Search

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

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

Abstract The Scientific Committee confirms that the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) is a pragmatic screening and prioritisation tool for use in food safety assessment. This Guidance provides clear step‐by‐step instructions for use of the TTC approach. The inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined and the use of the TTC decision tree is explained. The approach can be used when the chemical structure of the substance is known, there are limited chemical‐specific toxicity data and the exposure can be estimated. The TTC approach should not be used for substances for which EU food/feed legislation requires the submission of toxicity data or when sufficient data are available for a risk assessment or if the substance under consideration falls into one of the exclusion categories. For substances that have the potential to be DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens based on the weight of evidence, the relevant TTC value is 0.0025 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day. For organophosphates or carbamates, the relevant TTC value is 0.3 μg/kg bw per day. All other substances are grouped according to the Cramer classification. The TTC values for Cramer Classes I, II and III are 30 μg/kg bw per day, 9 μg/kg bw per day and 1.5 μg/kg bw per day, respectively. For substances with exposures below the TTC values, the probability that they would cause adverse health effects is low. If the estimated exposure to a substance is higher than the relevant TTC value, a non‐TTC approach is required to reach a conclusion on potential adverse health effects.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the product Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) [FL‐no: 21.002] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 501 (FGE.501), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat‐treated canola oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET) was calculated to be 0.402 and 0.252 mg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and for a 15‐kg child, respectively. Based on exposure estimate and the results from the repeated‐dose toxicity studies, a sufficient margin of safety could be calculated. However, the Panel noted that for six constituents of the flavouring there is an indication for genotoxicity. Therefore, these six substances have to be further considered. Until these evaluations have been finalised the safety of Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) cannot be fully assessed.

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

Abstract The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of the food additive ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) in the light of a new interpretation of the available toxicological data and with respect to the proposed changes to the currently authorised conditions of use. Ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) is an already authorised food additive in the EU for use in heat‐treated meat products only, with some exceptions. The safety of ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) as a food additive has been evaluated in 2007 by EFSA and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) was set. The present assessment is based on a new interpretation of the available data elaborated by the applicant and on exposure estimates calculated by the Panel for both the current and the proposed changes to the authorised uses of this food additive. The Panel considered the new information provided, including the re‐examination of some of the results from the toxicological studies included in the original application dossier submitted for the initial evaluation of ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) in 2007. The Panel concluded that it does not contain new scientific evidence. The concerns and uncertainties expressed in the previous scientific opinions of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Foods (AFC) and Panel on Food additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) remain to be addressed and there is no justification for changing the current ADI. Based on the above, the Panel concluded that the current ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw would be reached in toddlers and children at the 95th percentile already for exposure estimates calculated using the currently permitted maximum level (ML) for ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243). At the proposed new uses and use levels, the ADI would be exceeded at mean level of consumption in all age groups.

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

Abstract This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended.

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on Quillaia extract (E 999) when used as a food additive and the evaluation of the safety of its proposed extension of use as a food additive in flavourings. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1978 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–5 mg spray‐dried extract/kg body weight (bw) per day for E 999. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established in its latest evaluation a group ADI of 0–1 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as quillaia saponins, for Quillaia extract for Type 1 and Type 2. The Panel considered it likely that intact Quillaia extract saponins are absorbed to a low extent, are hydrolysed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that the aglycone is absorbed only to a limited extent. The Panel considered that the genotoxicity data available did not indicate a concern for genotoxicity. Taking into account the available toxicological database, various no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) relevant for the derivation of an ADI were identified. The Panel considered that the 2‐year study in rats was the most robust and that the NOAEL of 1,500 mg Quillaia extract/kg bw per day could be used to derive the ADI for E 999. Considering that the adverse effects reported were due to the presence of saponins in the extract, that saponins were present in Quillaia extract Type 1 (around 20%) and using an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel derived a ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. None of the exposure estimates for the different population groups of the refined brand‐loyal scenario exceeded the ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day. The proposed extension of use also would not result in an exceedance of this ADI for the refined scenario. The Panel proposed some recommendations for the European Commission to consider, in particular revising the EU specifications for E 999 in order to differentiate the extracts of Quillaia according to the saponins content and to include other parameters to better characterise the food additive.

