Search

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 14 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 80 (FGE.80), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirteen substances have already been considered in FGE.80 and its revision and in FGE.96 [FL‐no: 10.005, 10.024, 10.025, 10.050, 10.061, 10.069, 10.070, 10.072, 10.169, 13.009, 13.012, 13.161 and 16.055]. The remaining flavouring substance 3a,4,5,7a‐tetrahydro‐3,6‐dimethylbenzofuran‐2(3H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.057] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.217Rev3 and it is considered in this revision 2 of FGE.80. The substance [FL‐no: 10.057] was evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 10.057] does not give rise to safety concerns at its levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered and the information provided was complete for [FL‐no: 10.057]. However, for the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 10.057] in the present revision and for eight substances evaluated in previous revisions, the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are above the TTC for their structural class (III). For four substances previously evaluated in FGE.80Rev1 and in FGE.96, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 13 flavouring substances, data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. For [FL‐no: 10.050, 10.069 and 13.161], information on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 43 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 63 (FGE.63), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐nine substances have already been considered in FGE.63 and its revisions ([FL‐no: 02.023, 02.099, 02.104, 02.136, 02.155, 02.252, 07.015, 07.069, 07.081, 07.099, 07.100, 07.101, 07.102, 07.114, 07.123, 07.151, 07.190, 07.240, 07.247, 07.249, 07.256, 09.281, 09.282, 09.657, 09.658, 09.923, 09.924, 09.925 and 09.936]). The remaining 14 flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.204Rev1 ([FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.177, 07.188 and 07.244]) and they are considered in this revision 4 of FGE.63. 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 43 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for 43 flavouring substances. However, for 14 of these flavouring substances in the present revision and for 10 of the substances in the previous revision (FGE.63Rev3), the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are equal to or above the TTCs for their structural classes (I and II). For 15 substances previously evaluated in FGE.63Rev3, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 39 flavouring substances, more data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 55 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07 (FGE.07), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Fifty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.07 and its revisions. This revision 6 includes two additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2 (4‐methyl‐3‐hepten‐5‐one [FL‐no: 07.261]) and FGE.204Rev1 (non‐2‐en‐4‐one, [FL‐no: 07.187]). 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 55 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Normal and maximum use levels were available for all flavouring substances. For 52 substances, including the newly included substances [FL‐no: 07.187 and 07.261], their 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) estimates were above the TTC for their structural classes (I and II). Therefore, for these 52 flavouring substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. 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 31 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 all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. 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 12 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 nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk assessments for pesticide and veterinary drug residues in food are performed respectively by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on Pesticide Residues (JMPR) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). The models used by the two Committees to assess chronic dietary exposure are based on different data and assumptions which may be confusing, particularly for risk managers, when the same compound is used to treat plants and animals. This publication details the results of combined chronic dietary exposure assessments for eight compounds used both as pesticide and veterinary drugs. It compares the results from models in use by JMPR and JECFA with those from national estimates performed by 17 countries. Results show that the JECFA model is better reflecting less than lifetime dietary exposure by considering consumption of children and high consumers. The JMPR model is a suitable model for estimating average chronic (lifetime) exposure to residues present in widely and regularly consumed staple commodities. However, it is suitable neither for estimating children's exposure nor more generally for assessing less than lifetime dietary exposure. In order to select the appropriate exposure model related to the occurrence of adverse effects i.e. effects occurring over less-than-lifetime or effects occurring only over lifetime, this paper proposes criteria to match the toxicological profile of the compound and the appropriate exposure scenarios. These approaches will continue to be harmonized to ensure the most scientifically sound basis for the risk assessment for pesticides and veterinary drug residues and consequently for other chemicals in food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The risk assessment of residues of veterinary drugs in food is a field that continues to evolve. The toxicological end-points to be considered are becoming more nuanced and in light of growing concern about the development of antimicrobial resistance, detailed analysis of the antimicrobial activity of the residues of veterinary drugs in food is increasingly incorporated in the assessment. In recent years, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has refined its approaches to provide a more comprehensive and fit-for-purpose risk assessment. This publication describes in detail the consideration of acute and chronic effects, the estimation of acute and chronic dietary exposure, current approaches for including microbiological endpoints in the risk assessment, and JECFA’s considerations for the potential effects of food processing on residues from veterinary drugs. JECFA now applies these approaches in the development of health-based guidance values (i.e. safe exposure levels) for residues of veterinary drugs. JECFA, thus, comprehensively addresses acute and chronic risks by using corresponding estimates for acute and chronic exposure and suitable correction for the limited bioavailability of bound residues by the Gallo-Torres model. On a case-by-case basis, JECFA also considers degradation products that occur from normal food processing of food containing veterinary drug residues. These approaches will continue to be refined to ensure the most scientifically sound basis for the establishment of health-based guidance values for veterinary drug residues. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of FGE.73 concerns the inclusion of four additional flavouring substances (p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], p-mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302]) evaluated by JECFA at the 59th meeting. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach integrating information on structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological thresholds of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated 22 and one candidate substances via the A and the B-side of the Procedure, respectively, and concluded for all substances 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Adequate specifications, including complete purity criteria and identity data, are available for 22 out of the 23 JECFA substances evaluated in this FGE. For [FL-no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For the six substances with [FL-no: 02.060, 02.091, 09.034, 09.278, 09.302 and 09.712] evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For two substances [FL-no: 09.034, and 09.712], the mTAMDI estimates were above the TTC for their structural class and more detailed information is needed to finalise their evaluation. For the remaining 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment in order to finalise the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A bstract The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (the JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The present consideration concerns a group of six furanone derivatives evaluated by the JECFA at their 63rd, 65th and 69th meetings. This revision of FGE.99 includes the assessment of the 2,5-dimethyl-4-methoxyfuran-3(2H)-one [FL-no: 13.089] cleared for genotoxicity concern compared to the previous version. The Panel concluded that none of the six substances gives rise to safety concerns at the levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach [FL-nos: 13.010, 13.084, 13.085, 13.089, 13.099 and 13.176]. The specifications of the materials of commerce have also been considered and are adequate for all candidate substances in this FGE. However, for all substances use levels are required to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional toxicity data have become available for 1-furfurylpyrrole [FL-no: 13.134]. The data are intended to cover the re-evaluation of this substance and 2-acetyl-1-ethylpyrrole [FL-no: 14.045] and 2-acetyl-1-methylpyrrole [FL-no: 14.046]. The Panel concluded that for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042], the genotoxicity data available do not clear the concern with respect to genotoxicity in vitro and accordingly the substance is not evaluated through the Procedure. For 21 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this FGE, the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Licorice (or ‘liquorice’) is a plant of ancient origin and steeped in history. Licorice extracts and its principle component, glycyrrhizin, have extensive use in foods, tobacco and in both traditional and herbal medicine. As a result, there is a high level of use of licorice and glycyrrhizin in the US with an estimated consumption of 0.027–3.6mg glycyrrhizin/kg/day. Both products have been approved for use in foods by most national and supranational regulatory agencies. Biochemical studies indicate that glycyrrhizinates inhibit 11β-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase, the enzyme responsible for inactivating cortisol. As a result, the continuous, high level exposure to glycyrrhizin compounds can produce hypermineralocorticoid-like effects in both animals and humans. These effects are reversible upon withdrawal of licorice or glycyrrhizin. Other in vivo and clinical studies have reported beneficial effects of both licorice and glycyrrhizin consumption including anti-ulcer, anti-viral, and hepatoprotective responses. Various genotoxic studies have indicated that glycyrrhizin is neither teratogenic nor mutagenic, and may possess anti-genotoxic properties under certain conditions. The pharmacokinetics of glycyrrhizin have been described and show that its bioavailability is reduced when consumed as licorice; this has hampered attempts to establish clear dose-effect levels in animals and humans. Based on the in vivo and clinical evidence, we propose an acceptable daily intake of 0.015–0.229mg glycyrrhizin/kg body weight/day. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In 2002, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives requested information relating to the toxicity, intake and specifications of annatto. Previous intake estimates for annatto provided ambiguous results because the bixin/norbixin content of annatto extract was unclear. European annatto producers consulted with the food industry to determine use levels of specific annatto extracts. These data were combined with the levels of bixin/norbixin in particular extracts to estimate the concentration of bixin/norbixin in foods. Concentrations in food were combined with data about food consumption using various methods to estimate consumer intakes, which ranged from less than 1–163% of the acceptable daily intake (0.065mg/kgbw/day). Higher intake estimates are conservative because they assume that a consumer always chooses a food that is coloured with annatto extracts. In practice this is extremely unlikely, since annatto is associated only with certain product/flavour combinations. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Food flavorings are an essential element in foods. Flavorings are a unique class of food ingredients and excluded from the legislative definition of a food additive because they are regulated by flavor legislation and not food additive legislation. Flavoring ingredients naturally present in foods, have simple chemical structures, low toxicity, and are used in very low levels in foods and beverages resulting in very low levels of human exposure or consumption. Today, the overwhelming regulatory trend is a positive list of flavoring substances, e.g. substances not listed are prohibited. Flavoring substances are added to the list following a safety evaluation based on the conditions of intended use by qualified experts. The basic principles for assessing the safety of flavoring ingredients will be discussed with emphasis on the safety evaluation of flavoring ingredients by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the US Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Expert Panel (FEXPAN). The main components of the JECFA evaluation process include chemical structure, human intake (exposure), metabolism to innocuous or harmless substances, and toxicity concerns consistent with JECFA principles. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) evaluation is very similar to the JECFA procedure. Both the JECFA and FEMA evaluation procedures are widely recognized and the results are accepted by many countries. This implies that there is no need for developing countries to conduct their own toxicological assessment of flavoring ingredients unless it is an unique ingredient in one country, but it is helpful to survey intake or exposure assessment. The global safety program established by the International Organization of Flavor Industry (IOFI) resulting in one worldwide open positive list of flavoring substances will be reviewed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]