Search

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of naringenin [FL‐no: 16.132] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. No other substances with sufficient structural similarity have been identified in existing FGEs that could be used to support a read‐across approach. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 16.132] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with naringenin, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The use of naringenin as a flavouring substance at added portions exposure technique (APET) exposure levels is unlikely to pose a risk for drug interaction. For the toxicological evaluation of naringenin, the Panel requested an extended one‐generation toxicity study on naringenin, in line with the requirements of the Procedure and to investigate the consequence of a possible endocrine‐disrupting activity. The Panel considered that changes in thymus weight, litter size, post‐implantation loss and a consistent reduced pup weight in the high‐dose F2 generation could not be dismissed and selected therefore, the mid‐dose of 1320 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the parental males as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of the study. The exposure estimates for [FL‐no: 16.132] (31,500 and 50,000 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were above the threshold of toxicological of concern (TTC) for its structural class (III). Using the NOAEL of 1320 mg/kg bw per day at step A4 of the procedure, margins of exposure (MoE) of 1590 and 630 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. Based on the calculated MoEs, the Panel concluded that the use of naringenin as a flavouring substance does not raise a safety concern.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 2‐methyl‐1‐(2‐(5‐(p‐tolyl)‐1H‐imidazol‐2‐yl)piperidin‐1‐yl)butan‐1‐one [FL‐no: 16.134] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and is chemically synthesised. In food, it is intended to be used as a flavouring substance only in chewing gum. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] was estimated to be 45 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 28.4 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.134] did not show genotoxicity in a bacterial reverse mutation test and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus assay. Based on the submitted toxicokinetic and metabolism data, it can be predicted that the flavouring substance is metabolised to innocuous products only. The Panel derived a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 0.71 mg/kg bw per day for a 20% increase in the relative thyroid (including parathyroid) weight observed in a 90‐day toxicity study in rats. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 887 and 374 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.134], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure, based on the intended use and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste and mouthwash is also not of safety concern.

Background: The World Health Organization is coordinating an international project aimed at systematically reviewing the evidence regarding the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and adverse health effects. Reproductive health outcomes have been identified among the priority topics to be addressed. Objectives: To evaluate the effect of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility of experimental mammals and on human sperm exposed in vitro. Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus and EMF Portal) were last searched on September 17, 2022. Two independent reviewers screened the studies, which were considered eligible if met the following criteria: 1) Peer-reviewed publications of sham controlled experimental studies, 2) Non-human male mammals exposed at any stage of development or human sperm exposed in vitro, 3) RF-EMF exposure within the frequency range of 100 kHz-300 GHz, including electromagnetic pulses (EMP), 4) one of the following indicators of reproductive system impairment: • decrease of fertility: rate of infertile males, rate of nonpregnant females, litter size and in vitro fertilization rate; • effects on semen quality: in animal studies sperm count, in both animal and in vitro studies sperm vitality, morphology and DNA/chromatin alterations; • reproductive organ toxicity: testis-epididymis weight, testis or epididymis histology, testis histomorphometry, testicular cell death, estimated testicular cell production; • hormonal effects: testosterone level.Two reviewers extracted study characteristics and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias (RoB) using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) guidelines. We categorized studies into 3 levels of overall RoB: low, some or high concern. We pooled study results in a random effects meta-analysis comparing average exposure to no-exposure and in a dose–response meta-analysis using all exposure doses. For experimental animal studies, we conducted subgroup analyses for species, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and temperature increase. We grouped studies on human sperm exposed in vitro by the fertility status of sample donors and SAR. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach after excluding studies that were rated as “high concern” for RoB. Results: One-hundred and seventeen papers on animal studies and 10 papers on human sperm exposed in vitro were included in this review. Only few studies were rated as “low concern” because most studies were at RoB for exposure and/or outcome assessment.Subgrouping the experimental animal studies by species, SAR, and temperature increase partly accounted for the heterogeneity of individual studies in about one third of the meta-analyses. In no case was it possible to conduct a subgroup analysis of the few human sperm in vitro studies because there were always 1 or more groups including less than 3 studies.Among all the considered endpoints, the meta-analyses of animal studies provided evidence of adverse effects of RF-EMF exposure in all cases but the rate of infertile males and the size of the sired litters. The assessment of certainty according to the GRADE methodology assigned a moderate certainty to the reduction of pregnancy rate and to the evidence of no-effect on litter size, a low certainty to the reduction of sperm count, and a very low certainty to all the other meta-analysis results. Studies on human sperm exposed in vitro indicated a small detrimental effect of RF-EMF exposure on vitality and no-effect on DNA/chromatin alterations. According to GRADE, a very low certainty was attributed to these results. The few studies that used EMP exposure did not show effects on the outcomes. A low to very low certainty was attributed to these results. Discussion: Many of the studies examined suffered of severe limitations that led to the attribution of uncertainty to the results of the meta-analyses and did not allow to draw firm conclusions on most of the endpoints. Nevertheless, the associations between RF-EMF exposure and decrease of pregnancy rate and sperm count, to which moderate and low certainty were attributed, are not negligible, also in view of the indications that in Western countries human male fertility potential seems to be progressively declining.It was beyond the scope of our systematic review to determine the shape of the dose–response relationship or to identify a minimum effective exposure level. The subgroup and the dose–response fitting analyses did not show a consistent relationship between the exposure levels and the observed effects. Notably, most studies evaluated RF-EMF exposure levels that were higher than the levels to which human populations are typically exposed, and the limits set in international guidelines. For these reasons we cannot provide suggestions to confirm or reconsider current human exposure limits.Considering the outcomes of this systematic review and taking into account the limitations found in several of the studies, we suggest that further investigations with better characterization of exposure and dosimetry including several exposure levels and blinded outcome assessment were conducted.Protocol registration: Protocols for the systematic reviews of animal studies and of human sperm in vitro studies were published in Pacchierotti et al., 2021. The former was also registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021227729 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID = 227729) and the latter in Open Science Framework (OSF Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7MUS3).

