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for this gum. 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. Tragacanth (E 413) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is partially fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of tragacanth up to 9,900 mg tragacanth/person per day (approximately equivalent 141 mg tragacanth/kg body weight (bw) per day) for up to 21 days was well tolerated in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tragacanth (E 413) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of konjac (E 425), comprising konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) when used as food additives. 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 current use of konjac (E 425) was limited in all food categories to maximum permitted level (MPL) of 10 g/kg, and that the calculated indicative refined exposure assessment for all population groups was below 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the general population (mean and high level). Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were unlikely to be absorbed intact and were significantly fermented by intestinal microbiota. The available database on toxicological studies was considered limited, however, no relevant adverse effects were seen in rats and dogs in 90‐day feeding studies according to the SCF, the no‐observed‐effect level (NOEL) in rats being 1,250 mg konjac glucomannan/kg bw per day. Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were of no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. After a daily dosage of 3,000 mg in adults for 12 weeks, several individuals experienced abdominal discomfort including diarrhoea or constipation. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that there was no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) as food additives under the current conditions of use of 10 g/kg. The Panel agreed with the conclusions of the SCF () that the uses of konjac (E 425) as an additive at the levels up to 10 g/kg in food are acceptable, provided that the total intake from all sources stays below 3 g/day.

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA to provide a scientific opinion on the request for a modification of the EU specifications for polyvinyl alcohol‐polyethylene glycol‐graft‐co‐polymer (PVA‐PEG graft‐co‐polymer) (E 1209) and its possible impact on the safety. In accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, PVA‐PEG graft‐co‐polymer (E 1209) has a single authorisation for use as a food additive in the EU, in the food category food supplements in solid form. According to the current EU specifications, ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol can be present as impurities in other food additives authorised in the EU, namely in polysorbates (E 432–436) and polyethylene glycol (E 1521). The exposure to ethylene glycol and diethylene glycol from their presence in E 1209 and in the other food additives was estimated considering the maximum limit permitted according to the EU specifications and the new proposed maximum limit in E 1209 of 620 mg/kg for the ethylene glycol individually or in combination with diethylene glycol in E 1209. This proposed request would result in a total exposure from food additive uses below the group tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day allocated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) for these contaminants. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the requested amendment of the EU specifications for E 1209 would not result in a safety concern. The Panel noted that the analytical results provided were consistently and considerably lower (up to 360 mg/kg) than the proposed level of 620 mg/kg for ethylene glycol individually or in combination with diethylene glycol in the EU specifications for E 1209.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive. Tara gum (E 417) has been evaluated by the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF, ) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, ), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for this gum. 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 for tara gum (E 417). Tara gum (E 417) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is expected to be fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported at the highest doses tested in subchronic, chronic and carcinogenicity studies and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tara gum (E 417) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite (E 250) when used as food additives. The ADIs established by the SCF () and by JECFA () for nitrite were 0–0.06 and 0–0.07 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. The available information did not indicate in vivo genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrite. Overall, an ADI for nitrite per se could be derived from the available repeated dose toxicity studies in animals, also considering the negative carcinogenicity results. The Panel concluded that an increased methaemoglobin level, observed in human and animals, was a relevant effect for the derivation of the ADI. The Panel, using a BMD approach, derived an ADI of 0.07 mg nitrite ion/kg bw per day. The exposure to nitrite resulting from its use as food additive did not exceed this ADI for the general population, except for a slight exceedance in children at the highest percentile. The Panel assessed the endogenous formation of nitrosamines from nitrites based on the theoretical calculation of the NDMA produced upon ingestion of nitrites at the ADI and estimated a MoE > 10,000. The Panel estimated the MoE to exogenous nitrosamines in meat products to be

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sodium nitrate (E 251) and potassium nitrate (E 252) when used as food additives. The current acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for nitrate of 3.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day were established by the SCF (1997) and JECFA (2002). The available data did not indicate genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrate. The carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats were negative. The Panel considered the derivation of an ADI for nitrate based on the formation of methaemoglobin, following the conversion of nitrate, excreted in the saliva, to nitrite. However, there were large variations in the data on the nitrate‐to‐nitrite conversion in the saliva in humans. Therefore, the Panel considered that it was not possible to derive a single value of the ADI from the available data. The Panel noticed that even using the highest nitrate‐to‐nitrite conversion factor the methaemoglobin levels produced due to nitrite obtained from this conversion would not be clinically significant and would result to a theoretically estimated endogenous N‐nitroso compounds (ENOC) production at levels which would be of low concern. Hence, and despite the uncertainty associated with the ADI established by the SCF, the Panel concluded that currently there was insufficient evidence to withdraw this ADI. The exposure to nitrate solely from its use as a food additive was estimated to be less than 5% of the overall exposure to nitrate in food based on a refined estimated exposure scenario. This exposure did not exceed the current ADI (SCF, 1997). However, if all sources of exposure to dietary nitrate are considered (food additive, natural presence and contamination), the ADI would be exceeded for all age groups at the mean and the highest exposure.