Search

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.229] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. 2‐Hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde belongs to chemical group 23 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000) and is structurally related to the hydroxy‐ and alkoxy‐ring substituted benzyl derivatives evaluated in FGE.52 and in FGE.20Rev4. The Panel considered the structural/metabolic similarity sufficient to evaluate the candidate substance following a group‐based approach according to the EFSA Guidance on the data required for the risk assessment of flavourings to be used in or on foods. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 05.229] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with this substance, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. Based on QSAR evaluation of possible metabolism, and based on information from structurally related substances, various metabolic routes can be anticipated, which only result in the formation of innocuous metabolites. The exposure estimates for [FL‐no: 05.229] (24 and 60 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were below the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for its structural class (I). Accordingly, toxicity studies are not required and the Panel concluded at step A3 of the Procedure that 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde is not of safety concern when used as a flavouring substance at the intended uses and use levels. Cumulative exposure estimates for 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde and three structurally related substances (2.4 and 6.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults and children, respectively) are above the TTC for structural class I, but below the ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 0‐10 mg/kg bw per day for vanillin, which is one of these structurally related substances. Therefore, the cumulative exposure to these four substances [FL‐no: 05.015, 05.018, 05.229 and 09.749] also does not raise a safety concern.

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of thaumatin (E 957) when used as a food additive. Thaumatin is a natural plant protein, consisting of thaumatin I and thaumatin II proteins together with minor amounts of plant constituents, obtained by acidic aqueous extraction of the arils of the fruit of Thaumatococcus daniellii plant. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives and considered that thaumatin is a digestible protein; adequate exposure estimates were available; there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity; no conclusion on oral allergenicity could be drawn from the available human data; no adverse effects were observed in sub‐chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested of up 5,200 and 1,476 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day, respectively, and in a prenatal developmental toxicity study up to 2,000 mg/kg bw per day; moderate confidence in the body of evidence supported the absence of association between exposure to thaumatin and adverse health outcomes. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for thaumatin (E 957) and, based on a margin of safety (MOS) of 5,417, considered to be an underestimate and derived using the highest 95th percentile (P95) exposure of 0.48 mg/kg bw per day in consumers only, there is no safety concern for thaumatin (E 957) at the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario, which was considered the most appropriate. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers introducing in the EU specifications for thaumatin (E 957) a new specification limit for the minimum combined content of thaumatin I and II proteins in E 957, a specification limit for yeast, mould counts and Salmonella spp and lowering the existing maximum limit for arsenic along with the inclusion of maximum limits for mercury and cadmium., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6918/full

Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring was requested to assess mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) for its use as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants). In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive in 2017 when used in food for the general population. The Panel considered that there is no indication of adverse effects from the available animal studies at the highest dose tested and from the post marketing data. A comparison was made between the daily exposure to the sum of mono- and di-acylglycerols from breast milk and that resulting from the use of E 471 in the infant formula. The Panel noted that the resulting exposures are in the same order of magnitude. Overall, the Panel concluded that there is no reason for a safety concern when E 471 used as food additive in FC 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1 and according to the Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The risk assessment for toxic elements and impurities clearly indicated the need to lower the current maximum limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury and to include limits for glycidyl esters, 3-monochloropropane diol and erucic acid in the EU specifications of E 471. © 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority

[EN] The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of crosslinked polyacrylic acid polymers (carbomer) proposed for use as food additive in solid and liquid food supplements. Carbomer is formed from the monomer, acrylic acid, which is polymerised and crosslinked with allyl pentaerythritol (APE). The polymers are synthesised in ethyl acetate using as free-radical polymerisation initiator. In vivo data showed no evidence for systemic availability or biotransformation of carbomer. Carbomer does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. Considering the available data set, the Panel derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 190 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,500 mg/kg bw per day from a sub-chronic 13-week study in rat, applying a compound specific uncertainty factor (UF) of 8. At the proposed maximum use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 1.1 to 90.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 12.5 to 237.4 mg/kg bw per day. At the proposed typical use level, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 0.7 to 60.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 10.3 to 159.5 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel noted that the maximum proposed use levels would result in exposure estimates close to or above the ADI. The Panel also noted that level of exposure to carbomer from its proposed use is likely to be an overestimation. Taking a conservative approach, the Panel considered that exposure to carbomer would not give rise to a safety concern if the proposed maximum use level for solid food supplements is lowered to the typical use level reported by the applicant. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

