Search

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts. These steviol glycoside preparations are produced via enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A extracts obtained from stevia plant using two UDP‐glucosyltransferases and one sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K‐12 that facilitate the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extracts via glycosidic bonds. The Panel considered that the parental strain is a derivative of E. coli K‐12 which is well characterised and its safety has been documented; therefore, it is considered to be safe for production purposes. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts using UDP‐glucosyltransferases and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K‐12, to be used as a food additive. The Panel recommends the European Commission to consider the proposal of establishing separate specifications for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 NPs < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO2 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.

Abstract This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health‐Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources.

Abstract This opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) when used as a food additive. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain additives and considered that: adequate exposure estimates were available; the margin of safety (MOS)/margin of exposure (MOE) for arsenic was between 0.5‐14 and 8.5 for lead; the exhaustions of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for cadmium would be 165%, 10% for mercury, whereas the exhaustion of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for nickel would be 9%; the absorption is limited and part of polydextrose is fermented in the large intestine into short‐chain fatty acids (SCFA); adequate toxicity data were available; there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity; no adverse effects were reported in subchronic studies in rats, dogs or monkeys nor in chronic or carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the highest doses tested of up 12,500 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and 15,000 mg/kg bw per day, respectively; the nephrocalcinosis in dogs given high doses of polydextrose was considered to be a treatment‐related but a secondary effect related to diarrhoea, and hence not relevant for the risk assessment; no adverse effects were reported in reproductive or developmental toxicity studies in rats administered up to 10,000 mg polydextrose/kg bw per day, or in a developmental toxicity study in rabbits up to 1,818 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested). Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for polydextrose (E 1200), and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of polydextrose as a food additive. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers to lower the maximum limit for lead and to introduce limits for arsenic, cadmium and mercury in the EU specifications for polydextrose (E 1200), and to verify that polydextrose‐N as a food additive (E 1200) is no longer marketed in the EU.

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.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive. E 900 was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and agreed with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. Dimethyl polysiloxane was only absorbed to a very limited extent from the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration and the vast majority was excreted unchanged in the faeces. Corneal opacities and other effects on cornea were observed in studies in rats. These effects are considered to be caused by direct contact with the test substance in the feed and/or with the test substance in the faeces and not due to systemic exposure. The Panel considered that oral exposure of dimethyl polysiloxane did not result in any systemic adverse effects in any species and dose tested and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). From a 26‐month toxicity study in rats, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,742 and 2,055 mg dimethyl polysiloxane/kg bw per day for female and male, respectively, was identified. Using the NOAEL 1,742 mg/kg bw per day, the Panel established an ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900 by applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Accordingly, the ADI for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) of 1.5 mg/kg bw per day, established by SCF in 1990, is withdrawn. The exposure estimates for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900. The Panel concluded that there is not a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations for the EU specifications to be amended.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read‐across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) when used as a food additive. Hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene is of low acute toxicity and does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, were not available; therefore, the Panel based the derivation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) identified in the subchronic study in rats and established an ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day. Dietary exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Mean exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive ranged from no exposure in infants to 2.35 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants and adults to 6.69 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The exposure estimates in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario did not exceed the ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to hydrogenated poly‐1‐decene (E 907) does not raise a safety concern when used at the maximum permitted levels.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of oat lecithin for use as a new food additive in the proposed food category (FC05.1) ‘cocoa and chocolate products’. Oat lecithin is an oil, containing polar lipids (≥ 35% w/w) and non‐polar lipids (55–65% w/w),obtained by ethanol extraction and subsequent fractionation (water/ethanol) from oat suitable for food consumption. This lecithin does not meet the specification parameter for the authorised food additive lecithins (E 322) of ‘not less than 60% of substances insoluble in acetone’ which represents the polar lipid content (phospholipids and glycolipids). Oat lecithin is expected to undergo hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract and this hydrolysis resembles that of other edible vegetable oils. Oat lecithin did not induce gene mutations or structural chromosomal aberrations in the absence or presence of metabolic activation. No treatment‐related adverse effects were observed with oat lecithin in 28‐day studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested. The toxicological database for oat lecithin was limited. Considering the composition of oat lecithin (similar components in different ratio) and the fact that it undergoes the same biotransformation, resulting in similar metabolites as those from lecithins (E 322) re‐evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (EFSA ANS) in 2017, the Panel considered the possibility to use the read‐across approach from toxicological data on lecithins (E 322). Based on the toxicological data provided for oat lecithin along with read across from lecithins (E322) to oat lecithin no additional toxicological data were required. Therefore, the Panel considered that the previous conclusion for lecithins (E322) equally applies to oat lecithin to be used as food additive. Mean exposure ranged from