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was requested from the European Commission to provide a statement on the validity of the conclusions of a mouse study on the carcinogenic potential of sucralose (E 955) performed by the Ramazzini Institute (Soffritti et al., ). Sucralose (E 955) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the full re‐evaluation of sucralose shall be completed by December 2020. Taking into consideration the publication from Soffritti et al. (), the technical report and additional information provided by the Ramazzini Institute and other information available for sucralose (E 955), the Panel noted: (i) the design of the bioassay that considers exposure from gestation up to natural death of animals implies an increase in background pathology that results in the possibility of misclassifications and a difficult interpretation of data, especially in the absence of both an appropriate concurrent control group and a recent historical database; (ii) the lack of a dose–response relationship between the exposure to sucralose and incidence of lymphomas and leukaemias (combined); (iii) the lack of a mode of action and failure to meet all the Bradford‐Hill considerations for a cause–effect relationship between intake of sucralose and the development of tumours in male mice only; (iv) a comprehensive database was available for sucralose and no carcinogenic effect was reported in adequate studies in rats and mice. Moreover, there was no reliable evidence of in vivo genotoxicity. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data did not support the conclusions of the authors (Soffritti et al., ) that sucralose induced haematopoietic neoplasias in male Swiss mice.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sorbitan monostearate (E 491), sorbitan tristearate (E 492), sorbitan monolaurate (E 493), sorbitan monooleate (E 494) and sorbitan monopalmitate (E 495) when used as food additives. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for E 491, E 492 and E 495 singly or in combination; and a separate group ADI for E 493 and E 494 singly or in combination of 5 mg/kg bw per day calculated as sorbitan monolaurate in 1974. The Panel noted that after oral administration sorbitan monostearate can be either hydrolysed to its fatty acid moiety and the corresponding anhydrides of sorbitol and excreted via urine or exhaled as CO2 or excreted intact in the faeces. The Panel considered that sorbitan esters did not raise concern for genotoxicity. Based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2,600 mg sorbitan monostearate/kg bw per day, taking into account the ratio between the molecular weight of sorbitan monostearate (430.62 g/mol) and sorbitan (164.16 g/mol), and applying an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel derived a group ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day expressed as sorbitan for sorbitan esters (E 491–495) singly or in combination. This group ADI of 10 mg sorbitan/kg bw per day is equivalent to 26 mg sorbitan monostearate/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that the exposure at the mean and the 95th percentile level, using non‐brand‐loyal scenario, did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups. The Panel on the request for an amendment of specifications regarding the removal of ‘congealing range’ concluded that it could be eventually replaced by another identification parameter such as melting point.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of fatty acids (E 570) when used as a food additive. The food additive includes caprylic‐ (C8), capric‐ (C10), lauric‐ (C12), myristic‐ (C14), palmitic‐ (C16), stearic‐ (C18) and oleic acid (C18:1), present alone or in combination. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for the fatty acids (myristic, stearic, palmitic and oleic acid). The fatty acids (E 570) are absorbed in the same way as the free fatty acids from the regular diet. They show low acute toxicity. The available studies on subchronic toxicity were limited but there was no evidence for toxic effects at doses up to 10% in the diet (equivalent to 9,000 mg lauric acid/kg body weight (bw) per day). The Panel considered that the fatty acids (E 570) did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. Data on chronic toxicity, reproductive toxicity and developmental toxicity were too limited to reach a conclusion on these endpoints. The Panel noted that the contribution of fatty acids (E 570) represented on average only 1% of the overall exposure to saturated fatty acids from all dietary sources (food additive and regular diet). Based on the approach described in the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and taking into account the considerations mentioned above, the Panel concluded that the food additive fatty acids (E 570) was of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive. In the EU, acacia gum has not been formally evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), and therefore, no ADI has been allocated. However, it was accepted for use in weaning food (SCF, ). In 1999, the SCF considered ‘that the use of acacia gum/gum arabic in coatings for nutrient preparations containing trace elements is acceptable provided carry‐over levels in infant formulae, follow‐on formulae or FSMP do not exceed 10 mg/kg’. Acacia gum was evaluated by JECFA in 1982 and 1990 and the specifications were amended in 1998. Based on the lack of adverse effects in the available toxicity studies, an ADI ‘not specified’ was allocated. 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. Acacia gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is slightly fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of acacia gum up to 30,000 mg acacia gum/person per day (approximately equivalent 430 mg acacia gum/kg bw per day) for up to 18 days was well tolerated in adults but some individuals experienced flatulence which was considered by the Panel as undesirable but not adverse effect. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for acacia gum (E 414), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive.