The present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide(E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, includingdata obtained with TiO2nanoparticles (NPs) and data from an extended one-generation reproductivetoxicity (EOGRT) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimumexternal dimension30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to adose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However,observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity withTiO2NPs, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverseeffects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO2particles have the potential toinduce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlationwas observed between the physico-chemical properties of TiO2particles and the outcome of eitherin vitroorin vivogenotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO2particles that may be presentin E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate inparallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO2particles arenot known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. Inaddition, a cut-off value for TiO2particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. Noappropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO2NPs. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and giventhe many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe whenused as a food additive.©2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journalpublished by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalfof European Food Safety Authority.Keywords:Titanium dioxide, E 171, CAS No 13463-67-7EFSA Journal 2021;19(5):6585www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal

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

[EN] The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts. These steviol glycoside preparations are produced via enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A extracts obtained from stevia plant using two UDP-glucosyltransferases and one sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K-12 that facilitate the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extracts via glycosidic bonds. The Panel considered that the parental strain is a derivative of E. coli K-12 which is well characterised and its safety has been documented; therefore, it is considered to be safe for production purposes. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts using UDP-glucosyltransferases and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K-12, to be used as a food additive. The Panel recommends the European Commission to consider the proposal of establishing separate specifications for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of Sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) assigned these food additives together with other aluminium‐containing food additives a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 7 mg aluminium/kg body weight (bw). In 2008, EFSA established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw per week. Sodium aluminium silicate was shown in rats to be absorbed to a limited extent at 0.12 ± 0.011%. The Panel considered that potassium aluminium silicate would be absorbed and become systemically available similarly to sodium aluminium silicate. No information on the physicochemical characterisation of sodium aluminium silicate and potassium aluminium silicate when used as food additives has been submitted and only very limited toxicological data were available for sodium aluminium silicate. Exposure to E 554 was calculated based on the reported use levels in food supplements. Exposure to aluminium from this use of E 554 was calculated to exceed the TWI for aluminium. Based on the data provided by interested business operators, the Panel considered that E 555 is not being used as a carrier, but as an inseparable component of ‘potassium aluminium silicate‐based pearlescent pigments’. The Panel calculated the regulatory maximum exposure to E 555 as a carrier for titanium dioxide (E 171) and iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172). Exposure to aluminium from this single use at the maximum permitted level could theoretically far exceed the TWI. Considering that only very limited toxicological data and insufficient information on the physicochemical characterisation of both food additives were available, the Panel concluded that the safety of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) could not be assessed.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 35 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 69 (FGE.69), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirty-two substances have already been considered in FGE.69 [FL-no: 02.033, 02.034, 02.036, 02.064, 02.065, 02.080, 07.004, 07.013, 07.022, 07.023, 07.025, 07.026, 07.028, 07.029, 07.032, 07.038, 07.040, 07.042, 07.070, 07.079, 07.086, 07.087, 09.144, 09.178, 09.179, 09.189, 09.200, 09.231, 09.249, 09.476, 09.486 and 09.501]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.024 and 07.027] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.215Rev1 and are considered in this revision FGE.69Rev1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach, namely the Procedure, that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel considered that for 33 flavouring substances evaluated through the Procedure the specifications are adequate and the Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' when based on the MSDI approach. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 07.038 and 07.042], there is insufficient information on their chemical identity to reach a final conclusion. For six substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.013, 07.024, 07.028, 07.032 and 07.086], there is no concern when the exposure was estimated based on the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) approach. For 28 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. For one substance [FL-no: 07.027], more reliable data on uses and use levels are required in order to finalise the safety evaluation. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on tartaric acid‐tartrates (E 334‐337, 354) when used as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1990 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, for l(+)‐tartaric acid and its potassium and sodium salts. The metabolism of l(+)‐tartaric acid and its potassium sodium salt was shown to be species dependent, with a greater absorption in rats than in humans. No toxic effects, including nephrotoxicity, were observed in toxicological studies in which the l(+)‐form was tested. There was no indication for a genotoxic potential of tartaric acid and its sodium and potassium salts. In a chronic study in rats, no indication for carcinogenicity of monosodium l(+)‐tartrate was reported at the highest dose tested (3,100 mg/kg bw per day). The available studies for maternal or developmental toxicity did not report any relevant effects; no studies for reproductive toxicity were available; however, no effects on reproductive organs were observed in the chronic toxicity study. The Panel concluded that the data on systemic availability were robust enough to derive a chemical‐specific uncertainty factor instead of the usual default uncertainty factor of 100. A total uncertainty factor of 10 was derived by applying a total interspecies uncertainty factor of 1 instead of 10, based on data showing lower internal exposure in humans compared to rats. The Panel established a group ADI for l(+)‐tartaric acid‐tartrates (E 334‐337 and E 354) of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid, by applying the total uncertainty factor of 10 to the reference point of 3,100 mg sodium tartrate/kg bw per day, approximately to 2,440 mg tartaric acid/kg bw per day. The exposure estimates for the different population groups for the refined non‐brand‐loyal exposure scenario did not exceed the group ADI of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid. Some recommendations were made by the Panel., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6031/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6032/full

