Search

Abstract The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of glycoalkaloids (GAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment covers edible parts of potato plants and other food plants containing GAs, in particular, tomato and aubergine. In humans, acute toxic effects of potato GAs (α‐solanine and α‐chaconine) include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea. For these effects, the CONTAM Panel identified a lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect level of 1 mg total potato GAs/kg body weight (bw) per day as a reference point for the risk characterisation following acute exposure. In humans, no evidence of health problems associated with repeated or long‐term intake of GAs via potatoes has been identified. No reference point for chronic exposure could be identified from the experimental animal studies. Occurrence data were available only for α‐solanine and α‐chaconine, mostly for potatoes. The acute dietary exposure to potato GAs was estimated using a probabilistic approach and applying processing factors for food. Due to the limited data available, a margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied. The MOEs for the younger age groups indicate a health concern for the food consumption surveys with the highest mean exposure, as well as for the P95 exposure in all surveys. For adult age groups, the MOEs indicate a health concern only for the food consumption surveys with the highest P95 exposures. For tomato and aubergine GAs, the risk to human health could not be characterised due to the lack of occurrence data and the limited toxicity data. For horses, farm and companion animals, no risk characterisation for potato GAs could be performed due to insufficient data on occurrence in feed and on potential adverse effects of GAs in these species.

The preparation practices, handling and raw materials for street food vending could be sources of toxic metals in street food vending business which is yet to be explored in-depth as microbial contamination. The concentrations and dietary risk of the toxic metals Al, Fe, and Pb were assessed in fufu and fried-rice, two commonly consumed street-vended foods in Ghana. The mean concentrations for Pb found to be between 3.30 and 11.25 mg kg−1 in the cooked foods, far exceeded the maximum tolerable daily intake of 0.3 mg kg−1 body weight per day for consumers. Al and Fe concentrations were between 3.04 and 18.49 mg kg−1 and 1.44 and 7.82 mg kg−1, respectively. Hazard index was less than 1 at the 5th percentile level of consumption, but greater than 1 at the 50th and 95th percentile level of consumption; indicating risk of metal toxicity with increasing probability as the level of consumption and HI increase. The patronage of street vended foods is unlikely to reduce. Hence vendors must be educated on safe preparation and handling processes such as the use of stainless steel utensils will likely reduce the levels of the toxic metals to acceptable levels. Keywords: Food contamination, Metal toxicity, Toxicology, Human health risk

