Search

The European Commission asked EFSA to update its 2012 risk assessment on brominated phenols and their derivatives in food, focusing on five bromophenols and one derivative: 2,4,6‐tribromophenol (2,4,6‐TBP), 2,4‐dibromophenol (2,4‐DBP), 4‐bromophenol (4‐BP), 2,6‐dibromophenol (2,6‐DBP), tetrabrominated bisphenol S (TBBPS), tetrabromobisphenol S bismethyl ether (TBBPS‐BME). Based on the overall evidence, the CONTAM Panel considered in vivo genotoxicity of 2,4,6‐TBP to be unlikely. Effects in liver and kidney were considered as the critical effects of 2,4,6‐tribromophenol (2,4,6‐TBP) in studies in rats. A BMDL10 of 353 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for kidney papillary necrosis in male rats was identified and was selected as the reference point for the risk characterisation. The derivation of a health‐based guidance value was not considered appropriate due to major limitations in the toxicological database. Instead, the margin of exposure (MOE) approach was applied to assess possible health concerns. Around 78,200 analytical results for 2,4,6‐TBP in food were used to estimate dietary exposure for the European population. Considering the resulting MOE values, all far above an MOE of 6000 that does not raise a health concern, and accounting for the uncertainties affecting the exposure and hazard assessments, the CONTAM Panel concluded with at least 95% probability that the current dietary exposure to 2,4,6‐TBP does not raise a health concern. Due to lack of occurrence data, no risk assessment could be performed for breastfed or formula‐fed infants. No risk characterisation could be performed for any of the other brominated phenols and derivatives included in the assessment, due to lack of data both on the toxicity and occurrence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission (EC) asked EFSA to assess the genotoxicity of beauvericin (BEA). Relevant information, including that which has become available since the 2014 Scientific Opinion on the risks to human and animal health related to the presence of BEA and enniatins in food and feed, was reviewed. In the previous Opinion the Panel concluded that in vitro genotoxicity data were equivocal and there were no in vivo genotoxicity data available. New in vitro studies in mammalian cell lines provided no convincing evidence for induction of chromosomal damage by BEA as measured by micronucleus and chromosome aberration tests or an increase of DNA strand breaks as assessed by the Comet assay. In these studies, no concentration‐dependent effects or potential for interference from associated cytotoxicity were observed. In addition, DNA double‐strand breaks as measured by γ‐H2AX analysis were only observed following exposure to highly cytotoxic BEA concentrations. In vivo studies (Comet and Pig‐a assays, micronucleus test) with BEA were negative. In vitro gene expression studies showed no indication of a DNA damage response and (quantitative) structure activity relationship analysis was also not indicative of genotoxic potential. Some effects of BEA might play an indirect role in the formation of DNA strand breaks. These include increased reactive oxygen species, induction of cell cycle arrest and apoptosis, associated with interference in mitochondrial function and cell signalling. There was no compelling evidence of inflammatory and immunosuppressive effects. Taken together, the available data indicate that BEA is devoid of genotoxic potential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific and technical assistance on the evaluation of human‐identical milk oligosaccharides (HiMOs) as novel foods (NFs). In recent years, the number of authorisations of HiMOs as NFs has markedly increased, which may lead to situations of multiple concurrent uses. Since the safety assessment of HiMOs is based on the comparison with the 'natural' intake of human milk oligosaccharides (HMOs), i.e. the HMO intake from human milk in exclusively breastfed infants, a scoping literature review was outsourced to update the database of mean concentrations of single and total HMOs in human milk, and relevant HMO intakes were thus updated. It is noted that in infants up to 16 weeks of age exclusively fed with infant formula, when adding all the assessed HiMOs at their highest maximum use levels across production methods, the resulting highest daily intakes of single HiMOs and the sum of HiMOs are within the natural HMO intake range. These intakes were also estimated (DietEx) for the most exposed population groups (i.e., infants and young children) considering the highest maximum use levels in those food categories with the highest contribution to the overall HiMO intake (i.e., infant and follow‐on formulae, ready‐to‐eat meals, yoghurt and cow milk). The resulting highest P95 daily HiMO intakes were unlikely to be higher than the highest mean daily HMO intakes. However, any possible higher intake would not necessarily imply a safety concern since such natural intake estimates represent an upper end of average natural intakes. It can be concluded that currently there are no safety concerns resulting from the authorised or assessed HiMO intakes from their concurrent combined uses. Nonetheless, in consideration of the increased interest in the use of HiMOs as NFs, a simplified but