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.

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.

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR, E 445) when used as a food additive. Regarding GEWR originating from Pinus palustris (longleaf pine) and Pinus elliottii (slash pine), based on the overall toxicity database, and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the Panel concluded that the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) as established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 should be temporary pending the provision of such data. This assessment is restricted to GEWR derived from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. The Panel concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand‐loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the temporary ADI in any of the population groups from the use of GEWR (E 445) as a food additive at the reported use levels. For GEWR originating from Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia, the Panel noted that concentrations of the fractions of ‘glycerol monoesters’, ‘free resin acids’ and ‘neutrals’, which are considered to be of particular toxicological relevance, are not known; therefore, the evaluation of chemical equivalence with GEWR originating from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) is not possible; no data on stability were available; no toxicological data were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a safety assessment of GEWR originating from P. halepensis and P. brutia could not be performed. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider an update of the definition of GEWR (E 445) in the EU specifications. It should be indicated that GEWR (E 445) (i) contain, besides the mentioned glycerol di‐ and triesters, a residual fraction of glycerol monoesters, and (ii) contain residual free resin acids and neutrals (non‐acidic other saponifiable and unsaponifiable substances).

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids (E 477) when used as a food additive. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1978 endorsed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as propane-1,2-diol, established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. No adverse effects were observed in short-term studies in rats and dogs at the highest doses tested. The Panel considered that E 477 did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. No chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies with propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids were available to the Panel. The Panel considered that any potential adverse effect of propane-1,2-diol ester of fatty acids would be due to propane-1,2-diol, previously re-evaluated as a food additive and for which an ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day was established. Considering the overall metabolic and toxicity database, the Panel confirmed the previously established ADI for propane-1,2-diol esters of fatty acids (E 477) of 25 mg/kg bw per day expressed as propane 1,2 diol. This corresponds to an ADI for E 477 of 80 mg/kg bw per day, based on the concentration of free and bound propane-1,2-diol amounting to a maximum of 31% as laid down in the EU specification. The Panel concluded that there would not be a safety concern at the reported use levels for E 477 because exposure estimates from the refined non-brand loyal scenario did not exceed the ADI for E 477 in any of the population groups. However, the Panel aims to explore the feasibility of establishing a group ADI for those food additives that result in an exposure to propane-1,2-diol, such as E 477, E 1520 and E 405. Additionally, the Panel will also consider performing a combined exposure assessment to propane-1,2-diol resulting from the use of these food additives. The Panel also recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 477. ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:16 issue:12 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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. ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:16 issue:6 ispartof: location:United States status: published

The present opinion deals with the assessment of the data provided by interested business operators in support of an amendment of the EU specifications for titanium dioxide (E 171) with respect to the inclusion of additional parameters related to its particle size distribution. Titanium dioxide which is used as a food additive E 171 in food undergoes no surface treatment and is not coated. It consists of anatase or rutile generally containing small amounts of the other phase (rutile or anatase

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.