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

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

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

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

Abstract EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2‐(4‐methylphenoxy)‐N‐(1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yl)‐N‐(thiophen‐2‐ylmethyl)acetamide [FL‐no: 16.133], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food but not intended to be used in beverages, except for milk and dairy based beverages that are opaque. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 225 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 142 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. A 90‐day oral gavage study in rats showed no adverse effects at doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.133], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach and based on the recommended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix B. This conclusion does not apply for use in beverages where the substance can be subject to phototransformation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract To meet the general requirement for transparency in EFSA's work, all its scientific assessments must consider uncertainty. Assessments must say clearly and unambiguously what sources of uncertainty have been identified and what is their impact on the assessment conclusion. This applies to all EFSA's areas, all types of scientific assessment and all types of uncertainty affecting assessment. This current Opinion describes the principles and methods supporting a concise Guidance Document on Uncertainty in EFSA's Scientific Assessment, published separately. These documents do not prescribe specific methods for uncertainty analysis but rather provide a flexible framework within which different methods may be selected, according to the needs of each assessment. Assessors should systematically identify sources of uncertainty, checking each part of their assessment to minimise the risk of overlooking important uncertainties. Uncertainty may be expressed qualitatively or quantitatively. It is neither necessary nor possible to quantify separately every source of uncertainty affecting an assessment. However, assessors should express in quantitative terms the combined effect of as many as possible of identified sources of uncertainty. The guidance describes practical approaches. Uncertainty analysis should be conducted in a flexible, iterative manner, starting at a level appropriate to the assessment and refining the analysis as far as is needed or possible within the time available. The methods and results of the uncertainty analysis should be reported fully and transparently. Every EFSA Panel and Unit applied the draft Guidance to at least one assessment in their work area during a trial period of one year. Experience gained in this period resulted in improved guidance. The Scientific Committee considers that uncertainty analysis will be unconditional for EFSA Panels and staff and must be embedded into scientific assessment in all areas of EFSA's work.

Abstract Uncertainty analysis is the process of identifying limitations in scientific knowledge and evaluating their implications for scientific conclusions. It is therefore relevant in all EFSA's scientific assessments and also necessary, to ensure that the assessment conclusions provide reliable information for decision‐making. The form and extent of uncertainty analysis, and how the conclusions should be reported, vary widely depending on the nature and context of each assessment and the degree of uncertainty that is present. This document provides concise guidance on how to identify which options for uncertainty analysis are appropriate in each assessment, and how to apply them. It is accompanied by a separate, supporting opinion that explains the key concepts and principles behind this Guidance, and describes the methods in more detail.

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to provide advice on the following: (1) the suitability of the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in vivo assay to follow‐up positive results in in vitro gene mutation tests; (2) the adequacy to demonstrate target tissue exposure in in vivo studies, particularly in the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; (3) the use of data in a weight‐of‐evidence approach to conclude on the genotoxic potential of substances and the consequent setting of health‐based guidance values. The Scientific Committee concluded that the first question should be addressed in both a retrospective and a prospective way: for future assessments, it is recommended no longer performing the UDS test. For re‐assessments, if the outcome of the UDS is negative, the reliability and significance of results should be carefully evaluated in a weight‐of‐evidence approach, before deciding whether more sensitive tests such as transgenic assay or in vivo comet assay would be needed to complete the assessment. Regarding the second question, the Scientific Committee concluded that it should be addressed in lines of evidence of bone marrow exposure: toxicity to the bone marrow in itself provides sufficient evidence to allow concluding on the validity of a negative outcome of a study. All other lines of evidence of target tissue exposure should be assessed within a weight‐of‐evidence approach. Regarding the third question, the Scientific Committee concluded that any available data that may assist in reducing the uncertainty in the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a substance should be taken into consideration. If the overall evaluation leaves no concerns for genotoxicity, health‐based guidance values may be established. However, if concerns for genotoxicity remain, establishing health‐based guidance values is not considered appropriate.

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

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

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