Search

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

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one for cats and dogs. 4‐Hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for cats and dogs at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the additive up to 25 mg/kg complete feed for cats and dogs. Based on the toxicological data available, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is safe for dogs at 25 mg/kg feed and for cats at 18 mg/kg feed. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and to the respiratory tract and is a skin sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one for cats and dogs. 4‐Hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for cats and dogs at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the additive up to 25 mg/kg complete feed for cats and dogs. Based on the toxicological data available, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that 4‐hydroxy‐2,5‐dimethylfuran‐3(2H)‐one is safe for dogs at 25 mg/kg feed and for cats at 18 mg/kg feed. The additive is irritant to skin, eyes and to the respiratory tract and is a skin sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

E‐liquids typically contain nicotine and flavourings in a matrix of propylene glycol (PG) and vegetable glycerine (VG). Some nicotine‐free e‐liquids are flavouring only in the aerosol carrier with the option for users to add their own nicotine. It is only the nicotine that is monitored in terms of level, as specified by the manufacturers. Little is known of the toxicological effect for some of the flavourings in the context of vaping as these are only regulated for ingestion and not inhalation. A method was developed to analyse volatile organic compounds (VOCs) evolved when e‐liquids are vaporised based on headspace‐gas chromatography–mass spectrometry (HS‐GC‐MS) for e‐liquids. An in‐house standard was prepared with sample matrix and purchased strawberry flavouring to simulate a simple e‐liquid but with known levels. This standard was then used to optimise the analysis for use with e‐liquid samples but not for full quantification purposes. These were purchased from a range of retailers and with different batches but mainly focussed on strawberry flavour. The results identified three key components indicative of strawberry flavour (ethyl‐3‐methyl butanoate, ethyl 2‐methyl butanoate and ethyl butanoate) and showed considerable variation between both manufacturers and batches. Flavouring VOCs are regulated for ingestion but are not regulated for e‐liquid inhalation, so these could have toxicological implications. In addition, the inconsistency between samples suggests further issues when users add their own nicotine to the e‐liquids as the viscous sample matrix makes homogeneous mixing difficult. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 27 compounds to provide a milky‐vanilla flavour belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fifteen of the 27 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 15 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 12 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 12 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the 27 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 5‐methylhept‐2‐en‐4‐one [07.139], 5‐methylfurfural [13.001] and 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [07.024]. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 27 compounds to provide a milky‐vanilla flavour belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fifteen of the 27 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 15 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 12 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 12 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the 27 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 5‐methylhept‐2‐en‐4‐one [07.139], 5‐methylfurfural [13.001] and 4‐phenylbut‐3‐en‐2‐one [07.024]. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds.

The use of in vivo instrumental analysis and sensory evaluation techniques in the investigation of volatile compounds released from gum matrices is a convenient method for scientists to obtain more decisive results on the properties of chewing gums. In this study, four types of lemon-flavoured chewing gum were prepared, and their flavour permanence was monitored by in vitro and in vivo techniques. For this purpose, both sensory and analytical techniques were conducted using a retronasal aroma-trapping device and DHA-GC/MS. Cis-citral and trans-citral were chosen as the flavour compounds to be monitored. An accelerated shelf-life test was also performed. Although the presence of cis-citral and trans-citral in the breath was most intense 5 minutes after chewing the gum, it could still be detected even 45 minutes later. The lemon flavouring was also perceived by the assessors in the 45th minute. The lemon taste was found to persist in the formulations for 12 months. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), for many considered as a safe alternative to conventional cigarettes, has revolutionised the tobacco industry in the last decades. In e-cigarettes, tobacco combustion is replaced by e-liquid heating, leading some manufacturers to propose that e-cigarettes have less harmful respiratory effects than tobacco consumption. Other innovative features such as the adjustment of nicotine content and the choice of pleasant flavours have won over many users. Nevertheless, the safety of e-cigarette consumption and its potential as a smoking cessation method remain controversial due to limited evidence. Moreover, it has been reported that the heating process itself can lead to the formation of new decomposition compounds of questionable toxicity. Numerous in vivo and in vitro studies have been performed to better understand the impact of these new inhalable compounds on human health. Results of toxicological analyses suggest that e-cigarettes can be safer than conventional cigarettes, although harmful effects from short-term e-cigarette use have been described. Worryingly, the potential long-term effects of e-cigarette consumption have been scarcely investigated. In this review, we take stock of the main findings in this field and their consequences for human health including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