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product SmokEz Enviro‐23 (SF‐006), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. SmokEz Enviro‐23 is obtained by pyrolysis of oak, maple, hickory, ash, birch, beech and cherry woods. Given the limitations of the quantification approach employed by the applicant, the Panel could not judge whether the applied methods meet the legal quality criterion that at least 80% of the volatile fraction shall be identified and quantified. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with DietEx ranged from 0.01 to 3.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from no dietary exposure to 9.5 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that four components in the Primary Product raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. The Primary Product contains furan‐2(5H)‐one and benzene‐1,2‐diol, for which a concern for genotoxicity was identified in vivo upon oral administration. Considering that the exposure estimates for these two components are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that the Primary Product raises concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product SmoKEz C‐10 (SF‐005), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. SmoKEz C‐10 is obtained by pyrolysis of maple, oak, hickory, ash, birch, beech and cherry woods. Given the limitations of the quantification approach employed by the applicant, the Panel could not judge whether the applied methods meet the legal quality criterion that at least 80% of the volatile fraction shall be identified and quantified. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with DietEx ranged from 0.01 to 5.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from no dietary exposure to 18.1 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that five components in the Primary Product raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. The Primary Product contains furan‐2(5H)‐one and benzene‐1,2‐diol, for which a concern for genotoxicity was identified in vivo upon oral administration. Considering that the exposure estimates for these two components are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that the Primary Product raises concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Smoke Concentrate 809045 (SF‐003), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. Product Smoke Concentrate 809045 is obtained by pyrolysis of beech wood. The Panel concluded that the compositional data provided on the Primary Product are adequate. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with DietEx ranged from 0.1 to 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from 0.2 to 5.2 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that eleven components in the Primary Product raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. The Primary Product contains furan‐2(5H)‐one and benzene‐1,2‐diol, for which a concern for genotoxicity was identified in vivo upon oral administration. Considering that the exposure estimates for these two components are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that the Primary Product raises concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product proFagus Smoke R714 (SF‐001), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. ProFagus Smoke R714 is obtained by pyrolysis of beech and oak woods as main source materials. Based on the compositional data, the Panel noted that the identified and quantified proportion of the solvent‐free fraction amounts to 39 weight (wt)%, thus the applied method does not meet the legal quality criterion that at least 50% of the solvent‐free fraction shall be identified and quantified. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with DietEx ranged from 0.7 to 10.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from 2.2 to 42.5 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that three components in the Primary Product raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. The Primary Product contains furan‐2(5H)‐one, for which a concern for genotoxicity was identified in vivo upon oral administration. Considering that the exposure estimates for this component are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that the Primary Product raises concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Fumokomp (SF‐009), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003 (in the renewal application the Primary Product is reported as ‘Fumokomp Conc.’). This opinion refers to an assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. Fumokomp Conc. is produced by pyrolysis of beech and hornbeam woods. Gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (GC–MS) was applied for both identification and quantification of the volatile constituents of the Primary Product. Given the limitations of the method, the Panel cannot judge with confidence whether the applied method meets the legal quality criterion that at least 80% of the volatile fraction shall be identified and quantified. Moreover, the Panel concluded that the absence of furan‐2(5H)‐one from the Primary Product was not convincingly demonstrated. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with FAIM ranged from 0.04 to 0.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from 0.1 to 1.5 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The information available on the 32 identified components of the Primary Product, although limited, did not indicate a concern for genotoxicity for any of these substances. However, whole mixture testing in an in vitro mouse lymphoma assay gave positive results which would require an adequate in vivo follow‐up study. In addition, the potential for aneugenicity of the Primary Product has not been adequately investigated. Accordingly, the potential safety concern for genotoxicity of the Primary Product cannot be ruled out.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Zesti Smoke Code 10 (SF‐002), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. Zesti Smoke Code 10 is obtained by pyrolysis of hickory and oak woods. Given the limitations of the quantification approach employed by the applicant, the Panel could not judge whether the applied methods meet the legal quality criterion that at least 80% of the volatile fraction shall be identified and quantified. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with DietEx ranged from 0.02 to 4.6 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from no dietary exposure to 13.0 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that four components in the Primary Product raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. The Primary Product contains furan‐2(5H)‐one and benzene‐1,2‐diol, for which a concern for genotoxicity was identified in vivo upon oral administration. Considering that the exposure estimates for these two components are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that the Primary Product raises concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Scansmoke SEF7525 (SF‐004), for which a renewal application was submitted in accordance with Article 12(1) of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. This opinion refers to the assessment of data submitted on chemical characterisation, dietary exposure and genotoxicity of the Primary Product. Scansmoke SEF7525 is obtained from a tar produced from a mixture of red oak, white oak, maple, beech and hickory. Based on the compositional data, the Panel noted that the identified and quantified proportion of the solvent‐free fraction amounts to 32.6 weight (wt)%, thus the applied method does not meet the legal quality criterion that at least 50% of the solvent‐free fraction shall be identified and quantified. At the maximum proposed use levels, dietary exposure estimates calculated with Food Additive Intake Model (FAIM) ranged from 0.6 to 3.8 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from 1.1 to 10.1 mg/kg bw per day at the 95th percentile. Based on the available information on genotoxicity on 44 identified components, the Panel concluded that two substances in the Primary Product, styrene and benzofuran, raise a potential concern for genotoxicity. In addition, a potential concern for genotoxicity was identified for the unidentified part of the mixture. Considering that the exposure estimates for styrene and benzofuran are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) value of 0.0025 kg/kg bw per day for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens and since further data are needed to clarify their potential genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that the potential safety concern for genotoxicity of the Primary Product cannot be ruled out.

