Search

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

As a follow-up to the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (SSOS; E 1450), the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of SSOS (E 1450) when used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age for food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.1 and to address the data gaps identified during the re-evaluation of the SSOS (E 1450). The process involved the publication of a call for data. The Panel considered it feasible to amend the specifications based on the analytical evidence submitted. In the call for data, clinical trials were submitted to support the safe use in this age group. In addition, the report of a postnatal piglet study was provided. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them. The Panel noted that the uncertainty surrounding the results of the piglet study precludes deriving a reference point from this study. On the other hand, both data sources did not clearly indicate an adverse effect due to SSOS (E 1450). Given the available data, the Panel concluded that at use levels of SSOS in food for infants below 16 weeks within the range reported in the clinical studies (up to 2,725 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day), there is no indication for safety concern and reiterated the conclusion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). When extrapolating this conclusion to the safety assessment of the food additive when used in food categories (FCs) 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 in food for infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the Panel considered that there is no indication for safety concern also for these uses within the range reported in the clinical studies., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201, PVP) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202, PVPP) when used as food additives. One request for extension of use of PVP (E 1201) in foods for special medical purposes was also considered in this assessment. The Panel followed the conceptual framework under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and considered that: the exposure assessment was based on the reported use and use levels (one food category out of the two food categories in which PVP and PVPP are authorised); the 95th percentile of exposure to PVP and PVPP of maximally 23.7 and 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children, respectively, was overestimated, because it was assumed that 100% of the food supplements consumed contained PVP or PVPP at the maximum reported use levels; the extension of use of PVP (E 1201) to foods for special medical purposes (FC 13.2) would result in an exposure of PVP of 4.3 mg/kg bw per day for children; the absorption of PVP and PVPP is very low; sufficient toxicity data were available for PVP; there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of PVP and PVPP; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in rats at a dose of 2,500 mg PVP/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there is no need for chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity data for PVPP for the safety assessment of PVPP given the chemical similarity between PVP and PVPP, and the lack of adverse effects in the available repeated dose toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for PVP and PVPP, and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of PVP and PVPP as food additives. The Panel further concluded that the proposed extension of use is not expected to be of safety concern at the proposed maximum permitted level (MPL) and recommended consumption level., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re-evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre-systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty-four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91: two ([FL-no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL-no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL-no: 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL-no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL-no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL-no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL-no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) assigned these food additives together with other aluminium-containing food additives a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 7 mg aluminium/kg body weight (bw). In 2008, EFSA established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw per week. Sodium aluminium silicate was shown in rats to be absorbed to a limited extent at 0.12 ± 0.011%. The Panel considered that potassium aluminium silicate would be absorbed and become systemically available similarly to sodium aluminium silicate. No information on the physicochemical characterisation of sodium aluminium silicate and potassium aluminium silicate when used as food additives has been submitted and only very limited toxicological data were available for sodium aluminium silicate. Exposure to E 554 was calculated based on the reported use levels in food supplements. Exposure to aluminium from this use of E 554 was calculated to exceed the TWI for aluminium. Based on the data provided by interested business operators, the Panel considered that E 555 is not being used as a carrier, but as an inseparable component of 'potassium aluminium silicate-based pearlescent pigments'. The Panel calculated the regulatory maximum exposure to E 555 as a carrier for titanium dioxide (E 171) and iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172). Exposure to aluminium from this single use at the maximum permitted level could theoretically far exceed the TWI. Considering that only very limited toxicological data and insufficient information on the physicochemical characterisation of both food additives were available, the Panel concluded that the safety of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) could not be assessed., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive. E 900 was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and agreed with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. Dimethyl polysiloxane was only absorbed to a very limited extent from the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration and the vast majority was excreted unchanged in the faeces. Corneal opacities and other effects on cornea were observed in studies in rats. These effects are considered to be caused by direct contact with the test substance in the feed and/or with the test substance in the faeces and not due to systemic