Search

In vitro studies are increasingly proposed to replace in vivo toxicity testing of substances. We set out to apply physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to predict the in vivo dose of amiodarone that leads to the same concentration–time profile in the supernatant and the cell lysate of cultured primary human hepatic cells (PHH). A PBPK human model was constructed based on the structure and tissue distribution of amiodarone in a rat model and using physiological human parameters. The predicted concentration–time profile in plasma was in agreement with human experimental data with the unbound fraction of amiodarone in plasma crucially affecting the goodness-of-fit. Using the validated kinetic model, we subsequently described the in vitro concentration–time data of amiodarone in PHH culture. However, this could be only appropriately modeled under conditions of zero protein binding and the very low clearance of the in vitro system in PHH culture. However, these represent unphysiological conditions and, thus, the main difference between the in vivo and the in vitro systems. Our results reveal that, for meaningful quantitative extrapolation from in vitro to in vivo conditions in PBPK studies, it is essential to avoid non-intended differences between these conditions. Specifically, clearance and protein binding, as demonstrated in our analysis of amiodarone modeling, are important parameters to consider. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Arsenic is a human carcinogen that occurs ubiquitously in soil and water. Based on epidemiological studies, a benchmark dose (lower/higher bound estimate) between 0.3 and 8 μg/kg bw/day was estimated to cause a 1 % increased risk of lung, skin and bladder cancer. A recently published study by EFSA on dietary exposure to inorganic arsenic in the European population reported 95th percentiles (lower bound min to upper bound max) for different age groups in the same range as the benchmark dose. For toddlers, a highly exposed group, the highest values ranged between 0.61 and 2.09 µg arsenic/kg bw/day. For all other age classes, the margin of exposure is also small. This scenario calls for regulatory action to reduce arsenic exposure. One priority measure should be to reduce arsenic in food categories that contribute most to exposure. In the EFSA study the food categories 'milk and dairy products,' 'drinking water' and 'food for infants' represent major sources of inorganic arsenic for infants and also rice is an important source. Long-term strategies are required to reduce inorganic arsenic in these food groups. The reduced consumption of rice and rice products which has been recommended may be helpful for a minority of individuals consuming unusually high amounts of rice. However, it is only of limited value for the general European population, because the food categories 'grain-based processed products (non rice-based)' or 'milk and dairy products' contribute more to the exposure with inorganic arsenic than the food category 'rice.' A balanced regulatory activity focusing on the most relevant food categories is required. In conclusion, exposure to inorganic arsenic represents a risk to the health of the European population, particularly to young children. Regulatory measures to reduce exposure are urgently required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In general, xenobiotic metabolizing enzymes (XMEs) are expressed in lower levels in the extrahepatic tissues than in the liver, making the former less relevant for the clearance of xenobiotics. Local metabolism, however, may lead to tissue-specific adverse responses, e.g. organ toxicities, allergies or cancer. This review summarizes the knowledge on the expression of phase I and phase II XMEs and transporters in extrahepatic tissues at the body's internal-external interfaces. In the lung, CYPs of families 1, 2, 3 and 4 and epoxide hydrolases are important phase I enzymes, while conjugation is less relevant. In skin, phase I-related enzymatic reactions are considered less relevant. Predominant skin XMEs are phase II enzymes, whereby glucuronosyltransferases (UGT) 1, glutathione- S-transferase (GST) and N-acetyltransferase (NAT) 1 are important for detoxification. The intestinal epithelium expresses many transporters and phase I XME with high levels of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 and phase II metabolism is mainly related to UGT, NAT and Sulfotransferases (SULT). In the kidney, conjugation reactions and transporters play a major role for excretion processes. In the bladder, CYPs are relevant and among the phase II enzymes, NAT1 is involved in the activation of bladder carcinogens. Expression of XMEs is regulated by several mechanisms (nuclear receptors, epigenetic mechanisms, microRNAs). However, the understanding why XMEs are differently expressed in the various tissues is fragmentary. In contrast to the liver - where for most XMEs lower expression is demonstrated in early life - the XME ontogeny in the extrahepatic tissues remains to be investigated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Infants of mothers treated for tuberculosis might be exposed to drugs via breast milk. The existing information on the exposure of breastfed infants lacks a critical review of the published data. We aimed to evaluate the quality of the existing data on antituberculosis (anti-TB) drug concentrations in the plasma and milk as a