Abstract In 2016, the EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM) published a scientific opinion on the acute health risks related to the presence of cyanogenic glycosides (CNGs) in raw apricot kernels in which an acute reference dose (ARfD) of 20 μg/kg body weight (bw) was established for cyanide (CN). In the present opinion, the CONTAM Panel concluded that this ARfD is applicable for acute effects of CN regardless the dietary source. To account for differences in cyanide bioavailability after ingestion of certain food items, specific factors were used. Estimated mean acute dietary exposures to cyanide from foods containing CNGs did not exceed the ARfD in any age group. At the 95th percentile, the ARfD was exceeded up to about 2.5‐fold in some surveys for children and adolescent age groups. The main contributors to exposures were biscuits, juice or nectar and pastries and cakes that could potentially contain CNGs. Taking into account the conservatism in the exposure assessment and in derivation of the ARfD, it is unlikely that this estimated exceedance would result in adverse effects. The limited data from animal and human studies do not allow the derivation of a chronic health‐based guidance value (HBGV) for cyanide, and thus, chronic risks could not be assessed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of xanthan gum (E 415) as food additive. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Based on the reported use levels, a refined exposure of up to 64 mg/kg bw per day in children for the general population, 38 mg/kg bw per day for children consumers only of food supplements at the high level exposure and 115 mg/kg bw per day for infants consuming foods for special medical purposes and special formulae (FSMPs), were estimated. Xanthan gum (E 415) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is expected to be fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported at the highest doses tested in chronic and carcinogenicity studies and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Repeated oral intake by adults of xanthan gum up to 214 mg/kg bw per day for ten days was well tolerated, but some individuals experienced abdominal discomfort, an undesirable but not adverse effect. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for xanthan gum (E 415), and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of xanthan gum (E 415) as food additive. Considering the outcome of clinical studies and post‐marketing surveillance, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern from the use of xanthan gum (E 415) in FSMPs for infants and young children at concentrations reported by the food industry. The current re‐evaluation of xanthan gum (E 415) as a food additive is not considered to be applicable for infants under the age of 12 weeks.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive. In the EU, tragacanth (E 413) has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF, 1989) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, 1987), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for this gum. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Tragacanth (E 413) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is partially fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of tragacanth up to 9,900 mg tragacanth/person per day (approximately equivalent 141 mg tragacanth/kg body weight (bw) per day) for up to 21 days was well tolerated in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tragacanth (E 413) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tragacanth (E 413) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive. Tara gum (E 417) has been evaluated by the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF, ) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA, ), who both allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ for this gum. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives, re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available for tara gum (E 417). Tara gum (E 417) is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is expected to be fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported at the highest doses tested in subchronic, chronic and carcinogenicity studies and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for tara gum (E 417) and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of tara gum (E 417) as a food additive at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of konjac (E 425), comprising konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) when used as food additives. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that current use of konjac (E 425) was limited in all food categories to maximum permitted level (MPL) of 10 g/kg, and that the calculated indicative refined exposure assessment for all population groups was below 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the general population (mean and high level). Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were unlikely to be absorbed intact and were significantly fermented by intestinal microbiota. The available database on toxicological studies was considered limited, however, no relevant adverse effects were seen in rats and dogs in 90‐day feeding studies according to the SCF, the no‐observed‐effect level (NOEL) in rats being 1,250 mg konjac glucomannan/kg bw per day. Konjac gum and konjac glucomannan were of no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. After a daily dosage of 3,000 mg in adults for 12 weeks, several individuals experienced abdominal discomfort including diarrhoea or constipation. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that there was no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of konjac gum (E 425 i) and konjac glucomannan (E 425 ii) as food additives under the current conditions of use of 10 g/kg. The Panel agreed with the conclusions of the SCF () that the uses of konjac (E 425) as an additive at the levels up to 10 g/kg in food are acceptable, provided that the total intake from all sources stays below 3 g/day.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive. In the EU, acacia gum has not been formally evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), and therefore, no ADI has been allocated. However, it was accepted for use in weaning food (SCF, ). In 1999, the SCF considered ‘that the use of acacia gum/gum arabic in coatings for nutrient preparations containing trace elements is acceptable provided carry‐over levels in infant formulae, follow‐on formulae or FSMP do not exceed 10 mg/kg’. Acacia gum was evaluated by JECFA in 1982 and 1990 and the specifications were amended in 1998. Based on the lack of adverse effects in the available toxicity studies, an ADI ‘not specified’ was allocated. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Acacia gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and is slightly fermented by intestinal microbiota. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested and there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral daily intake of a large amount of acacia gum up to 30,000 mg acacia gum/person per day (approximately equivalent 430 mg acacia gum/kg bw per day) for up to 18 days was well tolerated in adults but some individuals experienced flatulence which was considered by the Panel as undesirable but not adverse effect. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for acacia gum (E 414), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive.

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of lecithins (E 322) when used as a food additive. Lecithins (E 322) is an authorised food additive in the EU according to Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 on food additives, and have been previously evaluated by JECFA in 1973 and by the SCF in 1982. Among lecithins, phosphatidylcholine is hydrolysed in choline in the cytidine‐5‐diphosphate‐choline pathway in all cells of the body. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI for lecithins (E 322) and that there was no safety concern for the general population from more than 1 year of age at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive. The Panel further concluded that there is no safety concern for the exposure to the choline from lecithins (E 322) as a food additive at use and use levels reported by industry. For infants (from 12 weeks up to 11 months of age), the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive and for the choline from lecithins (E 322) as a food additive at use and use levels reported by industry. For infants and young children consuming foods for special medical purposes, the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern with respect to the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive and for exposure to choline resulting from these uses of lecithins (E 322).

