Search

Abstract Drinking water producers have a far-reaching responsibility to provide safe, clean and wholesome drinking water, using water resources possibly effected by the thousands of chemicals used in societies’ daily life. This study has monitored chemical hazards in drinking water from source to tap, using effect-based methods. The study was conducted at a Swedish drinking water treatment plant sourcing lake water and aimed to investigate potential seasonal variations in both the raw water and water after different treatment steps. Furthermore, a granular activated carbon (GAC) pilot facility was evaluated. Samples were analyzed for estrogenicity, androgenicity, aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) activity, oxidative stress (Nrf2) response and genotoxicity (micronucleus formation). We observed seasonal differences in oxidative stress and genotoxic effects in both raw and drinking water with higher activities during the late fall of each year. The removal efficiency for both oxidative stress and genotoxicity was limited in the full-scale treatment process and occasionally the genotoxicity was also detected in outgoing drinking water from the treatment plant and in samples collected at consumers tap on the distribution network. AhR activity was present in all raw water samples and the removal was limited. Estrogenic activities were observed in most of the raw water samples but in contrast to the other parameters estrogenicity was effectively reduced by the full-scale conventional treatment. The GAC pilot treatment was generally more efficient than the full-scale conventional treatment in removing all observed bioactivities and could be a viable complement to the current treatment to assure drinking water free from genotoxic compounds. Genotoxic activities in drinking water was observed while all currently regulated chemical parameters were fulfilled. This highlights the need for effect-based monitoring in efforts to ensure the chemical safety of drinking water, as target chemical analysis of single compounds will overlook both unknown hazardous compounds as well as potential mixture effects. Graphical Abstract

An underemphasized aspect of sampling strategies in effect-based in vitro testing is to determine suitable collection and preparation techniques. In the current study, the impact of sample acidification on bioactivities was assessed using in vitro bioassays for hormone receptor-mediated effects (estrogen receptor [ER] and androgen receptor [AR]) and the oxidative stress response (Nrf2 activity). Sampling was conducted at a recently upgraded Swedish wastewater treatment plant. Future plans for the treated wastewater include reuse for irrigation or as a potential drinking water source. In the AR and Nrf2 assays, acidification decreased bioactivities in the wastewater influent sample extracts, whereas acidification increased bioactivities following further treatment (disc filtration). In the ER assay, acidification had no impact on the observed bioactivities in the sample extracts. A secondary objective of the study was to assess the stability of the sample extracts over time. Lower activities were detected in the ER and AR assays in all extracts after storage for approximately 1 year. Nrf2 activities did not decrease over time, but rather increased in some of the acidified sample extracts. Overall, the findings suggest that sampling strategies involving acidification may need to be tailored depending on the selected bioassay(s) and the type of wastewater treatments being assessed. HIGHLIGHTS Sample acidification impacted in vitro bioactivities of wastewater extracts.; Impact of acidification differed before versus after disc filtration treatment.; Storage time of approximately 1 year reduced hormone receptor-mediated bioactivities.; Findings suggest against a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach involving sample acidification and storage.;

Manganese is an essential trace element that is required for multiple enzymes in the human body. The general population is mainly exposed to manganese via food intake, in particular plant foods. In areas with elevated concentrations of manganese in groundwater, drinking water can also be an important source of exposure. The gastrointestinal absorption of manganese is below 10%, and it appears to be influenced by the amount of manganese in the diet and by the nutritional status of the individual, especially the iron status. In blood, most of the manganese is found in the cellular fractions. Manganese is primarily eliminated via the bile followed by excretion via faeces. To date, no specific biomarkers of manganese intake have been identified. The dietary intake of manganese in the Nordic countries has been reported to be within the range that has been reported for other European countries (2–6 mg/day). Since manganese is found in nutritionally adequate amounts in food, deficiency is not of public health concern. On the other hand, there is emerging epidemiological evidence that various suggested manganese biomarkers may be negatively associated with children’s neurodevelopment. However, the limited number of prospective studies, the lack of appropriate exposure biomarkers, and validated neurodevelopmental outcomes render data uncertain and inconclusive. In 2013, the European Food Safety Authority considered the evidence to be insufficient to derive an average requirement or a population reference intake, and instead an adequate intake for adults was set at 3.0 mg/day.