Background: The World Health Organization is coordinating an international project aimed at systematically reviewing the evidence regarding the association between radiofrequency electromagnetic field (RF-EMF) exposure and adverse health effects. Within the project, 6 topics have been prioritized by an expert group, which include reproductive health outcomes. Objectives: According to the protocol published in 2021, a systematic review and meta-analyses on the adverse effects of RF-EMF exposure during pregnancy in offspring of experimental animals were conducted. Methods: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus and EMF Portal) were last searched on September 8 or 17, 2022. Based on predefined selection criteria, the obtained references were screened by two independent reviewers. Studies were included if they met the following criteria: 1) original, sham controlled experimental study on non-human mammals exposed in utero, published in peer-reviewed journals, 2) the experimental RF-EMF exposure was within the frequency range 100 kHz–300 GHz, 3) the effects of RF-EMF exposure on fecundity (litter size, embryonic/fetal losses), on the offspring health at birth (decrease of weight or length, congenital malformations, changes of sex ratio) or on delayed effects (neurocognitive alterations, female infertility or early-onset cancer) were studied. Study characteristics and outcome data were extracted by two reviewers. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) guidelines. Study results were pooled in a random effects meta-analysis comparing average exposure to no-exposure and in a dose–response meta-analysis using all exposure doses, after exclusion of studies that were rated at “high concern” for RoB. Subgroup analyses were conducted for species, Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and temperature increase. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Results: Eighty-eight papers could be included in this review. Effects on fecundity. The meta-analysis of studies on litter size, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.92 W/kg, did not show an effect of RF-EMF exposure (MD 0.05; 95% CI −0.21 to 0.30). The meta-analysis of studies on resorbed and dead fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 20.26 W/kg, showed a significant increase of the incidence in RF-EMF exposed animals (OR 1.84; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.66). The results were similar in the dose–response analysis. Effects on the offspring health at birth. The meta-analysis of studies on fetal weight, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 9.83 W/kg, showed a small decrease in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD 0.31; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48). The meta-analysis of studies on fetal length, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 4.55 W/kg, showed a moderate decrease in length at birth (SMD 0.45; 95% CI 0.07 to 0.83). The meta-analysis of studies on the percentage of fetuses with malformations, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 6.75 W/kg, showed a moderate increase in RF-EMF exposed animals (SMD −0.45; 95% CI −0.68 to −0.23). The meta-analysis of studies on the incidence of litters with malformed fetuses, conducted at a whole-body average SAR of 16.63 W/kg, showed a statistically significant detrimental RF-EMF effect (OR 3.22; 95% CI 1.9 to 5.46). The results were similar in the dose–response analyses. Delayed effects on the offspring health. RF-EMF exposure was not associated with detrimental effects on brain weight (SMD 0.10; 95% CI −0.09 to 0.29) and on learning and memory functions (SMD −0.54; 95% CI −1.24 to 0.17). RF-EMF exposure was associated with a large detrimental effect on motor activity functions (SMD 0.79; 95% CI 0.21 to 1.38) and a moderate detrimental effect on motor and sensory functions (SMD −0.66; 95% CI −1.18 to −0.14). RF-EMF exposure was not associated with a decrease of the size of litters conceived by F2 female offspring (SMD 0.08; 95% CI −0.39 to 0.55). Notably, meta-analyses of neurobehavioural effects were based on few studies, which suffered of lack of independent replication deriving from only few laboratories. Discussion: There was high certainty in the evidence for a lack of association of RF-EMF exposure with litter size. We attributed a moderate certainty to the evidence of a small detrimental effect on fetal weight. We also attributed a moderate certainty to the evidence of a lack of delayed effects on the offspring brain weight. For most of the other endpoints assessed by the meta-analyses, detrimental RF-EMF effects were shown, however the evidence was attributed a low or very low certainty. The body of evidence had limitations that did not allow an assessment of whether RF-EMF may affect pregnancy outcomes at exposure levels below those eliciting a well-known adverse heating impact.In conclusion, in utero RF-EMF exposure does not have a detrimental effect on fecundity and likely affects offspring health at birth, based on the meta-analysis of studies in experimental mammals on litter size and fetal weight, respectively. Regarding possible delayed effects of in utero exposure, RF-EMF probably does not affect offspring brain weight and may not decrease female offspring fertility; on the other hand, RF-EMF may have a detrimental impact on neurobehavioural functions, varying in magnitude for different endpoints, but these last findings are very uncertain.Further research is needed on the effects at birth and delayed effects with sample sizes adequate for detecting a small effect. Future studies should use standardized endpoints for testing prenatal developmental toxicity and developmental neurotoxicity (OECD TG 414 and 426), improve the description of the exposure system design and exposure conditions, conduct appropriate dosimetry characterization, blind endpoint analysis and include several exposure levels to better enable the assessment of a dose-response relationship. Protocol registration and publication: The protocol was published in Pacchierotti et al., 2021 and registered in PROSPERO CRD42021227746 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=227746).