exposure. The Panel considered that oral exposure of dimethyl polysiloxane did not result in any systemic adverse effects in any species and dose tested and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). From a 26-month toxicity study in rats, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,742 and 2,055 mg dimethyl polysiloxane/kg bw per day for female and male, respectively, was identified. Using the NOAEL 1,742 mg/kg bw per day, the Panel established an ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900 by applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Accordingly, the ADI for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) of 1.5 mg/kg bw per day, established by SCF in 1990, is withdrawn. The exposure estimates for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900. The Panel concluded that there is not a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations for the EU specifications to be amended., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read-across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive. The previously evaluated toxicological studies were not available, in addition to no genotoxicity data being available. Thus, adequate toxicity data on stearyl tartrate were not available for its re-evaluation. In addition, adequate data demonstrating the complete hydrolysis of stearyl tartrate (E 483) in the gastrointestinal tract and/or presystemically, that could allow read-across from data on its constituents, were lacking. Therefore, the safety of the use of stearyl tartrate as a food additive could not be assessed and the acceptable intake established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1978 could not be confirmed. Exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) was calculated using the maximum level exposure assessment scenario as neither use levels nor analytical data were available. Mean exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive ranged from 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 82.5 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in adults to 192.7 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel also noted that information from the Mintel's GNPD indicates that only two products have been labelled with stearyl tartrate (E 483) since 1996. Some recommendations were proposed by the Panel., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of acetic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, mono- and diacetyltartaric acids, mixed acetic and tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472a-f) as food additives. All substances had been previously evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Hydrolysis of E472a,b,c,e was demonstrated in various experimental systems, although the available data on absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) were limited. The Panel assumed that E472a-f are extensively hydrolysed in the GI tract and/or (pre-)systemically after absorption into their individual hydrolysis products which are all normal dietary constituents and are metabolised or excreted intact. No adverse effects relevant for humans have been identified from the toxicological database available for E472a-f. The Panel considered that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for E 472a,b,c. The Panel also considered that only l(+)-tartaric acid has to be used in the manufacturing process of E472d,e,f. The Panel established ADIs for E 472d,e,f based on the group ADI of 240 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as tartaric acid, for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E334-337, 354) and considering the total amount of l(+)-tartaric acid in each food additive. Exposure estimates were calculated for all food additives individually, except for E 472e and f, using maximum level, refined exposure and food supplements consumers only scenarios. Considering the exposure estimates, there is no safety concern at their reported uses and use levels. In addition, exposure to tartaric acid released from the use of E 472d,e,f was calculated. The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of metatartaric acid (E 353) when used as a food additive. Metatartaric acid (E 353) had been previously evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Based on the presumption that metatartaric acid is fully hydrolysed pre-systemically to l(+)-tartaric acid, the Panel concluded that metatartaric acid (E 353) should be included in the group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 240 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as tartaric acid, for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337, 354) which was established by the EFSA FAF Panel in 2020. Exposure estimates were calculated for metatartaric acid (E 353) using a maximum level and refined exposure assessment scenario. The Panel also concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of metatartaric acid (E 353) at the reported use and use level. The Panel made a number of recommendations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337, 354) when used as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1990 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, for l(+)-tartaric acid and its potassium and sodium salts. The metabolism of l(+)-tartaric acid and its potassium sodium salt was shown to be species dependent, with a greater absorption in rats than in humans. No toxic effects, including nephrotoxicity, were observed in toxicological studies in which the l(+)-form was tested. There was no indication for a genotoxic potential of tartaric acid and its sodium and potassium salts. In a chronic study in rats, no indication for carcinogenicity of monosodium l(+)-tartrate was reported at the highest dose tested (3,100 mg/kg bw per day). The available studies for maternal or developmental toxicity did not report any relevant effects; no studies for reproductive toxicity were available; however, no effects on reproductive organs were observed in the chronic toxicity study. The Panel concluded that the data on systemic availability were robust enough to derive a chemical-specific uncertainty factor instead of the usual default uncertainty factor of 100. A total uncertainty factor of 10 was derived by applying a total interspecies uncertainty factor of 1 instead of 10, based on data showing lower internal exposure in humans compared to rats. The Panel established a group ADI for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337 and E 354) of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid, by applying the total uncertainty factor of 10 to the reference point of 3,100 mg sodium tartrate/kg bw per day, approximately to 2,440 mg tartaric acid/kg bw per day. The exposure estimates for the different population groups for the refined non-brand-loyal exposure scenario did not exceed the group ADI of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid. Some recommendations were made by the Panel., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 31 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 substances more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) when used as a food additive. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene is of low acute toxicity and does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, were not available; therefore, the Panel based the derivation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) identified in the subchronic study in rats and established an ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day. Dietary exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario . Mean exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive ranged from no exposure in infants to 2.35 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants and adults to 6.69 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The exposure estimates in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario did not exceed the ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) does not raise a safety concern when used at the maximum permitted levels., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 39 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.020 and 05.076], the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 12 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 215, Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1). In FGE.215, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requested in vivo data for the two representative substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.024] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030]. The Flavour Industry has provided additional genotoxicity studies for both representative substances [FL-no: 07.024] and [FL-no: 07.030]. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for the representative substance [FL-no: 07.024] and for the structurally related substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-ol [FL-no: 02.066] and 3-methyl-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.027] which can accordingly be evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.69. For the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030], the Panel concluded that [FL-no: 07.030] is aneugenic in vitro . For such substances, there is currently no agreed follow-up strategy to finalise their safety assessment. The Panel is aware that the EFSA Scientific Committee is going to address this issue and a statement clarifying the assessment of in vitro aneugenic substances is under preparation. The Panel concluded therefore that, for the time being, the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030] and the structurally related substances vanillylidene acetone [FL-no: 07.046] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4-methylpent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.049] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. The Panel further concluded that 4-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.206] is to be considered as a stand-alone substance due to the presence of the methyl groups, therefore, in vitro genotoxicity data were requested for [FL-no: 07.206]. Industry communicated that the evaluation of [FL-no: 07.206] is not supported any longer, therefore additional data were not submitted., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) 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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the flavouring substances from subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 (FGE.204). In the present revision of this FGE (FGE.204Rev1), the FAF Panel evaluated new data provided by Industry following a request from the former Panel on Food Contact materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel). This request followed from positive results in an in vitro micronucleus test for clastogenicity and a negative result, but with no proof of bone marrow exposure, in an in vivo micronucleus assay for the representative substance 7-methyl-3-octenone-2 [FL-no: 07.177]. Subsequently, the Industry submitted an in vivo comet assay which was considered equivocal in the liver. The study was repeated confirming that 7-methyl-3-octenone-2 [FL-no: 07.177] did not induce primary DNA damage in the liver and duodenum. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for [FL-no: 07.177] and the 15 structurally related substances [FL-no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.187, 07.188, 07.244, 07.258] which can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 29 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 70 (FGE.70), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Seven substances have already been considered in FGE.70 [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. The remaining 22 substances [FL-no: 02.049, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172, 09.947, 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.057, 05.064, 05.071, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.140, 05.141, 05.173 and 09.573] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and FGE.203Rev2 and are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 29 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 09.371 and 09.840]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Data on the identity and contents of secondary components should be requested for [FL no: 09.260]. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for seven flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. For six flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.057, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172 and 09.947] further information is required based on the comparison of the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This includes more reliable data on use and use levels and then, if required, additional toxicological data., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings 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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings 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]., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings 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(5 H )-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(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.023] and the structurally related substance 3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethylfuran-2(5 H )-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(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.066] and 3,4-dimethyl-5-pentylidenefuran-2(5 H )-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(5 H )-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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings 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., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2-(4-methylphenoxy)- N -(1 H -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., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of poly(( R )-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-( R )-3-hydroxyhexanoate), Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) No 147398-31-0 and food contact material (FCM) substance No 1059, for contact with dry/solid food. This biodegradable (co)polymer is produced by fermentation of palm oil using a genetically modified microorganism ( Cupriavidus necator ). No migration of oligomers into food simulant E (10 days at 40 and 60°C) was found at a detection limit per single oligomer of 5 μg/kg food. Migration of the degradation product crotonic acid was 8 and 25 μg/kg at the two test temperatures, respectively. The other migrating substances detected, ■■■■■, likely originated from or are related to the authorised substance (FCM No. 9) 'palm oil and/or palm fatty acid distillate' used as carbon source for the fermentation. At the migration levels reported, these migrants do not give rise to safety concern. No genotoxicity data are required for poly(( R )-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-( R )-3-hydroxyhexanoate) because of its high molecular weight. The fraction below 1,000 Da is 0.5%. The major monomeric unit in the copolymer, 3-hydroxybutyric acid, is an intermediate in fatty acid metabolism. The minor monomeric unit, 3-hydroxyhexanoic acid, tested negative for bacterial gene mutations. Degradation products, which may be present in the (co)polymer, are crotonic acid and ( E )-2-hexenoic acid. Crotonic acid is authorised for use in FCM with a specific migration limit (SML) of 0.05 mg/kg food; for ( E )-2-hexenoic acid, no indication for genotoxicity was identified by the EFSA CEF Panel in its 2010 group evaluation of flavouring substances in FGE.05Rev2. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance poly(( R )-3-hydroxybutyrate-co-( R )-3-hydroxyhexanoate) is not of safety concern if used alone or in blends with other polymers for contact with dry/solid food. If the SML of crotonic acid is met, migration of ( E )-2-hexenoic acid will also not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 1.1.4 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 203 Revision 2 (FGE.203Rev2). In FGE. 203 Revision 1, the Panel concluded that the genotoxic potential could not be ruled out for the flavouring substances in this FGE. The Flavour Industry provided additional genotoxicity studies for the representative substances of FGE.19 subgroup 1.1.4, namely deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] and hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057]. In addition, new studies on hepta-2,4-dienal [FL-no: 05.084], 2,4-octadienal [FL-no: 05.186] and tr-2,tr-4-nonadienal [FL-no: 05.194] were provided that are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.203, i.e. FGE.203Rev2. Hepta-2,4-dienal [FL-no: 05.084], 2,4-octadienal [FL-no: 05.186] and tr-2,tr-4-nonadienal [FL-no: 05.194] did not induce gene mutations in bacteria. Hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] did not induce gene mutations in vitro in mammalian cells. Hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] was also tested in an in vivo gene mutation assay giving negative results. Both hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] and deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] were tested in vivo for the induction of micronuclei in rats bone marrow and peripheral reticulocytes after oral or intraperitoneal administration. None of the two substances induced increased frequencies of micronuclei. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for the representative substances hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] and deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] and therefore also for the other substances in this group [FL-no: 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.064, 05.071, 05.081, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.141, 05.173, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196, 09.573]. These 20 substances can be evaluated using the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Gneuss 1 (EU register No RECYC0143). The input is washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, containing no more than 5% of PET from non-food applications. They are extruded under vacuum into pellets or sheets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the decontamination in the extruder under vacuum degassing is the critical step for the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control its performance are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time, throughput rate, rotor speed and satellite screws speed. The operating parameters of this step are at least as severe as those obtained from the challenge test. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the recycled PET obtained from the process Gneuss 1 intended for the manufacture of articles made with up to 100% recycled post-consumer PET and intended for contact for long-term storage at room temperature with all types of foodstuffs is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Gneuss 2 (EU register No RECYC0144). The input is washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, containing no more than 5% of PET from non-food applications. They are extruded under vacuum into pellets or sheets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the decontamination in the extruder under vacuum degassing is the critical step for the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control its performance are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time, throughput rate, the rotor speed and the satellite screws speed. The operating parameters of this step are at least as severe as those obtained from the challenge test. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the recycled PET obtained from the process Gneuss 2 intended for the manufacture of articles made with up to 90% recycled post-consumer PET and intended for contact for long-term storage at room temperature with all types of foodstuffs is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. For the following substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of this FGE is on the assessment of recently submitted toxicity data on methyl propyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.020], being the representative for a group of seven additional flavouring substances: diallyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.009], dimethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.013], dipropyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.023], methyl allyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.045], diallyl polysulfides [FL-no: 12.074], methyl ethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.155] and diisopropyl trisulphide [FL-no: 12.280]. Specifications have been provided for all substances. The Panel decided that the 90-day study submitted for [FL-no: 12.020] can be considered only once it is clearly demonstrated that the material tested is representative of the material of commerce and that potential reaction products of the components are not of safety concern. Therefore, no conclusion on the safety of the eight flavouring substances [FL-no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155 and 12.280] can be reached. For 2-methyl-4-oxopentane-2-thiol [FL-no: 12.169] and 2-mercapto-2-methylpentan-1-ol [FL-no: 12.241], additional subchronic toxicity data are required. The remaining nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] in this FGE are not considered of safety concern under the intended conditions of use., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the use of the substance ( S )-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1 H -benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one [FL-no: 16.129], as a flavouring substance. The substance is intended to be used in the form of its sodium salt as a flavour modifier in beverages. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] would not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity under conditions where it remains stable and does not undergo photodegradation. However, the data provided do not rule out genotoxicity for the degradation products. A 90-day toxicity study with [FL-no: 16.129] in rats showed no adverse effects at exposure up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No developmental toxicity was observed in rats at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. An adequate margin of safety was calculated for [FL-no: 16.129]. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] and its sodium salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of intake. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier at levels up to those specified in beverages, but not to the degradation products that may be formed upon exposure to ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light. The conditions protecting [FL-no: 16.129] from photodegradation have not been adequately investigated. It is also unclear if degradation occurs in the absence of UV light. Based on the data provided, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of [FL-no: 16.129] when used as a flavour modifier., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4',5,7-trihydroxyflavanone or naringenin [FL-no: 16.132], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 410 (FGE.410), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance occurs naturally in grapefruits, oranges and tomatoes. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance with flavour-modifying properties in specific categories of food. Information on specifications and manufacturing of [FL-no: 16.132] were considered adequate; however, data on stability in food are incomplete. The Panel noted that the available genotoxicity studies have significant shortcomings and are insufficient to conclude on the genotoxic potential of naringenin. Therefore, [FL-no: 16.132] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. Additionally, the Panel noted that inhibition of CYP 450 by [FL-no: 16.132] has been clearly demonstrated in animal species in vivo which implies that the substance may interact with the metabolism and elimination of medicines and no convincing information is available that this does not pose a risk to humans at the estimated levels of exposure. To continue with the safety assessment of [FL-no: 16.132], a bacterial gene mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay (according to OECD guidelines 471, 487 and GLP) are required. Even if these studies do not indicate a genotoxic potential, additional toxicological data are needed to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Benzophenone [FL-no: 07.032] has been evaluated as a flavouring substance, in FGE.69, by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food in 2008. Benzophenone was evaluated also by JECFA (2011) and by IARC (2013) based on studies that were not considered in the EFSA opinion on FGE.69. Therefore, the Commission requested the CEF Panel to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of this flavouring substance. In the framework of the evaluation of benzophenone as a food contact material, the CEF Panel established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day (2009). In the present Opinion, the Panel considered the already existing evaluations by EFSA, JECFA, IARC and available literature data on benzophenone toxicity. Moreover, new data on the use levels of benzophenone as a flavouring substance have been provided. The Panel considers that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The Panel considers the endocrine activities of benzophenone and its metabolite 4-hydroxybenzophenone as weak and not directly related to the observed toxic effects including the neoplastic effects in rodents. The Panel confirms that the conservative approach taken by EFSA (2009) to derive a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg bw for benzophenone is appropriate to cover the non-neoplastic effects in the chronic toxicity studies and the neoplastic effects induced in the rodent carcinogenicity studies. The TDI is in the same order of magnitude as the chronic dietary exposure of adults and children to benzophenone (10-20 μg/kg bw per day) for the amount of added flavouring substance. The Panel considers that the calculated TDI and exposure estimate are based on conservative assumptions. The Panel concludes that there is no safety concern for benzophenone under the current condition of use as a flavouring substance., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested by the European Commission according to Art. 29 1(a) of the Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] when used as a flavouring substance. Ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] was evaluated in 2010 by EFSA in FGE.71 as a flavouring substance, based on the 2006 JECFA evaluation. The Panel concluded that ethyl acrylate was of no safety concern at estimated level of intake as flavouring substance based on the Maximised Survey-Derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. The Panel has evaluated the new literature available and any previous assessments performed by JECFA (2006) and EFSA (2010). Moreover, new data on the use levels of ethyl acrylate as flavouring substance have been provided. For use as flavouring substance, the chronic dietary exposure estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 3,545 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 2,233 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. Exposure from food contact materials may be up to 6,000 μg/person per day. The Panel considered that based on the available data, which covers all relevant genetic endpoints (i.e. gene mutations, structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations) there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of ethyl acrylate. The Panel evaluated the available carcinogenicity studies conducted in rats and mice and agreed with the NTP evaluation (1998) concluding that the forestomach squamous cell papilloma and carcinoma observed in rodents were not relevant to humans. Additionally, there was no evidence of systemic toxicity in short-term and subchronic toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of ethyl acrylate as a flavouring substance, under the intended conditions of use., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of FGE.73 concerns the inclusion of four additional flavouring substances ( p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302]) evaluated by JECFA at the 59th meeting. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach integrating information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological thresholds of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated 22 and one candidate substances via the A and the B-side of the Procedure, respectively, and concluded for all substances 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Adequate specifications, including complete purity criteria and identity data, are available for 22 out of the 23 JECFA substances evaluated in this FGE. For [FL-no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For the six substances with [FL-no: 02.060, 02.091, 09.034, 09.278, 09.302 and 09.712] evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For two substances [FL-no: 09.034, and 09.712], the mTAMDI estimates were above the TTC for their structural class and more detailed information is needed to finalise their evaluation. For the remaining 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment in order to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific evaluation on the risk to human health of the presence of furan and methylfurans (2-methylfuran, 3-methylfuran and 2,5-dimethylfuran) in food. They are formed in foods during thermal processing and can co-occur. Furans are produced from several precursors such as ascorbic acid, amino acids, carbohydrates, unsaturated fatty acids and carotenoids, and are found in a variety of foods including coffee and canned and jarred foods. Regarding furan occurrence, 17,056 analytical results were used in the evaluation. No occurrence data were received on methylfurans. The highest exposures to furan were estimated for infants, mainly from ready-to-eat meals. Grains and grain-based products contribute most for toddlers, other children and adolescents. In adults, elderly and very elderly, coffee is the main contributor to dietary exposure. Furan is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is found in highest amounts in the liver. It has a short half-life and is metabolised by cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) to the reactive metabolite, cis -but-2-ene-1,4-dialdehyde (BDA). BDA can bind covalently to amino acids, proteins and DNA. Furan is hepatotoxic in rats and mice with cholangiofibrosis in rats and hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in mice being the most prominent effects. There is limited evidence of chromosomal damage in vivo and a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanism. Clear evidence for indirect mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis include oxidative stress, gene expression alterations, epigenetic changes, inflammation and increased cell proliferation. The CONTAM Panel used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk characterisation using as a reference point a benchmark dose lower confidence limit for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.064 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of cholangiofibrosis in the rat. The calculated MOEs indicate a health concern. This conclusion was supported by the calculated MOEs for the neoplastic effects., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin' CB-200SF [FL-no: 21.004] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 503, 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 high oleic sunflower oil, and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a substantial amount of the non-volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15-kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still eight substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time-temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin' CB-200SF cannot be established., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin' 5078 [FL-no: 21.003] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 502, 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 high oleic sunflower oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a considerable amount of the non-volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15-kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still 12 substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time-temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin' 5078 cannot be established., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring rum ether [FL-no: 21.001] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 500 (FGE.500), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Rum ether is a complex mixture of volatile substances obtained by