Search

Abstract The food enzyme, a triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3), is produced with the non‐genetically modified Limtongozyma cylindracea strain AE‐LAYH (B) by Amano Enzyme Inc. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in one process, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining five food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.315 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the quality presumption of safety (QPS) approach of safety assessment and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A homology search for the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to those of known allergens was made and one match with a honeybee venom allergen was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure, particularly in individuals allergic to honey, cannot be excluded, but is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of issues of concern arising from the food enzyme manufacturing process, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐glucosidase (β‐D‐glucoside glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.21) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium guanacastense strain AE‐GLY by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 4.054 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 943 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 233. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme laccase (benzenediol:oxygen oxidoreductase; EC 1.10.3.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trametes hirsuta strain AE‐OR by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.026 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 33,154. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme oryzin (EC 3.4.21.63) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus ochraceus strain AE‐P by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.1 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 18,620. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and 31 matches were found, including one food allergen (melon). The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to melon, cannot be excluded, but would not exceed the risk from consumption of this food. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐GT by Amano Enzyme Inc. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.462 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of concerns resulting from the food enzyme's manufacturing process, toxicity tests were considered unnecessary by the Panel. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme leucyl aminopeptidase (EC 3.4.11.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus sp. strain AE‐MB by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes: processing of dairy products for the production of (1) flavouring preparations; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (2) protein hydrolysates; processing of meat and fish products for the production of (3) protein hydrolysates, (4) modified meat and fish products and processing of (5) yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 2.273 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 183 mg TOS/kg bw per day. The calculated margin of exposure for each age group was 135 (infants), 81 (toddlers), 83 (children), 109 (adolescents), 160 (adults) and 184 (the elderly). A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. The safety of the food enzyme could not be established given the derived margins of exposure. Therefore, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme could not be considered safe under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme catalase (hydrogen‐peroxide:hydrogen‐peroxide oxidoreductase; EC 1.11.1.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus tubingensis strain AE‐CN by Amano Enzyme Inc. The absence of viable cells of the production organism in the food enzyme was not demonstrated. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes: production of baked products, processing of egg and egg products, production of fruit and vegetable products other than juices, production of cheese and production of fish roes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.325 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The results of the in vitro genotoxicity studies indicated the presence of a clastogenic agent in the food enzyme which could not be dismissed due to limitations in the in vivo studies. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 323 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Because of the results of the genotoxicity studies, and as the absence of viable cells from the production strain was not demonstrated, the Panel was unable to establish the safety of the food enzyme.

Abstract The food enzyme ribonuclease P (EC 3.1.26.5) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium citrinum strain AE‐RP‐4 by Amano Enzyme Inc. It is intended to be used in yeast processing only for the production of yeast extract. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.153 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise safety concerns. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 134.7 mg TOS/kg bw per day, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 880. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐galactosidase (EC 3.2.1.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus sp. strain GD‐FAL by Godo Shusei Co., Ltd. The food enzyme is intended to be used in milk processing for the hydrolysis of lactose. The absence of viable cells of the production organism in the food enzyme was not demonstrated. Based on the assumption that all milk/dairy products are enzymatically treated, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.301 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The data provided did not allow concerns of genotoxicity of the food enzyme to be excluded. The systemic toxicity could not be assessed in the absence of an appropriate repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study. Consequently, a margin of exposure was not calculated. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is low. Based on the remaining concerns on genotoxicity, the inadequacies of the 90‐day repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats and the missing data regarding the absence of viable cells of the production strain in the food enzyme, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of this food enzyme.