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of four flavouring substances [FL‐no: 10.023, 10.030, 10.057 and 13.012] from subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19. For three of these substances [FL‐no: 10.023, 10.030 and 13.012], the concern for genotoxicity has been ruled out in previous revisions of Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 (FGE.217). However, in FGE.217Rev2, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out for 3a,4,5,7a‐tetrahydro‐3,6‐dimethylbenzofuran‐2(3H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.057]. After publication of FGE.217Rev2, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies for [FL‐no: 10.057], which are evaluated in the present opinion FGE.217Rev3. The flavouring substance [FL‐no: 10.057] did not induce gene mutations or numerical or structural chromosomal aberrations in vitro. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for [FL‐no: 10.057]. Consequently, it can be evaluated through the Procedure.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 28 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 76 (FGE.76Rev2). Twenty‐one of these substances have been considered in FGE.76Rev1. Seven substances could not be evaluated, because of concerns with respect to genotoxicity. New genotoxicity data have been provided for 4‐methyl‐5‐vinylthiazole [FL‐no: 15.018] and 4,5‐dimethyl‐2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.032], which are representative substances of [FL‐no: 15.005] and [FL‐no: 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131], respectively. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.018 and 15.005]. The concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.032, 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131]. In vitro, [FL‐no: 15.032] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus study was not adequate to rule out the concern for potential aneugenicity in vivo. The Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for [FL‐no: 15.032]. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of [FL‐no: 15.032] at the maximum reported use levels does not raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances [FL‐no: 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. Individual genotoxicity data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions for 24 flavouring substances ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ when based on the MSDI approach. For six substances, more reliable information on uses and use levels are needed to refine the mTAMDI estimates. For 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs. For [FL‐no: 15.109 and 15.113], information on the actual stereochemical composition is inadequate and the conclusion reached for the named substances cannot be applied to the materials of commerce.