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate 53 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07, including four new substances but‐3‐en‐2‐ol, non‐1‐en‐e‐ol, hex‐1‐en‐3‐one and 1‐nonene‐3‐one [FL‐nos: 02.131, 02.187, 07.161 and 07.210] in this Revision 5, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. None of the 53 substances was considered to have genotoxic potential. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that all 53 substances do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For 50 substances, further information is required based on comparison of the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate N‐(2‐methylcyclohexyl)‐2,3,4,5,6‐pentafluoro‐benzamide [FL‐no: 16.119] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 302, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The substance is intended to be used as a flavour modifier and the current evaluation is only applicable to this use. Information on the ratios of diastereoisomers of the substance has been provided (cis 20–40% and trans 60–80%). Information on the ratio of enantiomers is lacking. The available data on genotoxicity do not preclude the evaluation of the candidate substance [FL‐no: 16.119] through the Procedure. The substance was evaluated through the B‐side of the Procedure. A ‘No Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (NOAEL) of 55 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day could be derived for [FL‐no: 16.119] from a 90‐day subchronic toxicity study in rats. This NOAEL provides an adequate margin of safety of 1.4 × 106, based on the ‘Maximised Survey‐Derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) of 2.4 μg/capita per day. Based on the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake’ (mTAMDI) approach, the Panel concluded that more information is needed on use and use levels. Besides the safety assessment of this flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered. Additional information on the stereoisomeric composition of the flavouring substance is required.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. In the EU, guar gum was evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1970, 1974 and 1975, who allocated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’. Guar gum has been also evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1977 who endorsed the ADI ‘not specified’ allocated by JECFA. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Guar gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in subchronic and carcinogenicity studies at the highest dose tested; no concern with respect to the genotoxicity. Oral intake of guar gum was well tolerated in adults. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for guar gum (E 412), and there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive. The Panel considered that for uses of guar gum in foods intended for infants and young children the occurrence of abdominal discomfort should be monitored and if this effect is observed doses should be identified as a basis for further risk assessment. The Panel considered that no adequate specific studies addressing the safety of use of guar gum (E 412) in food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of guar gum (E 412) in infants and young children consuming these foods for special medical purposes.

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4‐amino‐5‐(3‐(isopropylamino)‐2,2‐dimethyl‐3‐oxopropoxy)‐2‐methylquinoline‐3‐carboxylic acid [FL‐no: 16.130], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 407 (FGE.407), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as both the parent compound and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt as a flavouring substance with modifying properties in specific categories of food. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 882 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 547 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. A 90‐day dietary administration study in rats showed no adverse effects for doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 16.130] and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier as requested and when used at the levels as specified for foods from different food categories.

Abstract Following a request from European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) as a food additive. Locust bean gum (E 410) is an authorised food additive in the EU. Locust bean gum (E 410) as specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 is derived from the ground endosperm of the seeds of the strains of carob tree, Ceratonia siliqua (L.) Taub. (Family Leguminosae). An acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ was allocated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1981. Although not evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), it was accepted by the SCF in 1991 for use in weaning food, and in 1994, in infant formulae for special medical purposes. Locust bean gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in 90‐day toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents at the highest doses tested and there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity and to reproductive and developmental toxicity of locust bean gum (E 410). The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for locust bean gum (E 410), and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for its reported uses as a food additive. However, infants and young children consuming foods for special medical purposes may show a higher susceptibility to gastrointestinal effects of locust bean gum due to their underlying medical condition. The Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) in these foods for infants and young children.

