Search

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission requested EFSA to carry out a scientific evaluation on four studies on the potential toxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) used as a food additive (E 171) and to indicate whether they would merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The results of the Bettini et al. (2017) study did not provide enough justification for a new carcinogenicity study, but, should additional useful mechanistic information become available, this could be reconsidered in future. The new in vitro findings in the Proquin et al. (2017) study did not modify the conclusion on the genotoxicity of TiO2 as stated in the previous EFSA opinion of 2016 on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The effects of engineered TiO2 nanoparticles reported by the Guo et al. (2017) study were of uncertain biological significance and therefore of limited relevance for the risk assessment of the food additive TiO2 (E 171). There was significant uncertainty in the risk assessment performed by Heringa et al. (2016), which did not include a weight of evidence analysis of the whole database. The Panel considered that the four studies evaluated, highlighted some concerns but with uncertainties, therefore their relevance for the risk assessment was considered limited and further research would be needed to decrease the level of uncertainties. Overall, three of the studies, reporting that TiO2 induced various effects in in vitro and in vivo models, may be useful for hazard identification of TiO2. In the fourth study by Heringa et al. (2016), numerous assumptions were made, which resulted in large uncertainty in their conclusion. Altogether, the Panel concluded that the outcome of the four studies did not merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA related to the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Based on the reported use levels, a refined exposure of up to 72.4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile was estimated. Gellan gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and would not be fermented by human intestinal microbiota. There is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. No adverse effects were reported in chronic studies at the highest doses tested in mice and rats (3,627 and 1,460 mg gellan gum/kg bw per day, respectively). Repeated oral intake up to 200 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks had no adverse effects in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for gellan gum (E 418), and that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses and use levels of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. The Panel recommended to better define the specifications of gellan gum including the absence of viable cells of the microbial source and the presence of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), protein and residual bacterial enzymatic activities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 μg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 μg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 μg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Whenever new substances are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups, EFSA is requested by the European Commission to perform an assessment of their safety and of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance document should replace the previous guidance issued by the Scientific Committee for Food and published in 2001. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) when used as a food additive. Polyethylene glycols were evaluated by several international bodies and the AFC Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety polyethylene glycol (E 1521). In 2006, the Panel concluded that based on all the data, consumption of PEG through use as plasticisers in film‐coating formulations for food supplement tablets and/or capsules at the intended use level are not of safety concern. In 2007, in another opinion of the AFC Panel related to d‐alpha‐tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) in use for food for particular nutritional purposes, the Panel noted that TPGS intakes would correspond to intake to PEG 1000 at levels equivalent to 3.3–8.5 mg/kg body wieght (bw) per day which are within the range of group acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) of the SCF ( ) and JECFA (1980). This assessment could only take into account the use of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) in food supplements and thus the food supplements consumers only scenario was performed. It resulted in exposure estimates of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) up to 3.5 mg/kg bw per day at the mean and up to 6.1 mg/kg bw per day at the high level. The current exposure assessment is based on the methodology used in the re‐evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2017. Considering the uncertainties of the exposure assessment, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to polyethylene glycol (E 1521). The Panel also noted that the highest calculated exposure estimate falls within the range of the group ADI previously established by SCF (5 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 300–4000) and of the one set by JECFA (10 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 200–10000). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di‐magnesium malate (DMM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of magnesium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of magnesium from this source. Additional information was sought from the applicant during the assessment process. However, despite several requests, the applicant did not provide the additional data. Consequently, the Panel performed this assessment on the basis of the available data and concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as DMM and magnesium malate already authorised as a source of magnesium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DMM as a novel food ingredient. The Panel concluded that based on the data provided it was not possible to assess the dissociation of DMM into magnesium and malic acid. The Panel further concluded that if DMM dissociates, magnesium would be available following ingestion of DMM and the availability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of magnesium already permitted. Finally, the Panel noted that the proposed use levels could result in exposures to magnesium greater than its upper level (UL) (250 mg/day) for food supplements and for food for special medical purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di‐calcium malate (DCM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of calcium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of calcium from this source. The structural formula of the proposed complex is based on expert judgement and not supported by any analytical data. On the basis of the available data, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as di‐calcium malate (DCM) and calcium malate already authorised as a source of calcium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DCM as a novel food ingredient. On the basis of the results provided, the Panel considered that DCM does not completely dissociate into calcium and malic acid. The Panel concluded that when DCM dissociates, calcium would be available following ingestion of DCM and the bioavailability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of calcium already permitted. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that on the basis of the information available it was not possible to calculate the exposure to DCM as a source of calcium to foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and FSMP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of the safety of food‐grade carrageenan (E 407) and processes Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) used as food additives. Because of the structural similarities, the Panel concluded that processed Eucheuma seaweed can be included in the evaluation of food‐grade carrageenan. Poligeenan (average molecular weight 10–20 kDa) has not been authorised as a food additive and is not used in any food applications. In its evaluation of carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a), the Panel noted that the ADME database was sufficient to conclude that carrageenan was not absorbed intact; in a subchronic toxicity study performed with carrageenan almost complying with the EU specification for E 407 in rats, the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) was 3,400–3,900 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested; no adverse effects have been detected in chronic toxicity studies with carrageenan in rats up to 7,500 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there was no concern with respect to the carcinogenicity of carrageenan; carrageenan and processed Eucheuma seaweed did not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity; the NOAEL of sodium and calcium carrageenan for prenatal developmental dietary toxicity studies were the highest dose tested; the safety of processed Eucheuma seaweed was sufficiently covered by the toxicological evaluation of carrageenan; data were adequate for a refined exposure assessment for 41 out of 79 food categories. However, the Panel noted uncertainties as regards the chemistry, the exposure assessment and biological and toxicological data. Overall, taking into account the lack of adequate data to address these uncertainties, the Panel concluded that the existing group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) of 75 mg/kg bw per day should be considered temporary, while the database should be improved within 5 years after publication of this opinion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The EFSA ANS Panel was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins from dietary sources including preparations such as food supplements and infusions. Green tea is produced from the leaves of Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, without fermentation, which prevents the oxidation of polyphenolic components. Most of the polyphenols in green tea are catechins. The Panel considered the possible association between the consumption of (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), the most relevant catechin in green tea, and hepatotoxicity. This scientific opinion is based on published scientific literature, including interventional studies, monographs and reports by national and international authorities and data received following a public 'Call for data'. The mean daily intake of EGCG resulting from the consumption of green tea infusions ranges from 90 to 300 mg/day while exposure by high-level consumers is estimated to be up to 866 mg EGCG/day, in the adult population in the EU. Food supplements containing green tea catechins provide a daily dose of EGCG in the range of 5-1,000 mg/day, for adult population. The Panel concluded that catechins from green tea infusion, prepared in a traditional way, and reconstituted drinks with an equivalent composition to traditional green tea infusions, are in general considered to be safe according to the presumption of safety approach provided the intake corresponds to reported intakes in European Member States. However, rare cases of liver injury have been reported after consumption of green tea infusions, most probably due to an idiosyncratic reaction. Based on the available data on the potential adverse effects of green tea catechins on the liver, the Panel concluded that there is evidence from interventional clinical trials that intake of doses equal or above 800 mg EGCG/day taken as a food supplement has been shown to induce a statistically significant increase of serum transaminases in treated subjects compared to control. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety and bioavailability of silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. Silver hydrosol is a suspension comprised of a mixture of positively charged silver ions and silver metal particles in water. The study report submitted, being a gastric disappearance study performed in six individuals, did not provide information on the systemic absorption of silver as such, and was not able to provide information on the bioavailability of silver from silver hydrosol. If silver from silver hydrosol is systematically available a complete toxicological evaluation is needed for its assessment. The application dossier was limited to an acute toxicity study with silver hydrosol and references to toxicological studies performed with forms of silver (e.g. salts of silver) which were considered neither relevant nor adequate to the risk assessment of silver hydrosol. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to characterise the silver hydrosol regarding its nano specific properties and to assess either the bioavailability of silver from the source or the safety of the silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960). The applicant asked to amend the existing EU specifications for steviol glycosides to allow for the inclusion of all steviol glycosides identified in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves, including both ‘major’ and ‘minor’ glycosides, that may comprise the assay value of not less than 95% total steviol glycosides. According to the applicant, all steviol glycosides are subject to microbial metabolism in a similar manner, ultimately generating the common primary metabolite steviol. There are uncertainties on the rate and extent of the metabolism of different steviol glycosides to steviol in the evidence provided and they did not allow the Panel to endorse the applicant's argumentation that all steviol glycosides generate the common metabolite steviol when subjected to microbial metabolism under realistic conditions. The available information was not sufficient to assess the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for E 960 and the conclusions on the previous assessments on steviol glycosides cannot be extrapolated to any other mixture of steviol glycosides (containing not less than 95% of any steviol glycosides) extracted from S. rebaudiana Bertoni leaves. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the submitted data were insufficient to assess the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that it is very likely that hydrolysis of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids by lipases in the gastrointestinal tract would occur, resulting in the release of glycerol and fatty acids. Glycerol (E 422) and fatty acids (E 570) have been re-evaluated and the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern regarding their use as food additives. Toxicological studies with mono- and di-glycerides rich in unsaturated fatty acids were considered for the re-evaluation of E 471. No evidence for adverse effects was reported in short-term, subchronic studies, chronic, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Neither carcinogenic potential nor a promotion effect in initiation/promotion was reported. The available studies did not raise any concern with regard to genotoxicity. The refined estimates were based on 31 out of 84 food categories in which E 471 is authorised. The Panel noted that the contribution of E 471 represented at the mean only 0.8-3.5% of the recommended daily fat intake. 