Abstract The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the flavouring substances 2,4‐dimethyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.060] and 2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.119] in Flavouring Group Evaluation 21 revision 6 (FGE.21Rev6). FGE.21Rev6 deals with 41 flavouring substances of which 39 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern when based on the MSDI approach. For [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.21. Genotoxicity data have been submitted for the supporting substance 4,5‐dimethyl‐2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.032] evaluated in FGE.76Rev2. The concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.032] and for the structurally related substances [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119], but not for aneugenicity. Therefore, the aneugenic potential of [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119] should be investigated in studies with the individual substances. For [FL‐no: 15.054, 15.055, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], (more reliable) information on uses and use levels is needed to (re)calculate the mTAMDIs in order to finalise their evaluation. Provided that information is submitted for [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119] with respect to potential aneugenicity, that would allow evaluation of these substances through the Procedure, also for these two substances, more reliable data on uses and use levels would be required. Upon submission of such data, additional data on toxicity may become necessary for all seven substances. For [FL‐no: 15.054, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], information on the actual percentages of stereoisomers in the material of commerce based on analytical data should be provided.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of five flavouring substances from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19, in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 216 (FGE.216). In FGE.216 and in FGE.216Rev1, the CEF Panel requested additional genotoxicity data on 2‐phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.062], the representative for these five substances. New experimental data on [FL‐no: 05.062] were provided and are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.216 (FGE.216Rev2). Based on the new data, the Panel concluded that, for all the five substances, the concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out by the negative results observed in an in vivo gene mutation assay and in an in vivo comet assay, respectively. In vitro, [FL‐no: 05.062] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus studies were inconclusive and cannot be used to rule out potential aneugenicity of [FL‐no: 05.062] in vivo. Therefore, the Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for this substance. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 05.062] at the reported use levels in several food categories would raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances in this FGE [FL‐no: 05.099, 05.100, 05.175 and 05.222], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. For these four substances, individual data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. Accordingly, it is currently not appropriate to assess any of these five substances through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance (E)‐3‐benzo[1,3]dioxol‐5‐yl‐N,N‐diphenyl‐2‐propenamide [FL‐no: 16.135] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and it is chemically synthesised. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food, but not intended to be used in beverages. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 780 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 480 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.135] did not show genotoxic effects in bacterial mutagenicity and mammalian cell micronucleus assays in vitro. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study in rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived a BMDL of 101 mg/kg bw per day from a 90‐day toxicity study. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 7,800 and 3,200 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.135], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach, based on the intended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste is also not of safety concern.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water content is estimated at 56 wt%, the total identified volatile fraction accounts for 28 wt% of the primary product, corresponding to 64% of the solvent‐free mass, while the unidentified fraction amounts to 16 wt% of the primary product. Analytical data provided for three batches demonstrated that their batch‐to‐batch‐variability was sufficiently low. However, for the batch used for the toxicological studies, there were substantial deviations in the concentration of nearly all the constituents compared to the other three batches. The dietary exposure of Prosmoke BW 01 was estimated to be between 6.2 and 9.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively, using SMK‐EPIC and SMK‐TAMDI. Using the FAIM tool, the 95th percentile exposure estimates ranged from 3.2 mg/kg bw per day for the elderly to 17.9 mg/kg bw per day for children. The Panel noted that furan‐2(5H)‐one is present in all batches of the primary product at an average concentration of 0.88 wt%. This substance was evaluated by the FAF Panel as genotoxic in vivo after oral exposure. The Panel considered that the (geno)toxicity studies available on the whole mixture were not adequate to support the safety assessment, due to limitations in these studies and because they were performed with a batch which may not be representative for the material of commerce. Considering that the exposure estimates for furan‐2(5H)‐one are above the TTC value of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day (or 0.15 μg/person per day) for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that Prosmoke BW 01 raises a concern with respect to genotoxicity.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 43 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 63 (FGE.63), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐nine substances have already been considered in FGE.63 and its revisions ([FL‐no: 02.023, 02.099, 02.104, 02.136, 02.155, 02.252, 07.015, 07.069, 07.081, 07.099, 07.100, 07.101, 07.102, 07.114, 07.123, 07.151, 07.190, 07.240, 07.247, 07.249, 07.256, 09.281, 09.282, 09.657, 09.658, 09.923, 09.924, 09.925 and 09.936]). The remaining 14 flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.204Rev1 ([FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.177, 07.188 and 07.244]) and they are considered in this revision 4 of FGE.63. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 43 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for 43 flavouring substances. However, for 14 of these flavouring substances in the present revision and for 10 of the substances in the previous revision (FGE.63Rev3), the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) values are equal to or above the TTCs for their structural classes (I and II). For 15 substances previously evaluated in FGE.63Rev3, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 39 flavouring substances, more data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 55 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07 (FGE.07), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Fifty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.07 and its revisions. This revision 6 includes two additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2 (4‐methyl‐3‐hepten‐5‐one [FL‐no: 07.261]) and FGE.204Rev1 (non‐2‐en‐4‐one, [FL‐no: 07.187]). The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 55 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Normal and maximum use levels were available for all flavouring substances. For 52 substances, including the newly included substances [FL‐no: 07.187 and 07.261], their ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) estimates were above the TTC for their structural classes (I and II). Therefore, for these 52 flavouring substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations.