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium, ammonium and calcium salts (E 400–E 404) when used as food additives. Alginic acid and its salts (E 400–E 404) are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. 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 Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404), and that there was no safety concern at the level of the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) as food additives. The Panel further concluded that exposure of infants and young children to alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) by the use of these food additives should stay below therapeutic dosages for these population groups at which side‐effects could occur. Concerning the use of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in ‘dietary foods for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants’ (Food category 13.1.5.1) and ‘in dietary foods for babies and young children for special medical purposes as defined in Directive 1999/21/EC’ (Food category 13.1.5.2), the Panel further concluded that the available data did not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in infants and young children consuming the food belonging to the categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE .91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC ) No 1565/2000. Forty‐four substances have been considered in FGE .91 and its revisions (FGE .91Rev1 and FEG .91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE .91: two ([FL ‐no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE .201Rev2; two ([FL ‐no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE .74Rev4 and one ([FL ‐no: 12.304]) to FGE .08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL ‐no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL ‐no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC ), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI ) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL ‐no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE .91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL ‐no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI ) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive. The previously evaluated toxicological studies were not available, in addition to no genotoxicity data being available. Thus, adequate toxicity data on stearyl tartrate were not available for its re‐evaluation. In addition, adequate data demonstrating the complete hydrolysis of stearyl tartrate (E 483) in the gastrointestinal tract and/or presystemically, that could allow read‐across from data on its constituents, were lacking. Therefore, the safety of the use of stearyl tartrate as a food additive could not be assessed and the acceptable intake established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1978 could not be confirmed. Exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) was calculated using the maximum level exposure assessment scenario as neither use levels nor analytical data were available. Mean exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive ranged from 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 82.5 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in adults to 192.7 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel also noted that information from the Mintel's GNPD indicates that only two products have been labelled with stearyl tartrate (E 483) since 1996. Some recommendations were proposed by the Panel.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of metatartaric acid (E 353) when used as a food additive. Metatartaric acid (E 353) had been previously evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Based on the presumption that metatartaric acid is fully hydrolysed pre‐systemically to l(+)‐tartaric acid, the Panel concluded that metatartaric acid (E 353) should be included in the group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 240 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as tartaric acid, for l(+)‐tartaric acid‐tartrates (E 334–337, 354) which was established by the EFSA FAF Panel in 2020. Exposure estimates were calculated for metatartaric acid (E 353) using a maximum level and refined exposure assessment scenario. The Panel also concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of metatartaric acid (E 353) at the reported use and use level. The Panel made a number of recommendations., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6030/full