Molybdenum is an essential element in the form of the molybdenum cofactor (Moco). In humans, Moco is required for four enzymes: xanthine oxidase (XO), aldehyde oxidase, sulfite oxidase (SO), and mitochondrial amidoxime-reducing component (mARC). The enzymes are involved in the oxidation of purines to uric acid, metabolism of aromatic aldehydes and heterocyclic compounds, and in the catabolism of sulfur amino acids. Molybdenum cofactor deficiency is a rare autosomal recessive syndrome due to a defective synthesis of Moco, resulting in a deficiency of all the molybdoenzymes. There are no reports on clinical signs of dietary molybdenum deficiency in otherwise healthy humans. Water-soluble molybdate is efficiently absorbed from the digestive tract. The body retention is regulated by urinary excretion. Plasma molybdenum reflects long-term intake and 24-h urinary excretion is related to recent intake. There are no biochemical markers of molybdenum status. Cereal products are the main contributors to molybdenum dietary intake, estimated to 100–170 μg/day in Nordic studies. Little data are available on molybdenum toxicity in humans. A tolerable upper intake level of molybdenum has been based on reproductive toxicity in rats, but the effects have not been reproduced in more recent studies. The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM, present National Academy of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; NASEM) established a Recommended Dietary Allowance of 45 μg/day in adult men and women in 2001, based on a small study reporting urinary excretion in balance with intake at 22 μg/day. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) considered in 2013 the evidence to be insufficient to derive an Average Requirement and a Population Reference Intake, but proposed an Adequate Intake of 65 μg/day for adults.

Abstract Background Endocrine disrupting chemicals have been identified for a number of human endocrine systems, but there are no reports on vitamin D-antagonistic activities in environmental samples. Objectives We have investigated if there are compounds present in the environment that can act as Vitamin D receptor (VDR) antagonists. Methods Water samples were collected of the influent and effluent water from five Swedish wastewater treatment facilities and concentrated with solid phase extraction. VDR antagonistic properties of the samples were tested with a cell-based in vitro assay responsive to vitamin D signaling. Cytotoxicity was monitored by three different assays. Results We observed a dose-dependent decrease in the VDR signaling in most studied samples, although the effect was overlapping with cytotoxicity for the influent samples. For effluent samples, we observed clear VDR antagonistic effects also in non-cytotoxic concentrations. The observed effects could not be explained by presence of natural organic matter or cadmium in the water. Discussion The vitamin D endocrine system regulates a broad range of physiological processes, and disruption of this system could be associated with serious health consequences. In this study, we report environmental presence of compounds with VDR antagonistic properties, compounds which constitute a new group of potential endocrine disruptors. The VDR antagonism was observed in wastewater treatment facility effluent waters, which are discharged into water systems used as raw water for drinking water production. The findings reported in this study may indicate a potential hazard to human health and aquatic life. Future research is needed to investigate the presence of VDR antagonists in the environment, identification of the causative compounds, and studies of exposure of humans and aquatic organisms to these compounds.