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of Monk fruit extract proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Monk fruit extracts are prepared by water extraction of the fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii. Cucurbitane glycosides, mogrosides, are the main components of the S. grosvenorii fruit and mogroside V is the main mogroside in the Monk fruit extract. Mogroside V is absorbed to some extent and is systemically bioavailable. Monk fruit extract containing 25% and 55% mogroside V were negative in the bacterial reverse mutation assay and did not induce structural and/or numerical chromosomal damage. However, the Panel noted that the in vitro toxicity studies including study with metabolic activation were not sufficiently informative to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the metabolites generated after microbial metabolism, including the aglycone. The effects on the testis observed in a 90‐day study with monk fruit extract‐52% mogroside V cannot be dismissed and the adversity of these effects cannot be ruled out. No effects on parental, reproductive or development toxicity were observed in a reproductive and developmental screening study in rats. For male animals, the time of exposure did not cover the full length of spermatogenesis and, therefore, a longer term study at higher doses would be needed to clarify the effects on testes observed in the 90‐day study. No maternal and developmental toxicity was observed. Considering the systemic availability of mogroside V, the effects observed in the rat subchronic study and following the principles of EFSA Guidance on food additives evaluation, data from chronic/carcinogenicity toxicity testing would have been warranted. Exposure to mogroside V was calculated based on the proposed use levels. The Panel concluded that toxicity database on Monk fruit extract is insufficient to conclude on the safety of the use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of sulphuric acid (E 513) and its sodium (E 514), potassium (E 515), calcium (E 516) and ammonium (E 517) salts when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Sulphuric acid and its sodium, potassium, calcium and ammonium salts (E 513, E 514, E 515, E 516, E 517) are authorised food additives in the EU, in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the refined estimated exposure non brand‐loyal scenario, mean exposure ranged from 0.4 mg sulphate/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 35 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high percentile of exposure ranged from 3 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in adolescents to 68 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel considered sulphates of low acute toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The Panel noted that the exposure to sulphates at mean and 95th percentile in the non brand‐loyal scenario as well as in the other scenarios, is far below the 300 mg/kg a dose that induced laxative effect in humans. Based on the toxicological database available, the Panel concluded that the exposure to sulphuric acid (E 513), sodium sulphate (E 514), potassium sulphates (E 515), calcium sulphate (E 516) and ammonium sulphate (E 517) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels and there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI).