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of lecithins (E 322) when used as a food additive. Lecithins (E 322) is an authorised food additive in the EU according to Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives, and have been previously evaluated by JECFA in 1973 and by the SCF in 1982. Among lecithins, phosphatidylcholine is hydrolysed in choline in the cytidine‐5‐diphosphate‐choline pathway in all cells of the body. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI for lecithins (E 322) and that there was no safety concern for the general population from more than 1 year of age at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive. The Panel further concluded that there is no safety concern for the exposure to the choline from lecithins (E 322) as a food additive at use and use levels reported by industry. For infants (from 12 weeks up to 11 months of age), the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive and for the choline from lecithins (E 322) as a food additive at use and use levels reported by industry. For infants and young children consuming foods for special medical purposes, the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern with respect to the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive and for exposure to choline resulting from these uses of lecithins (E 322).

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR, E 476) used as a food additive. In 1978, the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 7.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for PGPR. PGPR is hydrolysed in the gut resulting in the liberation of free polyglycerols, polyricinoleic acid and ricinoleic acid. Di‐ and triglycerol are absorbed and excreted unchanged in the urine; long‐chain polyglycerols show lower absorption and are mainly excreted unchanged in faeces. Acute oral toxicity of PGPR is low, and short‐term and subchronic studies indicate PGPR is tolerated at high doses without adverse effects. PGPR (E 476) is not of concern with regard to genotoxicity or carcinogenicity. The single reproductive toxicity study with PGPR was limited and was not an appropriate study for deriving a health‐based guidance value. Human studies with PGPR demonstrated that there is no indication of significant adverse effect. The Panel considered a 2‐year combined chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity study for determining a reference point and derived a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for PGPR (E 476) of 2,500 mg/kg bw per day, the only dose tested. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the present data set give reason to revise the ADI of 7.5 mg/kg bw per day allocated by SCF to 25 mg/kg bw per day. Exposure estimates did not exceed the ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day and a proposed extension of use would not result in an exposure exceeding this ADI. The Panel recommended modification of the EU specifications for PGPR (E 476).

Abstract The ANS Panel provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of glycerol (E 422) used as a food additive. In 1981, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) endorsed the conclusion from the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1976 of ‘acceptable daily intake (ADI) for man not specified’. The Panel concluded that glycerol has low acute toxicity and that local irritating effects of glycerol in the gastrointestinal tract reported in some gavage studies was likely due to hygroscopic and osmotic effects of glycerol. Glycerol did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity and was of no concern with regard to carcinogenicity. Reproductive and prenatal developmental studies were limited to conclude on reproductive toxicity but no dose‐related adverse effects were reported. None of the animal studies available identified an adverse effect for glycerol. The Panel conservatively estimated the lowest oral dose of glycerol required for therapeutic effect to be 125 mg/kg bw per hour and noted that infants and toddlers can be exposed to that dose by drinking less than the volume of one can (330 mL) of a flavoured drink. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI and no safety concern regarding the use of glycerol (E 422) as a food additive at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses. The Panel also concluded that the manufacturing process of glycerol should not allow the production of a food additive, which contains genotoxic and carcinogenic residuals at a level which would result in a margin of exposure below 10,000. The Panel recommended modification of the EU specifications for E 422. The Panel also recommended that more information on uses and use levels and analytical data should be made available to the Panel.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of soybean hemicellulose (E 426) as a food additive. Soybean hemicellulose is not absorbed intact, but is extensively fermented by the intestinal microflora in animals and humans. No adverse effects were reported in a 90‐day dietary toxicity study in rats at the highest doses tested of 2,430 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for males and 2,910 mg/kg bw per day for females. Furthermore, soybean hemicellulose is not of genotoxic concern. The highest exposure estimates calculated based on the maximum permitted levels were up to 191 mg/kg bw per day for children (95th percentile). Given the limited uses, if any, reported, the Panel considered it probable that the actual dietary exposure to soybean hemicellulose (E 426) would be negligible. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, the Panel concluded that it is very unlikely that there is a safety concern from the current use of soybean hemicellulose (E 426) as a food additive, and that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). The Panel recommended that the amount of residual proteins in E 426 should be reduced as much as possible, and that consumers should be informed of the presence of potentially allergenic proteins in the food additive.