Search

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.

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 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 (1997) 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).

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., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1439/full

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.