We studied the effect of essential oils from Picea abies (Linnaeus) H. Karsten., 1881, Cinnamomum verum J. Presl, 1825, Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel, 1925, Citrus paradisi Macfadyen, 1830, Rosmarinus officinalis Linnaeus, 1753, Citrus aurantiifolia (Christmann) Swingle, 1913, Syzygium aromaticum (L.) Merrill & Perry, 1939, Pterocarpus santalinus Linnaeus filius, 1782, Pelargonium graveolens L’Héritier, 1789, Eucalyptus globulus Labillardière, 1861, Juniperus communis Linnaeus, 1753, Piper cubeba L.f., 1781, Calendula officinalis L., 1753, Laurus nobilis Linnaeus, 1753, Lavandula angustifolia Miller, 1768 and Citrus sinensis (Linnaeus) Osbeck (pro. sp.) on vitality of free-living larvae of Strongyloides papillosus (Wedl, 1856) and Haemonchus contortus (Rudolphi, 1803) Cobb, 1898, and also survivability of eggs of Ascaris suum (Goeze, 1782) under in vitro conditions. The most notable nematicidal properties belong to 0.5% water emulsion of essential oils from C. verum and S. aromaticum: we observed 100% mortality of larvae of S. papillosus L1–3 and H. contortus L3.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the supplementary information submitted on the safety of 37 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed for all animal species formerly assessed by the Panel in the context of the re‐evaluation of these feed additives. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that ethyl oleate [09.192] and benzyl cinnamate [09.738] are safe at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species, the consumer and the environment; ethyl salicylate [09.748] is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species and the consumer. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 26 out of the 37 compounds under assessment. The use of 4‐terpinenol [02.072], linalyl butyrate [09.050], linalyl formate [09.080], linalyl propionate [09.130], linalyl isobutyrate [09.423], isopulegol [02.167] and 1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐(prop‐1‐enyl)‐benzene [04.013] as flavouring additives at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species is considered safe for the environment. The use of 3‐methyl‐2‐cyclopenten‐1‐one [07.112] at 0.5 mg/kg and methyl dihydrojasmonate [09.520] at 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species except marine animals is considered safe for the environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the supplementary information submitted on the safety of 37 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed for all animal species formerly assessed by the Panel in the context of the re‐evaluation of these feed additives. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that ethyl oleate [09.192] and benzyl cinnamate [09.738] are safe at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species, the consumer and the environment; ethyl salicylate [09.748] is safe up to the maximum proposed use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species and the consumer. No new data were submitted on the safety for the user that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to change its previous conclusion for 26 out of the 37 compounds under assessment. The use of 4‐terpinenol [02.072], linalyl butyrate [09.050], linalyl formate [09.080], linalyl propionate [09.130], linalyl isobutyrate [09.423], isopulegol [02.167] and 1,2‐dimethoxy‐4‐(prop‐1‐enyl)‐benzene [04.013] as flavouring additives at the proposed use level of 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species is considered safe for the environment. The use of 3‐methyl‐2‐cyclopenten‐1‐one [07.112] at 0.5 mg/kg and methyl dihydrojasmonate [09.520] at 5 mg/kg in feed for all animal species except marine animals is considered safe for the environment.

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

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

The article describes a laboratory study of nematocidal properties of flavourings with antibacterial effect against Ascaris suum (Goeze, 1782) and Trichuris suis Schrank, 1788. In the experiments, eight concentrations of food additives with antibacterial properties were used: cinnamaldehyde, benzoic acid, formic acid, linalool, citral, β-ionone. Minimum LC50 value for eggs of A. suum was observed while using cinnamaldehyde and benzoic acid – 1.62 ± 0.37% and 1.69 ± 0.14%, and for eggs of T. suis – 0.57 ± 0.03% and 1.80 ± 0.11% respectively. The lowest influence on the development of eggs of nematodes of pigs’ A. suum and T. suis was exerted by formic acid, linalool, citral and β-ionone. In eggs of A. suum and T. suis, larvae formed in 21 and 50 days even during exposure to 3% emulsions of these substances. The strongest negative impact on the eggs of parasitic nematodes was displayed by cinnamaldehyde flavouring. Further study on nematocidal properties of flavourings, as well as their mixtures, would contribute to the development of preparations which would have a strong effect on eggs and larvae of nematodes of animals and humans.