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

EFSA is re-evaluating the safety of food additives already permitted in the Union before 20 January 2009 and issuing scientific opinions on their safety in line with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Acacia gum (E 414) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as carry-over in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested parties to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. Based on the analytical data submitted in response to this call, the Panel recommended to lower the limits in the specifications for toxic elements and identified the need for further specifications for aluminium, microbiological criteria and protein residues. The Panel noted that information was not provided for oxidising enzymes and recommended that oxidases and peroxidases should be inactivated during the manufacturing process. The interested parties did not submit toxicological, clinical and post-marketing surveillance data specific for the assessment of the safety of acacia gum (E 414) in infants below 16 weeks of age. However, taking the highest doses tested without adverse effects from the subchronic studies available from the previous re-evaluation and comparing them with the estimated exposure in infants, the margins of safety were large indicating that there is no reason for health concern.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 24 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 73 (FGE.73), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.73 and its four revisions ([FL‐no: 02.114, 02.141, 05.098, 05.112, 08.067, 09.289, 09.488, 09.534, 09.615, 05.119, 05.123, 08.034, 08.060, 09.028, 09.536, 05.104, 09.034, 09.712, 09.305, 02.060, 02.091, 09.278, 09.302]). The remaining substance myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.208Rev3 and is considered in this revision 5 of FGE.73. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 24 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for 23 substances. For [FL‐no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For two substances [FL‐no: 09.034, and 09.712], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class (I). For 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, no normal and maximum use levels are available. Therefore, for these 19 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL‐no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL‐no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 39 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL‐no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL‐no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL‐no: 02.020 and 05.076], the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake’ (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of Monk fruit extract proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Monk fruit extracts are prepared by water extraction of the fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii. Cucurbitane glycosides, mogrosides, are the main components of the S. grosvenorii fruit and mogroside V is the main mogroside in the Monk fruit extract. Mogroside V is absorbed to some extent and is systemically bioavailable. Monk fruit extract containing 25% and 55% mogroside V were negative in the bacterial reverse mutation assay and did not induce structural and/or numerical chromosomal damage. However, the Panel noted that the in vitro toxicity studies including study with metabolic activation were not sufficiently informative to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the metabolites generated after microbial metabolism, including the aglycone. The effects on the testis observed in a 90‐day study with monk fruit extract‐52% mogroside V cannot be dismissed and the adversity of these effects cannot be ruled out. No effects on parental, reproductive or development toxicity were observed in a reproductive and developmental screening study in rats. For male animals, the time of exposure did not cover the full length of spermatogenesis and, therefore, a longer term study at higher doses would be needed to clarify the effects on testes observed in the 90‐day study. No maternal and developmental toxicity was observed. Considering the systemic availability of mogroside V, the effects observed in the rat subchronic study and following the principles of EFSA Guidance on food additives evaluation, data from chronic/carcinogenicity toxicity testing would have been warranted. Exposure to mogroside V was calculated based on the proposed use levels. The Panel concluded that toxicity database on Monk fruit extract is insufficient to conclude on the safety of the use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sulphuric acid (E 513) and its sodium (E 514), potassium (E 515), calcium (E 516) and ammonium (E 517) salts when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Sulphuric acid and its sodium, potassium, calcium and ammonium salts (E 513, E 514, E 515, E 516, E 517) are authorised food additives in the EU, in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the refined estimated exposure non brand‐loyal scenario, mean exposure ranged from 0.4 mg sulphate/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 35 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high percentile of exposure ranged from 3 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in adolescents to 68 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel considered sulphates of low acute toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The Panel noted that the exposure to sulphates at mean and 95th percentile in the non brand‐loyal scenario as well as in the other scenarios, is far below the 300 mg/kg a dose that induced laxative effect in humans. Based on the toxicological database available, the Panel concluded that the exposure to sulphuric acid (E 513), sodium sulphate (E 514), potassium sulphates (E 515), calcium sulphate (E 516) and ammonium sulphate (E 517) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels and there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI).