Abstract The food enzyme cellulase (4‐(1,3;1,4)‐β‐d‐glucan 4‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.4) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐852 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The genetic modifications did not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes: baking processes, brewing processes, distilled alcohol production, wine and wine vinegar production, and fruit and vegetable processing for juice production. As residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation, dietary exposure was only calculated for the other four food processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme TOS was estimated to be up to 0.1 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 10,000. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use (other than distilled alcohol production) the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme has four declared activities (endo‐polygalacturonase ((1→4)‐α‐d‐galacturonan glycanohydrolase (endo‐cleaving); 3.2.1.15), pectinesterase (pectin pectylhydrolase; 3.1.1.11), pectin lyase ((1→4)‐6‐O‐methyl‐α‐d‐galacturonan lyase; 4.2.2.10) and non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase (α‐l‐arabinofuranoside non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase; 3.2.1.55) and is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PEC by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in the manufacture of alcoholic beverages from fruits other than grapes, fruit and vegetable processing for juice production, and wine and wine vinegar production. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.25 mg TOS/kg bodyweight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 204 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 800. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and several matches were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, particularly for individuals sensitised to several pollen allergens or papaya allergens. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐glucosidase (α‐d‐glucoside glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.20) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain AE‐TGU by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in baking processes, cereal‐based processes, brewing processes and starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups, dietary exposure was only calculated for the remaining three food processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended, dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.64 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,062 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 1,650. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase (α‐l‐arabinofuranoside non‐reducing end α‐l‐arabinofuranosidase; EC 3.2.1.55) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain NZYM‐GV by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by washing and purification steps applied during grain treatment, the estimation of a dietary exposure is considered not necessary. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,116 mg TOS/kg body weight per day, the highest dose tested. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided and the removal of TOS during the grain treatment, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 14 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 80 (FGE.80), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirteen substances have already been considered in FGE.80 and its revision and in FGE.96 [FL‐no: 10.005, 10.024, 10.025, 10.050, 10.061, 10.069, 10.070, 10.072, 10.169, 13.009, 13.012, 13.161 and 16.055]. The remaining flavouring substance 3a,4,5,7a‐tetrahydro‐3,6‐dimethylbenzofuran‐2(3H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.057] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.217Rev3 and it is considered in this revision 2 of FGE.80. The substance [FL‐no: 10.057] was evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 10.057] does not give rise to safety concerns at its levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered and the information provided was complete for [FL‐no: 10.057]. However, for the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 10.057] in the present revision and for eight substances evaluated in previous revisions, the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) values are above the TTC for their structural class (III). For four substances previously evaluated in FGE.80Rev1 and in FGE.96, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 13 flavouring substances, data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. For [FL‐no: 10.050, 10.069 and 13.161], information on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures is needed.

Abstract The food enzyme inulinase (1‐β‐d‐fructan fructanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.7) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus welwitschiae strain NZYM‐KF by Novozymes A/S. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of fructo‐polysaccharides for the production of fructo‐oligosaccharides. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during the food manufacturing process, toxicological studies other than allergenicity were considered unnecessary and dietary exposure was not calculated. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with tomato allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to tomato, cannot be excluded, but is expected not to exceed that of tomato. As the prevalence of allergic reactions to tomato is low, also the likelihood of such reactions to occur to the food enzyme is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of naringenin [FL‐no: 16.132] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. No other substances with sufficient structural similarity have been identified in existing FGEs that could be used to support a read‐across approach. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 16.132] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with naringenin, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The use of naringenin as a flavouring substance at added portions exposure technique (APET) exposure levels is unlikely to pose a risk for drug interaction. For the toxicological evaluation of naringenin, the Panel requested an extended one‐generation toxicity study on naringenin, in line with the requirements of the Procedure and to investigate the consequence of a possible endocrine‐disrupting activity. The Panel considered that changes in thymus weight, litter size, post‐implantation loss and a consistent reduced pup weight in the high‐dose F2 generation could not be dismissed and selected therefore, the mid‐dose of 1320 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the parental males as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of the study. The exposure estimates for [FL‐no: 16.132] (31,500 and 50,000 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were above the threshold of toxicological of concern (TTC) for its structural class (III). Using the NOAEL of 1320 mg/kg bw per day at step A4 of the procedure, margins of exposure (MoE) of 1590 and 630 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. Based on the calculated MoEs, the Panel concluded that the use of naringenin as a flavouring substance does not raise a safety concern.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 2‐methyl‐1‐(2‐(5‐(p‐tolyl)‐1H‐imidazol‐2‐yl)piperidin‐1‐yl)butan‐1‐one [FL‐no: 16.134] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and is chemically synthesised. In food, it is intended to be used as a flavouring substance only in chewing gum. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] was estimated to be 45 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 28.4 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.134] did not show genotoxicity in a bacterial reverse mutation test and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus assay. Based on the submitted toxicokinetic and metabolism data, it can be predicted that the flavouring substance is metabolised to innocuous products only. The Panel derived a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 0.71 mg/kg bw per day for a 20% increase in the relative thyroid (including parathyroid) weight observed in a 90‐day toxicity study in rats. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 887 and 374 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.134], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure, based on the intended use and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.134] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste and mouthwash is also not of safety concern.