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. In the EU, guar gum was evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1970, 1974 and 1975, who allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’. Guar gum has been also evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1977 who endorsed the ADI ‘not specified’ allocated by JECFA. 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. Guar gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested; no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral intake of guar gum was well tolerated in adults. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for guar gum (E 412), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. The Panel considered that for uses of guar gum in foods intended for infants and young children the occurrence of abdominal discomfort should be monitored and if this effect is observed doses should be identified as a basis for further risk assessment. The Panel considered that no adequate specific studies addressing the safety of use of guar gum (E 412) in food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of guar gum (E 412) in infants and young children consuming these foods for special medical purposes.

Abstract Following a request from European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) as a food additive. Locust bean gum (E 410) is an authorised food additive in the EU. Locust bean gum (E 410) as specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 is derived from the ground endosperm of the seeds of the strains of carob tree, Ceratonia siliqua (L.) Taub. (Family Leguminosae). An acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ was allocated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1981. Although not evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), it was accepted by the SCF in 1991 for use in weaning food, and in 1994, in infant formulae for special medical purposes. Locust bean gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in 90‐day toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents at the highest doses tested and there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity and to reproductive and developmental toxicity of locust bean gum (E 410). The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for locust bean gum (E 410), and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for its reported uses as a food additive. However, infants and young children consuming foods for special medical purposes may show a higher susceptibility to gastrointestinal effects of locust bean gum due to their underlying medical condition. The Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) in these foods for infants and young children.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of agar (E 406) as a food additive. In the European Union (EU), agar (E 406) has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1989, who allocated to agar a not specified acceptable daily intake (ADI), and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974, who considered very few data to conclude to a not limited ADI. According to the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that the safety assessment is limited to the use and use levels received from industry in 7 food categories for which data were considered in this opinion out of the 70 food categories in which agar (E 406) is authorised; an indicative high refined exposure assessment up to 26 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day has been calculated in toddlers at the 95th percentile (non‐brand‐loyal scenario); agar is unlikely to be absorbed unchanged and slightly fermented by intestinal microbiota; sufficient toxicity data were available; there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of agar; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the doses of 4,500 mg/kg bw per day and 2,500 mg/kg bw per day, respectively, the highest doses tested; oral intake of agar (4,500 mg/person corresponding to 64 mg/kg bw per day) was tolerated in humans for 12 weeks without noticeable side effects. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for agar and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of agar as a food additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of karaya gum (E 416) as a food additive. Karaya gum (E 416) is an authorised food additive in the EU. Karaya gum (E 416) as specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 is derived from the exudates from the stems and branches of strains of Sterculia urens Roxburgh and other species of Sterculia (family Sterculiaceae) or from Cochlospermum gossypium A.P. De Candolle or other species of Cochlospermum (family Bixaceae). An acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ was allocated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), whereas the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) allocated an ADI of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Karaya gum is practically undigested and not degraded by intestinal microflora and it is most probably not or only negligibly absorbed unchanged in humans. There is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of karaya gum from Sterculia spp. Karaya gum (E 416) from Sterculia spp. did not induce toxic effects in animals at dose levels up to 1,250 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. Karaya gum from Sterculia spp. was well tolerated in humans at dose about 100 mg/kg bw per day for 4 weeks. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the use of karaya gum as a food additive and that there is no need for a numerical ADI for karaya gum. The Panel further concluded that exposure to karaya gum by the use of this food additive should not exceed 7,000 mg/person per day in adults, the level at which some experienced abdominal discomfort.