methodologically sound basis for the potential risk of breastfeeding under therapy. We performed a systematic search in PubMed for bedaquiline, clofazimine, cycloserine/terizidone, levofloxacin, linezolid, pretomanid/pa824, pyrazinamide, streptomycin, ethambutol, rifampicin and isoniazid, supplemented with update references found in LactMed®. We calculated the external infant exposure (EID) for each drug and compared it with the recommended WHO dose for infants (relative external infant dose) and assessed their potential to elicit adverse effects in the breastfed infant. Breast milk concentration data were mainly not satisfactory to properly estimate the EID. Most of the studies suffer from limitations in the sample collection, quantity, timing and study design. Infant plasma concentrations are extremely scarce and very little data exist documenting the clinical outcome in exposed infants. Concerns for potential adverse effects in breastfed infants could be ruled out for bedaquiline, cycloserine/terizidone, linezolid and pyrazinamide. Adequate studies should be performed covering the scenario in treated mothers, breast milk and infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: A scientifically sound assessment of the risk to human health resulting from acute chemical releases is the cornerstone for chemical incident prevention, preparedness and response. Although the general methodology to identify acute toxicity of chemicals has not substantially changed in the last decades, there is ongoing debate on the current approaches for human health risk assessment in scenarios involving acute chemical releases. A survey was conducted to identify: (1) the most important present and potential future chemical incident scenarios and anticipated changes in chemical incidents or their management; (2) information, tools and guidance used in different countries to assess health risks from acute chemical releases; and (3) needs for new information, tools, guidance and expertise to enable the valid and rapid health risk assessment of acute chemical exposures. According to the results, there is an obvious variability in risk assessment practices within Europe. The multiplicity of acute exposure reference values appears to result in variable practices. There is a need for training especially on the practical application of acute exposure reference values. Although acutely toxic and irritating/corrosive chemicals will remain serious risks also in future the development of plausible scenarios for potential emerging risks is also needed. This includes risks from new mixtures and chemicals (e.g. nanoparticles). [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Reviewing the past and the present status of personalized medicine, the hope and promise from several years ago was critically compared to what is really achieved to tailor the drug treatment according to the patient's individuality. The basis for consideration is what we know about the variant of the disease the patient is suffering from, and about the mechanisms influencing the plasma concentration-time profile, such as activity of metabolizing enzymes and transporters. In cancer treatment, drugs are currently selected regarding molecular properties of the cancer tissue, eg, expressing receptors such as HER2 receptor. Currently diagnostic tests are available allowing to detect somatic cell mutations that can be used to guide drug selection. Unfortunately, tumor heterogeneity and developing resistance by further mutations may limit the success of the therapy determined by molecular diagnostics. The present status can be described that in drug kinetics we know the influencing factors and we understand the mechanisms. However, only in a few cases the genetic background is the main determinant of kinetic variability, and environmental and other factors have an additional important role. Therefore, much more has to be done before we can translate the accumulating knowledge into a benefit for the patient. Only then, we can speak about personalized medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this contribution we present three case studies of physiologically based toxicokinetic (PBTK) modelling in regulatory risk assessment. (1) Age-dependent lower enzyme expression in the newborn leads to bisphenol A (BPA) blood levels which are near the levels of the tolerated daily intake (TDI) at the oral exposure as calculated by EFSA. (2) Dermal exposure of BPA by receipts, car park tickets, and so forth, contribute to the exposure towards BPA. However, at the present levels of dermal exposure there is no risk for the adult. (3) Dermal exposure towards coumarin via cosmetic products leads to external exposures of two-fold the TDI. PBTK modeling helped to identify liver peak concentration as the metric for liver toxicity. After dermal exposure of twice the TDI, the liver peak concentration was lower than that present after oral exposure with the TDI dose. In the presented cases, PBTK modeling was useful to reach scientifically sound regulatory decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The production of haematopoietic cells is under the tight control of a group of haematopoietic cytokines. Each cytokine has multiple actions mediated by receptors whose cytoplasmic domains contain specialized regions initiating survival, proliferation, differentiation commitment, maturation and functional activation. Granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), erythropoietin (EPO), and thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents are in routine clinical use to stimulate cell production and in total have been used in the management of many millions of patients. G-CSF regulates neutrophil production to maintain blood neutrophil counts in the normal range. G-CSF is used to prevent febrile neutropenia or to increase dose-density in chemotherapy regimens. Despite consistently showing a shorter duration of neutropenia, multiple prospective randomized trials have documented only modest clinical benefit. A clinical advantage of dose-dense chemotherapy has been shown only in specific chemotherapy regimens. Professional recommendations tailor the use of CSFs to patients with a high risk of adverse outcome of febrile neutropenia. EPO was used to prevent anaemia requiring red blood cell transfusion. However, recent studies strongly suggest a negative overall effect on mortality, without a plausible biological explanation. It is now proposed that its use should be restricted to patients in clinical trials. Thrombopoiesis-stimulating agents have only been recently introduced into the market for splenectomized and non-splenectomized patients with immune thrombocytopenic purpura, a rare disease. Before widely used in other conditions such as chemotherapy-induced thrombocytopenia, the lessons learned from the example of G-CSF and EPO should be taken seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We present two approaches to estimate blood concentrations of Bisphenol A (BPA). Simple kinetic principles were applied to calculate steady state plasma concentrations. A physiologically based model was used to simulate the blood concentration time profile in several age groups exploring the influence of not yet fully developed metabolic capacity on the blood concentrations in the newborn. Both approaches gave concordant results and are in excellent agreement with experimental results [Völkel, W., Colnot, T., Csanady, G.A., Filser, J.G., Dekant, W., 2002. Metabolism and kinetics of bisphenol A in humans at low doses following oral administration. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 15, 1281–1287]. The predictions also agree with published results obtained with a different physiologically based model. According to model simulations, BPA is present in the blood of the normal population at concentrations several orders of magnitude lower than most measurements reported in the literature. At the same external exposure level, the newborn is predicted to have 3 times greater blood concentration than the adult. This is due to the not yet fully developed glucuronidation activity in the newborn, not fully compensated by the unimpaired sulfation pathway. For the highest measured external BPA exposure, the predicted blood concentrations of 2.6pg/ml (steady state concentration) and 8.2pg/ml (peak concentration) in the adult are lower than the in vitro concentrations at which inhibiting adiponectin release from human adipocytes and stimulation of β-cell production and secretion were observed. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: In an age when vector-borne diseases are emerging worldwide, personal protective measures are essential for shielding soldiers and other exposed persons from arthropod attack. The development of permethrin-impregnated clothing has been one recent advance in protecting persons at-risk. However, to date risk assessment has not been performed related to wearing permethrin-impregnated clothing over longer time periods. Therefore, this paper describes relevant toxicological aspects of permethrin and estimates the extent of dermal permethrin uptake by soldiers wearing impregnated uniforms by determining urine metabolites of permethrin. The exposure monitoring conducted in wearers of untreated uniforms did not show any signs of increased permethrin uptake and was similar to that of the general population in Germany. By contrast, studies involving the soldiers wearing permethrin-impregnated uniforms identified far higher internal exposure, the amounts of urine metabolites clearly above the reference value for the background exposure of the German population at large. Comparing the median excretion values, an approximately 200 times higher exposure can be assumed. The excretion levels of the subject with the maximum amount of metabolites correspond to an internal exposure of around 5–6μg/kg body weight and day thereby considering that biomonitoring could not take all urine metabolites and other elimination routes into account. Based on an oral absorption rate of 50%, the internal dose of 5–6μg/kg body weight and day would correspond to an oral uptake of permethrin which is around 20% of the ADI value of 50μg/kg body weight and day. In addition, based on these data and using a dermal absorption rate of 2% the permethrin dose reaching the skin was estimated to be 250μg/kg body weight and day. Considering a standard body weight and the area covered by the uniform, an exposure level of about 1.25μgpermethrin/cm2 skin and day can be calculated. Clinical subjective symptoms were recorded by means of a self-reporting questionnaire which has been developed and used for this specific purpose in environmental outpatient departments in both groups (wearers of impregnated versus non-impregnated uniforms). Only minor sensory impairments were identified in one of the studies (Kabul/Afghanistan) which may represent skin paraesthesiae. Based on these results, it can be assumed that the normal use of permethrin-treated uniforms does not affect human health to a clinical relevant extent. We recommend that the release rate of permethrin from the textile material should be strictly monitored by means of a quality assurance method. It should comply with standards to which the results of this study may contribute. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The new European REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation of Chemicals) legislation requires new information on chemicals, which is tiered according to production volume. The need for data promotes the use of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships ([Q]SARs) in order to meet the European political goal to protect the lives of animals. Within the preparation for REACH, the EU Commission set up REACH implementation projects (RIPs). They are aimed at giving guidance to industry and regulators on how to interpret the legislation. Within the framework of REACH, (Q)SARs are expected to have specific applications in several fields such as raising concerns for chemicals with low production volume for which no (eco)toxicological data have to be submitted, supporting the grouping of chemicals (family approach), and supporting the classification of chemicals as PBT (persistent/bioaccumulative/toxic) or vPvB (very persistent, very bioaccumulative) substances. Currently, the use of (Q)SARs in European regulatory decision making is limited. However, a new European tool (Toxtree) will be made available along with training courses to promote the use of (Q)SAR approaches under REACH. It is expected that the experimental data, to be submitted by industry and made publicly available under REACH, will provide opportunities to improve existing prediction tools and to develop new approaches for (Q)SAR analysis. In the political perspective, the tools will provide support as a rational basis for the intelligent design of new chemicals with sustainable (eco)toxicological properties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: In the past, the term biomarker has been used with several meanings when used in human and environmental toxicology as compared to pharmaceutical development. However, with the advent of molecular approaches and their application in the field of drug development and toxicology, the concept of biomarkers has to be newly defined. In the meeting, the experts found consent in defining the term and described the application of biomarkers in toxicology, drug development and clinical diagnostics. Molecular approaches to biomarker identification and selection lead to a large amount of data. Hence, the statistical analysis is challenging and special statistical problems have to be solved in biomarker characterization, of particular interest are attempts aiming at class discovery and prediction. Reliability and biological relevance are to be demonstrated for biomarkers of exposure and effect which is also true for biomarkers of susceptibility. It is envisaged that the application of biomarkers will expand from current use in pre-clinical toxicology to the risk characterization and risk assessment of chemicals and from early clinical phases of drug development to later phases and even into daily clinical use in diagnostics and disease classification. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The computational approach is one of the newest and fastest developing techniques in pharmacokinetics, ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) evaluation, drug discovery and toxicity. However, to date, the software packages devoted to ADME prediction, especially of metabolism, have not yet been adequately validated and still require improvements to be effective. Most are ‘open’ systems, under constant evolution and able to incorporate rapidly, and often easily, new information from user or developer databases. Quantitative in silico predictions are now possible for several pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, particularly absorption and distribution. The emerging consensus is that the predictions are no worse than those made using in vitro tests, with the decisive advantage that much less investment in technology, resources and time is needed. In addition, and of critical importance, it is possible to screen virtual compounds. Some packages are able to handle thousands of molecules in a few hours. However, common experience shows that, in part at least for essentially irrational reasons, there is currently a lack of confidence in these approaches. An effort should be made by the software producers towards more transparency, in order to improve the confidence of their consumers. It seems highly probable that in silico approaches will evolve rapidly, as did in vitro methods during the last decade. Past experience with the latter should be helpful in avoiding repetition of similar errors and in taking the necessary steps to ensure effective implementation. A general concern is the lack of access to the large amounts of data on compounds no longer in development, but still kept secret by the pharmaceutical industry. Controlled access to these data could be particularly helpful in validating new in silico approaches. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Provides an international perspective on the use of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic data in risk assessment of chemicals. Guidance for the use of data in development of chemical-specific adjustment factors; Kinetics of a chemical encompassing absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion on animal and human testing; Identification of the active chemical moiety.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the 'safe levels of intake' established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: With this comment we would raise awareness for applying appropriate procedures in route-to-route extrapolation. The paper of Demierre et al. (2012) prompted us to comment on the simple approach for route-to-route extrapolation and to explain some short comings. For the risk assessment of exposures resulting from a non-oral route, route-to-route extrapolation is often done by correcting the non-oral route exposure by the route specific absorption into the systemic circulation and comparing the result with the (oral) threshold value. Making use of this procedure means that an internal dose obtained from the non-oral route is compared with an external dose of the oral route. This procedure would be appropriate only if the absorption on the oral route is 100%. If the absorption on the oral route is less than 100% the procedure may underestimate the risk of the exposure of the non-oral route. For some chemicals with a high first pass metabolism in the liver, e.g. BPA, the situation is even more complex and in addition, the target organ for toxicity has to be taken into consideration. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Quillaia extract (E 999) was re‐evaluated in 2019 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF). EFSA derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow‐up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs) to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 999. Additionally, this opinion deals with the assessment of the proposed extension of use for E 999 in food supplements supplied in a solid and liquid form, excluding food supplements for infants and young children and, as a carrier in botanical nutrients. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use, if authorised, could result in an exceedance of the ADI at the maximum of the ranges of the mean for children, adolescents and the elderly, and for all populations at the 95th percentile. An additional proposed extension of use for E 999 to be used as a carrier for glazing agents on entire fresh fruits and vegetables has been received. Since no information on the proposed use levels of E 999 on a saponins content basis has been provided by this applicant, the Panel was not able to evaluate the safety of this extension of use. Considering the technical data submitted, the Panel recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 999, mainly to lower the limits for lead, mercury and arsenic and to include a maximum limit for cadmium and for calcium oxalate. The Panel also recommended that the limits would be expressed on a saponins basis. The Panel proposed to revise the definition of E 999 to better describe the composition in a qualitative way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out a public consultation to receive input from the scientific community and all interested parties on the Guidance on the use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern approach in food safety assessment. The draft guidance was prepared by a dedicated working group of the Scientific Committee and endorsed by the Scientific Committee for public consultation at its plenary meeting of 17th September 2018. The public consultation for this document was open from 12th November 2018 to 10th January 2019. EFSA received 101 comments from 23 interested parties in addition to three letters. EFSA's Scientific Committee wishes to thank all stakeholders for their contributions. This report presents statistics on the comments received and provides a summarised description of how the comments were addressed in the finalisation of the document. The valuable and detailed comments from the stakeholders were taken into account by the Scientific Committee to prepare an updated version of the guidance. The opinion was discussed and adopted at the Scientific Committee plenary meeting on 24 April 2019 and is published in the EFSA Journal This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5708/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PFASs are defined as substances that contain at least one fully fluorinated methyl (CF3–) or methylene (–CF2–) carbon atom. The excellent technical properties of members of the PFAS group have led to their use in a wide range of applications. The substance group comprises more than 10,000 individual compounds. A variety of adverse effects has been described for single substances. For the majority of the PFASs, neither toxicokinetic data nor effect data is available. Hence, because of the small number of PFASs for which a full toxicological profile is available, grouping based on the existing data is not feasible. A critical problem of PFASs and their degradation products is the very high persistence, which clearly fulfils the criterion for the substance property Very Persistent (vP) according to Annex XIII of the REACH Regulation. Because of this property the European Commission is planning to take action. Defining suitable subgroups appears to be a scientifically based approach. However, to