Background: Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields (RF-EMF) at environmental level have been reported to induce adverse effects on the male reproductive system and developing embryos. However, despite the number of experiments conducted since the 1970s, the diversity of testing approaches and exposure conditions, inconsistencies among results, and dosimetric flaws have not yet permitted a solid assessment of the relationship between RF-EMF exposure and such effects, warranting a more systematic and methodologically rigorous approach to the evaluation of available data. Objectives: This study aims at evaluating the effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility and pregnancy outcomes by a systematic review (SR) of experimental studies, conducted in compliance with international guidelines. The evidence will be organized into three streams: 1) Studies evaluating the impact of RF-EMF on the male reproductive system of experimental mammals; 2) studies evaluating the impact of RF-EMF on human sperm exposed in vitro; 3) studies evaluating the impact of RF-EMF on adverse pregnancy, birth outcomes and delayed effects in experimental mammals exposed in utero. Study eligibility and criteria: Eligible studies will include peer-reviewed articles reporting of original results about effects of controlled exposures to RF-EMF in the frequency range 100 kHz–300 GHz on the selected outcomes without any language or year-of-publication restrictions. Eligible studies will be retrieved by calibrated search strings applied to three electronic databases, PubMed, Scopus and EMF Portal and by manual search of the list of references of included papers and published reviews. Study appraisal and synthesis method: The internal validity of the studies will be evaluated using the Risk of Bias (RoB) Rating Tool developed by National Toxicology Program/Office of Health Assessment and Translation (NTP/OHAT) integrated with input from the SYRCLE RoB tool. Given sufficient commensurate data, meta-analyses will be performed, otherwise narrative syntheses will be produced. Finally, the certainty of the effects of RF-EMF exposure on male fertility and pregnancy and birth outcomes will be established following GRADE. Funding: The study is financially supported by the World Health Organization. Registration: OSF Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/7MUS3; PROSPERO CRD42021227729, CRD42021227746.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.229] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. 2‐Hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde belongs to chemical group 23 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000) and is structurally related to the hydroxy‐ and alkoxy‐ring substituted benzyl derivatives evaluated in FGE.52 and in FGE.20Rev4. The Panel considered the structural/metabolic similarity sufficient to evaluate the candidate substance following a group‐based approach according to the EFSA Guidance on the data required for the risk assessment of flavourings to be used in or on foods. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 05.229] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with this substance, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. Based on QSAR evaluation of possible metabolism, and based on information from structurally related substances, various metabolic routes can be anticipated, which only result in the formation of innocuous metabolites. The exposure estimates for [FL‐no: 05.229] (24 and 60 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were below the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for its structural class (I). Accordingly, toxicity studies are not required and the Panel concluded at step A3 of the Procedure that 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde is not of safety concern when used as a flavouring substance at the intended uses and use levels. Cumulative exposure estimates for 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde and three structurally related substances (2.4 and 6.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults and children, respectively) are above the TTC for structural class I, but below the ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 0‐10 mg/kg bw per day for vanillin, which is one of these structurally related substances. Therefore, the cumulative exposure to these four substances [FL‐no: 05.015, 05.018, 05.229 and 09.749] also does not raise a safety concern.

Abstract The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings of the EFSA was requested to update Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 using the Procedure as outlined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, to include an evaluation of the flavouring substances 2‐ethyl‐5‐methylfuran [FL‐no: 13.125] and 2‐octylfuran [FL‐no: 13.162]. FGE.13 revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3) deals with 26 flavourings substances of which 24 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern. For [FL‐no: 13.125] and [FL‐no: 13.162], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.13Rev1. This concern could be ruled out based on new genotoxicity data on supporting substances in FGE.67Rev3. Subsequently, [FL‐no: 13.125 and 13.162] were evaluated, through a stepwise approach that integrates intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity, along the B‐side of the Procedure, making use of a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived this BMDL from an oral subchronic toxicity study with the supporting substance 2‐pentylfuran [FL‐no: 13.059]. Using this BMDL, for [FL‐no: 13.125 and 13.162], adequate margins of safety were calculated based on the MSDI approach. The Panel concluded that the 26 candidate substances in FGE.13Rev3 do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 26 substances. Data on uses and use levels are needed for [FL‐no: 13.130]. For 21 flavouring substances [FL‐no: 13.011, 13.102, 13.108, 13.113, 13.114, 13.122, 13.125, 13.127, 13.129, 13.132, 13.133, 13.135, 13.136, 13.139, 13.141, 13.143, 13.146, 13.149, 13.162, 13.178 and 13.185], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2‐pentylfuran [FL‐no: 13.059] and 2‐acetylfuran [FL‐no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL‐no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI‐B [FL‐no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL‐no: 13.054] and [FL‐no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B‐side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2‐acetylfuran and 2‐pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL‐no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

