Back to Search Start Over

Re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as food additives and extension of use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201)

Authors :
Karl-Heinz Engel
Rainer Gürtler
Gabriele Aquilina
Polly Boon
Alexandra Tard
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Alicja Mortensen
Henk Van Loveren
Romina Shah
Flavourings (Faf)
Peter Fürst
Matthew Wright
Wim Mennes
Laurence Castle
Trine Husøy
Alessandra Giarola
Melania Manco
Federica Lodi
Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez
Sabina Passamonti
Detlef Wölfle
Maged Younes
Dina Hendrika Waalkens-Berendsen
Peter Moldeus
Paul Fowler
Alessandro Di Domenico
Riccardo Crebelli
Ana Rincón
Metka Filipič
Ruud Woutersen
Younes, Maged
Aquilina, Gabriele
Castle, Laurence
Engel, Karl-Heinz
Fowler, Paul
Fürst, Peter
Gürtler, Rainer
Gundert-Remy, Ursula
Husøy, Trine
Manco, Melania
Mennes, Wim
Moldeus, Peter
Passamonti, Sabina
Shah, Romina
Waalkens-Berendsen, Dina Hendrika
Wölfle, Detlef
Wright, Matthew
Boon, Polly
Crebelli, Riccardo
Di Domenico, Alessandro
Filipič, Metka
Mortensen, Alicja
Woutersen, Ruud
Van Loveren, Henk
Giarola, Alessandra
Lodi, Federica
Rincon, Ana Maria
Tard, Alexandra
Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose
Source :
EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 8, Pp n/a-n/a (2020), EFSA Journal
Publication Year :
2020

Abstract

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201, PVP) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202, PVPP) when used as food additives. One request for extension of use of PVP (E 1201) in foods for special medical purposes was also considered in this assessment. The Panel followed the conceptual framework under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and considered that: the exposure assessment was based on the reported use and use levels (one food category out of the two food categories in which PVP and PVPP are authorised); the 95th percentile of exposure to PVP and PVPP of maximally 23.7 and 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children, respectively, was overestimated, because it was assumed that 100% of the food supplements consumed contained PVP or PVPP at the maximum reported use levels; the extension of use of PVP (E 1201) to foods for special medical purposes (FC 13.2) would result in an exposure of PVP of 4.3 mg/kg bw per day for children; the absorption of PVP and PVPP is very low; sufficient toxicity data were available for PVP; there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of PVP and PVPP; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in rats at a dose of 2,500 mg PVP/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there is no need for chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity data for PVPP for the safety assessment of PVPP given the chemical similarity between PVP and PVPP, and the lack of adverse effects in the available repeated dose toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for PVP and PVPP, and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of PVP and PVPP as food additives. The Panel further concluded that the proposed extension of use is not expected to be of safety concern at the proposed maximum permitted level (MPL) and recommended consumption level.

Details

Language :
English
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
EFSA Journal, Vol 18, Iss 8, Pp n/a-n/a (2020), EFSA Journal
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....9dd4a1f486066ff3fd827e7e4059293b
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2020.6215