Search

EFSA is re‐evaluating the safety of food additives already permitted in the Union before 20 January 2009 and issuing scientific opinions on their safety in line with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Acacia gum (E 414) was re‐evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As follow‐up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as carry‐over in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and to address the issues already identified during the re‐evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested parties to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. Based on the analytical data submitted in response to this call, the Panel recommended to lower the limits in the specifications for toxic elements and identified the need for further specifications for aluminium, microbiological criteria and protein residues. The Panel noted that information was not provided for oxidising enzymes and recommended that oxidases and peroxidases should be inactivated during the manufacturing process. The interested parties did not submit toxicological, clinical and post‐marketing surveillance data specific for the assessment of the safety of acacia gum (E 414) in infants below 16 weeks of age. However, taking the highest doses tested without adverse effects from the subchronic studies available from the previous re‐evaluation and comparing them with the estimated exposure in infants, the margins of safety were large indicating that there is no reason for health concern. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of the food additive ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) in the light of a new interpretation of the available toxicological data and with respect to the proposed changes to the currently authorised conditions of use. Ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) is an already authorised food additive in the EU for use in heat‐treated meat products only, with some exceptions. The safety of ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) as a food additive has been evaluated in 2007 by EFSA and an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) was set. The present assessment is based on a new interpretation of the available data elaborated by the applicant and on exposure estimates calculated by the Panel for both the current and the proposed changes to the authorised uses of this food additive. The Panel considered the new information provided, including the re‐examination of some of the results from the toxicological studies included in the original application dossier submitted for the initial evaluation of ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) in 2007. The Panel concluded that it does not contain new scientific evidence. The concerns and uncertainties expressed in the previous scientific opinions of the Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Foods (AFC) and Panel on Food additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) remain to be addressed and there is no justification for changing the current ADI. Based on the above, the Panel concluded that the current ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw would be reached in toddlers and children at the 95th percentile already for exposure estimates calculated using the currently permitted maximum level (ML) for ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243). At the proposed new uses and use levels, the ADI would be exceeded at mean level of consumption in all age groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of the two food additives argon (E 938) and helium (E 939). Argon (Ar) and helium (He) are two noble gases, highly stable single atoms. Their chemical inertness is well known. Their physicochemical properties have served as a basis for their previous evaluations by SCF and JECFA, which have considered the use of these food additives safe even in the absence of a toxicological evaluation. No business operator or other interested party provided information in response to the call for data published by EFSA to support the re-evaluation of these two food additives with respect to their identity and specifications, manufacturing process (including the identification and quantification of potential impurities) and how they are applied to food to exert their technological function. One business operator replied to the call for data issued by EFSA reporting use levels of E 938 as a packaging gas in one food category. Based on their physicochemical properties, both gases are considered by the Panel to be of low toxicological concern when used as food additives. No information was available on the potential presence of impurities of toxicological concern resulting from the manufacturing process(es) applied to the production of the food additives E 938 and E 939. The Panel however noted that a minimum purity of 99.0% is required to comply with existing specifications. The Panel concluded that the use of argon (E 938) and helium (E 939) as food additives does not raise a safety concern. The Panel recommended an amendment of the existing EU specifications to introduce the respective CAS numbers., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The present opinion is the follow-up of the conclusions and recommendations of the Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive relevant to the safety assessment for all age groups. In addition, the risk assessment of silicon dioxide (E 551) for its use in food for infants below 16 weeks of age is performed. Based on the newly available information on the characterisation of the SAS used as E 551 and following the principles of the 2021 EFSA Guidance on Particle-TR, the conventional safety assessment has been complemented with nano-specific considerations. Given the uncertainties resulting from the limitations of the database and in the absence of genotoxicity concern, the Panel considered that it is not appropriate to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) but applied the margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the MOE should be at least 36 for not raising a safety concern. The calculated MOEs considering the dietary exposure estimates for all population groups using the refined non-brand loyal scenario, estimated at the time of the 2018 re-evaluation, were all above 36. The Panel concluded that E 551 does not raise a safety concern in all