Search

[Table: see text] This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of new substances that are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups and an assessment of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance was adopted by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) on 16 May 2018. Upon request from EFSA, the present guidance has been revised to inform applicants of new provisions set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80-90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes., (© 2019 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the evaluation of the proposed increase of the currently authorised maximum amounts of ferric sodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as a novel food ingredient used as a source of iron, and its extension of use in processed cereal-based foods and baby foods. The applicant also provided information on two forms of ferric sodium EDTA, one previously assessed by EFSA and a new one of finer consistency. To support the proposed changes to the uses of ferric sodium EDTA, the applicant proposed a revision of the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) for EDTA, derived from that set for the food additive calcium disodium EDTA (E 385). The Panel confirmed that ferric sodium EDTA is a source from which iron is bioavailable. In assessing the safety of the proposed revision to the existing specifications for the novel food ingredient ferric sodium EDTA, the Panel noted that this would not discriminate between the previously evaluated substance and the one of finer consistency. In particular, the Panel noted that particle size was not one of the proposed parameters for the revised specifications. The Panel noted that it was not possible to determine whether particles of ferric sodium EDTA in the nano range were present in the product with finer consistency in the solid form. The toxicological data submitted did not add any new relevant information to the database on which the current ADI for EDTA is based. Consequently, the Panel concluded that there was no sound scientific justification to increase the ADI for EDTA and hence increase the use levels of ferric sodium EDTA or introduce additional uses as proposed by the applicant. The Panel recommended that additional toxicological data should be provided to address the shortcomings in the available toxicity database prior to the re-evaluation of calcium disodium EDTA (E 385)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of monacolins in red yeast rice (RYR) and to provide advice on a dietary intake of monacolins that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health. The Panel reviewed the scientific evidences available as well as the information provided by interested parties in response of a public 'Call for data' launched by EFSA. The Panel considered that monacolin K in lactone form is identical to lovastatin, the active ingredient of several medicinal products authorised for the treatment of hypercholesterolaemia in the EU. On the basis of the information available, the Panel concluded that intake of monacolins from RYR via food supplements, could lead to estimated exposure to monacolin K within the range of the therapeutic doses of lovastatin. The Panel considered that the available information on the adverse effects reported in humans were judged to be sufficient to conclude that monacolins from RYR when used as food supplements were of significant safety concern at the use level of 10 mg/day. The Panel further considered that individual cases of severe adverse reactions have been reported for monacolins from RYR at intake levels as low as 3 mg/day. The Panel concluded that exposure to monacolin K from RYR could lead to severe adverse effects on musculoskeletal system, including rhabdomyolysis, and on the liver. In the reported cases, the product contained other ingredients in addition to RYR. However, these reported effects in particular musculoskeletal effects, have both occurred after ingestion of monacolin K and lovastatin independently. On the basis of the information available and several uncertainties highlighted in this opinion, the Panel was unable to identify a dietary intake of monacolins from RYR that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health, for the general population, and as appropriate, for vulnerable subgroups of the population., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of extracts of rosemary (E 392) when used as a food additive. Extracts of rosemary (E 392) was evaluated by the AFC Panel in 2008. Following this EFSA evaluation, extracts of rosemary (E 392) was authorised for use as a food additive in the EU in several food categories with maximum levels. In 2015, the ANS Panel provided a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed extensions of use for extracts of rosemary (E 392) in fat-based spreads. In 2016, the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) has evaluated this food additive and established a temporary acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0-0.3 mg/kg body weight (bw) for rosemary extract, expressed as carnosic acid plus carnosol. Based on the data provided by food industry, the Panel was able to refine the exposure estimates of extracts of rosemary (E 392). The highest mean refined exposure estimate (non-brand loyal scenario) was 0.09 mg/kg bw per day in children (3-9 years) and the highest 95th percentile of exposure was 0.20 mg/kg bw per day in children. Taking uncertainties into account, the Panel concluded that these exposure estimates very likely overestimate the real exposure to extracts of rosemary (E 392) from its use as a food additive according to Annex II. Margins of safety were estimated for children and adults using the refined exposure estimate; these are higher than the ones calculated in 2015. Intake of carnosic acid and carnosol from natural diet (herbs) was estimated. It was maximally 1.66 mg/kg bw per day (p95)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) recently provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that the absorption of silicates and talc was very low; there was no indication for genotoxicity or developmental toxicity for calcium and magnesium silicate and talc; and no confirmed cases of kidney effects have been found in the EudraVigilance database despite the wide and long-term use of high doses of magnesium trisilicate up to 4 g/person per day over decades. However, the Panel considered that accumulation of silicon from calcium silicate in the kidney and liver was reported in rats, and reliable data on subchronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity of silicates and talc were lacking. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of calcium silicate (E 552), magnesium silicate (E 553a(i)), magnesium trisilicate (E 553a(ii)) and talc (E 553b) when used as food additives cannot be assessed. The Panel considered that there is no mechanistic rationale for a group ADI for silicates and silicon dioxide and the group ADI established by the SCF is obsolete. Based on the food supplement scenario considered as the most representative for risk characterisation, exposure to silicates (E 552-553) for all population groups was below the maximum daily dose of magnesium trisilicate used as an antacid (4 g/person per day). The Panel noted that there were a number of approaches, which could decrease the uncertainties in the current toxicological database. These approaches include - but are not limited to - toxicological studies as recommended for a Tier 1 approach as described in the EFSA Guidance for the submission of food additives and conducted with an adequately characterised material. Some recommendations for the revision of the EU specifications were proposed by the Panel., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) data on propane-1,2-diol alginate gave evidence for the hydrolysis of this additive into propane-1,2-diol and alginic acid. These two compounds have been recently re-evaluated for their safety of use as food additives (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017, 2018). Consequently, the Panel considered in this opinion the major toxicokinetic and toxicological data of these two hydrolytic derivatives. No adverse effects were reported in subacute and subchronic dietary studies with propane-1,2-diol alginate. The available data did not indicate a genotoxic concern for propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. Propane-1,2-diol alginate, alginic acid and propane-1,2-diol were not of concern with respect to carcinogenicity. The Panel considered that any adverse effect of propane-1,2-diol alginate would be due to propane-1,2-diol. Therefore, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the food additive E 405 is determined by the amount of free propane-1,2-diol and the propane-1,2-diol released from the food additive after hydrolysis. According to the EU specification, the concentration of free and bound propane-1,2-diol amounts to a maximum of 45% on a weight basis. On the worst-case assumption that 100% of propane-1,2-diol would be systemically available and considering the ADI for propane-1,2-diol of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the Panel allocated an ADI of 55 mg/kg bw per day for propane-1,2-diol alginate. The Panel concluded that exposure estimates did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) as a food additive. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the authorised use levels., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are permitted as food additives in only a few specific products and the exposure is probably near zero. Aluminium compounds have low bioavailability and low acute toxicity. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for aluminium compounds in subchronic studies was 52 mg Al/kg body weight (bw) per day in rats and 90 mg Al/kg bw per day in dogs and the lowest NOAEL for neurotoxicity in rats was 30 mg Al/kg bw per day and for developing nervous system was 10-42 mg Al/kg bw per day in studies in mice and rats. The Panel concluded that aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are of no safety concern in the current authorised uses and use levels., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR, E 445) when used as a food additive. Regarding GEWR originating from Pinus palustris (longleaf pine) and Pinus elliottii (slash pine), based on the overall toxicity database, and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the Panel concluded that the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) as established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 should be temporary pending the provision of such data. This assessment is restricted to GEWR derived from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. The Panel concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand-loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the temporary ADI in any of the population groups from the use of GEWR (E 445) as a food additive at the reported use levels. For GEWR originating from Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia , the Panel noted that concentrations of the fractions of 'glycerol monoesters', 'free resin acids' and 'neutrals', which are considered to be of particular toxicological relevance, are not known; therefore, the evaluation of chemical equivalence with GEWR originating from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) is not possible; no data on stability were available; no toxicological data were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a safety assessment of GEWR originating from P. halepensis and P. brutia could not be performed. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider an update of the definition of GEWR (E 445) in the EU specifications. It should be indicated that GEWR (E 445) (i) contain, besides the mentioned glycerol di- and triesters, a residual fraction of glycerol monoesters, and (ii) contain residual free resin acids and neutrals (non-acidic other saponifiable and unsaponifiable substances)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of sodium ferrocyanide (E 535), potassium ferrocyanide (E 536), and evaluating the safety of calcium ferrocyanide (E 538) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Ferrocyanides (E 535-538) are solely authorised in two food categories as salt substitutes. To assess the dietary exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535-538) from their use as food additives, the exposure was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario (maximum permitted level (MPL)) and the refined exposure assessment scenario. Dietary exposure to ferrocyanides was calculated based on mean and high levels consumption of salts in both the regulatory maximum level and the refined scenario. In the MPL scenario, the exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535-538) from their use as a food additive was up to 0.009 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children and adolescents. In the refined estimated exposure scenario, the exposure was up to 0.003 mg/kg bw per day in children and adolescents. Absorption of ferrocyanides is low and there is no accumulation in human. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Reproductive studies were not available, but a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,000 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day (highest dose tested) was identified from a prenatal developmental toxicity study. The kidney appeared to be the target organ for ferrocyanides toxicity and 4.4 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day was identified as the NOAEL for the renal effects in a chronic (2-year) study in rats. Assuming that the toxicity of this compound is due to the ferrocyanide ion only, the Panel established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for sodium, potassium and calcium ferrocyanide of 0.03 mg/kg bw per day expressed as ferrocyanide ion. The Panel concluded that ferrocyanides (E 535-538) are of no safety concern at the current authorised use and use levels., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The European Commission requested EFSA to carry out a scientific evaluation on four studies on the potential toxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO 2 ) used as a food additive (E 171) and to indicate whether they would merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA on the safety of TiO 2 (E 171) as a food additive. The results of the Bettini et al. (2017) study did not provide enough justification for a new carcinogenicity study, but, should additional useful mechanistic information become available, this could be reconsidered in future. The new in vitro findings in the Proquin et al. (2017) study did not modify the conclusion on the genotoxicity of TiO 2 as stated in the previous EFSA opinion of 2016 on the safety of TiO 2 (E 171) as a food additive. The effects of engineered TiO 2 nanoparticles reported by the Guo et al. (2017) study were of uncertain biological significance and therefore of limited relevance for the risk assessment of the food additive TiO 2 (E 171). There was significant uncertainty in the risk assessment performed by Heringa et al. (2016), which did not include a weight of evidence analysis of the whole database. The Panel considered that the four studies evaluated, highlighted some concerns but with uncertainties, therefore their relevance for the risk assessment was considered limited and further research would be needed to decrease the level of uncertainties. Overall, three of the studies, reporting that TiO 2 induced various effects in in vitro and in vivo models, may be useful for hazard identification of TiO 2 . In the fourth study by Heringa et al. (2016), numerous assumptions were made, which resulted in large uncertainty in their conclusion. Altogether, the Panel concluded that the outcome of the four studies did not merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA related to the safety of TiO 2 (E 171) as a food additive., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Whenever new substances are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups, EFSA is requested by the European Commission to perform an assessment of their safety and of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance document should replace the previous guidance issued by the Scientific Committee for Food and published in 2001., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 μg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 μg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 μg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the refined exposure assessment of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) when used as a food additive. Polyethylene glycols were evaluated by several international bodies and the AFC Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety polyethylene glycol (E 1521). In 2006, the Panel concluded that based on all the data, consumption of PEG through use as plasticisers in film-coating formulations for food supplement tablets and/or capsules at the intended use level are not of safety concern. In 2007, in another opinion of the AFC Panel related to d-alpha-tocopheryl polyethylene glycol 1000 succinate (TPGS) in use for food for particular nutritional purposes, the Panel noted that TPGS intakes would correspond to intake to PEG 1000 at levels equivalent to 3.3-8.5 mg/kg body wieght (bw) per day which are within the range of group acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) of the SCF (1997) and JECFA (1980). This assessment could only take into account the use of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) in food supplements and thus the food supplements consumers only scenario was performed. It resulted in exposure estimates of polyethylene glycol (E 1521) up to 3.5 mg/kg bw per day at the mean and up to 6.1 mg/kg bw per day at the high level. The current exposure assessment is based on the methodology used in the re-evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2017. Considering the uncertainties of the exposure assessment, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to polyethylene glycol (E 1521). The Panel also noted that the highest calculated exposure estimate falls within the range of the group ADI previously established by SCF (5 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 300-4000) and of the one set by JECFA (10 mg/kg bw per day for PEG 200-10000)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food 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., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di-magnesium malate (DMM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of magnesium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of magnesium from this source. Additional information was sought from the applicant during the assessment process. However, despite several requests, the applicant did not provide the additional data. Consequently, the Panel performed this assessment on the basis of the available data and concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as DMM and magnesium malate already authorised as a source of magnesium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DMM as a novel food ingredient. The Panel concluded that based on the data provided it was not possible to assess the dissociation of DMM into magnesium and malic acid. The Panel further concluded that if DMM dissociates, magnesium would be available following ingestion of DMM and the availability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of magnesium already permitted. Finally, the Panel noted that the proposed use levels could result in exposures to magnesium greater than its upper level (UL) (250 mg/day) for food supplements and for food for special medical purposes., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di-calcium malate (DCM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of calcium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of calcium from this source. The structural formula of the proposed complex is based on expert judgement and not supported by any analytical data. On the basis of the available data, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as di-calcium malate (DCM) and calcium malate already authorised as a source of calcium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DCM as a novel food ingredient. On the basis of the results provided, the Panel considered that DCM does not completely dissociate into calcium and malic acid. The Panel concluded that when DCM dissociates, calcium would be available following ingestion of DCM and the bioavailability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of calcium already permitted. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that on the basis of the information available it was not possible to calculate the exposure to DCM as a source of calcium to foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and FSMP., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of 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., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA ANS Panel was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins from dietary sources including preparations such as food supplements and infusions. Green tea is produced from the leaves of Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, without fermentation, which prevents the oxidation of polyphenolic components. Most of the polyphenols in green tea are catechins. The Panel considered the possible association between the consumption of (-)-epigallocatechin-3-gallate (EGCG), the most relevant catechin in green tea, and hepatotoxicity. This scientific opinion is based on published scientific literature, including interventional studies, monographs and reports by national and international authorities and data received following a public 'Call for data'. The mean daily intake of EGCG resulting from the consumption of green tea infusions ranges from 90 to 300 mg/day while exposure by high-level consumers is estimated to be up to 866 mg EGCG/day, in the adult population in the EU. Food supplements containing green tea catechins provide a daily dose of EGCG in the range of 5-1,000 mg/day, for adult population. The Panel concluded that catechins from green tea infusion, prepared in a traditional way, and reconstituted drinks with an equivalent composition to traditional green tea infusions, are in general considered to be safe according to the presumption of safety approach provided the intake corresponds to reported intakes in European Member States. However, rare cases of liver injury have been reported after consumption of green tea infusions, most probably due to an idiosyncratic reaction. Based on the available data on the potential adverse effects of green tea catechins on the liver, the Panel concluded that there is evidence from interventional clinical trials that intake of doses equal or above 800 mg EGCG/day taken as a food supplement has been shown to induce a statistically significant increase of serum transaminases in treated subjects compared to control., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of propane-1,2-diol (E 1520) when used as a food additive. In 1996, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for propane-1,2-diol. Propane-1,2-diol is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal and is expected to be widely distributed to organs and tissues. The major route of metabolism is oxidation to lactic acid and pyruvic acid. At high concentrations, free propane-1,2-diol is excreted in the urine. No treatment-related effects were observed in subchronic toxicity studies. The available data did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity. Haematological changes suggestive of an increased red blood cell destruction with a compensatory increased rate of haematopoiesis were observed at the highest dose level (5,000 mg/kg bw per day) in a 2-year study in dogs. No adverse effects were reported in a 2-year chronic study in rats with propane-1,2-diol (up to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day). The SCF used this study to derive the ADI. No adverse effects were observed in the available reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Propane-1,2-diol (E 1520) is authorised according to Annex III in some food additives, food flavourings, enzymes and nutrients and it is then carried over to the final food. Dietary exposure to E 1520 was assessed based on the use levels and analytical data. The Panel considered that for the food categories for which information was available, the exposure was likely to be overestimated. Considering the toxicity database, the Panel concluded that there was no reason to revise the current ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel also concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand-loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane-1,2-diol (E 1520) at the reported use levels and analytical results., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety and bioavailability of silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements. Silver hydrosol is a suspension comprised of a mixture of positively charged silver ions and silver metal particles in water. The study report submitted, being a gastric disappearance study performed in six individuals, did not provide information on the systemic absorption of silver as such, and was not able to provide information on the bioavailability of silver from silver hydrosol. If silver from silver hydrosol is systematically available a complete toxicological evaluation is needed for its assessment. The application dossier was limited to an acute toxicity study with silver hydrosol and references to toxicological studies performed with forms of silver (e.g. salts of silver) which were considered neither relevant nor adequate to the risk assessment of silver hydrosol. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to characterise the silver hydrosol regarding its nano specific properties and to assess either the bioavailability of silver from the source or the safety of the silver hydrosol as a source of silver added for nutritional purposes to food supplements., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960). The applicant asked to amend the existing EU specifications for steviol glycosides to allow for the inclusion of all steviol glycosides identified in Stevia rebaudiana Bertoni leaves, including both 'major' and 'minor' glycosides, that may comprise the assay value of not less than 95% total steviol glycosides. According to the applicant, all steviol glycosides are subject to microbial metabolism in a similar manner, ultimately generating the common primary metabolite steviol. There are uncertainties on the rate and extent of the metabolism of different steviol glycosides to steviol in the evidence provided and they did not allow the Panel to endorse the applicant's argumentation that all steviol glycosides generate the common metabolite steviol when subjected to microbial metabolism under realistic conditions. The available information was not sufficient to assess the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for E 960 and the conclusions on the previous assessments on steviol glycosides cannot be extrapolated to any other mixture of steviol glycosides (containing not less than 95% of any steviol glycosides) extracted from S. rebaudiana Bertoni leaves. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the submitted data were insufficient to assess the safety of proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of sodium, potassium and calcium salts of fatty acids (E 470a) and magnesium salts of fatty acids (E 470b) when used as food additives. In 1991, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for the fatty acids (myristic-, stearic-, palmitic- and oleic acid) and their salts. The sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium salts of fatty acids are expected to dissociate in the gastrointestinal tract to fatty acid carboxylates and their corresponding cations. There were no data on subchronic toxicity, chronic toxicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity of the salts of fatty acids. There was no concern for mutagenicity of calcium caprylate, potassium oleate and magnesium stearate. From a carcinogenicity study with sodium oleate, a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) could not be identified but the substance was considered not to present a carcinogenic potential. Palmitic- and stearic acid which are the main fatty acids in E 470a and E 470b were already considered of no safety concern in the re-evaluation of the food additive E 570. The fatty acid moieties of E 470a and E 470b contributed maximally for 5% to the overall intake of saturated fatty acids from all dietary sources. Overall, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI and that the food additives sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium salts of fatty acids (E 470a and E 470b) were of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. According to the applicant, glucosylated steviol glycosides preparations consist of not less than 95% (on anhydrous basis) total steviol glycosides, made up of glucosylated steviol glycosides of different molecular weights as well as any remaining steviol glycosides. The applicant proposed that glucosylated steviol glycosides and parent steviol glycosides undergo a common metabolic process in pathway following ingestion and suggested that data from steviol glycosides can be used for read-across to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The limited evidence provided in the application dossier did not demonstrate the complete hydrolysis of the glucosylated steviol glycosides. No toxicological studies on glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations under evaluation have been provided for its assessment. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to assess the safety of the glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations to be used as a new food additive., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxyanthracene derivatives and to provide advice on a daily intake that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health. Hydroxyanthracene derivatives are a class of chemical substances naturally occurring in different botanical species and used in food to improve bowel function. The ANS Panel reviewed the available scientific data on a possible relationship between hydroxyanthracene derivatives exposure and genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. On the basis of the data currently available, the Panel noted that emodin, aloe-emodin and the structurally related substance danthron have shown evidence of in vitro genotoxicity. Aloe extracts have also been shown to be genotoxic in vitro possibly due to the presence of hydroxyanthracene derivatives in the extract. Furthermore, aloe-emodin was shown to be genotoxic in vivo and the whole-leaf aloe extract and the structural analogue danthron were shown to be carcinogenic. Epidemiological data suggested an increased risk for colorectal cancer associated with the general use of laxatives, several of which contain hydroxyanthracene derivatives. Considering the possible presence of aloe-emodin and emodin in extracts, the Panel concluded that hydroxyanthracene derivatives should be considered as genotoxic and carcinogenic unless there are specific data to the contrary, such as for rhein, and that there is a safety concern for extracts containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives although uncertainty persists. The Panel was unable to provide advice on a daily intake of hydroxyanthracene derivatives that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L-HPC) is a low-substituted poly(hydroxypropyl) ether of cellulose. L-HPC is proposed for use as a food additive in food supplements in solid form (tablet), with a maximum use level of 20,000 mg/kg and a typical use level of 10,000 mg/kg. Exposure estimates to L-HPC from its proposed use were calculated for both typical and maximum use levels. Due to the close chemical relationship between L-HPC and other celluloses recently re-evaluated by EFSA, the Panel decided to read-across the biological data already evaluated in the context of the re-evaluation programme. The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern from the proposed use and use levels of L-HPC., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The forms of synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) used as E 551 include fumed silica and hydrated silica (precipitated silica, silica gel and hydrous silica). The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. SAS materials used in the available biological and toxicological studies were different in their physicochemical properties; their characteristics were not always described in sufficient detail. Silicon dioxide appears to be poorly absorbed. However, silicon-containing material (in some cases presumed to be silicon dioxide) was found in some tissues. Despite the limitations in the subchronic, reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, including studies with nano silicon dioxide, there was no indication of adverse effects. E 551 does not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. In the absence of a long-term study with nano silicon dioxide, the Panel could not extrapolate the results from the available chronic study with a material, which does not cover the full-size range of the nanoparticles that could be present in the food additive E 551, to a material complying with the current specifications for E 551. These specifications do not exclude the presence of nanoparticles. The highest exposure estimates were at least one order of magnitude lower than the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) identified (the highest doses tested). The Panel concluded that the EU specifications are insufficient to adequately characterise the food additive E 551. Clear characterisation of particle size distribution is required. Based on the available database, there was no indication for toxicity of E 551 at the reported uses and use levels. Because of the limitations in the available database, the Panel was unable to confirm the current ADI 'not specified'. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 551., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of microcrystalline cellulose (E 460(i)), powdered cellulose (E 460(ii)), methyl cellulose (E 461), ethyl cellulose (E 462), hydroxypropyl cellulose (E 463), hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (E 464), ethyl methyl cellulose (E 465), sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466), enzymatically hydrolysed carboxy methyl cellulose (E 469) and cross-linked carboxy methyl cellulose (E 468) as food additives. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for unmodified and modified celluloses. Celluloses are not absorbed and are excreted intact in the faeces; in addition, microcrystalline cellulose, powdered and modified celluloses could be fermented by the intestinal flora in animals and humans. Specific toxicity data were not always available for all the celluloses evaluated in the present opinion and for all endpoints. Given their structural, physicochemical and biological similarities, the Panel considered it possible to read-across between all the celluloses. The acute toxicity of celluloses was low and there was no genotoxic concern. Short-term and subchronic dietary toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 462, E 463, E 464, E 466 and E 469 at levels up to 10% did not indicate specific treatment related adverse effects. In chronic toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 463, E 464, E 465 and E 466, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) values reported ranged up to 9,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No carcinogenic properties were detected for microcrystalline cellulose and modified celluloses. Adverse effects on reproductive performance or developmental effects were not observed with celluloses at doses greater than 1,000 mg/kg bw by gavage (often the highest dose tested). The combined exposure to celluloses (E 460-466, E 468 and E 469) at 95th percentile of the refined (brand-loyal) exposure assessment for the general population was up to 506 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI and that there would be no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for the unmodified and modified celluloses (E 460(i); E 460(ii); E 461-466; E 468 and E 469). The Panel considered an indicative total exposure of around 660-900 mg/kg bw per day for microcrystalline, powdered and modified celluloses., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) when used as a food additive. The Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473). In the 2010 opinion, the Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additional use of the sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) may lead to exposures in excess of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) and sucroglycerides (E 474) established by EFSA in 2004. In 2012, an update on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) was delivered as new data were submitted to EFSA providing use levels of sucrose esters of fatty acids as a surface treatment for fresh fruits and the resulting residual levels in fruit. This assessment also resulted in exposure estimates of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeding the ADI, although considerably lower than those estimated in 2010. The current exposure assessment is based on the recent methodology used in the re-evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2014. New consumption data were also available since then. The Panel noted that the current exposure estimates to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeded the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for many population groups; especially toddlers and children and that assuming that sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) is not used in the 24 food categories where data was not provided, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473)., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present scientific opinion deals with the safety of orthosilicic acid-vanillin complex (OSA-VC) as a novel food ingredient for use as a source of silicon (Si) in food supplements and with the bioavailability of Si from this source. OSA-VC is stable in liquid solution at low pH values. OSA from OSA-VC was available as revealed by the increase in plasma Si concentrations after oral ingestion in human volunteers. The toxicological data provided in support of the current application were not in accordance with the Tier 1 requirement of the 'Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations'; however, this was considered justified by the Panel given that OSA-VC at pH 6.8 dissociates into orthosilicic acid and vanillin. The daily consumption of OSA-VC at the dose recommended by the applicant would provide a supplemental intake of Si of approximately 10-18 mg Si/day which would result in an estimated total intake of roughly 30-70 mg Si/day. The maximum vanillin intake resulting from the consumption of OSA-VC would be less than 5% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for vanillin of 10 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 2002. The Panel concluded that there would be no safety concern with the proposed use and use level of OSA-VC as a novel food ingredient intended to be used as a source of Si in food supplements for the adult population. The Panel concluded that OSA, measured as Si, is bioavailable following ingestion of OSA-VC and appears similar to values reported in the literature for other established sources of OSA., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of polyglycerol esters of fatty acids (PEFA) (E 475) when used as a food additive. In 1978, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) endorsed an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Absorption of intact PEFA in the gastrointestinal tract was extremely low. PEFA was rapidly and almost fully hydrolysed to polyglycerols and fatty acids in the gastrointestinal tract. The safety of polyglycerols and specific fatty acids has recently been assessed and no adverse effects were identified in the available studies. No adverse effects of PEFA at any dose have been observed in short-term, subchronic or chronic toxicity studies. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 9,000 mg/kg bw per day was identified from subchronic studies and of 2,500 mg/kg bw per day from chronic studies, the highest doses tested. No genotoxic potential of PEFA was identified from the limited information available. The reproductive toxicity studies showed no adverse effects of PEFA but had major limitations. Clinical chemistry and urinalysis, from a clinical study with limited information, did not reveal any adverse effects in volunteers receiving up to 300 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks. The highest exposure to PEFA used as a food additive was 2.6 and 6.4 mg/kg bw per day in children at the mean and the 95th percentile, respectively, for the non-brand loyal scenario. Considering all the above, the Panel concluded that the food additive PEFA (E 475) was not of safety concern at the reported uses and use levels and that there was no need for a numerical ADI. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 475., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of nisin (E 234) in the light of new toxicological data and with the proposed extension of use in unripened cheese and heat-treated meat products. Nisin (E 234) is currently an authorised food additive in the EU under Annex II of Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 for use in several food categories. The safety of nisin (E 234) as a food additive has been evaluated in 2006 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food, where an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.13 mg/kg body weight (bw) was confirmed as previously established by Scientific Committee on Food (SCF). In addition to the studies previously evaluated by EFSA in 2006, the Panel considered in the present opinion, data from a new subchronic toxicity study. No adverse effects were observed in a repeated dose oral toxicity study in which rats were administered nisin A for 90 days. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 225 mg nisin A/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, was identified for this study. Using this NOAEL, an ADI of 1 mg nisin A/kg bw per day for nisin (E 234) was calculated applying a default uncertainty factor of 200 for extrapolation of subchronic to chronic exposure and inter- and intra-species variability. The Panel calculated exposure estimates for both the current and the proposed uses based on the data available in the EFSA Comprehensive Database. The Panel considered that the overall exposure estimate was below the new ADI for nisin A for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use of nisin (E 234) as a food additive in unripened cheese (at maximum level of 12 mg/kg) and in heat-treated meat products (at maximum level of 25 mg/kg) would not be of safety concern., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present scientific opinion deals with the safety of the extension of use of lycopene (E 160d) in certain meat preparations, meat products and fruit and vegetable preparations. Lycopene (E 160d) is an authorised food additive in the EU for use in several food categories and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was established. In the present opinion, the Panel decided that a comparison of the exposure resulting from the current uses and use levels with the exposure resulting from this additional proposed extension of uses would be sufficient to address the safety of lycopene. The Panel calculated that, considering the current maximum permitted levels (MPLs) and the proposed extension of uses and use levels, the mean dietary exposure to lycopene (E 160d) in the total population ranged from 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 0.82 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. At the high level, dietary exposure to lycopene (E 160d) ranged from 0.03 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 1.39 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of uses of lycopene (E 160d) as a food additive in meat preparations, meat products and fruit and vegetable preparations up to 60 mg/kg would not add significantly to the intake of the food additive at its current MPL. However, the Panel noted that the overall intake at the MPL scenario would exceed the currently established ADI. The Panel acknowledged the uncertainties in the current estimates which could result in an overestimation of the exposure to lycopene (E 160d) as a food additive in European countries and therefore concluded that a refined exposure estimate would be recommended focusing on food categories contributing the most to its estimates, in order to decrease uncertainties in its current estimates., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that it is very likely that hydrolysis of mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids by lipases in the gastrointestinal tract would occur, resulting in the release of glycerol and fatty acids. Glycerol (E 422) and fatty acids (E 570) have been re-evaluated and the Panel concluded that there was no safety concern regarding their use as food additives. Toxicological studies with mono- and di-glycerides rich in unsaturated fatty acids were considered for the re-evaluation of E 471. No evidence for adverse effects was reported in short-term, subchronic studies, chronic, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Neither carcinogenic potential nor a promotion effect in initiation/promotion was reported. The available studies did not raise any concern with regard to genotoxicity. The refined estimates were based on 31 out of 84 food categories in which E 471 is authorised. The Panel noted that the contribution of E 471 represented at the mean only 0.8-3.5% of the recommended daily fat intake. Based on the approach described in the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re-evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and taking into account the considerations mentioned above, the Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E 471) was of no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 471., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium, ammonium and calcium salts (E 400-E 404) when used as food additives. Alginic acid and its salts (E 400-E 404) are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. 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 Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) for alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404), and that there was no safety concern at the level of the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) as food additives. The Panel further concluded that exposure of infants and young children to alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) by the use of these food additives should stay below therapeutic dosages for these population groups at which side-effects could occur. Concerning the use of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in 'dietary foods for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants' (Food category 13.1.5.1) and 'in dietary foods for babies and young children for special medical purposes as defined in Directive 1999/21/EC' (Food category 13.1.5.2), the Panel further concluded that the available data did not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of alginic acid and its salts (E 400, E 401, E 402, E 403 and E 404) in infants and young children consuming the food belonging to the categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Deoxynivalenol (DON) is the most common mycotoxin in Norwegian cereals, and DON is detected in most samples of crude cereal grain and cereal food commodities such as flour, bran, and oat flakes. The Norwegian Scientific Committee for Food Safety assessed the risk for adverse effects of deoxynivalenol (DON) in different age groups of the domestic population. This review presents the main results from the risk assessment, supplemented with some recently published data. Impairment of the immune system together with reduced feed intake and weight gain are the critical effects of DON in experimental animals on which the current tolerable daily intake was established. Based on food consumption and occurrence data, the mean exposure to DON in years with low and high levels of DON in the flour, respectively, were in the range of or up to two times the Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI) in 1-year-old infants and 2-year-old children. In years with high mean DON concentration, the high (95th-percentile) exposure exceeded the TDI by up to 3.5 times in 1-, 2- , 4-, and 9-year-old children. The assessment concluded that exceeding the TDI in infants and children is of concern. The estimated dietary DON intakes in adolescent and adult populations are in the range of the TDI or below, and are not a health concern. Acute human exposure to DON is not of concern in any age group.

