Search

Since epidemiological studies have firmly implicated co-exposure to iron oxides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons as a potential etiological factor involved in the excess mortality due to lung cancer in miners, experimental studies have been performed to investigate the role of iron particles in benzo[a]pyrene (B[a]P)-induced lung pathogenesis. In a previous study using the Comet assay in vivo in the rat, we demonstrated that iron particles enhanced B[a]P genotoxicity. To determine whether co-exposure (B[a]P/iron oxides) induces a real genotoxic activity or is only due to inhibition of DNA repair, the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) assay was implemented in vivo in the rat. The UDS assay was used to measure DNA repair in two cell types (lung cells and hepatocytes) of OFA Sprague-Dawley rats, 24 h after endotracheal administration of a single dose of an iron oxide (hematite, Fe2O3) (0.75 mg), of B[a]P (0.75 mg) or of B[a]P (0.75 mg) coated on hematite particles (0.75 mg). No difference in UDS was observed in the two organs investigated in rats treated with iron oxide alone compared with control animals, while a significant increase in UDS was observed in lungs and liver of rats treated with B[a]P alone compared with control animals. The main finding was a significant increase in UDS observed in both lung and liver cells of rats treated with B[a]P coated on hematite when compared with those treated with B[a]P alone. The current study demonstrates (i) that iron particles did not inhibit UDS in lung cells and hepatocytes of OFA Sprague-Dawley treated rats with B[a]P coated on hematite and (ii) a potent genotoxic activity of co-exposure to B[a]P coated on hematite. Therefore, our data may contribute to explaining the excess mortality due to lung cancer in epidemiological studies and overall why exposure to B[a]P coated on Fe2O3 particles resulted in a higher tumor incidence in rodents compared with exposure to B[a]P alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study evaluated the effects of a dietary mix of marine sulphated polysaccharides, named Algimun® (AL), supplementation to gilthead seabream (Sparus aurata) juveniles in terms of growth performance, immune responses, and resistance against Photobacterium damselae subsp. piscicida. A total of 240 fish (initial mean weight of 6.00 ± 0.03 g) was randomly separated into 12 tanks (400 L, 20 fish per tank) distributed in four replicates. Fish were fed three experimental diets: a basal diet (Control), and a basal diet with two inclusion rates of Algimun® as 3 g/kg (AL0.3) and 5 g/kg (AL0.5) for 30 days before bacterial infection with P. damselae subsp. piscicida. After a 30-day feeding-period, growth performance was significantly improved in AL0.3 and AL0.5 groups compared to the control group (P < 0.05). AL0.3 and AL0.5 groups showed significantly higher lysozyme activity and myeloperoxidase activity when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The gene expression of immune mediators (IL-1β, IL-6, IL-10, IL-18, TNF-α and COX-2) was significantly upregulated in the intestine, spleen and head kidney in AL0.3 and AL0.5 groups when compared to the control group (P < 0.05). Eight days post-challenge, the survival rate against P. damselae subsp. piscicida was numerically higher in fish within AL0.3 and AL0.5 groups compared to control (+20%). The study findings suggest that marine sulphated polysaccharides (Algimun®) could be used as an immunomodulator in gilthead seabream to support animal's health and boost resistance in case of disease outbreak., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 55 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07 (FGE.07), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Fifty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.07 and its revisions. This revision 6 includes two additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2 (4-methyl-3-hepten-5-one [FL-no: 07.261]) and FGE.204Rev1 (non-2-en-4-one, [FL-no: 07.187]). The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 55 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Normal and maximum use levels were available for all flavouring substances. For 52 substances, including the newly included substances [FL-no: 07.187 and 07.261], their 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) estimates were above the TTC for their structural classes (I and II). Therefore, for these 52 flavouring substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 43 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 63 (FGE.63), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-nine substances have already been considered in FGE.63 and its revisions ([FL-no: 02.023, 02.099, 02.104, 02.136, 02.155, 02.252, 07.015, 07.069, 07.081, 07.099, 07.100, 07.101, 07.102, 07.114, 07.123, 07.151, 07.190, 07.240, 07.247, 07.249, 07.256, 09.281, 09.282, 09.657, 09.658, 09.923, 09.924, 09.925 and 09.936]). The remaining 14 flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.204Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.177, 07.188 and 07.244]) and they are considered in this revision 4 of FGE.63. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 43 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for 43 flavouring substances. However, for 14 of these flavouring substances in the present revision and for 10 of the substances in the previous revision (FGE.63Rev3), the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) values are equal to or above the TTCs for their structural classes (I and II). For 15 substances previously evaluated in FGE.63Rev3, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 39 flavouring substances, more data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059] and 2-acetylfuran [FL-no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL-no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI-B [FL-no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL-no: 13.054] and [FL-no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B-side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2-acetylfuran and 2-pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL-no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings of the EFSA was requested to update Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 using the Procedure as outlined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, to include an evaluation of the flavouring substances 2-ethyl-5-methylfuran [FL-no: 13.125] and 2-octylfuran [FL-no: 13.162]. FGE.13 revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3) deals with 26 flavourings substances of which 24 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern. For [FL-no: 13.125] and [FL-no: 13.162], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.13Rev1. This concern could be ruled out based on new genotoxicity data on supporting substances in FGE.67Rev3. Subsequently, [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162] were evaluated, through a stepwise approach that integrates intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity, along the B-side of the Procedure, making use of a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived this BMDL from an oral subchronic toxicity study with the supporting substance 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059]. Using this BMDL, for [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162], adequate margins of safety were calculated based on the MSDI approach. The Panel concluded that the 26 candidate substances in FGE.13Rev3 do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 26 substances. Data on uses and use levels are needed for [FL-no: 13.130]. For 21 flavouring substances [FL-no: 13.011, 13.102, 13.108, 13.113, 13.114, 13.122, 13.125, 13.127, 13.129, 13.132, 13.133, 13.135, 13.136, 13.139, 13.141, 13.143, 13.146, 13.149, 13.162, 13.178 and 13.185], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation., (© 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 was requested to evaluate 35 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 69 (FGE.69), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirty-two substances have already been considered in FGE.69 [FL-no: 02.033, 02.034, 02.036, 02.064, 02.065, 02.080, 07.004, 07.013, 07.022, 07.023, 07.025, 07.026, 07.028, 07.029, 07.032, 07.038, 07.040, 07.042, 07.070, 07.079, 07.086, 07.087, 09.144, 09.178, 09.179, 09.189, 09.200, 09.231, 09.249, 09.476, 09.486 and 09.501]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.024 and 07.027] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.215Rev1 and are considered in this revision FGE.69Rev1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach, namely the Procedure, that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel considered that for 33 flavouring substances evaluated through the Procedure the specifications are adequate and the Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' when based on the MSDI approach. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 07.038 and 07.042], there is insufficient information on their chemical identity to reach a final conclusion. For six substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.013, 07.024, 07.028, 07.032 and 07.086], there is no concern when the exposure was estimated based on the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) approach. For 28 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. For one substance [FL-no: 07.027], more reliable data on uses and use levels are required in order to finalise the safety evaluation., (© 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 Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty-four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91: two ([FL-no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL-no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL-no: 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL-no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL-no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL-no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL-no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 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 Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 31 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 substances more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations., (© 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 Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 12 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly., (© 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 Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 39 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.020 and 05.076], the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation., (© 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 215, Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1). In FGE.215, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requested in vivo data for the two representative substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.024] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030]. The Flavour Industry has provided additional genotoxicity studies for both representative substances [FL-no: 07.024] and [FL-no: 07.030]. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for the representative substance [FL-no: 07.024] and for the structurally related substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-ol [FL-no: 02.066] and 3-methyl-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.027] which can accordingly be evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.69. For the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030], the Panel concluded that [FL-no: 07.030] is aneugenic in vitro . For such substances, there is currently no agreed follow-up strategy to finalise their safety assessment. The Panel is aware that the EFSA Scientific Committee is going to address this issue and a statement clarifying the assessment of in vitro aneugenic substances is under preparation. The Panel concluded therefore that, for the time being, the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030] and the structurally related substances vanillylidene acetone [FL-no: 07.046] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4-methylpent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.049] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. The Panel further concluded that 4-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.206] is to be considered as a stand-alone substance due to the presence of the methyl groups, therefore, in vitro genotoxicity data were requested for [FL-no: 07.206]. Industry communicated that the evaluation of [FL-no: 07.206] is not supported any longer, therefore additional data were not submitted., (© 2019 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) was requested to evaluate 54 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 05 (FGE.05), using the Procedure as referred to in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. This Revision 3 includes 17 additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.192, 02.231, 05.072, 05.144, 05.184, 05.189, 05.190, 05.191, 05.195, 09.247, 09.400, 09.866, 09.948]) and in FGE.203Rev2 ([FL-no: 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196]). The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 54 substances gives rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for 10 substances ([FL-no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.181, 09.329, 09.335, 09.379 and 09.637]) for which quantitative figures on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures are missing and for [FL-no: 09.578] complete specifications should be provided. Normal and maximum use levels were not available for [FL-no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.287, 09.326 and 09.578]. Except for flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.072, 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196, 09.934 and 09.942], more reliable intake data should be requested for all the 46 flavouring substances, for which use levels were submitted, as their modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) exposure estimates are above the threshold of concern for structural classes I and II. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data., (© 2019 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 was requested to evaluate 29 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 70 (FGE.70), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Seven substances have already been considered in FGE.70 [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. The remaining 22 substances [FL-no: 02.049, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172, 09.947, 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.057, 05.064, 05.071, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.140, 05.141, 05.173 and 09.573] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and FGE.203Rev2 and are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 29 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 09.371 and 09.840]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Data on the identity and contents of secondary components should be requested for [FL no: 09.260]. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for seven flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. For six flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.057, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172 and 09.947] further information is required based on the comparison of the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This includes more reliable data on use and use levels and then, if required, additional toxicological data., (© 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 Flavourings (FAF Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the flavouring substances from subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 (FGE.204). In the present revision of this FGE (FGE.204Rev1), the FAF Panel evaluated new data provided by Industry following a request from the former Panel on Food Contact materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel). This request followed from positive results in an in vitro micronucleus test for clastogenicity and a negative result, but with no proof of bone marrow exposure, in an in vivo micronucleus assay for the representative substance 7-methyl-3-octenone-2 [FL-no: 07.177]. Subsequently, the Industry submitted an in vivo comet assay which was considered equivocal in the liver. The study was repeated confirming that 7-methyl-3-octenone-2 [FL-no: 07.177] did not induce primary DNA damage in the liver and duodenum. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for [FL-no: 07.177] and the 15 structurally related substances [FL-no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.187, 07.188, 07.244, 07.258] which can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances., (© 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 Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the product Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) [FL-no: 21.002] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 501 (FGE.501), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat-treated canola oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET) was calculated to be 0.402 and 0.252 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and for a 15-kg child, respectively. Based on exposure estimate and the results from the repeated-dose toxicity studies, a sufficient margin of safety could be calculated. However, the Panel noted that for six constituents of the flavouring there is an indication for genotoxicity. Therefore, these six substances have to be further considered. Until these evaluations have been finalised the safety of Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) cannot be fully assessed., (© 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 Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 5 flavouring substances in Flavouring Group Evaluation 210 Revision 3 (FGE.210Rev3). In FGE.210, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the genotoxic potential could not be ruled out for any of the flavouring substances. In FGE.210Rev1, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for eight substances [FL-no: 02.105, 07.007, 07.009, 07.011, 07.036, 07.088, 07.091 and 07.170]. In FGE.210 Rev2, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for allyl α-ionone [FL-no: 07.061]. In the present revision of FGE 210 (FGE.210Rev3), additional in vitro and in vivo data on the representative substance α-damascone [FL-no: 07.134] are evaluated. To investigate equivocal and positive results observed in in vitro micronucleus studies, an in vivo combined micronucleus (bone marrow) and comet assay (liver and duodenum) was performed. α-Damascone did not induce micronuclei in bone marrow and no primary DNA damage in duodenum; however, an increase in primary DNA damage was observed in liver. This positive result was attributed by the applicant to a high level of peroxides in the sample tested. Therefore, the comet assay was repeated with a new sample of α-damascone, confirming the negative results observed in duodenum, but equivocal results were observed in liver. Two additional in vivo comet assays in liver were performed in order to clarify the potential impact of peroxides on the obtained results from the genotoxicity testing. However, the materials studied in these tests were not suitable to establish the potential role of peroxides in the genotoxicity of α-damascone. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity cannot be ruled out for α-damascone [FL-no: 07.134] and the four structurally related substances [FL-no: 07.130, 07.225, 07.226 and 07.231]., (© 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 Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 12 flavouring substances from subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 (FGE.217). Based on experimental data, in previous versions of this FGE (FGE.217 and FGE217Rev1), for 6-methylcoumarin [FL-no: 13.012] and 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methylfuran-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.023] the concern for genotoxicity was ruled out. 6-Methylcoumarin was evaluated using the Procedure in FGE.80Rev1. For 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methylfuran-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.023] and the structurally related substance 3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethylfuran-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.030], no further EFSA considerations were needed because these substances were evaluated by JECFA before 2000. Also based on experimental data, in FGE217Rev1, the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out for furan-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.066] and 3,4-dimethyl-5-pentylidenefuran-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.042], which later substance represents the following flavourings: [FL-no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170]. In the current revision of this FGE (FGE217Rev2), based on the results of additional genotoxicity studies, the FAF Panel concluded that [FL-no: 10.066] is genotoxic in vivo . Therefore, furan-2(5 H )-one [FL-no: 10.066] cannot be evaluated according to the Procedure. For [FL-no: 10.042] in order to rule out a concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact, the FAF Panel requests results from an in vivo comet assay in duodenum. In addition, [FL-no: 10.042] has also been identified as an aneugenic substance in vitro . Until the concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact for [FL-no: 10.042] and the concern for aneugenicity can be ruled out, this substance and [FL-no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure., (© 2019 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 was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3). In FGE.208Rev1, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) evaluated genotoxicity studies on the representative substance p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117], which was found to be genotoxic in vivo . The Panel concluded that there was a potential safety concern for the nine substances in this FGE that were all represented by [FL-no: 05.177]. Consequently, substance [FL-no: 05.117], as well as four substances ([FL-no: 05.121, 09.272, 09.899 and 09.900]), no longer supported by industry were deleted from the Union List. In FGE.208Rev2, the Panel assessed genotoxicity studies submitted on five flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.060, 02.091, 05.106, 09.278 and 09.302] and concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for these substances, except from myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106] for which the available data were considered equivocal. Thus, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies (a bacterial reverse mutation assay and a combined in vivo bone marrow erythrocytes micronucleus test and Comet assay in liver and duodenum) for this substance which were evaluated in the present opinion, FGE.208Rev3. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106]. Subsequently, this substance can be evaluated through the Procedure., (© 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 Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 74 flavouring substances from subgroup 1.1.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 200 Revision 1 (FGE.200 Rev1). In FGE.200, genotoxicity studies were provided for one representative substance, namely hex-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 05.073], and for other two substances in the same subgroup, namely 2-dodecenal [FL-no: 05.037] and 2-nonenal [FL-no: 05.171]. The Panel concluded that the concern still remains with respect to genotoxicity for the substances of this subgroup and requested an in vivo Comet assay performed in duodenum and liver for hex-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 05.073]. For the two other representative substances of subgroup 1.1.1 (nona-2( trans ),6( cis )-dienal [FL-no: 05.058] and oct-2-enal [FL-no: 05.060]), the Panel requested a combined in vivo Comet assay and micronucleus assay. These data have been provided and are evaluated in the present opinion FGE.200 Rev1. Industry submitted genotoxicity studies on trans -2-octenal [FL-no: 05.190], instead of oct-2-enal [FL-no: 05.060]. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for hex-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 05.073], trans -2-octenal [FL-no: 05.190] and nona-2( trans ),6( cis )-dienal [FL-no: 05.058], therefore all the 74 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.049, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.192, 02.210, 02.231, 05.037, 05.058, 05.060, 05.070, 05.072, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.111, 05.114, 05.120, 05.144, 05.150, 05.171, 05.172, 05.179, 05.184, 05.189, 05.190, 05.191, 05.195, 06.025, 06.031, 06.072, 09.054, 09.097, 09.109, 09.119, 09.146, 09.233, 09.244, 09.247, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.312, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.400, 09.410, 09.411, 09.469, 09.482, 09.489, 09.492, 09.493, 09.498, 09.678, 09.701, 09.719, 09.741, 09.790, 09.841, 09.866, 09.947, 09.948, 13.004] can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2-(4-methylphenoxy)- N -(1 H -pyrazol-3-yl)- N -(thiophen-2-ylmethyl)acetamide [FL-no: 16.133], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food but not intended to be used in beverages, except for milk and dairy based beverages that are opaque. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 225 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 142 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. A 90-day oral gavage study in rats showed no adverse effects at doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL-no: 16.133], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach and based on the recommended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix  B. This conclusion does not apply for use in beverages where the substance can be subject to phototransformation., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider in this revision 2 of Flavouring Group Evaluation 201, the additional data on genotoxicity submitted by the Industry on two substances, 2-methylpent-2-enal [FL-no: 05.090] and 2 methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095], from subgroup 1.1.2 of FGE.19. In FGE.201Rev1, the Panel concluded that further data were required in order to clarify the genotoxic potential of this subgroup and considered the testing of 2-methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095] in a comet assay in liver and duodenum, the first site of contact, as a preferred option to further investigate the genotoxicity in vivo . New genotoxicity studies have been submitted for both 2-methylpent-2-enal [FL-no: 05.090] and 2-methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095]. 2-Methylpent-2-enal [FL-no: 05.090] tested in a combined micronucleus/comet assay did not induce DNA damage, overruling the weak gene mutation effect observed in bacteria and confirming the negative results observed in the in vitro micronucleus assay. 2-Methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095] did not induce gene mutations in liver and glandular stomach of transgenic rats. In addition, 2-methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095] tested in an in vivo comet assay in liver and duodenum, it did not induce DNA damage. Overall, the Panel concluded that the genotoxic evidence observed in vitro , was not confirmed in vivo for the representative substances 2-methylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.095] and 2-methylpent-2-enal [FL-no: 05.090], therefore all the 10 substances in this subgroup [FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107, 05.126, 07.261, 12.065 and 12.079] can be evaluated through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 1.1.4 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 203 Revision 2 (FGE.203Rev2). In FGE. 203 Revision 1, the Panel concluded that the genotoxic potential could not be ruled out for the flavouring substances in this FGE. The Flavour Industry provided additional genotoxicity studies for the representative substances of FGE.19 subgroup 1.1.4, namely deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] and hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057]. In addition, new studies on hepta-2,4-dienal [FL-no: 05.084], 2,4-octadienal [FL-no: 05.186] and tr-2,tr-4-nonadienal [FL-no: 05.194] were provided that are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.203, i.e. FGE.203Rev2. Hepta-2,4-dienal [FL-no: 05.084], 2,4-octadienal [FL-no: 05.186] and tr-2,tr-4-nonadienal [FL-no: 05.194] did not induce gene mutations in bacteria. Hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] did not induce gene mutations in vitro in mammalian cells. Hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] was also tested in an in vivo gene mutation assay giving negative results. Both hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] and deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] were tested in vivo for the induction of micronuclei in rats bone marrow and peripheral reticulocytes after oral or intraperitoneal administration. None of the two substances induced increased frequencies of micronuclei. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for the representative substances hexa-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.057] and deca-2( trans ),4( trans )-dienal [FL-no: 05.140] and therefore also for the other substances in this group [FL-no: 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.064, 05.071, 05.081, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.141, 05.173, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196, 09.573]. These 20 substances can be evaluated using the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. For the following substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the use of the substance ( S )-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1 H -benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one [FL-no: 16.129], as a flavouring substance. The substance is intended to be used in the form of its sodium salt as a flavour modifier in beverages. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] would not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity under conditions where it remains stable and does not undergo photodegradation. However, the data provided do not rule out genotoxicity for the degradation products. A 90-day toxicity study with [FL-no: 16.129] in rats showed no adverse effects at exposure up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No developmental toxicity was observed in rats at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. An adequate margin of safety was calculated for [FL-no: 16.129]. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] and its sodium salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of intake. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier at levels up to those specified in beverages, but not to the degradation products that may be formed upon exposure to ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light. The conditions protecting [FL-no: 16.129] from photodegradation have not been adequately investigated. It is also unclear if degradation occurs in the absence of UV light. Based on the data provided, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of [FL-no: 16.129] when used as a flavour modifier., (© 2018 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4',5,7-trihydroxyflavanone or naringenin [FL-no: 16.132], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 410 (FGE.410), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance occurs naturally in grapefruits, oranges and tomatoes. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance with flavour-modifying properties in specific categories of food. Information on specifications and manufacturing of [FL-no: 16.132] were considered adequate; however, data on stability in food are incomplete. The Panel noted that the available genotoxicity studies have significant shortcomings and are insufficient to conclude on the genotoxic potential of naringenin. Therefore, [FL-no: 16.132] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. Additionally, the Panel noted that inhibition of CYP 450 by [FL-no: 16.132] has been clearly demonstrated in animal species in vivo which implies that the substance may interact with the metabolism and elimination of medicines and no convincing information is available that this does not pose a risk to humans at the estimated levels of exposure. To continue with the safety assessment of [FL-no: 16.132], a bacterial gene mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay (according to OECD guidelines 471, 487 and GLP) are required. Even if these studies do not indicate a genotoxic potential, additional toxicological data are needed to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested by the European Commission according to Art. 29 1(a) of the Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] when used as a flavouring substance. Ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] was evaluated in 2010 by EFSA in FGE.71 as a flavouring substance, based on the 2006 JECFA evaluation. The Panel concluded that ethyl acrylate was of no safety concern at estimated level of intake as flavouring substance based on the Maximised Survey-Derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. The Panel has evaluated the new literature available and any previous assessments performed by JECFA (2006) and EFSA (2010). Moreover, new data on the use levels of ethyl acrylate as flavouring substance have been provided. For use as flavouring substance, the chronic dietary exposure estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 3,545 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 2,233 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. Exposure from food contact materials may be up to 6,000 μg/person per day. The Panel considered that based on the available data, which covers all relevant genetic endpoints (i.e. gene mutations, structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations) there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of ethyl acrylate. The Panel evaluated the available carcinogenicity studies conducted in rats and mice and agreed with the NTP evaluation (1998) concluding that the forestomach squamous cell papilloma and carcinoma observed in rodents were not relevant to humans. Additionally, there was no evidence of systemic toxicity in short-term and subchronic toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of ethyl acrylate as a flavouring substance, under the intended conditions of use., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Benzophenone [FL-no: 07.032] has been evaluated as a flavouring substance, in FGE.69, by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food in 2008. Benzophenone was evaluated also by JECFA (2011) and by IARC (2013) based on studies that were not considered in the EFSA opinion on FGE.69. Therefore, the Commission requested the CEF Panel to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of this flavouring substance. In the framework of the evaluation of benzophenone as a food contact material, the CEF Panel established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day (2009). In the present Opinion, the Panel considered the already existing evaluations by EFSA, JECFA, IARC and available literature data on benzophenone toxicity. Moreover, new data on the use levels of benzophenone as a flavouring substance have been provided. The Panel considers that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The Panel considers the endocrine activities of benzophenone and its metabolite 4-hydroxybenzophenone as weak and not directly related to the observed toxic effects including the neoplastic effects in rodents. The Panel confirms that the conservative approach taken by EFSA (2009) to derive a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg bw for benzophenone is appropriate to cover the non-neoplastic effects in the chronic toxicity studies and the neoplastic effects induced in the rodent carcinogenicity studies. The TDI is in the same order of magnitude as the chronic dietary exposure of adults and children to benzophenone (10-20 μg/kg bw per day) for the amount of added flavouring substance. The Panel considers that the calculated TDI and exposure estimate are based on conservative assumptions. The Panel concludes that there is no safety concern for benzophenone under the current condition of use as a flavouring substance., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin' CB-200SF [FL-no: 21.004] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 503, according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat-treated high oleic sunflower oil, and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a substantial amount of the non-volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15-kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still eight substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time-temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin' CB-200SF cannot be established., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin' 5078 [FL-no: 21.003] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 502, according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat-treated high oleic sunflower oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a considerable amount of the non-volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15-kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still 12 substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time-temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin' 5078 cannot be established., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of one flavouring substance from subgroup 1.1.1(b) of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 226 (FGE.226). The flavour industry provided genotoxicity studies for the substance 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 16.071]. Based on these data, the Panel concluded in FGE.226 that 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal did not induce gene mutations in bacterial cells but was positive in an in vitro micronucleus assay, so, 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal is considered an in vitro genotoxic agent. The negative results obtained in an in vivo micronucleus assay cannot overrule the positive results of the in vitro micronucleus assay with and without S9-mix due to the lack of demonstration of bone marrow exposure. Following this, the flavour industry has provided plasma analysis of a satellite group of rats treated with 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal in order to investigate the systemic exposure of animals in the in vivo micronucleus assay. However, the plasma analysis did not provide enough evidence of target tissue exposure. An in vivo Comet assay in rodents was recommended in FGE.226, in order to investigate possible genotoxic effects at the first site of contact (e.g. stomach/duodenum cells) and in the liver. An in vivo Comet assay in liver and duodenum was provided that suggests that 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 16.071] did not induce DNA damage in the duodenum of rats. However, the genotoxic effect observed in vitro was confirmed in the in vivo Comet assay in the liver of rats. The Panel concluded that 4,5-epoxydec-2( trans )-enal [FL-no: 16.071] does raise a safety concern with respect to genotoxicity and, therefore, it cannot be evaluated according to the Procedure., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 2 (FGE.208Rev2). In FGE.208Rev1, the CEF Panel evaluated genotoxicity studies on p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117], the representative substance for FGE.19 subgroup 2.2. The Comet assay performed in liver showed a positive result, and therefore, the Panel concluded that p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117] is genotoxic in vivo and that, accordingly, there is a safety concern for its use as flavouring substance. Since p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117] is representative for the nine remaining substances of subgroup 2.2 ( p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106], 2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde [FL-no: 05.121], myrtenyl formate [FL-no: 09.272], p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278], myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302], myrtenyl-2-methylbutyrate [FL-no: 09.899] and myrtenyl-3-methylbutyrate [FL-no: 09.900]), the Panel concluded in the previous revision of FGE.208 (FGE.208Rev1) that there is a potential safety concern for these substances. Subsequently, the industry has submitted genotoxicity studies on five substances of FGE.19 subgroup 2.2: p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106], p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302], which are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.208 (FGE.208Rev2). The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-ol [FL-no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL-no: 02.091], p -mentha-1,8-dien-7-yl acetate [FL-no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL-no: 09.302], which will be evaluated through the Procedure. Genotoxicity data on myrtenal [FL-no: 05.106] were considered equivocal, therefore, it cannot be evaluated through the Procedure, presently. p -Mentha-1,8-dien-7-al [FL-no: 05.117] and four substances not supported by industry (2,6,6-trimethyl-1-cyclohexen-1-carboxaldehyde [FL-no: 05.121], myrtenyl formate [FL-no: 09.272], myrtenyl-2-methylbutyrate [FL-no: 09.899] and myrtenyl-3-methylbutyrate [FL-no: 09.900]) have been deleted from the Union List., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 29 aliphatic secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA at the 59th and 69th meetings in 2002 and 2008. This revision is made due to the inclusion of nine additional substances cleared for genotoxicity concern in FGE.205 Revision 1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel agrees with the application of the Procedure as performed by JECFA for all 29 substances considered in this FGE. For all substances, the Panel concludes that there is 'no safety concern at the estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances based on the MSDI approach'. For all 29 substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Ten out of the 14 substances for which use levels became available exceed the modified theoretical added maximum daily intake (mTAMDI) and more reliable exposure data are required to finalise their evaluation. On the basis of such data, additional toxicological data might become necessary. For 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment to finalise the evaluation., (© 2017 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Organophosphate compounds, which induce organophosphate poisoning, were originally used as pesticides. But this type of product has also been used as warfare nerve agent like sarin, soman, Russian VX, or tabun. HI-6-dimethanesulfonate is a salt of the oxime HI-6 used in the treatment of nerve-agent poisoning. It is known to be the best re-activator component of inactivated acetyl cholinesterase. HI-6-dimethanesulfonate has shown a higher level of solubility with similar potency to reactivate acetyl cholinesterase and a similar pharmacokinetics profile compared with HI-6 dichloride. HI-6 dimethanesulfonate was tested for its mutagenic and genotoxic potential by use of the standard ICH S2R (1) battery for the evaluation of pharmaceuticals. HI-6-dimethanesulfonate was mutagenic in the Ames test only in the presence of metabolic activation. In the mutation assay at the Tk locus in L5178Y mouse-lymphoma cells, HI-6-dimethanesulfonate showed mutagenic activity both with and without metabolic activation, with a significant increase in small colonies. The effects were in favour of a clastogenic activity. It was concluded that the compound was mutagenic and possibly clastogenic in vitro. In contrast, the in vivo micronucleus test in rat bone-marrow did not demonstrate any genotoxic activity and the Comet assay performed in rat liver did not show any statistically or biologically significant increases in DNA strand-breaks. The results of both in vivo studies performed on two different organs with two endpoints are sufficient to conclude the absence of a genotoxic hazard in vivo and to consider that there is no genotoxic concern in humans for HI-6-dimethanesulfonate., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

We used well-characterized and positively charged nanoparticles (NP(+)) to investigate the importance of cell culture conditions, specifically the presence of serum and proteins, on NP(+) physicochemical characteristics, and the consequences for their endocytosis and genotoxicity in bronchial epithelial cells (16HBE14o-). NP(+) surface charge was significantly reduced, proportionally to NP(+)/serum and NP(+)/BSA ratios, while NP(+) size was not modified. Microscopy studies showed high endocytosis of NP(+) in 16HBE14o-, and serum/proteins impaired this internalization in a dose-dependent manner. Toxicity studies showed no cytotoxicity, even for very high doses of NP(+). No genotoxicity was observed with classic comet assay while primary oxidative DNA damage was observed when using the lesion-specific repair enzyme, formamidopyrimidine DNA-glycosylase (FPG). The micronucleus test showed NP(+) genotoxicity only for very high doses that cannot be attained in vivo. The low toxicity of these NP(+) might be explained by their high exocytosis from 16HBE14o- cells. Our results confirm the importance of serum and proteins on nanoparticles endocytosis and genotoxicity., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Nowadays, there is clear progress in using the threshold concept in genetic toxicology, but its demonstration and acceptance in risk assessment is still under debate. Although it has been accepted for some non-DNA-reactive agents for which mechanisms of action were demonstrated, there is a growing weight of evidence to also support the existence of thresholded dose-responses for DNA-reactive agents. In this context, we have recently shown in human TK6 lymphoblastoid cells, that DNA-oxidizing agents [potassium bromate, bleomycin and hydrogen peroxide (via glucose oxidase)] produced non-linear dose-responses in the in vitro micronucleus test, thus allowing the determination of No-Observed-Genotoxic-Effect-Levels (NOGELs). Therefore, the aim of the present study was to focus on the analysis of thresholded dose-response curves in order to further investigate the existence of NOGELs for these same directly DNA-damaging agents, by use of other genotoxicity endpoints. Mutation frequency was determined after a 1-h treatment in the thymidine kinase (TK) gene-mutation assay. Primary DNA damage, especially oxidative DNA damage, was also assessed after 1h of treatment, followed - or not - by a 23-h recovery period, with the modified version of the comet assay (i.e. with the glycosylases Fpg and hOgg1). Overall, our analysis demonstrates that there is convincing evidence to support the existence of thresholded dose-responses for DNA-oxidizing agents. The determination of NOGELs depends on the genotoxic endpoint studied and consequently requires different genotoxicity assays performed concurrently. NOGELs could only be defined for the induction of chromosomal aberrations and gene mutations, i.e. for an effect-endpoint but not for primary DNA damage, i.e. for an exposure-endpoint. Further statistical analyses of these data are now required in order to draw conclusions on the exact level of the thresholds., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: to assess environmental and biological monitoring of exposure to organic solvents in a glue-manufacturing company in Sfax, Tunisia., Methods: Exposure of volunteer workers, in the solvented glue-work-stations, in the control laboratory and in the storage rooms of the finished products, was assessed through indoor-air and urine measurements. Informed consent of the workers was obtained., Results and Discussion: The exposure indexes were found with high values in the solvented workshop as well as in the control laboratory and were respectively, 8.40 and 3.12. These indexes were also correlated with hexane and toluene indoor air concentrations. As to urine, the obtained results for the 2,5-hexandione and hippuric acid, metabolites of hexane and toluene, respectively, were in accord with the indoor-air measurements, with an average of 0.46 mg/l and 1240 mg/g of creatinine., Conclusion: This study assessed for the first time biological exposure to organic solvents used in Tunisian adhesive industries. Although values are likely to underestimate true exposure levels, some figures exceed European and American occupational exposure guidelines.

At the 2009 International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing in Basel, an expert group gathered to provide guidance on suitable follow-up tests to describe risk when basic in vivo genotoxicity tests have yielded positive results. The working group agreed that non-linear dose-response curves occur in vivo with at least some DNA-reactive agents. Quantitative risk assessment in such cases requires the use of (1) adequate data, i.e., the use of all available data for the selection of reliable in vivo models to be used for quantitative risk assessment, (2) appropriate mathematical models and statistical analysis for characterizing the dose-response relationships and allowing the use of quantitative and dose-response information in the interpretation of results, (3) mode of action (MOA) information for the evaluation and analysis of risk, and (4) reliable assessments of the internal dose across species for deriving acceptable margins of exposure and risk levels. Hence, the elucidation of MOA and understanding of the mechanism underlying the dose-response curve are important components of risk assessment. The group agreed on the need for (i) the development of in vivo assays, especially multi-endpoint, multi-species assays, with emphasis on those applicable to humans, and (ii) consensus about the most appropriate mathematical models and statistical analyses for defining non-linear dose-responses and exposure levels associated with acceptable risk., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Tau, a neuronal protein involved in neurodegenerative disorders such as Alzheimer disease, which is primarily described as a microtubule-associated protein, has also been observed in the nuclei of neuronal and non-neuronal cells. However, the function of the nuclear form of Tau in neurons has not yet been elucidated. In this work, we demonstrate that acute oxidative stress and mild heat stress (HS) induce the accumulation of dephosphorylated Tau in neuronal nuclei. Using chromatin immunoprecipitation assays, we demonstrate that the capacity of endogenous Tau to interact with neuronal DNA increased following HS. Comet assays performed on both wild-type and Tau-deficient neuronal cultures showed that Tau fully protected neuronal genomic DNA against HS-induced damage. Interestingly, HS-induced DNA damage observed in Tau-deficient cells was completely rescued after the overexpression of human Tau targeted to the nucleus. These results highlight a novel role for nuclear Tau as a key player in early stress response.