Abstract The food enzyme phosphodiesterase I (oligonucleotide 5′‐nucleotidohydrolase; EC 3.1.4.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Leptographium procerum strain FDA by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.171 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 5848. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme thermolysin (EC. 3.4.24.27) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus strain AE‐TP by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.973 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 700 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the mid‐dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 719. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme microbial collagenase (EC 3.4.24.3) is produced with the genetically modified Streptomyces violaceoruber strain pCol by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in two food manufacturing processes: the production of modified meat and fish products and the production of protein hydrolysates from meat and fish proteins. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 1.098 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 940 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 856. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐galactosidase (β‐d‐galactoside galactohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Papiliotrema terrestris strain AE‐BLC by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the production of galacto‐oligosaccharides (GOS) from lactose. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.441 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1800 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 4082. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme 3‐phytase (myo‐inositol‐hexakisphosphate 3‐phosphohydrolase EC 3.1.3.8) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain NPH by DSM Food Specialties. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in three food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of (1) baked products and (2) distilled alcohol, and the processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (3) plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products. Since no residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are carried over into distilled alcohol, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining two food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.553 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 833 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1506. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐l‐rhamnosidase (α‐l‐rhamnoside rhamnohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.40) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium adametzii strain AE‐HP by Amano Enzymes Inc. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices and other fruit products. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated to be up to 0.022 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 300 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 13,636. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma citrinoviride strain 278 by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products; production of cereal‐based products other than baked, brewed products, starch and gluten fractions, distilled alcohol; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices, wine and wine vinegar and processing of yeast and yeast products. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, dietary exposure was only calculated for the remaining six food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 4.808 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The Panel was unable to reach a conclusion on genotoxicity and systemic toxicity. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. In the absence of an acceptable full set of toxicological data, the Panel was unable to complete the safety assessment of the food enzyme.

Abstract The food enzyme cellulase (4‐(1,3;1,4)‐β‐d‐glucan‐4‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.1.2.4) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain 294 by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. The enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes: baking processes, cereal‐based processes, brewing processes, grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, fruit and vegetable processing for juice production, fruit and vegetable processing for products other than juices, distilled alcohol production and wine and wine vinegar production. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during distilled alcohol production and grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, dietary exposure was only calculated for the remaining six food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 5.706 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 794 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested. The calculated margin of exposure for each age group was 184 (infants), 146 (toddlers), 139 (children), 219 (adolescents), 305 (adults) and 441 (the elderly). A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use (other than distilled alcohol production), the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use for adolescents, adults and the elderly.

Abstract The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain AS 29‐286 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in seven food manufacturing processes: baking processes, fruit and vegetable processing for juice production, fruit and vegetable processing for products other than juices, distilled alcohol production, starch processing for the production of maltodextrins, brewing processes and non‐wine vinegar production. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during distilled alcohol production and starch processing for the production of maltodextrins, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining five food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 2.158 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,774 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 822. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches with respiratory allergens were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme AMP deaminase (AMP aminohydrolase; EC 3.5.4.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Streptomyces murinus strain AE‐DNTS by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells. It is intended to be used in yeast processing and the production of mushroom extracts. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.0004 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The food enzyme batches, including the batch used in the toxicological studies, were not fully characterised. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. In the absence of adequate toxicological data, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food enzyme AMP deaminase from the non‐genetically modified Streptomyces murinus strain AE‐DNTS.

Abstract The food enzyme glucan 1,4‐α‐glucosidase (4‐α‐d‐glucan α‐glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain NZYM‐BO by Novozymes A/S. It was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in seven food manufacturing processes: baking processes, brewing processes, cereal‐based processes, distilled alcohol production, fruit and vegetable processing for juice production, production of dairy analogues and starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation and during starch processing, dietary exposure was not calculated for these two food manufacturing processes. For the remaining five food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be up to 2.97 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,920 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 646. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a respiratory allergen was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (3‐(1–3;1–4)‐β‐d‐glucan 3(4)‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Cellulosimicrobium funkei strain AE‐TN by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was shown to contain viable cells of the production strain, which belongs to a species that has been implicated in opportunistic infections in humans. The food enzyme is intended to be used in baking processes and yeast processing. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 1.75 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,788 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1,022. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is low. However, due to the presence of viable cells of the production strain in the food enzyme, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme cannot be considered safe.