reach this goal, large data gaps would have to be closed which would take up to centuries, a time-frame, which is not defendable with respect to potential irreversible harm. Because of the time pressure resulting from the potential irreversible harm, the precautionary principle has been selected as an appropriate tool to handle PFASs and in the restriction proposal PFASs are treated as one group. This approach is justified in the view of the advisory committee of the German Society for Toxicology. ECHA's proposal received a lot of attention in the public. However, communication so far has obviously led to the misunderstanding of a proven health hazard for all PFASs. Communication should explain the justification of the broad inclusion of substances as being based on the precautionary principle. Data gaps versus current knowledge need to be clearly communicated; communication should also include the possibility for derogation of essential use. It should address the issue of suitable substitutes to avoid unintended health consequences; and it should mention that existing persistent environmental contamination calls for developing innovation in remediation techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of synthesised DNA oligonucleotides as a new food additive, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. Considering that the additional information requested by the Panel during the risk assessment was not provided by the applicant, the assessment was concluded on the basis of the sole information available in the application. The proposed food additive consists of purified synthetic DNA sequences intended to be used for traceability purposes, alone or combined with carriers. Information provided by the applicant on the identity, characterisation and production process of the proposed food additive was considered insufficient. The Panel considered that the product specifications as proposed by the applicant do not adequately define and characterise the proposed food additive. The applicant proposed for the food additive the maximum use levels of 0.001 mg/kg for a variety of food categories. The food additive was also proposed as a Group I additive at a specific maximum level of quantum satis. The applicant did not provide exposure estimates according to the EFSA ANS Panel guidance (2012). No biological or toxicological data were provided by the applicant for the proposed food additive. Considering the inadequate information available and the uncertainty introduced by the proposal at quantum satis, along with the insufficient specifications, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food additive as proposed and described by the applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This opinion addresses the re‐evaluation of erythritol (E 968) as food additive and an application for its exemption from the laxative warning label requirement as established under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. Erythritol is a polyol obtained by fermentation with Moniliella pollinis BC or Moniliella megachiliensis KW3‐6, followed by purifications and drying. Erythritol is readily and dose‐dependently absorbed in humans and can be metabolised to erythronate to a small extent. Erythritol is then excreted unchanged in the urine. It does not raise concerns regarding genotoxicity. The dataset evaluated consisted of human interventional studies. The Panel considered that erythritol has the potential to cause diarrhoea in humans, which was considered adverse because its potential association with electrolyte and water imbalance. The lower bound of the range of no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for diarrhoea of 0.5 g/kg body weight (bw) was identified as reference point. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) at the level of the reference point. An ADI of 0.5 g/kg bw per day was considered by the Panel to be protective for the immediate laxative effect as well as potential chronic effects, secondary to diarrhoea. The highest mean and 95th percentile chronic exposure was in children (742 mg/kg bw per day) and adolescents (1532 mg/kg bw per day). Acute exposure was maximally 3531 mg/kg bw per meal for children at the 99th percentile. Overall, the Panel considered both dietary exposure assessments an overestimation. The Panel concluded that the exposure estimates for both acute and chronic dietary exposure to erythritol (E 968) were above the ADI, indicating that individuals with high intake may be at risk of experiencing adverse effects after single and repeated exposure. Concerning the new application, the Panel concluded that the available data do not support the proposal for exemption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a new process to produce steviol glycosides by fermentation of simple sugars using a genetically modified strain of Yarrowia lipolytica (named Y. lipolytica VRM). The manufacturing process may result in impurities different from those that may be present in the other steviol glycosides E 960a‐d, therefore the Panel concluded that separate specifications are required for the food additive produced as described in the current application. Viable cells and DNA from the production strain are not present in the final product. The Panel considered that the demonstration of the absence of kaurenoic acid in the proposed food additive, using a method with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.3 mg/kg, is adequate to dispel the concerns for potential genotoxicity. Given that all steviol glycosides follow the same metabolic pathways, the Panel considered that the current steviol glycosides would fall within the same group of substances. Therefore, the Panel considered that the already existing data on rebaudioside M and structurally related steviol glycosides are sufficient, and a similar metabolic fate and toxicity is expected for the food additive. The results from the bacterial reverse mutation assay and the in vitro micronucleus assay were negative and indicated absence of genotoxicity from the food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as steviol equivalents, was considered to be applicable to the proposed food additive. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycosides, predominantly Rebaudioside M, produced by fermentation using Y. lipolytica VRM, to be used as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product proFagus Smoke R709 (SF‐008), 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 R709 is obtained by pyrolysis of beech and oak wood as main source materials. 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 0.8 to 12.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day at the mean and from 2.3 to 51.4 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 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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

A letter to the editor is presented in response to an article "Alternative methods to safety studies in experimental animals: role in the risk assessment of chemicals under the new European Chemicals Legislation (REACH)," by W. Lilienblum, W. Dekant, H. Foth, T. Gebel, J.G. Hengstler, R. Kahl, P.J. Kramer, H. Schweinfurth, and K.M. Wollin.

Comments on Pierre Delmas and Mary Fisher's article on osteoporosis. Definition of osteoporosis; Examples of screening programs; Availability of bone densitometry techniques; Issue of reimbursement.

Citrinin (CIT), a fungal metabolite causing nephrotoxicity, has a tolerable daily intake (TDI) value of 0.2 μg/kg bw. Contamination of food with CIT is not sufficiently known to allow dietary exposure assessment. Urinary biomonitoring data are available from cohorts of several countries. However, kinetic information is lacking for CIT, hampering the use of urinary biomonitoring data to estimate the daily intake. We have investigated the kinetics of CIT after oral intake in two human volunteers on two occasions. Urinary excretion showed that ingested CIT undergoes conversion to dihydro-citrinone (DH-CIT) which is then excreted in the urine along with parent compound. The cumulative urinary excretion within 24 h was between 32.9% and 70.8% (median 40.2%) of the sum of CIT and DH-CIT (‘total CIT’). The median half-life in urine was 6.7 h for CIT and 8.9 h for DH-CIT. The median half-life in plasma accounted to 9.4 h. The daily urinary excretion for ‘total CIT’ served to estimate a provisional daily CIT intake using published urine biomarker data in several cohorts. European cohorts had an exposure well below the TDI whereas in Bangladesh the exposure in one cohort exceeded the TDI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed a new scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for the authorisation of flavourings to be used in or on foods. This guidance applies to applications for a new authorisation as well as for a modification of an existing authorisation of a food flavouring, submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. It defines the scientific data required for the evaluation of those food flavourings for which an evaluation and approval is required according to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. This applies to flavouring substances, flavouring preparations, thermal process flavourings, flavour precursors, other flavourings and source materials, as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: (a) the characterisation of the food flavouring, including the description of its identity, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications, stability and reaction and fate in foods; (b) the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure and (c) the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the food flavouring, toxicological data other than genotoxicity and information on the safety for the environment. For the toxicological studies, a tiered approach is applied, for which the testing requirements, key issues and triggers are described. Applicants should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the food flavouring. Based on the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the food flavouring and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment, if applicable, under the proposed conditions of use.