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular related to rebaudioside M produced via enzyme‐catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside M (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)‐glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeasts K. phaffii UGT‐a and K. phaffii UGT‐b, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The Panel considered that the parental strain K. phaffii ATCC 20864 qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach for safety assessment and, therefore, is considered to be safe for production purposes. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for Rebaudioside M produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP‐glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeasts K. phaffii UGT‐a and K. phaffii UGT‐b, to be used as a food additive. However, the Panel recommended that the European Commission considers establishing separate specifications for Rebaudioside M produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of benzyl alcohol (E 1519) when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Benzyl alcohol (E 1519) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The Panel considered benzyl alcohol of low acute toxicity with no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 400 mg/kg bw per day from the carcinogenicity study in rats. The mean and high exposure estimates in the refined exposure scenarios were maximally 0.27 and 0.81 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers, respectively. The exposure estimates to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) were below the ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day in all population groups. The Panel noted that also the exposure in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is below the ADI in all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 29 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 70 (FGE.70), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Seven substances have already been considered in FGE.70 [FL‐no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. The remaining 22 substances [FL‐no: 02.049, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172, 09.947, 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.057, 05.064, 05.071, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.140, 05.141, 05.173 and 09.573] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and FGE.203Rev2 and are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 29 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL‐no: 09.371 and 09.840]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Data on the identity and contents of secondary components should be requested for [FL no: 09.260]. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for seven flavouring substances [FL‐no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. For six flavouring substances [FL‐no: 05.057, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172 and 09.947] further information is required based on the comparison of the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This includes more reliable data on use and use levels and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate 54 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 05 (FGE.05), using the Procedure as referred to in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. This Revision 3 includes 17 additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL‐no: 02.192, 02.231, 05.072, 05.144, 05.184, 05.189, 05.190, 05.191, 05.195, 09.247, 09.400, 09.866, 09.948]) and in FGE.203Rev2 ([FL‐no: 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196]). The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 54 substances gives rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for 10 substances ([FL‐no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.181, 09.329, 09.335, 09.379 and 09.637]) for which quantitative figures on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures are missing and for [FL‐no: 09.578] complete specifications should be provided. Normal and maximum use levels were not available for [FL‐no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.287, 09.326 and 09.578]. Except for flavouring substances [FL‐no: 05.072, 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196, 09.934 and 09.942], more reliable intake data should be requested for all the 46 flavouring substances, for which use levels were submitted, as their modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) exposure estimates are above the threshold of concern for structural classes I and II. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of chlorides (E 507–509, E 511) as food additives. Chlorides are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the non‐ brand‐loyal scenario, mean exposure to chlorides (E 507–509, E 511) as food additives ranged from 2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in the elderly to 42 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 5 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 71 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. Chloride is an essential nutrient and after absorption is distributed to organs and tissues. The Panel considered chlorides to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies in rats following administration of magnesium chloride hexahydrate at 800 mg/kg bw per day. Some animal studies suggested a role of chloride in increasing blood pressure but based on the toxicological database available the Panel considered human data more appropriate to identify a level of chloride intake which does not raise a safety concern. The Panel identified a human dose of 40 mg chloride/kg bw per day as a reference value for the assessment. Mean levels of exposure in all age groups were below or at this reference value, which indicates no safety concern. In some age groups (toddlers, children and adolescents), the 95th percentile exposure estimates were slightly above this reference value. The Panel concluded that the exposure to chloride from hydrochloric acid and its potassium, calcium and magnesium salts (E 507, E 508, E 509 and E 511) does not raise a safety concern at the reported use and use levels.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338–341, E 343, E 450–452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80–90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1624/full

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

The Scientific Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety evaluation of annatto E and an exposure assessment of the annatto colouring principles bixin and norbixin (E 160b) when used as a food additive, taking into account new proposed uses and use levels. In 2016, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) adopted a scientific opinion on the safety of annatto extracts (E 160b) as a food additive. In that opinion, the Panel concluded that the toxicological database was sufficient to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 6 mg bixin/kg body weight (bw) per day and an ADI of 0.3 mg norbixin/kg bw per day. The Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of annatto E. Dietary exposure for annatto (E 160b), bixin‐ and norbixin‐based annatto extracts was estimated taking into account the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) as set in the Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, the use levels provided by food industry as well as the proposed use levels from an applicant for an extension of use. Exposure estimates for bixin were below the ADI for all population groups and for all refined exposure scenarios, including the proposed extension of use. For norbixin, exceedance was observed for the extension of use at the 95th percentile for some population groups. In the 2017 EFSA statement related to the exposure assessment of colouring principles bixin and norbixin considering new proposed uses and use levels, the dietary exposure for bixin did not exceed the ADI. For norbixin, dietary exposure exceeded the ADI at the high level (95th percentile) for toddlers and children. In the current opinion, the Panel concluded that food colour annatto E does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Accordingly, the ADIs established in 2016 for the two colouring principles bixin and norbixin can be applied also to the annatto E. For bixin, none of the exposure estimates exceeded the ADI of 6 mg/kg bw per day. For norbixin, the ADI was reached at the high level (p95) for toddlers in the refined exposure assessment scenarios in one country. Considering the uncertainties and the very likely overestimation of the exposure, the Panel concluded that the level of exposure does not raise a health concern.