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

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

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

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 24 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 73 (FGE.73), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.73 and its four revisions ([FL‐no: 02.114, 02.141, 05.098, 05.112, 08.067, 09.289, 09.488, 09.534, 09.615, 05.119, 05.123, 08.034, 08.060, 09.028, 09.536, 05.104, 09.034, 09.712, 09.305, 02.060, 02.091, 09.278, 09.302]). The remaining substance myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.208Rev3 and is considered in this revision 5 of FGE.73. 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 24 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 23 substances. For [FL‐no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For two substances [FL‐no: 09.034, and 09.712], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class (I). For 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, no normal and maximum use levels are available. Therefore, for these 19 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.

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

Abstract Background Numerous health benefits have been attributed to the Ginkgo biloba leaf extract (GBLE), one of the most extensively used phytopharmaceutical drugs worldwide. Recently, concerns of the safety of the extract have been raised after a report from US National Toxicology Program (NTP) claimed high doses of GBLE increased liver and thyroid cancer incidence in mice and rats. A safety study has been designed to assess, in a population of elderly residents in nursing homes, clinical and genomic risks associated to GBLE treatment. Methods GiBiEx is a multicentre randomized clinical trial, placebo controlled, double blinded, which compared subjects randomized to twice-daily doses of either 120-mg of IDN 5933 (also known as Ginkgoselect®Plus) or to placebo for a 6-months period. IDN 5933 is extracted from dried leaves and contains 24.3% flavone glycosides and 6.1% of terpene lactones (2.9% bilobalide, 1.38% ginkgolide A, 0.66% ginkgolide B, 1.12% ginkgolide C) as determined by HPLC. The study was completed by 47 subjects, 20 in the placebo group and 27 in the treatment group. Clinical (adverse clinical effect and liver injury) and genomic (micronucleus frequency, comet assay, c-myc, p53, and ctnnb1 expression profile in lymphocytes) endpoints were assessed at the start and at the end of the study. Results No adverse clinical effects or increase of liver injury markers were reported in the treatment group. The frequency of micronuclei [Mean Ratio (MR) = 1.01, 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) 0.86–1.18), and DNA breaks (comet assay) (MR = 0.91; 95% CI 0.58–1.43), did not differ in the two study groups. No significant difference was found in the expression profile of the three genes investigated. Conclusions None of the markers investigated revealed a higher risk in the treatment group, supporting the safety of IDN 5933 at doses prescribed and for duration of six months. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03004508 , December 20, 2016. Trial retrospectively registered.

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

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

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

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

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

Abstract The EFSA 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.

Poly(ADP-ribose)polymerase-1 (PARP1) is a nuclear protein implicated in DNA repair, recombination, replication, and chromatin remodeling. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible differences between PARP1−/− and wild-type mice regarding induction and repair of DNA lesions in irradiated male germ cells. Comet assay was applied to detect DNA damage in testicular cells immediately, and two hours after 4 Gy X-ray irradiation. A similar level of spontaneous and radiation-induced DNA damage was observed in PARP1−/− and wild-type mice. Conversely, two hours after irradiation, a significant level of residual damage was observed in PARP1−/− cells only. This finding was particularly evident in round spermatids. To evaluate if PARP1 had also a role in the dynamics of H2AX phosphorylation in round spermatids, in which γ-H2AX foci had been shown to persist after completion of DNA repair, we carried out a parallel analysis of γ-H2AX foci at 0.5, 2, and 48 h after irradiation in wild-type and PARP1−/− mice. No evidence was obtained of an effect of PARP1 depletion on H2AX phosphorylation induction and removal. Our results suggest that, in round spermatids, under the tested experimental conditions, PARP1 has a role in radiation-induced DNA damage repair rather than in long-term chromatin modifications signaled by phosphorylated H2AX.

Reproductive toxicity, with its many targets and mechanisms, is a complex area of toxicology; thus, the screening and identification of reproductive toxicants is a main scientific challenge for the safety assessment of chemicals, including the European Regulation on Chemicals (REACH). Regulatory agencies recommend the implementation of the 3Rs principle (refinement, reduction, replacement) as well as of intelligent testing strategies, through the development of in vitro methods and the use of mechanistic information in the hazard identification and characterization steps of the risk assessment process. The EU Integrated Project ReProTect (6th Framework Programme) implemented an array of in vitro tests to study different building blocks of the mammalian reproductive cycle: methodological developments and results on male and female germ cells, prostate and placenta are presented.