Abstract The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 28 flavouring substances in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 76 (FGE.76Rev2). Twenty‐one of these substances have been considered in FGE.76Rev1. Seven substances could not be evaluated, because of concerns with respect to genotoxicity. New genotoxicity data have been provided for 4‐methyl‐5‐vinylthiazole [FL‐no: 15.018] and 4,5‐dimethyl‐2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.032], which are representative substances of [FL‐no: 15.005] and [FL‐no: 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131], respectively. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.018 and 15.005]. The concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.032, 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131]. In vitro, [FL‐no: 15.032] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus study was not adequate to rule out the concern for potential aneugenicity in vivo. The Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for [FL‐no: 15.032]. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of [FL‐no: 15.032] at the maximum reported use levels does not raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances [FL‐no: 15.029, 15.030, 15.130 and 15.131], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. Individual genotoxicity data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions for 24 flavouring substances ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ when based on the MSDI approach. For six substances, more reliable information on uses and use levels are needed to refine the mTAMDI estimates. For 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs. For [FL‐no: 15.109 and 15.113], information on the actual stereochemical composition is inadequate and the conclusion reached for the named substances cannot be applied to the materials of commerce.

Abstract The food enzyme 1,4‐α‐glucan branching enzyme ((1–4)‐α‐d‐glucan:(1–4)‐α‐d‐glucan 6‐α‐d‐[(1–4)‐α‐d‐glucano]‐transferase; EC 2.4.1.18) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Geobacillus thermodenitrificans strain TRBE14 by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. The production strain has been shown to qualify for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in cereal‐based processes, baking processes as well as meat and fish processing. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.29 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Toxicological studies were not considered necessary given the QPS status of the production strain and the nature of the manufacturing process. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel noted that the food enzyme contains lysozyme, a known allergen. Therefore, allergenicity cannot be excluded. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the flavouring substances 2,4‐dimethyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.060] and 2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.119] in Flavouring Group Evaluation 21 revision 6 (FGE.21Rev6). FGE.21Rev6 deals with 41 flavouring substances of which 39 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern when based on the MSDI approach. For [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.21. Genotoxicity data have been submitted for the supporting substance 4,5‐dimethyl‐2‐isobutyl‐3‐thiazoline [FL‐no: 15.032] evaluated in FGE.76Rev2. The concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out for [FL‐no: 15.032] and for the structurally related substances [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119], but not for aneugenicity. Therefore, the aneugenic potential of [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119] should be investigated in studies with the individual substances. For [FL‐no: 15.054, 15.055, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], (more reliable) information on uses and use levels is needed to (re)calculate the mTAMDIs in order to finalise their evaluation. Provided that information is submitted for [FL‐no: 15.060 and 15.119] with respect to potential aneugenicity, that would allow evaluation of these substances through the Procedure, also for these two substances, more reliable data on uses and use levels would be required. Upon submission of such data, additional data on toxicity may become necessary for all seven substances. For [FL‐no: 15.054, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], information on the actual percentages of stereoisomers in the material of commerce based on analytical data should be provided.