population groups at the reported uses and use levels. The use of E 551 in food for infants below 16 weeks of age in FC 13.1.1 and FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise a safety concern at the current exposure levels. The Panel also concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for E 551 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The paucity of toxicological studies with proper dispersion protocol (with the exception of the genotoxicity studies) creates uncertainty in the present assessment of the potential toxicological effects related to the exposure to E 551 nanosize aggregates., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of curdlan as a new food additive used as firming and gelling agent, stabiliser, thickener. Curdlan is a high molecular weight polysaccharide consisting of β-1,3-linked glucose units, produced by fermentation from Rhizobium radiobacter biovar 1 strain NTK-u. The toxicological dataset consisted of sub-chronic, chronic and carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies as well as genotoxicity. In vivo data showed that curdlan is not absorbed as such but is extensively metabolised by the gut microbiota into CO 2 and other innocuous compounds. Curdlan was not genotoxic and was well-tolerated with no overt organ-specific toxicity. Effects observed at very high doses of curdlan, such as decreased growth and increased cecum weight, are common for indigestible bulking compounds and therefore considered physiological responses. In a combined three-generation reproductive and developmental toxicity study, decreased pup weight was observed during lactation at 7500 mg curdlan/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. The Panel considered the observed effects as treatment-related and adverse, although likely secondary to nutritional imbalance and identified a conservative no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2500 mg/kg bw per day. Despite the limitations noted in the dataset, the Panel was able to conclude applying the margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Given that curdlan and its break-down products are not absorbed and that the identified adverse effect is neither systemic nor local, no adjustment factor was deemed necessary. Thus, an MOE of at least 1 was considered sufficient. The highest exposure estimate was 1441 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile of the proposed maximum use level exposure assessment scenario. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of curdlan as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the 'safe levels of intake' established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA-GMO-NL-2019-162)., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

This opinion addresses the re-evaluation of erythritol (E 968) as food additive and an application for its exemption from the laxative warning label requirement as established under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. Erythritol is a polyol obtained by fermentation with Moniliella pollinis BC or Moniliella megachiliensis KW3-6, followed by purifications and drying. Erythritol is readily and dose-dependently absorbed in humans and can be metabolised to erythronate to a small extent. Erythritol is then excreted unchanged in the urine. It does not raise concerns regarding genotoxicity. The dataset evaluated consisted of human interventional studies. The Panel considered that erythritol has the potential to cause diarrhoea in humans, which was considered adverse because its potential association with electrolyte and water imbalance. The lower bound of the range of no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for diarrhoea of 0.5 g/kg body weight (bw) was identified as reference point. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) at the level of the reference point. An ADI of 0.5 g/kg bw per day was considered by the Panel to be protective for the immediate laxative effect as well as potential chronic effects, secondary to diarrhoea. The highest mean and 95th percentile chronic exposure was in children (742 mg/kg bw per day) and adolescents (1532 mg/kg bw per day). Acute exposure was maximally 3531 mg/kg bw per meal for children at the 99th percentile. Overall, the Panel considered both dietary exposure assessments an overestimation. The Panel concluded that the exposure estimates for both acute and chronic dietary exposure to erythritol (E 968) were above the ADI, indicating that individuals with high intake may be at risk of experiencing adverse effects after single and repeated exposure. Concerning the new application, the Panel concluded that the available data do not support the proposal for exemption., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a new process to produce steviol glycosides by fermentation of simple sugars using a genetically modified strain of Yarrowia lipolytica (named Y. lipolytica VRM). The manufacturing process may result in impurities different from those that may be present in the other steviol glycosides E 960a-d, therefore the Panel concluded that separate specifications are required for the food additive produced as described in the current application. Viable cells and DNA from the production strain are not present in the final product. The Panel considered that the demonstration of the absence of kaurenoic acid in the proposed food additive, using a method with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.3 mg/kg, is adequate to dispel the concerns for potential genotoxicity. Given that all steviol glycosides follow the same metabolic pathways, the Panel considered that the current steviol glycosides would fall within the same group of substances. Therefore, the Panel considered that the already existing data on rebaudioside M and structurally related steviol glycosides are sufficient, and a similar metabolic fate and toxicity is expected for the food additive. The results from the bacterial reverse mutation assay and the in vitro micronucleus assay were negative and indicated absence of genotoxicity from the food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as steviol equivalents, was considered to be applicable to the proposed food additive. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycosides, predominantly Rebaudioside M, produced by fermentation using Y. lipolytica VRM, to be used as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of synthesised DNA oligonucleotides as a new food additive, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. Considering that the additional information requested by the Panel during the risk assessment was not provided by the applicant, the assessment was concluded on the basis of the sole information available in the application. The proposed food additive consists of purified synthetic DNA sequences intended to be used for traceability purposes, alone or combined with carriers. Information provided by the applicant on the identity, characterisation and production process of the proposed food additive was considered insufficient. The Panel considered that the product specifications as proposed by the applicant do not adequately define and characterise the proposed food additive. The applicant proposed for the food additive the maximum use levels of 0.001 mg/kg for a variety of food categories. The food additive was also proposed as a Group I additive at a specific maximum level of quantum satis. The applicant did not provide exposure estimates according to the EFSA ANS Panel guidance (2012). No biological or toxicological data were provided by the applicant for the proposed food additive. Considering the inadequate information available and the uncertainty introduced by the proposal at quantum satis , along with the insufficient specifications, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food additive as proposed and described by the applicant., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Calcium carbonate (E 170) was re-evaluated in 2011 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of calcium carbonate (E 170) for its uses as a food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food category 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators (IBOs) to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for calcium carbonate and that, in principle, there are no safety concern with respect to the exposure to calcium carbonate per se at the currently reported uses and use levels in all age groups of the population, including infants below 16 weeks of age. With respect to the calcium intake resulting from the use of E 170 in food for the general population and infants < 16 weeks of age, the Panel concluded that it contributes only to a small part to the overall calcium dietary exposure. However, the unavoidable presence of aluminium in E 170 is of concern and should be addressed. In addition, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the IBO support further amendments of the specifications for E 170 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Indigo carmine (E 312) was re-evaluated in 2014 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). The ANS Panel confirmed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for indigo carmine allocated by JECFA (1975). The ANS Panel indicated that the ADI was applicable to a material with a purity of 93% pure colouring and manufactured using processes resulting in comparable residuals as material used in the Borzelleca et al. studies (1985, 1986) and Borzelleca and Hogan (1985) which were the basis for deriving the ADI. The ANS Panel considered that any extension of the ADI to indigo carmine of lower purity and/or manufactured using a different process would require new data to address the adverse effects on the testes observed in the Dixit and Goyal (2013) study. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, an IBO submitted technical and toxicological data. Considering the technical data, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 132, mainly to lower the limits for toxic elements. Considering the toxicological data, an IBO has submitted a 56-day dietary study to address the adverse effects on testes using a material with 88% purity. The results of this study submitted did not confirm the severe adverse effects observed in the Dixit and Goyal study. Considering all the available information, the Panel confirmed the ADI of 5 mg/kg bw per day for indigo carmine (E 132) disodium salts, meeting the proposed revisions of the specifications (85% minimum for the colouring matter). The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of indigo carmine (E 132) disodium salts at the reported use levels and submitted analytical data., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR) (E 445) were re-evaluated in 2018. On the toxicity database and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 was considered temporary. The conclusions of the assessment were restricted to GEWR derived from Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow-up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs). Considering the technical data submitted by IBOs, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 445, mainly a revision of the definition of the food additive and lowering the limits for toxic elements. Considering the available toxicological database evaluated during the re-evaluation of E 445 by the ANS Panel in 2018, and the toxicological studies submitted by the IBOs, the Panel established an ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 976 mg/kg bw per day from the newly available dietary reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Since GEWR from P. palustris and P. elliottii were tested in the toxicity studies considered to establish the ADI and in the absence of detailed information on the chemical composition (major constituents) in GEWR generated from other Pinus species, thus not allowing read across, the ADI is restricted to the GEWR (E 445) manufactured from P. palustris and P. elliottii . The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern for the use of GEWR (E 445), at either the maximum permitted levels or at the reported uses and use levels., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of buffered vinegar as a new food additive. Buffered vinegar is a liquid or dried product prepared by adding sodium/potassium hydroxides (E 524 to E 525) and sodium/potassium carbonates (E 500 to E 501) to vinegar, compliant with European Standard EN 13188:2000 and exclusively obtained from an agricultural source origin (except wood/cellulose). The primary constituents of buffered vinegar are acetic acid and its salts. No biological or toxicological data obtained with the proposed food additive were submitted by the applicant as part of the dossier as, following oral ingestion, buffered vinegar dissociates into the acetic anion and acetate a natural constituent of the diet, and of the human body for which extensive data on their biological effects exist and for which EFSA in 2013 has previously concluded that the establishment of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not considered necessary. At the proposed maximum/typical use levels, the mean exposure to buffered vinegar from its use as a food additive expressed as acetic acid equivalents ranged from 8.