Background: Prostate cancer is the second most common form of cancer in men worldwide and there is a great need for novel treatment strategies, especially for castrate-resistant prostate cancers where the proliferation of the cancer cells is stimulated by androgens produced in the adrenal cortex and the cancer cells. Purpose: In this study, we have investigated the antiandrogenic properties of magnolol and ten synthetic analogs in vitro. Study design and methods: The compounds were evaluated for cytotoxicity, antiandrogenic receptor activity, binding to the androgen receptor, effects on the production of Prostate-specific antigen (PSA), and potential to pass over a tight layer of Caco-2 cells mimicking gastrointestinal absorption. Results: We found that almost all investigated compounds were antiandrogenic in an androgen receptor reporter gene assay, with IC50 values ranging from 7 to 86 µM. Magnolol itself had the highest antiandrogenic potency. Five of the compounds were then evaluated for their binding to the androgen receptor and three of these compounds were found to bind to the receptor. These five compounds were also evaluated for their effect on the PSA production and four were found to decrease PSA production at non-cytotoxic concentrations. The antiandrogenic activity after passage through a layer of Caco-2 cells, mimicking gastrointestinal absorption, was also evaluated for three of the compounds. All three compounds were found to have the capacity to be transported from the apical to the basolateral side of the Caco-2 cell layer and exert antiandrogenic effects after the transport. Conclusion: In conclusion, this study shows that magnolol and analogs have antiandrogenic effects in vitro and that selected analogs can pass over a tight layer of Caco-2 cells, indicating a potential for good bioavailability after oral administration. These magnolol analogs thereby constitute an interesting group of compounds worthy of further evaluation as potential anti-prostate cancer therapeutics.

Abstract Endorsement date 21 January 2021 Implementation date 27 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 24 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 73 (FGE.73), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.73 and its four revisions ([FL‐no: 02.114, 02.141, 05.098, 05.112, 08.067, 09.289, 09.488, 09.534, 09.615, 05.119, 05.123, 08.034, 08.060, 09.028, 09.536, 05.104, 09.034, 09.712, 09.305, 02.060, 02.091, 09.278, 09.302]). The remaining substance myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.208Rev3 and is considered in this revision 5 of FGE.73. 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 24 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 23 substances. For [FL‐no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For two substances [FL‐no: 09.034, and 09.712], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class (I). For 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, no normal and maximum use levels are available. Therefore, for these 19 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.

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

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings 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.

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

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

Abstract 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.

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

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

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

Abstract The 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.

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

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338–341, E 343, E 450–452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80–90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and 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.

Abstract 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].

Sodium meta-arsenite (NaAsO 2 ) has been suggested to play a role both in initiation/progression of prostate cancer and as a future antiprostate cancer drug. We have studied the effects of NaAsO 2 on cell proliferation of prostate cancer and noncancer cells, breast cancer cells, and adrenocortical carcinoma cells in vitro. Further, we have investigated the effect of NaAsO 2 on the androgen receptor. We report that NaAsO 2 alters the cell proliferation of prostate cells, in a hormetic manner, by increasing cell proliferation at low concentrations and decreasing the cell proliferation at high concentrations. No activation of the androgen receptor was detected. We conclude that NaAsO 2 is able to increase cell proliferation of prostate cells in vitro at low concentrations, while it decreases cell viability at high concentrations. This novel finding has to be further addressed if NaAsO 2 should be developed into an antiprostate cancer drug.

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

Abstract In this opinion, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) was requested by the European Commission to carry out a scientific evaluation of an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity study (EOGRTS) to determine whether it would allow reconsideration of the temporary group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for sorbic acid (E 200) and potassium sorbate (E 202), established by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) in 2015. From the EOGTRS, the FAF Panel identified a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 1,110 mg sorbic acid/kg body weight (bw) per day. By applying a default uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel established a group ADI expressed as 11 mg sorbic acid/kg bw per day for sorbic acid (E 200) and its potassium salt (E 202). In addition, European Commission asked EFSA to review a report on the ‘Stability of sorbic acid (E 200) and its potassium salt (E 202) during food processing and storage’ provided by industry. No new information was provided in this report, and therefore, in this opinion, there was no re‐assessment of the EFSA ANS opinion conclusions from 2015 regarding the stability of sorbates in food.

