Search

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for selenium. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to identify evidence regarding excess selenium intake and clinical effects and potential biomarkers of effect, risk of chronic diseases and impaired neuropsychological development in humans. Alopecia, as an early observable feature and a well-established adverse effect of excess selenium exposure, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base a UL for selenium. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 330 mu g/day is identified from a large randomised controlled trial in humans (the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)), to which an uncertainty factor of 1.3 is applied. A UL of 255 mu g/day is established for adult men and women (including pregnant and lactating women). ULs for children are derived from the UL for adults using allometric scaling (body weight(0.75)). Based on available intake data, adult consumers are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high daily doses of selenium or regular consumers of Brazil nuts. No risk has been reported with the current levels of selenium intake in European countries from food (excluding food supplements) in toddlers and children, and selenium intake arising from the natural content of foods does not raise reasons for concern. Selenium-containing supplements in toddlers and children should be used with caution, based on individual needs.

Vitamins and essential minerals are micronutrients that are essential for the normal functioning of the human body. However, they may lead to adverse health effects if consumed in excess. The concept of a tolerable upper intake level (UL) is a science‐based reference value, which was introduced to support policy‐makers and other relevant actors in managing the risks of excess nutrient intake. EFSA’s principles for establishing ULs for vitamins and minerals were originally developed by the Scientific Committee on Food in 2000. Since then, experience has been gained and the scientific field developed. This guidance from the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens provides an updated framework to support EFSA’s UL assessments. It covers aspects related to the planning of the risk assessment (problem formulation and definition of methods) and its implementation (evidence retrieval, appraisal, synthesis, integration, uncertainty analysis). As in the previous framework, the general principles developed for the risk assessment of chemicals in food are applied (hazard identification, hazard characterisation, intake assessment, risk characterisation). Peculiar to nutrients are their biochemical and physiological roles and the specific and selective mechanisms that maintain the systemic homoeostasis and body burden of the nutrient. These must be considered when conducting a risk assessment of nutrients. This document constitutes a draft guidance that will be applied in EFSA’s assessments during a 1‐year pilot phase and be revised and complemented as necessary. Before finalisation of the guidance, a public consultation will be launched.

Endorsement date21 January 2021Implementation date27 March 2021 This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of new substances that are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups and an assessment of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance was adopted by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) on 16 May 2018. Upon request from EFSA, the present guidance has been revised to inform applicants of new provisions set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.

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., This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6480/full

As part of a series of scientific opinions on dietary references values (DRVs) for micronutrients for the European population, the EFSAPanel on Dietetics Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA)is reviewing the scientific evidence to set DRVs for sodium. The protocol presented in this document describes the methodology that will beapplied for: i) the assessment of possible relationships between sodium intake and health outcomes, including dose-response relationship(s), where applicable, and ii) the integration of different lines of evidence for setting DRVs. In particular,systematic reviews on the relationship between sodium intake and blood pressure, cardiovascular disease, bone mineral density, bone mineral content, and osteoporotic fractures will be conducted. The protocol will be implemented in 2018. The outcome will be usedby the NDA Panel to completeits scientific opinion on DRVs for sodium.A public consultation will be organised once the scientific opinion is complete (Spring 2019; https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/calls/consultations). This protocol will be published as an Annex to the scientific opinion (Annex A). Further information EFSA's work on DRVs: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/topics/topic/dietary-reference-values-and-dietary-guidelines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The European Commission requested EFSA to carry out a scientific evaluation on four studies on the potential toxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) used as a food additive (E 171) and to indicate whether they would merit re‐opening the existing opinion of EFSA on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The results of the Bettini et al. (2017) study did not provide enough justification for a new carcinogenicity study, but, should additional useful mechanistic information become available, this could be reconsidered in future. The new in vitro findings in the Proquin et al. (2017) study did not modify the conclusion on the genotoxicity of TiO2 as stated in the previous EFSA opinion of 2016 on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The effects of engineered TiO2 nanoparticles reported by the Guo et al. (2017) study were of uncertain biological significance and therefore of limited relevance for the risk assessment of the food additive TiO2 (E 171). There was significant uncertainty in the risk assessment performed by Heringa et al. (2016), which did not include a weight of evidence analysis of the whole database. The Panel considered that the four studies evaluated, highlighted some concerns but with uncertainties, therefore their relevance for the risk assessment was considered limited and further research would be needed to decrease the level of uncertainties. Overall, three of the studies, reporting that TiO2 induced various effects in in vitro and in vivo models, may be useful for hazard identification of TiO2. In the fourth study by Heringa et al. (2016), numerous assumptions were made, which resulted in large uncertainty in their conclusion. Altogether, the Panel concluded that the outcome of the four studies did not merit re‐opening the existing opinion of EFSA related to the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive.

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

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

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.

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

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

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re‐evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Based on the reported use levels, a refined exposure of up to 72.4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile was estimated. Gellan gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and would not be fermented by human intestinal microbiota. There is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. No adverse effects were reported in chronic studies at the highest doses tested in mice and rats (3,627 and 1,460 mg gellan gum/kg bw per day, respectively). Repeated oral intake up to 200 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks had no adverse effects in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for gellan gum (E 418), and that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses and use levels of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. The Panel recommended to better define the specifications of gellan gum including the absence of viable cells of the microbial source and the presence of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), protein and residual bacterial enzymatic activities.

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

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

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

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

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