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 280.3 mg/kg bw per day in children. The 95th percentile of exposure to buffered vinegar ranged from 27.9 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 1,078 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of buffered vinegar as a food additive at the proposed maximum/typical use levels. The Panel could not conclude on the safety for the proposed uses at quantum satis as Group I food additive since the resulting exposure could not be estimated., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications of enzymatically produced steviol glycosides (E 960c) with respect to the inclusion of rebaudioside D produced via enzyme-catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside D (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucosyltransferase (UGT) and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeast K. phaffii UGT-A, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The same enzymes from K. phaffii UGT-A may be used in the manufacturing process of the food additive, rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from stevia (E 960c(i)). The Panel considered that separate specifications would be needed for this food additive produced via the manufacturing process described in the current application, aligned with those already established for E 960c(i). The Panel concluded that there is no toxicological concern for Rebaudioside D produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP-glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase produced by a genetically modified strain of the yeast K. phaffii . However, based on the available data, the Panel could not exclude the possibility that some residual amount of DNA coding for the kanamycin resistance gene could remain in the final product. Should this gene propagate in microbiota due to the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product, this would be of concern. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of Rebaudioside D produced via this enzymatic bioconversion was not sufficiently demonstrated with the available data given that the absence of recombinant DNA was not shown., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF) assessed the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of a mixture of glucosylated steviol glycosides, containing 1-20 additional glucose units bound to the parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of not less than 95% (on dry, dextrin-free, basis) of total steviol glycosides, comprised of glucosylated and parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides are produced via enzymatic bioconversion using cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferase (CGTase) (EC 2.4.1.19), derived from a non-genetically modified strain of Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, that catalyses the transfer of glucose from starch to steviol glycosides mixtures isolated from the dried leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana . The Panel considered that the metabolism of glucosylated steviol glycosides is sufficiently similar to the already authorised steviol glycosides, and thus, the toxicological data previously assessed by the ANS Panel for steviol glycosides (E 960) were considered to support their safety as food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides (E 960) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day expressed as steviol can also be applied to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of glucosylated steviol glycosides as a new food additive at the proposed use and use levels. The Panel recommended some modifications to the specifications proposed by the applicant for glucosylated steviol glycosides with respect to the assay, the definition of the proposed new food additive and the proposed maximum limits for arsenic., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of crosslinked polyacrylic acid polymers (carbomer) proposed for use as food additive in solid and liquid food supplements. Carbomer is formed from the monomer, acrylic acid, which is polymerised and crosslinked with allyl pentaerythritol (APE). The polymers are synthesised in ethyl acetate using ■■■■■ as free-radical polymerisation initiator. In vivo data showed no evidence for systemic availability or biotransformation of carbomer. Carbomer does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. Considering the available data set, the Panel derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 190 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,500 mg/kg bw per day from a sub-chronic 13-week study in rat, applying a compound specific uncertainty factor (UF) of 8. At the proposed maximum use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 1.1 to 90.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 12.5 to 237.4 mg/kg bw per day. At the proposed typical use level, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 0.7 to 60.