Abstract The Scientific Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety evaluation of annatto E and an exposure assessment of the annatto colouring principles bixin and norbixin (E 160b) when used as a food additive, taking into account new proposed uses and use levels. In 2016, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) adopted a scientific opinion on the safety of annatto extracts (E 160b) as a food additive. In that opinion, the Panel concluded that the toxicological database was sufficient to derive an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 6 mg bixin/kg body weight (bw) per day and an ADI of 0.3 mg norbixin/kg bw per day. The Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of annatto E. Dietary exposure for annatto (E 160b), bixin‐ and norbixin‐based annatto extracts was estimated taking into account the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) as set in the Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, the use levels provided by food industry as well as the proposed use levels from an applicant for an extension of use. Exposure estimates for bixin were below the ADI for all population groups and for all refined exposure scenarios, including the proposed extension of use. For norbixin, exceedance was observed for the extension of use at the 95th percentile for some population groups. In the 2017 EFSA statement related to the exposure assessment of colouring principles bixin and norbixin considering new proposed uses and use levels, the dietary exposure for bixin did not exceed the ADI. For norbixin, dietary exposure exceeded the ADI at the high level (95th percentile) for toddlers and children. In the current opinion, the Panel concluded that food colour annatto E does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Accordingly, the ADIs established in 2016 for the two colouring principles bixin and norbixin can be applied also to the annatto E. For bixin, none of the exposure estimates exceeded the ADI of 6 mg/kg bw per day. For norbixin, the ADI was reached at the high level (p95) for toddlers in the refined exposure assessment scenarios in one country. Considering the uncertainties and the very likely overestimation of the exposure, the Panel concluded that the level of exposure does not raise a health concern.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on Quillaia extract (E 999) when used as a food additive and the evaluation of the safety of its proposed extension of use as a food additive in flavourings. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1978 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0–5 mg spray‐dried extract/kg body weight (bw) per day for E 999. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) established in its latest evaluation a group ADI of 0–1 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as quillaia saponins, for Quillaia extract for Type 1 and Type 2. The Panel considered it likely that intact Quillaia extract saponins are absorbed to a low extent, are hydrolysed in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and that the aglycone is absorbed only to a limited extent. The Panel considered that the genotoxicity data available did not indicate a concern for genotoxicity. Taking into account the available toxicological database, various no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) relevant for the derivation of an ADI were identified. The Panel considered that the 2‐year study in rats was the most robust and that the NOAEL of 1,500 mg Quillaia extract/kg bw per day could be used to derive the ADI for E 999. Considering that the adverse effects reported were due to the presence of saponins in the extract, that saponins were present in Quillaia extract Type 1 (around 20%) and using an uncertainty factor of 100, the Panel derived a ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. None of the exposure estimates for the different population groups of the refined brand‐loyal scenario exceeded the ADI of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day. The proposed extension of use also would not result in an exceedance of this ADI for the refined scenario. The Panel proposed some recommendations for the European Commission to consider, in particular revising the EU specifications for E 999 in order to differentiate the extracts of Quillaia according to the saponins content and to include other parameters to better characterise the food additive.

Abstract 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(5H)‐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(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.023] and the structurally related substance 3‐hydroxy‐4,5‐dimethylfuran‐2(5H)‐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(5H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.066] and 3,4‐dimethyl‐5‐pentylidenefuran‐2(5H)‐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(5H)‐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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of propane‐1,2‐diol esters of fatty acids (E 477) when used as a food additive. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1978 endorsed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as propane‐1,2‐diol, established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. No adverse effects were observed in short‐term studies in rats and dogs at the highest doses tested. The Panel considered that E 477 did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. No chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies with propane‐1,2‐diol esters of fatty acids were available to the Panel. The Panel considered that any potential adverse effect of propane‐1,2‐diol ester of fatty acids would be due to propane‐1,2‐diol, previously re‐evaluated as a food additive and for which an ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day was established. Considering the overall metabolic and toxicity database, the Panel confirmed the previously established ADI for propane‐1,2‐diol esters of fatty acids (E 477) of 25 mg/kg bw per day expressed as propane 1,2 diol. This corresponds to an ADI for E 477 of 80 mg/kg bw per day, based on the concentration of free and bound propane‐1,2‐diol amounting to a maximum of 31% as laid down in the EU specification. The Panel concluded that there would not be a safety concern at the reported use levels for E 477 because exposure estimates from the refined non‐brand loyal scenario did not exceed the ADI for E 477 in any of the population groups. However, the Panel aims to explore the feasibility of establishing a group ADI for those food additives that result in an exposure to propane‐1,2‐diol, such as E 477, E 1520 and E 405. Additionally, the Panel will also consider performing a combined exposure assessment to propane‐1,2‐diol resulting from the use of these food additives. The Panel also recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 477.