The health burden of foodborne mycotoxins is considerable, but particularly for children due to their lower detoxification capacity, rapid growth and high intake of food in proportion to their weight. Through a Total Dietary Study approach, the objective was to estimate the dietary exposure and health risk caused by mycotoxins for children under 5 years living in the Lao Cai province in northern Vietnam. A total of 40 composite food samples representing 1008 individual food samples were processed and analyzed by ELISA for aflatoxin B1, ochratoxin A and fumonisins. Results showed that dietary exposure to aflatoxin B1, ochratoxin A and total fumonisins were 118.7 ng/kgbw/day, 52.6 ng/kg bw/day and 1250.0 ng/kg bw/day, respectively. Using a prevalence of hepatitis of 1%, the risk of liver cancer related to exposure of aflatoxin B1 was 12.1 cases/100,000 individual/year. Age-adjusted margin of exposure (MOE) of renal cancer associated with ochratoxin A was 127, while MOE of liver cancer associated with fumonisins was 542. Antropometric data show that 50.4% (60/119) of children were stunted, i.e. height/length for age z-scores (HAZ) below −2, and 3.4% (4/119) of children were classified as wasted, i.e. weight for height z-scores (WHZ) below −2. A significant negative relationship between dietary exposure to individual or mixture of mycotoxins and growth of children was observed indicating that the high mycotoxin intake contributed to stunning in the children studied.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of agar (E 406) as a food additive. In the European Union (EU), agar (E 406) has been evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1989, who allocated to agar a not specified acceptable daily intake (ADI), and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974, who considered very few data to conclude to a not limited ADI. According to the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that the safety assessment is limited to the use and use levels received from industry in 7 food categories for which data were considered in this opinion out of the 70 food categories in which agar (E 406) is authorised; an indicative high refined exposure assessment up to 26 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day has been calculated in toddlers at the 95th percentile (non‐brand‐loyal scenario); agar is unlikely to be absorbed unchanged and slightly fermented by intestinal microbiota; sufficient toxicity data were available; there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of agar; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the doses of 4,500 mg/kg bw per day and 2,500 mg/kg bw per day, respectively, the highest doses tested; oral intake of agar (4,500 mg/person corresponding to 64 mg/kg bw per day) was tolerated in humans for 12 weeks without noticeable side effects. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for agar and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of agar as a food additive.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the re‐evaluation of karaya gum (E 416) as a food additive. Karaya gum (E 416) is an authorised food additive in the EU. Karaya gum (E 416) as specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 is derived from the exudates from the stems and branches of strains of Sterculia urens Roxburgh and other species of Sterculia (family Sterculiaceae) or from Cochlospermum gossypium A.P. De Candolle or other species of Cochlospermum (family Bixaceae). An acceptable daily intake (ADI) ‘not specified’ was allocated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), whereas the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) allocated an ADI of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Karaya gum is practically undigested and not degraded by intestinal microflora and it is most probably not or only negligibly absorbed unchanged in humans. There is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of karaya gum from Sterculia spp. Karaya gum (E 416) from Sterculia spp. did not induce toxic effects in animals at dose levels up to 1,250 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. Karaya gum from Sterculia spp. was well tolerated in humans at dose about 100 mg/kg bw per day for 4 weeks. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the use of karaya gum as a food additive and that there is no need for a numerical ADI for karaya gum. The Panel further concluded that exposure to karaya gum by the use of this food additive should not exceed 7,000 mg/person per day in adults, the level at which some experienced abdominal discomfort.