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 10.3 to 159.5 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel noted that the maximum proposed use levels would result in exposure estimates close to or above the ADI. The Panel also noted that level of exposure to carbomer from its proposed use is likely to be an overestimation. Taking a conservative approach, the Panel considered that exposure to carbomer would not give rise to a safety concern if the proposed maximum use level for solid food supplements is lowered to the typical use level reported by the applicant., (© 2021 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 Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of long-chain glycolipids from Dacryopinax spathularia (also called AM-1) as a food additive. AM-1 is a purified mixture of long-chain glycolipid congeners obtained by fermentation of the edible non-genetically modified fungus Dacryopinax spathularia . AM-1 glycolipids have very low oral bioavailability and overall available toxicology data do not demonstrate any adverse effects of the proposed food additive. Considering the available data set the Panel established an ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day based on a range of NOAELs between 1,000 and 1,423 mg/kg bw per day (the highest doses tested), from the reproductive and a prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and 90-day studies in rat and dog. At the proposed maximum use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 0.01 to 1.07 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 0 to 3.1 mg/kg mg/kg bw per day. At the proposed typical use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from < 0.01 mg/kg bw per day to 0.23 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 0 to 0.64 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel noted that the highest estimate of exposure of 3.1 mg/kg bw per day (in toddlers) is within the established ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day and concluded that the exposure to long-chain glycolipids from Dacryopinax spathularia does not raise a safety concern at the uses and use levels proposed by the applicant., (© 2021 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 an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including data obtained with TiO 2 nanoparticles (NPs) and data from an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity (EOGRT) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO 2 NPs < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO 2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO 2 NPs (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO 2 NPs, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO 2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico-chemical properties of TiO 2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO 2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO 2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut-off value for TiO 2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO 2 NPs. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

As a follow-up to the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (SSOS; E 1450), the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of SSOS (E 1450) when used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age for food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.1 and to address the data gaps identified during the re-evaluation of the SSOS (E 1450). The process involved the publication of a call for data. The Panel considered it feasible to amend the specifications based on the analytical evidence submitted. In the call for data, clinical trials were submitted to support the safe use in this age group. In addition, the report of a postnatal piglet study was provided. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them. The Panel noted that the uncertainty surrounding the results of the piglet study precludes deriving a reference point from this study. On the other hand, both data sources did not clearly indicate an adverse effect due to SSOS (E 1450). Given the available data, the Panel concluded that at use levels of SSOS in food for infants below 16 weeks within the range reported in the clinical studies (up to 2,725 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day), there is no indication for safety concern and reiterated the conclusion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). When extrapolating this conclusion to the safety assessment of the food additive when used in food categories (FCs) 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 in food for infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the Panel considered that there is no indication for safety concern also for these uses within the range reported in the clinical studies., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re-evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre-systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns., (© 2020 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 Quillaia extract (E 999) when used as a food additive and the evaluation of the safety of its proposed extension of use as a food additive in flavourings. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1978 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0-5 mg spray-dried extract/kg body weight (bw) per day for E 999. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established in its latest evaluation a group ADI of 0-1 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as quillaia saponins, for Quillaia extract for Type 1 and Type 2. The Panel considered it likely that intact Quillaia extract saponins are absorbed to a low extent, are hydrolysed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that the aglycone is absorbed only to a limited extent. The Panel considered that the genotoxicity data available did not indicate a concern for genotoxicity. Taking into account the available toxicological database, various no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) relevant for the derivation of an ADI were identified. The Panel considered that the 2-year study in rats was the most robust and that the NOAEL of 1,500 mg Quillaia extract/kg bw per day could be used to derive the ADI for E 999. Considering that the adverse effects reported were due to the presence of saponins in the extract, that saponins were present in Quillaia extract Type 1 (around 20%) and using an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel derived a ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. None of the exposure estimates for the different population groups of the refined brand-loyal scenario exceeded the ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day. The proposed extension of use also would not result in an exceedance of this ADI for the refined scenario. The Panel proposed some recommendations for the European Commission to consider, in particular revising the EU specifications for E 999 in order to differentiate the extracts of Quillaia according to the saponins content and to include other parameters to better characterise the food additive., (© 2019 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 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 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.)