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.

Abstract Introduction A recent study raised concerns about e-cigarette liquids toxicity by reporting the presence of 14 flavouring chemicals with toxicity classification. However, the relevant toxicity classification was not estimated according to the measured concentrations. The purpose of this study was to calculate the toxicity classification for different health hazards for all the flavouring chemicals at the maximum concentrations reported. Methods The analysis was based on the European Union Classification Labelling and Packaging regulation. The concentration of each flavouring chemical was compared with the minimum concentration needed to classify it as toxic. Additionally, toxicity classification was examined for a theoretical e-cigarette liquid containing all flavouring chemicals at the maximum concentrations reported. Results There was at least one toxicity classification for all the flavouring chemicals, with the most prevalent classifications related to skin, oral, eye and respiratory toxicities. One chemical (methyl cyclopentenolone) was found at a maximum concentration 150.7% higher than that needed to be classified as toxic. For the rest, the maximum reported concentrations were 71.6 to > 99.9% lower than toxicity concentrations. A liquid containing all flavouring compounds at the maximum concentrations would be classified as toxic for one category only due to the presence of methyl cyclopentenolone; a liquid without methyl cyclopentenolone would have 66.7 to > 99.9% lower concentrations of flavourings than those needed to be classified as toxic. Conclusions The vast majority of flavouring compounds in e-cigarette liquids as reported in a recent study were present at levels far lower than needed to classify them as toxic. Since exceptions exist, regulatory monitoring of liquid composition is warranted.

The electronic cigarette (e-cigarette), for many considered as a safe alternative to conventional cigarettes, has revolutionised the tobacco industry in the last decades. In e-cigarettes, tobacco combustion is replaced by e-liquid heating, leading some manufacturers to propose that e-cigarettes have less harmful respiratory effects than tobacco consumption. Other innovative features such as the adjustment of nicotine content and the choice of pleasant flavours have won over many users. Nevertheless, the safety of e-cigarette consumption and its potential as a smoking cessation method remain controversial due to limited evidence. Moreover, it has been reported that the heating process itself can lead to the formation of new decomposition compounds of questionable toxicity. Numerous in vivo and in vitro studies have been performed to better understand the impact of these new inhalable compounds on human health. Results of toxicological analyses suggest that e-cigarettes can be safer than conventional cigarettes, although harmful effects from short-term e-cigarette use have been described. Worryingly, the potential long-term effects of e-cigarette consumption have been scarcely investigated. In this review, we take stock of the main findings in this field and their consequences for human health including coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 31 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Twenty‐two out of the 31 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. For the remaining nine compounds, read across from structurally similar compounds was proposed. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 22 compounds are safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species for all the compounds except for α‐damascone [07.134]. In the absence of data that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to rule out the genotoxicity concern, the FEEDAP Panel cannot extend the conclusions for α‐damascone [07.134] to all animal species and cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer, the user and the environment. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the remaining 30 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. The revised maximum safe levels for the 30 compounds are not expected to further impact on the previous conclusions on user safety. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds except β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], for which in the absence of ecotoxicity data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the terrestrial compartments. For the marine environment, the safe use level for 2‐methyl‐1‐phenylpropan‐2‐ol [02.035], α‐irone [07.011], β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], phenethyl isovalerate [09.466], 4‐(p‐hydroxyphenyl) butan‐2‐one [07.055] and 2‐isopropyl‐4‐methylthiazole [15.026] is confirmed to be 0.05 mg/kg.

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 feed additive ‘dry grape extract 60‐20’ is a mixture of two extracts, one from the seed and the other from the skin of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera. It is intended to be used as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compound) in dogs. The additive ‘dry grape extract 60‐20’ is specified to contain ■■■■■ The applicant proposes a maximum use level of 100 mg ‘dry grape extract 60‐20’/kg of complete feedingstuffs for dogs without a withdrawal period. The FEEDAP Panel was aware of case reports indicating acute toxicity for some dogs consuming grapes or raisins at exposure levels relevant to the use of ‘dry grape extract 60‐20’. The FEEDAP Panel considered that rare idiosyncratic effects could be possibly responsible for the reported cases of fatality in dogs due to acute renal failure following exposure to different types of grapes. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the additive is poorly characterised. Based on the data available, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of ‘dry grape extract 60‐20’ when used as a feed additive for dogs. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the user when handling the additives. Since grape seed extract is used in food as flavouring, and its function in feed is essentially the same as that in food no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.