Abstract The food enzyme endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (3‐(1–3,1–4)‐β‐d‐glucan 3(4)‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rasamsonia composticola 427‐FS strain by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in six manufacturing processes, i.e. baking processes, other cereal‐based processes, brewing processes, grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, distilled alcohol production and yeast processing. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation and during grain processing, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining four processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.809 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 866 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1,070. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme glucan 1,4‐α‐glucosidase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizopus arrhizus strain AE‐G by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. The applicant proposed the use of the food enzyme in baking processes, coffee processing and manufacture of enzymatically modified dairy ingredients (EMDI). The Panel considered only the baking processes as the relevant intended use of this food enzyme. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.94 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,868 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1,987. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match was found. The Panel considered that under the intended conditions of use the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns when used in baking processes under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizopus arrhizus strain AE‐N by Amano Enzyme Inc. It is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in an immobilised form in the modification of fats and oils by interesterification. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during refinement of the fats and oils, dietary exposure was not calculated. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,806 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed a new scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for the authorisation of flavourings to be used in or on foods. This guidance applies to applications for a new authorisation as well as for a modification of an existing authorisation of a food flavouring, submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. It defines the scientific data required for the evaluation of those food flavourings for which an evaluation and approval is required according to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. This applies to flavouring substances, flavouring preparations, thermal process flavourings, flavour precursors, other flavourings and source materials, as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: (a) the characterisation of the food flavouring, including the description of its identity, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications, stability and reaction and fate in foods; (b) the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure and (c) the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the food flavouring, toxicological data other than genotoxicity and information on the safety for the environment. For the toxicological studies, a tiered approach is applied, for which the testing requirements, key issues and triggers are described. Applicants should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the food flavouring. Based on the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the food flavouring and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment, if applicable, under the proposed conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of five flavouring substances from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19, in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 216 (FGE.216). In FGE.216 and in FGE.216Rev1, the CEF Panel requested additional genotoxicity data on 2‐phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL‐no: 05.062], the representative for these five substances. New experimental data on [FL‐no: 05.062] were provided and are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.216 (FGE.216Rev2). Based on the new data, the Panel concluded that, for all the five substances, the concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out by the negative results observed in an in vivo gene mutation assay and in an in vivo comet assay, respectively. In vitro, [FL‐no: 05.062] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus studies were inconclusive and cannot be used to rule out potential aneugenicity of [FL‐no: 05.062] in vivo. Therefore, the Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for this substance. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 05.062] at the reported use levels in several food categories would raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances in this FGE [FL‐no: 05.099, 05.100, 05.175 and 05.222], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. For these four substances, individual data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. Accordingly, it is currently not appropriate to assess any of these five substances through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance (E)‐3‐benzo[1,3]dioxol‐5‐yl‐N,N‐diphenyl‐2‐propenamide [FL‐no: 16.135] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and it is chemically synthesised. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food, but not intended to be used in beverages. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 780 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 480 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.135] did not show genotoxic effects in bacterial mutagenicity and mammalian cell micronucleus assays in vitro. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study in rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived a BMDL of 101 mg/kg bw per day from a 90‐day toxicity study. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 7,800 and 3,200 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.135], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach, based on the intended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste is also not of safety concern.

Abstract The food enzyme glucose oxidase (β‐d‐glucose:oxygen 1‐oxidoreductase; EC 1.1.3.4) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐352 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism, but the absence of its recombinant DNA could not be established. The food enzyme is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes, namely baking processes, cereal‐based processes, grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, and egg processing. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by repeated washing during the production of starch and gluten, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining three processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be up to 0.13 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of more than 7,800. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water content is estimated at 56 wt%, the total identified volatile fraction accounts for 28 wt% of the primary product, corresponding to 64% of the solvent‐free mass, while the unidentified fraction amounts to 16 wt% of the primary product. Analytical data provided for three batches demonstrated that their batch‐to‐batch‐variability was sufficiently low. However, for the batch used for the toxicological studies, there were substantial deviations in the concentration of nearly all the constituents compared to the other three batches. The dietary exposure of Prosmoke BW 01 was estimated to be between 6.2 and 9.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively, using SMK‐EPIC and SMK‐TAMDI. Using the FAIM tool, the 95th percentile exposure estimates ranged from 3.2 mg/kg bw per day for the elderly to 17.9 mg/kg bw per day for children. The Panel noted that furan‐2(5H)‐one is present in all batches of the primary product at an average concentration of 0.88 wt%. This substance was evaluated by the FAF Panel as genotoxic in vivo after oral exposure. The Panel considered that the (geno)toxicity studies available on the whole mixture were not adequate to support the safety assessment, due to limitations in these studies and because they were performed with a batch which may not be representative for the material of commerce. Considering that the exposure estimates for furan‐2(5H)‐one are above the TTC value of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day (or 0.15 μg/person per day) for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that Prosmoke BW 01 raises a concern with respect to genotoxicity.