High dietary Na intake is associated with multiple health risks, making accurate assessment of population dietary Na intake critical. In the present study, reporting accuracy of dietary Na intake was evaluated by 24 h urinary Na excretion using the EPIC-Soft 24 h dietary recall (24-HDR). Participants from a subsample of the European Food Consumption Validation study (n 365; countries: Belgium, Norway and Czech Republic), aged 45-65 years, completed two 24 h urine collections and two 24-HDR. Reporting accuracy was calculated as the ratio of reported Na intake to that estimated from the urinary biomarker. A questionnaire on salt use was completed in order to assess the discretionary use of table and cooking salt. The reporting accuracy of dietary Na intake was assessed using two scenarios: (1) a salt adjustment procedure using data from the salt questionnaire; (2) without salt adjustment. Overall, reporting accuracy improved when data from the salt questionnaire were included. The mean reporting accuracy was 0·67 (95 % CI 0·62, 0·72), 0·73 (95 % CI 0·68, 0·79) and 0·79 (95 % CI 0·74, 0·85) for Belgium, Norway and Czech Republic, respectively. Reporting accuracy decreased with increasing BMI among male subjects in all the three countries. For women from Belgium and Norway, reporting accuracy was highest among those classified as obese (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2: 0·73, 95 % CI 0·67, 0·81 and 0·81, 95 % CI 0·77, 0·86, respectively). The findings from the present study showed considerable underestimation of dietary Na intake assessed using two 24-HDR. The questionnaire-based salt adjustment procedure improved reporting accuracy by 7-13 %. Further development of both the questionnaire and EPIC-Soft databases (e.g. inclusion of a facet to describe salt content) is necessary to estimate population dietary Na intakes accurately.

Phthalates and bisphenol A (BPA) are ubiquitous in our environment. These chemicals have been characterized as endocrine disruptors that can cause functional impairment of development and reproduction. Processed and packaged foods are among the major sources of human exposure to these chemicals. No previous report showing the levels of these chemicals in food items purchased in Norway is available. The aim of the present study was to determine the concentration of ten different phthalates and BPA in foods and beverages purchased on the Norwegian market and estimate the daily dietary exposure in the Norwegian adult population. Commonly consumed foods and beverages in Norway were purchased in a grocery store and analysed using gas- and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry. Daily dietary exposures to these chemicals in the Norwegian adult population were estimated using the latest National dietary survey, Norkost 3 (2010-2011). This study showed that phthalates and BPA are found in all foods and beverages that are common to consume in Norway. The detection frequency of phthalates in the food items varied from 11% for dicyclohexyl phthalate (DCHP) to 84% for di-iso-nonyl phthalate (DiNP), one of the substitutes for bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP). BPA was found in 54% of the food items analysed. Among the different phthalates, the highest concentrations were found for DEHP and DiNP in the food items. Estimated dietary exposures were also equally high and dominated by DEHP and DiNP (400-500 ng/kg body weight (bw)/day), followed by di-iso-butyl phthalate (DiBP), di-n-butyl phthalate (DnBP), di-n-octyl phthalate (DnOP) and di-iso-decyl phthalate (DiDP) (30-40 ng/kg bw/day). Dimethyl phthalate (DMP), diethylphthalate (DEP) and DCHP had the lowest concentrations and the exposures were around 10-20 ng/kg bw/day. Estimated dietary exposure to BPA was 5 ng/kg bw/day. In general, levels of phthalates and BPA in foods and beverages from the Norwegian market are comparable to other countries worldwide. Grain and meat products were the major contributors of exposure to these chemicals in the Norwegian adult population. The estimated dietary exposures to these chemicals were considerably lower than their respective tolerable daily intake (TDI) values established by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: National dietary surveys among Norwegian 12-months olds have been conducted twice: in 1999 and 2007. At both time-points diet were assessed by a semi-quantitative food frequency questionnaire (SFFQ) (the SFFQ-1999 and the SFFQ-2007). Modifications in the SFFQ-2007 compared to the SFFQ-1999 have been made; therefore, the objective of the present study has been to explore the comparability of the data obtained by the two questionnaires. Moreover, reliability of maternal recall of infant feeding practices was assessed., Methods: Three hundred Norwegian infants born in April 2007 were invited to participate by completing both the SFFQ-1999 and the SFFQ-2007. An invitation letter and one of two questionnaires were sent by mail to the mother/parents about two weeks before the child turned 12 months of age. The study had a cross-over design where half of the sample received the SFFQ-1999 first and then about 2-3 weeks later they received the SFFQ-2007. The second half received the SFFQ-2007 first, and then 2-3 weeks later they received the SFFQ-1999., Results: Ninety three participants completed both questionnaires (SFFQ-1999 and SFFQ-2007). For nutrients, the largest significant differences between the questionnaires were found for intake of vitamin D and added sugar, where added sugar was reported lower and vitamin D was reported higher with the SFFQ-2007 compared to the SFFQ-1999. For food items, lower intake of yoghurt and higher intake of vegetables and fish were observed with the SFFQ-2007 compared to the SFFQ-1999. In addition, reliable answers with regard to breastfeeding status, age for breastfeeding cessation and age for introducing solid foods were found., Conclusion: There was reasonable comparability between the two questionnaires for most nutrients and foods. The differences between the two questionnaires could mainly be explained by modifications that had occurred over time, where changes in the food composition databases used and especially changes in commercial recipes with regard to baby food products seemed to be of major importance. The differences are important to take into account when interpreting dietary trends among Norwegian 12 month-olds in the period from 1999 to 2007. This study also implies that maternal recall of infant feeding practices is reliable.