Abstract EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2‐(4‐methylphenoxy)‐N‐(1H‐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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of thermally oxidised soya bean oil interacted with mono‐ and diglycerides of fatty acids (TOSOM) (E 479b) when used as a food additive. The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 and 30 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively. There was no reliable information regarding the absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) for TOSOM. No adverse effects have been detected in a limited subchronic toxicity study in pigs. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 5,400, the highest dose tested, from a chronic and carcinogenicity study in rats. No genotoxicity data were available. No reliable studies for reproductive or developmental toxicity were available. From the chronic and carcinogenicity study, no lesions in reproductive organs were described and the lack of carcinogenic effect alleviated the concern for genotoxicity at the first site of contact. The Panel concluded that the available toxicological data were insufficient to support the current ADI, in particular, due to the lack of ADME data and absence of developmental toxicity studies TOSOM (E 479b) is only authorised in one food category and only one reported use level that equals the maximum permitted level was submitted. The estimated high (P95) exposure reached an upper value of 10.1 mg/kg bw per day for toddlers. When comparing the highest estimated exposure of 10 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers with the NOAEL of 5,400 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested), the margin of safety (MoS) would be 540. Therefore, the Panel considered the use of TOSOM (E 479b) to be of no safety concern, in particular when considering the limited current use of this food additive. The Panel also recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 479b.

Abstract 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.

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

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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).

Abstract 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.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 μg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 μg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 μg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels.

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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 () 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).

Abstract 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.

Abstract 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.

Abstract The EFSA ANS Panel was asked to provide a scientific opinion on the safety of green tea catechins from dietary sources including preparations such as food supplements and infusions. Green tea is produced from the leaves of Camellia sinensis (L.) Kuntze, without fermentation, which prevents the oxidation of polyphenolic components. Most of the polyphenols in green tea are catechins. The Panel considered the possible association between the consumption of (‐)‐epigallocatechin‐3‐gallate (EGCG), the most relevant catechin in green tea, and hepatotoxicity. This scientific opinion is based on published scientific literature, including interventional studies, monographs and reports by national and international authorities and data received following a public ‘Call for data’. The mean daily intake of EGCG resulting from the consumption of green tea infusions ranges from 90 to 300 mg/day while exposure by high‐level consumers is estimated to be up to 866 mg EGCG/day, in the adult population in the EU. Food supplements containing green tea catechins provide a daily dose of EGCG in the range of 5–1,000 mg/day, for adult population. The Panel concluded that catechins from green tea infusion, prepared in a traditional way, and reconstituted drinks with an equivalent composition to traditional green tea infusions, are in general considered to be safe according to the presumption of safety approach provided the intake corresponds to reported intakes in European Member States. However, rare cases of liver injury have been reported after consumption of green tea infusions, most probably due to an idiosyncratic reaction. Based on the available data on the potential adverse effects of green tea catechins on the liver, the Panel concluded that there is evidence from interventional clinical trials that intake of doses equal or above 800 mg EGCG/day taken as a food supplement has been shown to induce a statistically significant increase of serum transaminases in treated subjects compared to control.

Abstract 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.