The reference genotoxic agents Cytosine arabinoside, Vinblastine, Diethylstilboestrol and 2-Aminoanthracene were tested in the in vitro micronucleus assay, in human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells, without cytokinesis block, at the laboratories of Institut Pasteur de Lille, France. This was done in support of the toxicity measures recommended in the late 2007 version of the draft OECD Test Guideline 487 for the testing of chemicals. All four reference agents were positive in the assay at concentrations giving approximately 50% toxicity or less as assessed by draft Test Guideline 487 recommended measures, relative population doublings and relative increase in cell counts. Accordingly, this work supports the premise that relative population doublings and relative increase in cell counts are appropriate measures of toxicity for the non-cytokinesis blocked in vitro micronucleus assay., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

During the last decade, there has been clear progress in using threshold in risk assessment but its acceptance by scientists is still under debate. Contrary to indirect DNA-damaging agents, DNA-reactive agents have been assumed to have a non-threshold mode of action, as they directly induce DNA lesions that potentially can be converted into mutations. However, in recent years there is a growing number of data establishing threshold doses even for these DNA-reactive compounds. Indeed, there are several defence and repair mechanisms that provide protection and that may be responsible for genotoxic thresholds. In this context, we recently showed that DNA-oxidizing agents exhibit a thresholded dose-response in vitro with respect to chromosomal alterations. We have hypothesized the involvement of different cellular responses whose nature and efficiency depend on the stress level. The aim of this study was to develop a more complete understanding of these underlying mechanisms. We investigated global gene expression profiles of human lymphoblastoid TK6 cells after exposure to potassium bromate and hydrogen peroxide (via glucose oxidase). Cells were treated for 1h and mRNAs were isolated either immediately at the end of the treatment or after a 23-h recovery period. Our results showed that cells have developed elaborate cellular responses to oxidative stress in order to maintain genomic integrity. Many of altered genes were redox-sensitive transcription factors such as p53, NF-kappaB, AP-1 and Nrf2. Their downstream target genes and signalling pathways were subsequently activated leading mainly to the induction of antioxidant defenses, inflammation, cell cycle arrest, DNA repair and cell death. Overall, our study allowed the identification of key events involved in the thresholded response observed after DNA-oxidizing agents exposure and shows the usefulness of the combination of standard in vitro genotoxicity assays with gene expression profiling technology to determine modes of action, particularly for critical risk assessment., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Methylchavicol (or estragole), a natural flavouring substance present in tarragon, was confirmed as a genotoxic chemical in the in vitro UDS test in cultured rat hepatocytes and in the in vivo UDS test in hepatocytes of exposed rats. Deep-frozen tarragon was clearly less genotoxic than methylchavicol at equivalent dose levels, and desiccated tarragon was negative. Both forms of tarragon tested in vitro have the ability to decrease significantly the genotoxicity of methylchavicol added to the culture medium at concentrations

An increase in the number of revertant colonies in the Ames test is generally taken as a strong indication of mutagenic activity of a test compound. However, irrelevant positive findings may constitute a major problem in regulatory drug testing. In this study, mixtures containing only amino acids such as glycine, lysine, arginine and isoleucine, routinely used as peptide preservatives in polypeptide pharmaceutical products, were investigated for mutagenesis in the Ames Salmonella typhimurium test. The results demonstrated that in the presence of metabolic activation, all the solutions containing arginine induced an increase in the number of revertant colonies in strains TA98, TA100 and TA1535 compared with the solvent control. More specifically, for strain TA98, all arginine doses tested, i.e. from 0.4 to 8 mg/plate induced a statistically significant increase in the number of revertants. This increase was biologically significant from 1.2 to 8 mg/plate. For strain TA100, the five highest test doses, i.e., from 1.2 to 8 mg/plate, induced statistically and biologically significant increases in the number of revertants. A statistically significant increase in colony number was also observed in strain TA1535, but only at the maximal test dose of 8 mg/plate arginine. These increases were observed with arginine from two different sources, suggesting that the observed effect would not be due to the presence of potential impurities in the type of arginine used. Our findings show that a functional metabolic activation system was required to induce an increase in the number of colonies. The presence of vitamin C inhibited the arginine-induced increase in the number of revertant colonies in S. typhimurium strain TA98, suggesting a potential involvement of oxidative stress.

The existence of thresholds for indirect DNA-damaging agents has been widely accepted in the last few years. In contrast, DNA-reactive agents have been assumed to have a non-threshold mode of action, as they directly induce DNA lesions that have the potential to be converted into mutations. However, this does not take into account protective factors acting to reduce or repair genotoxic damage. Among the compounds acting through possible threshold-mechanisms, some of them induce DNA damage by oxidative stress. In this context, the aim of our study was to investigate the dose-response relationship of well-known DNA-oxidizing agents acting through different mechanisms of oxidative stress, viz. potassium bromate, bleomycin and hydrogen peroxide (by the action of glucose oxidase) by assessing the induction of chromosomal damage using the in vitro micronucleus test (MNT) on the human lymphoblastoid cell line TK6. In order to provide a first characterization of their genotoxic mechanism, two treatment schedules were applied. Cells received both short-term treatment followed by a recovery time (1 + 23 h, 2 + 22 h, 3 + 21 h or 6 + 18 h) and long-term treatment (24h continually). Our results show interesting non-linear dose-effect relationships starting with a range of non-mutagenic very low doses allowing the determination of a No-Observed-Effect Level (NOEL) and going step-wise up to higher doses. After a short exposure, three different plateaus were observed suggesting complex activations and interactions of different cellular mechanisms whose nature and efficiency were dose-dependent. In contrast, after a long treatment, the dose-response curves were different depending on the test compound investigated. Therefore, the in vitro MNT seems to be an appropriate predictive test to establish the NOEL(s) of DNA-oxidizing agents. In order to confirm and to determine the origin of the different cellular step-wise responses observed, additional mechanistic studies would be required, especially by means of other genotoxicity endpoints and gene-expression profiling.

Aloe-emodin (AE) and derivatives may be present as undesired components co-extracted during extraction of plants containing anthraquinonic derivatives for preparation of diacetylrhein. AE is a well-known in vitro mutagen, but up to now it failed to induce any clear in vivo genotoxic activity in the chromosome aberration assay in rat bone marrow or the in vivo/in vitro UDS test in liver. However, the two target organs noted during rodent carcinogenicity studies with danthron and emodin, two other well-known anthraquinone derivatives, are the colon and the kidney. Therefore, the choice of the organs for testing the genotoxicity of AE, i.e. bone marrow and liver, may be considered inadequate to demonstrate a possible in vivo genotoxic activity. In this context, the in vivo mouse comet assay was performed on both isolated kidney and colon cells in order to demonstrate a possible organospecific genotoxicity after oral administration of AE. Concurrently, the Ames test and the in vitro micronucleus assay with TK6 human lymphoblastoid cells were performed in their microscale version both with S9 from Aroclor 1254-induced liver or kidney, and without S9. AE induced primary DNA damage in the liver and in the kidney as observed between 3 and 6h after two oral administrations at 500, 1000 and 2000mg/kg bw, underlining an in vivo genotoxic mechanism of action. Furthermore, AE induced a clear genotoxic activity both in the Salmonella typhimurium strains TA1537 and TA98 and in the in vitro micronucleus assay in the absence as well as in the presence of metabolic activation. As no significant variation in the genotoxic activity of AE was noted when using either liver or kidney S9-mix, it seems that no quantitatively and/or qualitatively specific renal metabolism occurs. The kidney may be a target organ of AE as it is the major route of excretion. Under such conditions the separation of AE components should take place and the residual content of undesired AE derivatives should be made as low as reasonably achievable. AE present in plant extracts should be considered as an in vivo genotoxin and this property should be taken into account in the risk assessment for human exposure.