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular related to rebaudioside M produced via enzyme‐catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside M (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)‐glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeasts K. phaffii UGT‐a and K. phaffii UGT‐b, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The Panel considered that the parental strain K. phaffii ATCC 20864 qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach for safety assessment and, therefore, is considered to be safe for production purposes. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for Rebaudioside M produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP‐glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeasts K. phaffii UGT‐a and K. phaffii UGT‐b, to be used as a food additive. However, the Panel recommended that the European Commission considers establishing separate specifications for Rebaudioside M produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of benzyl alcohol (E 1519) when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Benzyl alcohol (E 1519) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The Panel considered benzyl alcohol of low acute toxicity with no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 400 mg/kg bw per day from the carcinogenicity study in rats. The mean and high exposure estimates in the refined exposure scenarios were maximally 0.27 and 0.81 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers, respectively. The exposure estimates to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) were below the ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day in all population groups. The Panel noted that also the exposure in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is below the ADI in all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of chlorides (E 507–509, E 511) as food additives. Chlorides are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the non‐ brand‐loyal scenario, mean exposure to chlorides (E 507–509, E 511) as food additives ranged from 2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in the elderly to 42 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 5 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 71 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. Chloride is an essential nutrient and after absorption is distributed to organs and tissues. The Panel considered chlorides 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 in rats following administration of magnesium chloride hexahydrate at 800 mg/kg bw per day. Some animal studies suggested a role of chloride in increasing blood pressure but based on the toxicological database available the Panel considered human data more appropriate to identify a level of chloride intake which does not raise a safety concern. The Panel identified a human dose of 40 mg chloride/kg bw per day as a reference value for the assessment. Mean levels of exposure in all age groups were below or at this reference value, which indicates no safety concern. In some age groups (toddlers, children and adolescents), the 95th percentile exposure estimates were slightly above this reference value. The Panel concluded that the exposure to chloride from hydrochloric acid and its potassium, calcium and magnesium salts (E 507, E 508, E 509 and E 511) does not raise a safety concern at the reported use and use levels.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive. E 900 was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and agreed with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. Dimethyl polysiloxane was only absorbed to a very limited extent from the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration and the vast majority was excreted unchanged in the faeces. Corneal opacities and other effects on cornea were observed in studies in rats. These effects are considered to be caused by direct contact with the test substance in the feed and/or with the test substance in the faeces and not due to systemic exposure. The Panel considered that oral exposure of dimethyl polysiloxane did not result in any systemic adverse effects in any species and dose tested and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). From a 26‐month toxicity study in rats, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,742 and 2,055 mg dimethyl polysiloxane/kg bw per day for female and male, respectively, was identified. Using the NOAEL 1,742 mg/kg bw per day, the Panel established an ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900 by applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Accordingly, the ADI for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) of 1.5 mg/kg bw per day, established by SCF in 1990, is withdrawn. The exposure estimates for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900. The Panel concluded that there is not a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations for the EU specifications to be amended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read‐across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of oat lecithin for use as a new food additive in the proposed food category (FC05.1) ‘cocoa and chocolate products’. Oat lecithin is an oil, containing polar lipids (≥ 35% w/w) and non-polar lipids (55–65% w/w), obtained by ethanol extraction and subsequent fractionation (water/ethanol) from oat suitable for food consumption. This lecithin does not meet the specification parameter for the authorised food additive lecithins (E 322) of ‘not less than 60% of substances insoluble in acetone’ which represents the polar lipid content (phospholipids and glycolipids). Oat lecithin is expected to undergo hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract and this hydrolysis resembles that of other edible vegetable oils. Oat lecithin did not induce gene mutations or structural chromosomal aberrations in the absence or presence of metabolic activation. No treatment-related adverse effects were observed with oat lecithin in 28-day studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested. The toxicological database for oat lecithin was limited. Considering the composition of oat lecithin (similar components in different ratio) and the fact that it undergoes the same biotransformation, resulting in similar metabolites as those from lecithins (E 322) re-evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (EFSA ANS) in 2017, the Panel considered the possibility to use the read-across approach from toxicological data on lecithins (E 322). Based on the toxicological data provided for oat lecithin along with read across from lecithins (E322) to oat lecithin no additional toxicological data were required. Therefore, the Panel considered that the previous conclusion for lecithins (E322) equally applies to oat lecithin to be used as food additive. Mean exposure ranged from < 0.01 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 7.1 mg/kg bw per day in children. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 22.5 mg/kg bw per day in children. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI and there is no safety concern for oat lecithin to be used as a food additive at the proposed use (FC 05.1) and use levels. The Panel recommended that the European Commission considers including specifications for oat lecithin as a new food additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of Monk fruit extract proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Monk fruit extracts are prepared by water extraction of the fruits of Siraitia grosvenorii. Cucurbitane glycosides, mogrosides, are the main components of the S. grosvenorii fruit and mogroside V is the main mogroside in the Monk fruit extract. Mogroside V is absorbed to some extent and is systemically bioavailable. Monk fruit extract containing 25% and 55% mogroside V were negative in the bacterial reverse mutation assay and did not induce structural and/or numerical chromosomal damage. However, the Panel noted that the in vitro toxicity studies including study with metabolic activation were not sufficiently informative to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the metabolites generated after microbial metabolism, including the aglycone. The effects on the testis observed in a 90‐day study with monk fruit extract‐52% mogroside V cannot be dismissed and the adversity of these effects cannot be ruled out. No effects on parental, reproductive or development toxicity were observed in a reproductive and developmental screening study in rats. For male animals, the time of exposure did not cover the full length of spermatogenesis and, therefore, a longer term study at higher doses would be needed to clarify the effects on testes observed in the 90‐day study. No maternal and developmental toxicity was observed. Considering the systemic availability of mogroside V, the effects observed in the rat subchronic study and following the principles of EFSA Guidance on food additives evaluation, data from chronic/carcinogenicity toxicity testing would have been warranted. Exposure to mogroside V was calculated based on the proposed use levels. The Panel concluded that toxicity database on Monk fruit extract is insufficient to conclude on the safety of the use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]