Fødevarer produceres verden over. I dag fragtes de verden rundt i et stadigt stigende omfang. I denne globaliserede virkelighed bør uddannelse i kemisk‐ og mikrobiel fødevaresikkerhed og risikovurdering være interdisciplinær og international i alle aspekter. Med baggrund i et eksisterende kursus i kemisk fødevaresikkerhed for fødevarestuderende, som år for år fik flere studerende fra udlandet (Europa, Asien, Afrika og Sydamerika), samt et grundkursus for veterinærstuderende i mikrobiologisk fødevaresikkerhed besluttede to undervisere at skabe noget nyt. Det blev til et kursus i risikovurdering, kemisk såel som mikrobiologisk, for fødevare‐ og veterinærstuderende i blandet flok. Efter et par år skulle der nye udfordringer til. Vi gik i gang med at udvikle et 100 % online‐kursus i kemisk og mikrobiologisk fødevaresikkerhed. Det ni uger lange kursus (7,5 ECTS) har nu været afviklet for første gang med 12 tilmeldte, hvoraf de 11 gennemførte. De studerende repræsenterede Danmark, Sverige, Polen, Belgien, Frankrig og Portugal. Kurset udvikledes med udgangspunkt i professor Gilly Salmons (University of Leicester) 5‐trins model for e‐læring; som denne løbende er blevet praktisk videreudviklet ved Det Biovidenskabelige Fakultet, KU, af IT‐learning Centers e‐læringskonsulenter. I praksis byggede læringen i det fædigudviklede kursus på såkaldte e‐tivities med skrevne faglige online‐diskussioner mellem hhv. studerende og studerende‐undervisere. Eksamen gennemførtes som videomøde mellem de to undervisere og den enkelte studerende under anvendelse af Adobe Connect software. Vi erfarede, at samspillet mellem de forskellige fødevarekulturer kunne bringes til at berige kurset når e‐tivities formuleredes således, at den enkelte studerende tog udgangspunkt i en blanding af uddannelsesbaggrund og hjemlig mad‐kulturel viden. Praktiske erfaringer blev høstet specielt vedrørende afvikling af videomøde‐eksamen, som næmere redegjort for i artiklen.

Fødevarer produceres verden over. I dag fragtes de verden rundt i et stadigt stigende omfang. I denne globaliserede virkelighed bør uddannelse i kemisk‐ og mikrobiel fødevaresikkerhed og risikovurdering være interdisciplinær og international i alle aspekter. Med baggrund i et eksisterende kursus i kemisk fødevaresikkerhed for fødevarestuderende, som år for år fik flere studerende fra udlandet (Europa, Asien, Afrika og Sydamerika), samt et grundkursus for veterinærstuderende i mikrobiologisk fødevaresikkerhed besluttede to undervisere at skabe noget nyt. Det blev til et kursus i risikovurdering, kemisk såel som mikrobiologisk, for fødevare‐ og veterinærstuderende i blandet flok. Efter et par år skulle der nye udfordringer til. Vi gik i gang med at udvikle et 100 % online‐kursus i kemisk og mikrobiologisk fødevaresikkerhed. Det ni uger lange kursus (7,5 ECTS) har nu været afviklet for første gang med 12 tilmeldte, hvoraf de 11 gennemførte. De studerende repræsenterede Danmark, Sverige, Polen, Belgien, Frankrig og Portugal. Kurset udvikledes med udgangspunkt i professor Gilly Salmons (University of Leicester) 5‐trins model for e‐læring; som denne løbende er blevet praktisk videreudviklet ved Det Biovidenskabelige Fakultet, KU, af IT‐learning Centers e‐læringskonsulenter. I praksis byggede læringen i det fædigudviklede kursus på såkaldte e‐tivities med skrevne faglige online‐diskussioner mellem hhv. studerende og studerende‐undervisere. Eksamen gennemførtes som videomøde mellem de to undervisere og den enkelte studerende under anvendelse af Adobe Connect software. Vi erfarede, at samspillet mellem de forskellige fødevarekulturer kunne bringes til at berige kurset når e‐tivities formuleredes således, at den enkelte studerende tog udgangspunkt i en blanding af uddannelsesbaggrund og hjemlig mad‐kulturel viden. Praktiske erfaringer blev høstet specielt vedrørende afvikling af videomøde‐eksamen, som næmere redegjort for i artiklen.