In this opinion, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) was requested by the European Commission to carry out a scientific evaluation of an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS) to determine whether it would allow reconsideration of the temporary group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202), established by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) in 2015. From the EOGTRS, the FAF Panel identified a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 1,110 mg sorbic acid/kg body weight (bw) per day. By applying a default uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel established a group ADI expressed as 11 mg sorbic acid/kg bw per day for sorbic acid (E 200) and its potassium salt (E 202). In addition, European Commission asked EFSA to review a report on the ‘Stability of sorbic acid (E 200) and its potassium salt (E 202) during food processing and storage’ provided by industry. No new information was provided in this report, and therefore, in this opinion, there was no re‐assessment of the EFSA ANS opinion conclusions from 2015 regarding the stability of sorbates in food.

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

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

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1539/full

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

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

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of thermally oxidised soya bean oil interacted with mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (TOSOM) (E 479b) when used as a food additive. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 and 30 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively. There was no reliable information regarding the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) for TOSOM. No adverse effects have been detected in a limited subchronic toxicity study in pigs. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 5,400, the highest dose tested, from a chronic and carcinogenicity study in rats. No genotoxicity data were available. No reliable studies for reproductive or developmental toxicity were available. From the chronic and carcinogenicity study, no lesions in reproductive organs were described and the lack of carcinogenic effect alleviated the concern for genotoxicity at the first site of contact. The Panel concluded that the available toxicological data were insufficient to support the current ADI, in particular, due to the lack of ADME data and absence of developmental toxicity studies TOSOM (E 479b) is only authorised in one food category and only one reported use level that equals the maximum permitted level was submitted. The estimated high (P95) exposure reached an upper value of 10.1 mg/kg bw per day for toddlers. When comparing the highest estimated exposure of 10 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers with the NOAEL of 5,400 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested), the margin of safety (MoS) would be 540. Therefore, the Panel considered the use of TOSOM (E 479b) to be of no safety concern, in particular when considering the limited current use of this food additive. The Panel also recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 479b. ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:16 issue:10 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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. ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:16 issue:8 ispartof: location:United States status: published

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). ispartof: EFSA JOURNAL vol:16 issue:8 ispartof: location:United States status: published

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of aluminium sulphates (E 520–523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Aluminium sulphates (E 520–523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are permitted as food additives in only a few specific products and the exposure is probably near zero. Aluminium compounds have low bioavailability and low acute toxicity. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for aluminium compounds in subchronic studies was 52 mg Al/kg body weight (bw) per day in rats and 90 mg Al/kg bw per day in dogs and the lowest NOAEL for neurotoxicity in rats was 30 mg Al/kg bw per day and for developing nervous system was 10–42 mg Al/kg bw per day in studies in mice and rats. The Panel concluded that aluminium sulphates (E 520–523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are of no safety concern in the current authorised uses and use levels.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sodium ferrocyanide (E 535), potassium ferrocyanide (E 536), and evaluating the safety of calcium ferrocyanide (E 538) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Ferrocyanides (E 535–538) are solely authorised in two food categories as salt substitutes. To assess the dietary exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535–538) from their use as food additives, the exposure was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario (maximum permitted level (MPL)) and the refined exposure assessment scenario. Dietary exposure to ferrocyanides was calculated based on mean and high levels consumption of salts in both the regulatory maximum level and the refined scenario. In the MPL scenario, the exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535–538) from their use as a food additive was up to 0.009 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children and adolescents. In the refined estimated exposure scenario, the exposure was up to 0.003 mg/kg bw per day in children and adolescents. Absorption of ferrocyanides is low and there is no accumulation in human. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Reproductive studies were not available, but a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,000 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day (highest dose tested) was identified from a prenatal developmental toxicity study. The kidney appeared to be the target organ for ferrocyanides toxicity and 4.4 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day was identified as the NOAEL for the renal effects in a chronic (2‐year) study in rats. Assuming that the toxicity of this compound is due to the ferrocyanide ion only, the Panel established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for sodium, potassium and calcium ferrocyanide of 0.03 mg/kg bw per day expressed as ferrocyanide ion. The Panel concluded that ferrocyanides (E 535–538) are of no safety concern at the current authorised use and use levels.