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.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 31 compounds belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Twenty‐two out of the 31 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets and cattle for fattening. For the remaining nine compounds, read across from structurally similar compounds was proposed. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the 22 compounds are safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species for all the compounds except for α‐damascone [07.134]. In the absence of data that would allow the FEEDAP Panel to rule out the genotoxicity concern, the FEEDAP Panel cannot extend the conclusions for α‐damascone [07.134] to all animal species and cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer, the user and the environment. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of the remaining 30 compounds up to the highest levels considered safe for target animals. The revised maximum safe levels for the 30 compounds are not expected to further impact on the previous conclusions on user safety. The concentrations considered safe for the target species are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the environment for all the compounds except β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], for which in the absence of ecotoxicity data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the terrestrial compartments. For the marine environment, the safe use level for 2‐methyl‐1‐phenylpropan‐2‐ol [02.035], α‐irone [07.011], β‐damascone [07.083] and (E)‐β‐damascone [07.224], phenethyl isovalerate [09.466], 4‐(p‐hydroxyphenyl) butan‐2‐one [07.055] and 2‐isopropyl‐4‐methylthiazole [15.026] is confirmed to be 0.05 mg/kg. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The feed additive 'dry grape extract 60‐20' is a mixture of two extracts, one from the seed and the other from the skin of Vitis vinifera subsp. vinifera. It is intended to be used as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compound) in dogs. The additive 'dry grape extract 60‐20' is specified to contain ■■■■■ The applicant proposes a maximum use level of 100 mg 'dry grape extract 60‐20'/kg of complete feedingstuffs for dogs without a withdrawal period. The FEEDAP Panel was aware of case reports indicating acute toxicity for some dogs consuming grapes or raisins at exposure levels relevant to the use of 'dry grape extract 60‐20'. The FEEDAP Panel considered that rare idiosyncratic effects could be possibly responsible for the reported cases of fatality in dogs due to acute renal failure following exposure to different types of grapes. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the additive is poorly characterised. Based on the data available, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of 'dry grape extract 60‐20' when used as a feed additive for dogs. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety for the user when handling the additives. Since grape seed extract is used in food as flavouring, and its function in feed is essentially the same as that in food no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 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 FROM AUTHOR]

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

Abstract Objective: To assess preferences for e‐cigarettes containing nicotine and flavourings among Australian young adult e‐cigarette users. Methods: An online survey was administered to 1,116 young adults (18–25 years), 104 of whom had used an e‐cigarette in the last 30 days and were the focus of this study. Among users, 53% also smoked tobacco cigarettes, 27% were non‐smokers and 20% had never smoked. Results: Nearly two‐thirds (64%) of e‐cigarette users preferred nicotine‐containing e‐cigarettes (71% of smokers, 56% of non‐smokers, 55% of never smokers). The vast majority (89%) preferred flavoured e‐cigarettes (92% of smokers, 82% of non‐smokers, 95% of never smokers), with fruit flavours the most popular. Conclusions: E‐cigarettes containing nicotine and flavourings were popular among users of these devices in this sample of young adults. Implications for public health: Previous research has documented potential harms associated with e‐liquid additives, flavourings, and nicotine. The present results showing strong preferences for nicotine and flavourings among the sampled e‐cigarette users suggest that: i) flavourings in e‐liquids should be regulated; and ii) existing prohibitions on the unauthorised supply of liquid nicotine should be better enforced. Population‐wide monitoring of the use of e‐cigarettes with different product characteristics is also warranted.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on an essential oil extracted from Origanum vulgare ssp. hirtum (Link) Ietsw. when used as a sensory feed additive for all animal species. Analysis of the oil identified 13 components accounting for > 99% of the oil, with carvacrol being the prevalent (78%). The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the proposed use level of 150 mg/kg complete feed is safe for ornamental fish. For the other species, the calculated maximum safe concentration of the essential oil in complete feed was 22 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 33 mg/kg for laying hens, 30 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening, 40 mg/kg for piglets, 48 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 63 mg/kg for sows, 57 mg/kg for dairy cows, 100 mg/kg for veal calves, 88 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 35 mg/kg for rabbits, 101 mg/kg for salmonids, 106 mg/kg for dogs, and 18 mg/kg for cats. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum safe concentration in feed. The additive is considered as irritant to skin and eyes and a potential skin and respiratory sensitiser. Use in animal husbandry of the essential oil extracted from O. vulgare ssp. hirtum is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since oregano and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and their function in feed would be essentially the same, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for the essential oil.