Objective: The involvement of consumers in the development of dietary guidelines has been promoted by national and international bodies. Yet, few best practice guidelines have been established to assist with such involvement., Design: Qualitative semi-structured interviews explored stakeholders' beliefs about consumer involvement in dietary guideline development., Setting: Interviews were conducted in six European countries: the Czech Republic, Germany, Norway, Serbia, Spain and the UK., Subjects: Seventy-seven stakeholders were interviewed. Stakeholders were grouped as government, scientific advisory body, professional and academic, industry or non-government organisations. Response rate ranged from 45 % to 95 %., Results: Thematic analysis was conducted with the assistance of NVivo qualitative software. Analysis identified two main themes: (i) type of consumer involvement and (ii) pros and cons of consumer involvement. Direct consumer involvement (e.g. consumer organisations) in the decision-making process was discussed as a facilitator to guideline communication towards the end of the process. Indirect consumer involvement (e.g. consumer research data) was considered at both the beginning and the end of the process. Cons to consumer involvement included the effect of vested interests on objectivity; consumer disinterest; and complications in terms of time, finance and technical understanding. Pros related to increased credibility and trust in the process., Conclusions: Stakeholders acknowledged benefits to consumer involvement during the development of dietary guidelines, but remained unclear on the advantage of direct contributions to the scientific content of guidelines. In the absence of established best practice, clarity on the type and reasons for consumer involvement would benefit all actors.

In the interpretation of dietary trends, it is important to consider the potential effect of modifications in the dietary assessment method. Therefore, our objective was to explore the comparability of data obtained at two time points by a semi-quantitative FFQ (SFFQ) which has had slight modifications over time. In the national dietary surveys among Norwegian 2-year-olds, diet was assessed by an SFFQ which underwent modifications between the 1999 survey and the 2007 survey. In the present study, fifty-nine families with a 2-year-old child participated by completing both the SFFQ in a crossover design within a month's time. With regard to the reported intake of energy and nutrients, the largest significant differences observed between the two questionnaires were for carbohydrates and added sugar. According to intake of food groups, significant differences were observed for five out of sixteen food groups. Spearman's correlation coefficients for energy, nutrients and food groups ranged from 0.43 (Ca) to 0.85 (soft drinks). Most Bland-Altman plots indicated broad limits of agreement. The differences between the two questionnaires can be explained by changes in the questionnaires, changes in the food composition databases used and random variation. Comparing differences between the questionnaires by maternal educational level, number of children and type of day care revealed minor differences. In conclusion, this study showed that at the group level there was reasonable comparability between the two questionnaires, except for carbohydrates, added sugar and some food groups. Moreover, there were moderate to high correlations for energy, nutrients and food groups.

Objective: To evaluate the impact of different modes of administration (face-to-face v. telephone), recall days (first v. second), days of the week (weekday v. weekend) and interview days (1 d later v. 2 d later) on bias in protein and K intakes collected with 24 h dietary recalls (24-HDR)., Design: Two non-consecutive 24-HDR (collected with standardised EPIC-Soft software) were used to estimate protein and K intakes by a face-to-face interview at the research centres and a telephone interview, and included all days of the week. Two 24 h urine collections were used to determine biomarkers of protein and K intake. The bias in intake was defined as the ratio between the 24-HDR estimate and the biomarker., Setting: Five centres in Belgium, Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and Norway in the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) study., Subjects: About 120 adults (aged 45-65 years) per centre., Results: The bias in protein intake in the Czech Republic and Norway was smaller for telephone than face-to-face interviews (P = 0·01). The second 24-HDR estimates of protein intake in France and K intake in Belgium had a larger bias than the first 24-HDR (P = 0·01 and 0·04, respectively). In the Czech Republic, protein intake estimated during weekends and K intake estimated during weekdays had a larger bias than during other days of the week (P = 0·01). In addition, K intake collected 2 d later in the Czech Republic was likely to be overestimated., Conclusions: The biases in protein and K intakes were comparable between modes of administration, recall days, days of the week and interview days in some, but not all, study centres.

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate a short food frequency questionnaire (FFQ) against a four-day precoded food diary (PFD) with regard to frequency of food intake among Norwegian 9- and 13-year-olds., Subjects and Design: A total of 733 9-year-olds and 904 13-year-olds completed first a short FFQ and one to two weeks later a four-day PFD. The short FFQ included questions about 23 food items, including different drinks, fruits, vegetables, bread, fish, pizza, sweets, chocolate and savoury snacks. The PFD covered the whole diet., Results: When comparing mean intake from the PFD with comparable food items in the FFQ, all food items showed that increasing intake measured with the PFD corresponded with increasing intake with the short FFQ. However, participants reported a significantly higher frequency of intake for most foods with the short FFQ compared with PFD, except for soft drinks with sugar and sweets. The median Spearman correlation coefficient between the two methods was 0.36 among the 9-year-olds and 0.32 among the 13-year-olds. Often eaten foods such as fruits and vegetables had higher correlations than seldom eaten foods such as pizza and potato chips. The median correlation coefficients for drinks alone were higher (r=0.47) for both age groups., Conclusions: Results indicate that the short FFQ was able to identify high and low consumers of food intake and had a moderate capability to rank individuals according to food intake. Drinks, fruits and vegetables had better correlations with the PFD than infrequently eaten food items.

A range of stakeholders have been involved in the development and implementation of dietary guidelines (DG) across Europe. Seventy-seven semi-structured qualitative interviews explored stakeholders' beliefs of DG in six European countries/regions. A main theme, variation in the interpretation of the term dietary guideline, was identified using thematic analysis. Descriptions of DG varied across stakeholder groups and countries. Reference was made to both food-based and nutrient-based guidelines, including the terms food-based DG and food guides (for example, pyramids), nutrient recommendations, dietary recommendations, dietary reference values and guideline daily amounts. The terminology surrounding DG requires greater clarity. Until that time, stakeholders would benefit from increased awareness of potential misinterpretations and the implications of this on multi-stakeholder, multi-national policy development and implementation.

Background/objectives: To outline and discuss the main results and conclusions of the European Food Consumption Validation (EFCOVAL) Project., Subjects/methods: The EFCOVAL Project was carried out within the EU Sixth Framework Program by researchers in 11 EU countries. The activities focused on (1) the further development of the EPIC-Soft software (the software developed to conduct 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study) and the validation of the 2-day non-consecutive 24-HDR method using EPIC-Soft, (2) defining and investigating the applicability of the most appropriate dietary assessment method to younger age groups and expanding the applicability of the software for use in exposure assessment of some potentially hazardous chemicals and (3) to improve the methodology and statistical methods that estimate usual intake distributions from short-term dietary intake information and develop a methodology to quantify uncertainty in usual intake distributions., Results: The preexisting EPIC-Soft application was reprogrammed into a Windows environment and more than 60 new specifications were implemented in the software. A validation study showed that two non-consecutive EPIC-Soft 24-HDRs are suitable to estimate the usual intake distributions of protein and potassium of European adult populations. The 2-day non-consecutive 24-HDRs in combination with a food propensity questionnaire also appeared to be appropriate to rank individuals according to their fish and fruit and vegetable intake in a comparable way in five European centers. Dietary intake of (young) children can be assessed by the combination of EPIC-Soft 24-HDRs and food recording booklets. The EPIC-Soft-standardized method of describing foods is useful to estimate dietary exposure to potentially hazardous chemicals such as specific flavoring substances. With the developed Multiple Source Method, repeated non-consecutive 24-HDR data in combination with food propensity data can be used to estimate the population distribution of the usual intake by estimating the individual usual intakes., Conclusions: The findings provide sufficient evidence to conclude that the repeated 24-HDR using EPIC-Soft for standardization in combination with a food propensity questionnaire and modeling of usual intake is a suitable method for pan-European surveillance of nutritional adequacy and food safety among healthy adults and maybe in children aged 7 years and older. To facilitate this methodology in other European countries, the next step is to provide and standardize an implementation plan that accounts for maintenance and updates, sampling designs, national surveillance programs, tailored capacity building and training, and linkage to food composition and occurrence databases.