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 there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) was of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 471. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of konjac (E 425), comprising konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) when used as food additives. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that current use of konjac (E 425) was limited in all food categories to maximum permitted level (MPL) of 10 g/kg, and that the calculated indicative refined exposure assessment for all population groups was below 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the general population (mean and high level). Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were unlikely to be absorbed intact and were significantly fermented by intestinal microbiota. The available database on toxicological studies was considered limited, however, no relevant adverse effects were seen in rats and dogs in 90‐day feeding studies according to the SCF, the no‐observed‐effect level (NOEL) in rats being 1,250 mg konjac glucomannan/kg bw per day. Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were of no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. After a daily dosage of 3,000 mg in adults for 12 weeks, several individuals experienced abdominal discomfort including diarrhoea or constipation. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that there was no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) as food additives under the current conditions of use of 10 g/kg. The Panel agreed with the conclusions of the SCF () that the uses of konjac (E 425) as an additive at the levels up to 10 g/kg in food are acceptable, provided that the total intake from all sources stays below 3 g/day. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive. Tara gum (E 417) has been evaluated by the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF,) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA,), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for this gum. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available for tara gum (E 417). Tara gum (E 417) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is expected to be fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported at the highest doses tested in subchronic, chronic and carcinogenicity studies and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tara gum (E 417) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive. In the EU, tragacanth (E 413) has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF, 1989) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, 1987), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for this gum. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, re-evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Tragacanth (E 413) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is partially fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of tragacanth up to 9,900 mg tragacanth/person per day (approximately equivalent 141 mg tragacanth/kg body weight (bw) per day) for up to 21 days was well tolerated in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tragacanth (E 413) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite (E 250) when used as food additives. The ADIs established by the SCF (1997) and by JECFA (2002) for nitrite were 0-0.06 and 0-0.07 mg/kg bw per day, respectively. The available information did not indicate in vivo genotoxic potential for sodium and potassium nitrite. Overall, an ADI for nitrite per se could be derived from the available repeated dose toxicity studies in animals, also considering the negative carcinogenicity results. The Panel concluded that an increased methaemoglobin level, observed in human and animals, was a relevant effect for the derivation of the ADI. The Panel, using a BMD approach, derived an ADI of 0.07 mg nitrite ion/kg bw per day. The exposure to nitrite resulting from its use as food additive did not exceed this ADI for the general population, except for a slight exceedance in children at the highest percentile. The Panel assessed the endogenous formation of nitrosamines from nitrites based on the theoretical calculation of the NDMA produced upon ingestion of nitrites at the ADI and estimated a MoE > 10,000. The Panel estimated the MoE to exogenous nitrosamines in meat products to be < 10,000 in all age groups at high level exposure. Based on the results of a systematic review, it was not possible to clearly discern nitrosamines produced from the nitrite added at the authorised levels, from those found in the food matrix without addition of external nitrite. In epidemiological studies there was some evidence to link (i) dietary nitrite and gastric cancers and (ii) the combination of nitrite plus nitrate from processed meat and colorectal cancers. There was evidence to link preformed NDMA and colorectal cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Following a request from the European Commission to EFSA, the EFSA Scientific Committee (SC) prepared a guidance for the risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. In its approach to develop this guidance, the EFSA SC took into account, among others, (i) an exposure assessment based on infant formula as the only source of nutrition; (ii) knowledge of organ development in human infants, including the development of the gut, metabolic and excretory capacities, the brain and brain barriers, the immune system, the endocrine and reproductive systems; (iii) the overall toxicological profile of the substance identified through the standard toxicological tests, including critical effects; (iv) the relevance for the human infant of the neonatal experimental animal models used. The EFSA SC notes that during the period from birth up to 16 weeks, infants are expected to be exclusively fed on breast milk and/or infant formula. The EFSA SC views this period as the time where health‐based guidance values for the general population do not apply without further considerations. High infant formula consumption per body weight is derived from 95th percentile consumption. The first weeks of life is the time of the highest relative consumption on a body weight basis. Therefore, when performing an exposure assessment, the EFSA SC proposes to use the high consumption value of 260 mL/kg bw per day. A decision tree approach is proposed that enables a risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age. The additional information needed when testing substances present in food for infants below 16 weeks of age and the approach to be taken for the risk assessment are on a case‐by‐case basis, depending on whether the substance is added intentionally to food and is systemically available.