distillation of the reaction products of pyroligneous acid and ethyl alcohol under oxidative conditions in the presence of manganese dioxide and sulfuric acid. A total of 84 volatile constituents have been reported by the applicant. It is a colourless liquid with a rum-like odour and flavour. Its major uses are in the food categories beverages, confectionery and baked goods. The Panel decided to apply a congeneric group-based approach. The 84 reported constituents were allocated to 12 congeneric groups, based on structural and metabolic similarity. For eight of the congeneric groups, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the intended conditions of use. However, the Panel concluded that substances in congeneric group 1 (ethanol and acetaldehyde) and congeneric group 12 (furan) are carcinogenic and genotoxic. The Panel also identified genotoxicity concerns for substances in congeneric group 3 (3-pentene-2-one). The exposure for congeneric group 10 (ethers of various structures) was above the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) applicable for this group, but a point of departure or health based guidance value that covers all the substances in this group could not be identified. The Panel concluded that according to the overall strategy for the risk assessment of flavouring substances, the presence of genotoxic substances as process-derived constituents of rum ether is of safety concern., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process PEGRA-V (EU register number RECYC0137), which is based on the Starlinger IV+ ® technology. The input of the process is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, containing no more than 5% of PET from non-food consumer applications. In this technology, washed PET flakes are dried and crystallised in a reactor, then extruded into pellets which are further crystallised in a second reactor. Crystallised pellets are then preheated in a third reactor and fed to the solid-state polycondensation (SSP) reactor. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the three steps, drying and crystallisation, extrusion and crystallisation and SSP are the critical steps that determine the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters that control their performance are well defined and they are the temperature, the gas flow and the residence time for the drying and crystallisation step, and the temperature, the pressure and the residence time for the extrusion and crystallisation step and the SSP step. Under these conditions, it was demonstrated that the recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process intended to be used up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long-term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill, is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used, and should not to be used in microwave and conventional ovens., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety assessment of the flavouring substances caffeine [FL-no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL-no: 16.032] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 49, Revision 1. Consequent to the 2015 scientific opinion from the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the safety of caffeine from all dietary sources, the CEF Panel considered it inappropriate to evaluate the two substances through the Procedure. For caffeine, the Panel based its assessment on the safety threshold of 5.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults, except pregnant/lactating women, and 3 mg/kg bw per day for children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, as established by the NDA Panel. The safety evaluation of theobromine takes into account that approximately 11% of an oral dose of caffeine is metabolised to theobromine and that both substances have a similar pharmacological profile. For the exposure assessment, a brand loyalty model was chosen. In this model, it was assumed that a consumer is exposed on a long-term basis to a specific category of food (i.e. non-alcoholic beverages), containing caffeine or theobromine at their respective maximum use levels. For the rest of the categories, normal use levels applied. Daily dietary exposure to caffeine and theobromine (excluding systemic exposure) added as a chemically defined flavouring substance ranged 0-2.3 and 0-0.4 mg/kg bw, respectively, across all population groups. The Panel concluded that caffeine [FL-no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL-no: 16.032] would not be expected to present safety concern based on their estimated levels of intake from their use as flavouring substances., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate N -(2-methylcyclohexyl)-2,3,4,5,6-pentafluoro-benzamide [FL-no: 16.119] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 302, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The substance is intended to be used as a flavour modifier and the current evaluation is only applicable to this use. Information on the ratios of diastereoisomers of the substance has been provided ( cis 20-40% and trans 60-80%). Information on the ratio of enantiomers is lacking. The available data on genotoxicity do not preclude the evaluation of the candidate substance [FL-no: 16.119] through the Procedure. The substance was evaluated through the B-side of the Procedure. A 'No Observed Adverse Effect Level' (NOAEL) of 55 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day could be derived for [FL-no: 16.119] from a 90-day subchronic toxicity study in rats. This NOAEL provides an adequate margin of safety of 1.4 × 10 6 , based on the 'Maximised Survey-Derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) of 2.4 μg/capita per day. Based on the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) approach, the Panel concluded that more information is needed on use and use levels. Besides the safety assessment of this flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered. Additional information on the stereoisomeric composition of the flavouring substance is required., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of four flavouring substances consisting of isopulegone and three other substances evaluated by JECFA at the 55th meeting. This revision is made due to additional toxicity data available for (1 R ,2 S ,5 R )-isopulegol [FL-no: 02.067]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. p -Mentha-1,4(8)-dien-3-one [FL-no: 07.127] is no longer supported by the flavour industry and was not evaluated. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated the candidate substances in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE) via the B-side of the Procedure. Based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a 90-day oral toxicity study on [FL-no: 02.067], adequate margins of safety for the three candidate substances could be calculated. Therefore, the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For the three substances evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For [FL-no: 02.067 and 07.067], the mTAMDI exceeds the toxicological threshold of concern for their structural classes and need more refined exposure assessment to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate 53 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07, including four new substances but-3-en-2-ol, non-1-en-e-ol, hex-1-en-3-one and 1-nonene-3-one [FL-nos: 02.131, 02.187, 07.161 and 07.210] in this Revision 5, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. None of the 53 substances was considered to have genotoxic potential. 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 all 53 substances do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For 50 substances, further information is required based on comparison of the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety assessment of the mixture of methyl-branched and linear C 14 -C 18 alkanamides, derived from fatty acids, for use in food contact materials as a slip or release agent at up to 1% w/w in polyolefins. The final materials are intended for contact with foodstuffs other than fatty foods for long-term storage at room temperature including short heating. No thermal degradation of the substance is expected under manufacturing process conditions of polyolefins. Specific migration from low-density polyethylene (LDPE) made with 0.37% of the substance into 3% acetic acid and 10% ethanol was up to 0.68 mg/kg. Based on negative results in a bacterial mutation test and in an in vivo micronucleus test, there was no evidence of a genotoxic potential of the substance. Impurities were determined and the main ones were tested in a bacterial mutation test giving negative results. Along with the negative results from the in vivo micronucleus test on the substance containing the impurities, there was no evidence of a genotoxic potential of the impurities. Based on a 28-day study on the substance, the Panel noted that there is sufficient margin of safety between the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) and the maximum exposure of consumers that could occur at a migration level of 5 mg/kg food, to cover uncertainties about toxic effects due to potential accumulation of slowly hydrolysed branched amide species of the substance during chronic exposure. The CEF Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for consumers if it is used in the manufacture of polyolefin articles intended for contact with all foodstuffs other than fatty foods and the migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. The 5 mg/kg food migration should not apply to n -stearamide., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 29 aliphatic secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA at the 59th and 69th meetings in 2002 and 2008. This revision is made due to the inclusion of nine additional substances cleared for genotoxicity concern in FGE.205 Revision 1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel agrees with the application of the Procedure as performed by JECFA for all 29 substances considered in this FGE. For all substances, the Panel concludes that there is 'no safety concern at the estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances based on the MSDI approach'. For all 29 substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Ten out of the 14 substances for which use levels became available exceed the modified theoretical added maximum daily intake (mTAMDI) and more reliable exposure data are required to finalise their evaluation. On the basis of such data, additional toxicological data might become necessary. For 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4-amino-5-(3-(isopropylamino)-2,2-dimethyl-3-oxopropoxy)-2-methylquinoline-3-carboxylic acid [FL-no: 16.130], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 407 (FGE.407), 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 both the parent compound and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt as a flavouring substance with modifying properties in specific categories of food. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 882 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 547 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. A 90-day dietary administration study in rats showed no adverse effects for 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 [FL-no: 16.130] and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier as requested and when used at the levels as specified for foods from different food categories., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Melamine can be present at low levels in food and feed mostly from its legal use as a food contact material in laminates and plastics, as a trace contaminant in nitrogen supplements used in animal feeds, and as a metabolite of the pesticide cyromazine. The mechanism of toxicity of melamine involves dose-dependent formation of crystals with either endogenous uric acid or a structural analogue of melamine, cyanuric acid, in renal tubules resulting in potential acute kidney failure. Co-exposure to melamine and cyanuric acid in livestock, fish, pets and laboratory animals shows higher toxicity compared with melamine or cyanuric acid alone. Evidence for crystal formation between melamine and other structural analogs i.e. ammelide and ammeline is limited. Illegal pet food adulterations with melamine and cyanuric acid and adulteration of milk with melamine resulted in melamine-cyanuric acid crystals, kidney damage and deaths of cats and dogs and melamine-uric acid stones, hospitalisation and deaths of children in China respectively. Following these incidents, the tolerable daily intake for melamine was re-evaluated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the World Health Organisation, and the Scientific Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). This review provides an overview of toxicology, the adulteration incidents and risk assessments for melamine and its structural analogues. Particular focus is given to the recent EFSA risk assessment addressing impacts on animal and human health of background levels of melamine and structural analogues in animal feed. Recent research and future directions are discussed., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)