Background/objectives: A standardized methodology is important to enable consistent monitoring of dietary intake across European countries. For this reason, we evaluated the comparability of the assessment of usual food intake collected with two non-consecutive computerized 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) and a food propensity questionnaire (FPQ) among five European centers., Subjects/methods: Two 24-HDRs using EPIC-Soft (the software developed to conduct 24-HDRs in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study) were performed to determine fish, fruit and vegetable (FV) consumed by 600 adults in Belgium (BE), the Czech Republic (CZ), France (FR), the Netherlands (NL) and Norway (NO) in a validation study. An FPQ was used to identify non-consumers. Information from the 24-HDRs and FPQ were used to estimate individual usual food intake by the Multiple Source Method (MSM). Blood samples were drawn to determine fatty acids in phospholipids and serum carotenoids as biomarkers of fish, and FV intake, respectively., Results: The pooled correlation between usual fish intake and eicosapentaenoic acid plus docosahexaenoic acid in phospholipids was 0.19 in men and 0.31 in women (P for heterogeneity >0.50) and center-specific correlations ranged between 0.08 (CZ) and 0.28 (BE and NO) in men, and between 0.19 (BE) and 0.55 (FR) in women. For usual FV intake, the pooled correlation with serum carotenoids was 0.31 in men and 0.40 in women (P for heterogeneity >0.10); the center-specific correlations varied between 0.07 (NO) and 0.52 (FR) in men, and between 0.25 (NL) and 0.45 (NO) in women., Conclusion: Two standardized 24-HDRs using EPIC-Soft and an FPQ appeared to be appropriate to rank individuals according to their fish and FV intake in a comparable way among five European centers.

Background: To improve participation rate, accuracy and respondents' compliance, it is important to know the respondents' viewpoint., Objective: To evaluate respondents' preferences and perception about the EPIC-Soft (the software developed to conduct 24-h dietary recalls (24-HDRs) in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study) 24-HDR interviews and to compare these preferences and perception between population groups (for example, between genders)., Design: Data were collected in Belgium, Czech Republic, France, the Netherlands and Norway in 2007. Two 24-HDRs (face-to-face and telephone administered) were conducted using EPIC-Soft. An evaluation questionnaire on different study aspects was completed by the respondents., Setting: Data were collected in the European Food Consumption Validation Study., Subjects: A convenience sample of 600 apparently healthy men and women, 45-65 years old and including all educational levels, were recruited (120 subjects per country). Differences among population groups were compared by means of the χ (2)-test., Results: A total of 585 respondents completed the evaluation questionnaire. In all, 88% experienced problems only to a low degree when answering face-to-face and telephone-administered 24-HDR using EPIC-Soft. A total of 15% would have preferred help of another person during the face-to-face interview in the study center (mainly men: P < 0.001). Significantly, more subjects in the Netherlands and in Norway preferred two telephone (instead of face-to-face) interviews compared with the other countries (P<0.001)., Conclusion: Most subjects only experienced problems to a low degree during the EPIC-Soft interviews. Differences in preferences and capabilities to answer the EPIC-Soft interviews were identified between population groups (for example, gender differences). Therefore, the methods and the design to be used in a survey should be adapted according to the study population, so as to optimize response rate and compliance.

Background/objectives: To describe the strengths, limitations and requirements of using EPIC-Soft software (the software developed to conduct 24-h dietary recalls in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) Study) in pan-European food consumption surveys, and to discuss potentials and barriers for a harmonized pan-European food consumption survey., Subjects/methods: The paper is based on the experiences in the 'European Food Consumption and Validation' Project, which included updating six existing and preparing one new country-specific EPIC-Soft version, applying EPIC-Soft in validation and feasibility studies, and estimating the intake of nutrients and flavoring substances. The experiences were discussed in the September 2009 workshop 'Pan-European Food Consumption Surveys--for Standardized and Comparable Transnational Data Collection'., Results: EPIC-Soft is suitable for detailed and standardized food consumption data collection in pan-European food consumption surveys. A thorough preparation of all aspects of the food consumption survey is important for the quality and efficiency during data collection and processing. The preparation and data-handling phase of working with EPIC-Soft is labor intensive and requires trained, motivated and qualified personnel., Conclusions: Given the suitability of EPIC-Soft as standardized dietary assessment tool in European dietary monitoring, the proposed strategy toward a pan-European food consumption survey is to prepare well, to allow flexibility in national extensions and to start with a limited number of countries that are interested.

The aim of the present study was to validate the intakes of fruit, juice and vegetables from an FFQ. In sub-study I (n 147), intakes from the FFQ were evaluated against 7 d weighed food records (WR) and plasma carotenoid concentrations, whereas in sub-study II (n 85), the intakes were evaluated against plasma carotenoid concentrations and amounts of flavonoids in 24 h urine samples. Relative validity was evaluated by comparing median intakes, estimating correlation coefficients and validity coefficients using the method of triads. In sub-study I, we observed no significant difference in daily median fruit intake between the FFQ and the WR, whereas the intake of vegetables was higher from the FFQ than from the WR. The correlations between intakes from the FFQ and the WR ranged from 0·31 to 0·58. In sub-study II, the intakes of fruit and vegetables correlated significantly with plasma carotenoid concentrations and urinary flavonoids. The validity coefficients for the intakes of fruit and vegetables from the FFQ ranged from 0·61 to 0·88 in sub-study I and from 0·60 to 0·94 in sub-study II. In summary, based on the associations observed between intakes from the FFQ and the biomarkers and the FFQ validity coefficients, the FFQ was found valid and suitable for ranking individuals according to their usual intake of fruit, juice and vegetables.