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1248/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was requested from the European Commission to provide a statement on the validity of the conclusions of a mouse study on the carcinogenic potential of sucralose (E 955) performed by the Ramazzini Institute (Soffritti et al., 2016). Sucralose (E 955) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives. According to Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the full re-evaluation of sucralose shall be completed by December 2020. Taking into consideration the publication from Soffritti et al. (2016), the technical report and additional information provided by the Ramazzini Institute and other information available for sucralose (E 955), the Panel noted: (i) the design of the bioassay that considers exposure from gestation up to natural death of animals implies an increase in background pathology that results in the possibility of misclassifications and a difficult interpretation of data, especially in the absence of both an appropriate concurrent control group and a recent historical database; (ii) the lack of a dose-response relationship between the exposure to sucralose and incidence of lymphomas and leukaemias (combined); (iii) the lack of a mode of action and failure to meet all the Bradford-Hill considerations for a cause-effect relationship between intake of sucralose and the development of tumours in male mice only; (iv) a comprehensive database was available for sucralose and no carcinogenic effect was reported in adequate studies in rats and mice. Moreover, there was no reliable evidence of in vivo genotoxicity. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data did not support the conclusions of the authors (Soffritti et al., 2016) that sucralose induced haematopoietic neoplasias in male Swiss mice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added tofood (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive. In the EU, acacia gum has not been formally evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), and therefore, no ADI has been allocated. However, it was accepted for use in weaning food (SCF, 1991). In 1999, the SCF considered 'that the use of acacia gum/gum arabic in coatings for nutrient preparations containing trace elements is acceptable provided carry-over levels in infant formulae, follow-on formulae or FSMP do not exceed 10 mg/kg'. Acacia gum was evaluated by JECFA in 1982 and 1990 and the specifications were amended in 1998. Based on the lack of adverse effects in the available toxicity studies, an ADI 'not specified' was allocated. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re-evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Acacia gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is slightly fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of acacia gum up to 30,000 mg acacia gum/person per day (approximately equivalent 430 mg acacia gum/kg bw per day) for up to 18 days was well tolerated in adults but some individuals experienced flatulence which was considered by the Panel as undesirable but not adverse effect. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for acacia gum (E 414), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of soybean hemicellulose (E 426) as a food additive. Soybean hemicellulose is not absorbed intact, but is extensively fermented by the intestinal microflora in animals and humans. No adverse effects were reported in a 90-day dietary toxicity study in rats at the highest doses tested of 2,430 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for males and 2,910 mg/kg bw per day for females. Furthermore, soybean hemicellulose is not of genotoxic concern. The highest exposure estimates calculated based on the maximum permitted levels were up to 191 mg/kg bw per day for children (95th percentile). Given the limited uses, if any, reported, the Panel considered it probable that the actual dietary exposure to soybean hemicellulose (E 426) would be negligible. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, the Panel concluded that it is very unlikely that there is a safety concern from the current use of soybean hemicellulose (E 426) as a food additive, and that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). The Panel recommended that the amount of residual proteins in E 426 should be reduced as much as possible, and that consumers should be informed of the presence of potentially allergenic proteins in the food additive. © 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. In the EU, guar gum was evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1970, 1974 and 1975, who allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’. Guar gum has been also evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1977 who endorsed the ADI ‘not specified’ allocated by JECFA. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Guar gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested; no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral intake of guar gum was well tolerated in adults. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for guar gum (E 412), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. The Panel considered that for uses of guar gum in foods intended for infants and young children the occurrence of abdominal discomfort should be monitored and if this effect is observed doses should be identified as a basis for further risk assessment. The Panel considered that no adequate specific studies addressing the safety of use of guar gum (E 412) in food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of guar gum (E 412) in infants and young children consuming these foods for special medical purposes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

The Scientific Committee ( SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose ( BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the NOAEL approach for deriving a Reference Point ( RP). Most of the modifications made to the SC guidance of 2009 concern the section providing guidance on how to apply the BMD approach. Model averaging is recommended as the preferred method for calculating the BMD confidence interval, while acknowledging that the respective tools are still under development and may not be easily accessible to all. Therefore, selecting or rejecting models is still considered as a suboptimal alternative. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed, and the Akaike information criterion ( AIC) has been introduced instead of the log-likelihood to characterise the goodness of fit of different mathematical models to a dose-response data set. A flowchart has also been inserted in this update to guide the reader step-by-step when performing a BMD analysis, as well as a chapter on the distributional part of dose-response models and a template for reporting a BMD analysis in a complete and transparent manner. Finally, it is recommended to always report the BMD confidence interval rather than the value of the BMD. The lower bound ( BMDL) is needed as a potential RP, and the upper bound ( BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/ BMDL per ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re-evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 SC guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly smaller (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health-based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the expected wide application of the BMD approach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]