In February 2017 the “Carbonaceous Aerosol in Rome and Environs (CARE)” experiment was carried out in downtown Rome to address the following specific questions: what is the color, size, composition, and toxicity of the carbonaceous aerosol in the Mediterranean urban background area of Rome? The motivation of this experiment is the lack of understanding of what aerosol types are responsible for the severe risks to human health posed by particulate matter (PM) pollution, and how carbonaceous aerosols influence radiative balance. Physicochemical properties of the carbonaceous aerosol were characterised, and relevant toxicological variables assessed. The aerosol characterisation includes: (i) measurements with high time resolution (min to 1–2 h) at a fixed location of black carbon (eBC), elemental carbon (EC), organic carbon (OC), particle number size distribution (0.008–10 μ m), major non refractory PM1 components, elemental composition, wavelength-dependent optical properties, and atmospheric turbulence; (ii) 24-h measurements of PM10 and PM2.5 mass concentration, water soluble OC and brown carbon (BrC), and levoglucosan; (iii) mobile measurements of eBC and size distribution around the study area, with computational fluid dynamics modeling; (iv) characterisation of road dust emissions and their EC and OC content. The toxicological assessment includes: (i) preliminary evaluation of the potential impact of ultrafine particles on lung epithelia cells (cultured at the air liquid interface and directly exposed to particles); (ii) assessment of the oxidative stress induced by carbonaceous aerosols; (iii) assessment of particle size dependent number doses deposited in different regions of the human body; (iv) PAHs biomonitoring (from the participants into the mobile measurements). The first experimental results of the CARE experiment are presented in this paper. The objective here is to provide baseline levels of carbonaceous aerosols for Rome, and to address future research directions. First, we found that BC and EC mass concentration in Rome are larger than those measured in similar urban areas across Europe (the urban background mass concentration of eBC in Rome in winter being on average 2.6 ± 2.5 μ g · m − 3 , mean eBC at the peak level hour being 5.2 (95% CI = 5.0–5.5) μ g · m − 3 ). Then, we discussed significant variations of carbonaceous aerosol properties occurring with time scales of minutes, and questioned on the data averaging period used in current air quality standard for PM 10 (24-h). Third, we showed that the oxidative potential induced by aerosol depends on particle size and composition, the effects of toxicity being higher with lower mass concentrations and smaller particle size. Albeit this is a preliminary analysis, findings reinforce the need for an urgent update of existing air quality standards for PM 10 and PM 2.5 with regard to particle composition and size distribution, and data averaging period. Our results reinforce existing concerns about the toxicity of carbonaceous aerosols, support the existing evidence indicating that particle size distribution and composition may play a role in the generation of this toxicity, and remark the need to consider a shorter averaging period (

Few studies have investigated the toxicity and genotoxicity of extremely low frequency magnetic fields (ELF-MF) during prenatal and neonatal development. These phases of life are characterized by cell proliferation and differentiation, which might make them sensitive to environmental stressors. Although in vitro evidences suggest that ELF-MF may modify the effects of ionizing radiation, no research has been conducted so far in vivo on the genotoxic effects of ELF-MF combined with X-rays.Aim of this study was to investigate in somatic and germ cells the effects of chronic ELF-MF exposure from mid gestation until weaning, and any possible modulation produced by ELF-MF exposure on ionizing radiation-induced damage. Mice were exposed to 50 Hz, 65 μT magnetic field, 24 hours/day, for a total of 30 days, starting from 12 days post-conception. Another group was irradiated with 1 Gy X-rays immediately before ELF-MF exposure, other groups were only X-irradiated or sham-exposed. Micronucleus test on blood erythrocytes was performed at multiple times from 1 to 140 days after birth. Additionally, 42 days after birth, genotoxic and cytotoxic effects on male germ cells were assessed by comet assay and flow cytometric analysis.ELF-MF exposure had no teratogenic effect and did not affect survival, growth and development. The micronucleus test indicated that ELF-MF induced a slight genotoxic damage only after the maximum exposure time and that this effect faded away in the months following the end of exposure. ELF-MF had no effects on ionizing radiation (IR)-induced genotoxicity in erythrocytes. Differently, ELF-MF appeared to modulate the response of male germ cells to X-rays with an impact on proliferation/differentiation processes. These results point to the importance of tissue specificity and development on the impact of ELF-MF on the early stages of life and indicate the need of further research on the molecular mechanisms underlying ELF-MF biological effects.