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 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 Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 23 compounds belonging to different chemical groups. This opinion concerns eight out of the 23 compounds, which are currently authorised for use as flavours in food. The Panel concludes that the eight additives are safe for cats and dogs at the proposed use level: phenylmethanethiol [12.005] and benzyl methyl sulfide [12.077] at 0.05 mg/kg complete feed; 2‐pentylthiophene [15.096] at 0.1 mg/kg complete feed; tridec‐2‐enal [05.078] and 12‐methyltridecanal [05.169] at 0.5 mg/kg complete feed; 2,5‐dimethylphenol [04.019] at the 1 mg/kg complete feed; hexa‐2(trans),4(trans)‐dienal [05.057] at 1.5 mg/kg complete feed; 2‐ethyl‐4‐hydroxy‐5‐methyl‐3(2H)‐furanone [13.084] at 2.25 mg/kg complete feed. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the users when handling the additives. Since all eight compounds are used in food as flavourings, and their function in feed is essentially the same as that in food no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 26 compounds belonging to chemical group 3 (α,β‐unsaturated straight‐chain and branched‐chain aliphatic primary alcohols, aldehydes, acids and esters). They are all currently authorised as flavours in food. The FEEDAP Panel was unable to perform the assessment of non‐2(cis)‐en‐1‐ol [02.112] in the absence of data on its purity. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that hex‐2‐en‐1‐ol [02.020], pent‐2‐en‐1‐ol [02.050], 2‐dodecenal [05.037], nona‐2,4‐dienal [05.071], trans‐2‐nonenal [05.072], hex‐2(trans)‐enal [05.073], 2,4‐decadienal [05.081], hepta‐2,4‐dienal [05.084], deca‐2(trans),4(trans)‐dienal [05.140], dodec‐2(trans)‐enal [05.144], hept‐2(trans)‐enal [05.150], non‐2‐enal [05.171], undec‐2(trans)‐enal [05.184], trans‐2‐octenal [05.190], trans‐2‐decenal [05.191], tr‐2, tr‐4‐nonadienal [05.194], tr‐2, tr‐4‐undecadienal [05.196], hex‐2(trans)‐enyl acetate [09.394] and hex‐2‐enyl butyrate [09.396] are safe at the proposed maximum use level of 5 mg/kg feed for all animal species; nona‐2,6‐dien‐1‐ol [02.049], trans‐2, cis‐6‐nonadien‐1‐ol [02.231], nona‐2(trans),6(cis)‐dienal [05.058], nona‐2(trans),6(trans)‐dienal [05.172], allyl heptanoate [09.097] and allyl hexanoate [09.244] are safe at the proposed normal use levels of 1 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of these compounds up to the highest safe levels in feed. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the users when handling the additives. No environmental risk is foreseen for these compounds at the concentrations considered safe for the target species. Since the 25 compounds are used in food as flavourings and their function is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of two compounds belonging to chemical group 20 (aliphatic and aromatic mono‐ and di‐thiols and mono‐, di‐, tri‐, and polysulfides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups). 8‐Mercapto‐p‐menthan‐3‐one [12.038] and p‐menth‐1‐ene‐8‐thiol [12.085] are currently authorised as flavours in food. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the two compounds are safe for the target species at the proposed maximum use level (0.05 mg/kg complete feed). No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of 8‐mercapto‐p‐menthan‐3‐one and p‐menth‐1‐ene‐8‐thiol up to the highest safe level in feedingstuffs for all animal species. Both compounds should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and 8‐mercapto‐p‐menthan‐3‐one [12.038] also as irritant to the respiratory tract. No conclusions can be drawn on skin sensitisation potential. No environmental risk is foreseen for these compounds at the maximum proposed use level in feed. Since the two compounds are used as flavourings in food and their function is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.