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2022.EN-7669/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sulfur dioxide–sulfites (E 220–228) were re‐evaluated in 2016, resulting in the setting of a temporary ADI of 0.7 mg SO2 equivalents/kg bw per day. Following a European Commission call for data, the present follow‐up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs) and additional evidence identified in the publicly available literature. No new biological or toxicological data addressing the data gaps described in the re‐evaluation were submitted by IBOs. Taking into account data identified from the literature search, the Panel concluded that there was no substantial reduction in the uncertainties previously identified in the re‐evaluation. Therefore, the Panel considered that the available toxicity database was inadequate to derive an ADI and withdrew the current temporary group acceptable daily intake (ADI). A margin of exposure (MOE) approach was considered appropriate to assess the risk for these food additives. A lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose of 38 mg SO2 equivalents/kg bw per day, which is lower than the previous reference point of 70 mg SO2 equivalents/kg bw per day, was estimated based on prolonged visual evoked potential latency. An assessment factor of 80 was applied for the assessment of the MoE. At the estimated dietary exposures, when using a refined exposure scenario (Data set D), MOEs at the maximum of 95th percentile ranges were below 80 for all population groups except for adolescents. The dietary exposures estimated using the maximum permitted levels would result in MOEs below 80 in all population groups at the maximum of the ranges of the mean, and for most of the population groups at both minimum and maximum of the ranges at the 95th percentile. The Panel concluded that this raises a safety concern for both dietary exposure scenarios. The Panel also performed a risk assessment for toxic elements present in sulfur dioxide–sulfites (E 220–228), based on data submitted by IBOs, and concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for arsenic, lead and mercury should be lowered and a maximum limit for cadmium should be introduced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone – neohesperidine – which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13‐week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter‐ and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from < 0.01 to 0.09 mg/kg bw per day and at the 95th percentile (P95) from 0.01 to 0.24 mg/kg bw per day. Considering the derived ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day, the exposure estimates were below the reference value in all age groups. Therefore, the Panel concluded that dietary exposure to the food additive neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) at the reported uses and use levels would not raise a safety concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 FROM AUTHOR]

Glycerol (E 422) was re‐evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to that assessment, in this opinion, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) addresses the data gaps identified to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 422 in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The Panel performed a risk assessment of undesirable impurities present in E 422. The Panel concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for the four toxic elements (arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium) should be lowered based on actual levels in the commercial food additive E 422. The Panel recommended setting a numerical limit value for acrolein in the specifications for E 422. The potential exposure to free 3‐monochloropropanediol at the maximum limit of 0.1 mg/kg, as laid out in the specifications for E 422, does not give rise to a health concern. The Panel recommended to consider modifying the definition of E 422 in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 indicating that E 422 is obtained only from vegetable oils and fats and undergoes purification processes that involve distillation, and other clean up steps to obtain refined glycerol. Overall, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for glycerol (E 422). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (PEFA, E 475) was re‐evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to this assessment, in this opinion, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring (FAF) addresses the data gaps identified to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 475. The Panel performed a risk assessment of undesirable impurities and constituents potentially present in E 475. The Panel concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for the 4 toxic elements (arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium) should be lowered based on actual levels in the commercial food additive E 475. The Panel also concluded that maximum limits for erucic acid, 3‐monochloropropanediol and glycidyl esters should be included in the EU specifications for E 475. Alternatively, the Panel recommends an amendment of the definition of E 475 to include a requirement that the fats and oils used in the manufacturing of E 475 comply with the respective EU legislation regarding suitability for human consumption. Further, the Panel concluded that there is no need for setting a specification limit for the content of trans‐fatty acids in E 475 as a limit is established in the Regulation (EU) No 2019/649, i.e. 2 g of trans‐fat per 100 g fat in food for the final consumer. Finally, the Panel recommends a modification of the definition of E 475 indicating that polyglycerol used for the manufacturing of E 475 should be produced from glycerol meeting the specifications for E 422 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012). In this case, respective specification limits for epichlorohydrin, acrolein and butanetriol would not be needed for E 475. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]