Microcystin-LR (MC-LR) is a toxin produced by freshwater cyanobacteria and is a potential threat to human health. MC-LR has been shown to be both a specific inhibitor of serine/threonine protein phosphatases PP1 and PP2A and a potent tumor promoter in rat liver. However, the genotoxic potential of MCs remains unclear. In this article, we investigated the ability of MC-LR to induce DNA damage on rat hepatocytes following intravenous (iv) administration by using two in vivo genotoxicity assays: the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) and the comet assays. The UDS assay measures DNA synthesis induced from the excision repair of DNA damaged regions and the comet assay is a very sensitive technique for detecting various forms of DNA damage. After an exposure time of 2-4 h or 12-16 h and a dose ranging from 12.5 to 50 microg/kg bw, no DNA damage could be observed in both assays on rat hepatocytes following iv administration. These findings have been discussed and compared with recently published genotoxic results obtained in other organs from mice after oral and intraperitoneal treatments to better understand the mechanism of action of this toxin in relation with its cancerogenicity potential., (Copyright 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The chelating agent nitrilotriacetic acid (NTA), classified as an epigenetic rodent carcinogen, was assessed in the in vivo rodent Comet assay on isolated kidney cells. Unexpected potent increases in DNA damage were obtained in both the short (3-6 hr) and long-term (22-26 hr) expression times after a single oral treatment at 1,000-2,000 mg/kg bw. NTA was assayed in the Ames test using TA1537, TA98, TA100, and TA102 tester strains, and in the in vitro micronucleus assay on L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells and on CTLL2 and CTLL2/Bcl2 cells coupled to the apoptosis measurement, both with and without metabolic activation by aroclor 1254-induced liver or kidney rat S9-mix. Whatever the S9 origin, neither genotoxicity nor apoptosis was detected, while a strong increase in the micronuclei formation was observed without S9 without any apoptosis induction. The direct genotoxicity of NTA was confirmed in the mouse lymphoma tk+/- gene mutation assay and in the chromosomal aberrations test on human lymphocytes. When tested in combination with an excess of Ca2+, NTA gave negative results on L5178Y mouse lymphoma cells in the in vitro Comet and micronucleus assays but still induced DNA damage on rat primary kidney cells. The higher sensitivity of renal cells to Ca2+ variations could explained the positive response observed in vivo. The carcinogenicity of NTA could be a consequence of the survival of kidney cells to intracellular variations of Ca2+, leading to a local and indirect genotoxicity. This suggests that threshold dose exists beyond which tumor-generating events will be displayed.

The purpose of the present work was to assess the mutagenic potency of soil samples presumably not contaminated by industrial wastes and discharges. A set of 51 soil samples was collected from areas considered as not contaminated by a known industrial activity: 11 urban samples (collected in cities), 15 suburban samples (collected in villages), 7 agricultural samples, and 18 forest or natural samples. Each soil sample was collected at the surface (0-5cm deep), dried, sieved (2mm), homogenized before organic extraction (dichloromethane/acetone 1/1 (v/v), 37 degrees C, 4h, soil/solvent ratio 1/2, m/v), solvent exchange to DMSO and sterilizing filtration. The micro-method adaptation of the standard bacterial mutagenicity test on Salmonella typhimurium strain TA98 was performed with and without a metabolic activation system (rat-liver homogenate S9), and thus detected the effect of pro-mutagens and direct mutagens, respectively. The use of a pre-incubation method increased the sensitivity of the assay. The results obtained showed a wide range of effect levels, from no effect to clear mutagenicity. In particular, the extract of all 11 urban soil samples demonstrated mutagenic activity, while the extracts of 10 of the 15 suburban samples showed mutagenicity. On the other hand, the extract of only one of the 7 agricultural samples studied induced mutations, and none of the 18 natural or forest-soil samples investigated produced mutagenic extracts. These findings seem to indicate the crucial influence of the diffuse pollution originating from different human activities on the mutagenic potency of urban soil samples. These findings make it possible to classify the soils according to their mutagenic potency. No clear correlation was found between the mutagenicity detected in soil extracts and the measured polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) content of the soils investigated.

7-Hydroxy-5-methyl-3-phenyl-6,7,8,9-tetrahydropyrido[3',2':4,5]imidazo[1,2-a]pyrimidin-5-ium chloride (PhIP-M1) is a newly identified intestinal microbial metabolite from the food carcinogen 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP). Although the mutagenic potential of the endogenous N-hydroxy PhIP derivate has been reported, the risks associated with PhIP-M1 have not yet been explored. In this work, the cytotoxic and genotoxic effects originating from PhIP-M1 were assessed in the epithelial intestinal Caco-2 cell line. PhIP-M1 significantly decreased in a time- and dose-dependent manner mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity and protein synthesis, with IC50 values of, respectively, 180+/-39.4 and 173+/-20.3 microM after 24h, and 33.8+/-3.5 and 37.3+/-10.9 microM after 72 h. Apoptosis within the concentration ranges of cytotoxicity was confirmed by morphological examination, DAPI nuclear staining and annexin V staining. PhIP-M1 provoked cell cycle arrest, characterized by a significant increase in the number of nucleoids in the G2/M phase. A dose-dependent increase in DNA damage, as quantified by the alkaline comet assay, was observed after 3h in the 50-200 microM range. Because these PhIP-M1-induced genomic and cellular events may contribute to the carcinogenicity of PhIP, the potency of the colon microbiota to bioactivate PhIP must be included in future risk assessments.