realistic approach for the intake assessment is proposed in the case of new HiMOs or extensions of use of already authorised HiMOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission requested EFSA to update the scientific guidance for the preparation of notifications for authorisation of traditional foods, previously developed following the adoption of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 on novel foods. This guidance document provides advice on the scientific information needed to be submitted by applicants when submitting traditional food notifications pursuant to Article 14 and traditional food applications pursuant to Article 16 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The safety of a traditional food should be substantiated by data on its composition, its experience of continued use and its proposed conditions of use. Its normal consumption should not be nutritionally disadvantageous. The applicant should integrate the information on the composition and the experience of continued use and provide a concise overall consideration on how this substantiates the history of safe use of the traditional food and how this relates to the proposed conditions of use for the EU. Potential health hazards identified on the basis of compositional data and/or data from the experience of continued use should be discussed. On the basis of the information provided, EFSA will assess the safety related to the consumption of the traditional food under the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following the adoption of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 on food information to consumers, the European Commission requested EFSA to update its 'Guidance on safety evaluation of sources of nutrients and bioavailability of the nutrient from the sources' regarding the scientific principles and data requirements for the scientific assessment of all new forms of micronutrients and to derive a conversion factor for new micronutrient sources or forms of micronutrients to be authorised for addition to foods, including food supplements. This guidance outlines the scientific principles that the NDA Panel will consider for the assessment of the safety and the quantification of the relative bioavailability of new sources of micronutrients, which applicants are requested to consider when preparing their applications. It also outlines the data requirements for dossiers. Applicants should integrate the data presented in different sections to provide their overall considerations on how the information provided supports the safety of the new micronutrient source and the quantification of its relative bioavailability compared to a reference source under the proposed conditions of use. As preparatory work for the development of this guidance, EFSA launched an Expert Survey and held an online workshop on 9th March 2023 inviting scientific input from stakeholders and scientific experts, the report of which is now available online in the EFSA's webpage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin E. As α‐tocopherol is recognised as the only essential form of vitamin E, the Panel restricted its evaluation to α‐tocopherol. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess evidence on priority adverse health effects of excess intake of vitamin E, namely risk of impaired coagulation and bleeding, cardiovascular disease and prostate cancer. The effect on blood clotting and associated increased risk of bleeding is considered as the critical effect to establish an UL for vitamin E. No new evidence has been published that could improve the characterisation of a dose–response. The ULs for vitamin E from all dietary sources, which were previously established by the Scientific Committee on Food, are retained for all population groups, i.e. 300 mg/day for adults, including pregnant and lactating women, 100 mg/day for children aged 1–3 years, 120 mg/day for 4–6 years, 160 mg/day for 7–10 years, 220 mg/day for 11–14 years and 260 mg/day for 15–17 years. A UL of 50 mg/day is established for infants aged 4–6 months and a UL of 60 mg/day for infants aged 7–11 months. ULs apply to all stereoisomeric forms of α‐tocopherol. ULs do not apply to individuals receiving anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications (e.g. aspirin), to patients on secondary prevention for CVD or to patients with vitamin K malabsorption syndromes. It is unlikely that the ULs for vitamin E are exceeded in European populations, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin E. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the EFSA scientific opinion on "Safety of Lemna minor and Lemna gibba whole plant material as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283", which was adopted in 2022. In that Scientific Opinion, the Panel concluded that the NF, considering its proposed uses and the content of manganese as compared to the content of manganese normally present in other leafy vegetables, may be of safety concern and, therefore, the safety of the NF could not be established. In the context of this mandate, EFSA was requested to evaluate whether the additional information provided by the applicant addresses the increase of manganese intake from the NF, which was considered substantial as compared to the background manganese dietary intake. The applicant provided new data showing that by reducing the manganese concentrations in the cultivation medium, the manganese content in Lemna gibba does not exceed the manganese content in spinach. EFSA emphasizes that the rest of the production process should not deviate from what was reported and assessed in the original NF opinion. Data assessed in 2022 along with data provided for the current assessment show that under the same cultivation conditions Lemna gibba and Lemna minor display similar manganese contents. EFSA acknowledges that the composition of the NF should adhere to the specification levels established in 2022. However, regarding manganese, given the contents observed following these latest production processes, EFSA considers that the maximum specification level for manganese in the NF should be set at 6 mg/kg fresh weight. Based on the additional data provided, EFSA concludes that the contents of manganese in the NF have been reduced to levels not exceeding those in other leafy vegetables. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following an application from Cárnicas Joselito S.A. pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Spain, the Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to 'Joselito ham increases antioxidant substances in the body, reduces blood pressure and plasma triglycerides, decreases oxidative stress and prevents effect in diseases related to the cardiovascular and intestinal systems'. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to disease risk reduction. The food constituent that is the subject of the health claim is Joselito, an Iberian ham characterised by a high content of oleic acid. The Panel considers that the food is sufficiently characterised. The Panel considers that lowering of LDL‐cholesterol concentration and blood pressure is a beneficial effect by decreasing the risk of coronary heart disease. Upon a request from EFSA, the applicant identified one human intervention study as being pertinent to the claim. However, due to methodological limitations, the Panel considers that no conclusions can be drawn from this study for the scientific substantiation of the claim. The Panel notes that no human intervention studies from which conclusions could be drawn for the scientific substantiation of the claim were provided by the applicant. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has not been established between the intake of Joselito® ham and the reduction of LDL‐cholesterol concentration or blood pressure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following an application from Egde Pharma Sp. z o.o, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Poland, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to citicoline and memory. The Panel considers that the food, citicoline (cytidine 5‐diphosphocholine, CDP‐Choline) inner salt, is sufficiently characterised. Improvement, maintenance or reduced loss of memory is a beneficial physiological effect for middle‐aged or elderly adults encountering age‐associated subjective memory impairment. The applicant identified three pertinent human intervention studies in healthy individuals that investigated the effect of citicoline on memory. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that only one randomised controlled trial in healthy participants showed a beneficial effect of citicoline on episodic memory when consumed at doses of 500 mg/day for 12 weeks, whereas this effect has not been observed in another study using citicoline at doses of 1 g/day for 3 months or supported by data obtained in patients with dementia using doses of 1 g/day for 12 weeks and 12 months. No convincing evidence of a plausible mechanism by which citicoline or any of its components (in addition to their endogenous synthesis) could exert an effect on memory in humans has been provided. The Panel concludes that a cause‐and‐effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of citicoline (CDP‐Choline) inner salt and improvement, maintenance or reduced loss of memory in middle‐aged or elderly adults encountering age‐associated subjective memory impairment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for iron. Systematic reviews were conducted to identify evidence regarding high iron intakes and risk of chronic diseases, adverse gastrointestinal effects and adverse effects of iron supplementation in infancy, young childhood and pregnancy. It is established that systemic iron overload leads to organ toxicity, but no UL could be established. The only indicator for which a dose–response could be established was black stools, which reflect the presence of large amounts of unabsorbed iron in the gut. This is a conservative endpoint among the chain of events that may lead to systemic iron overload but is not adverse per se. Based on interventions in which black stools did not occur at supplemental iron intakes of 20–25 mg/day (added to a background intake of 15 mg/day), a safe level of intake for iron of 40 mg/day for adults (including pregnant and lactating women) was established. Using allometric scaling (body weight0.75), this value was scaled down to children and adolescents and safe levels of intakes between 10 mg/day (1–3 years) and 35 mg/day (15–17 years) were derived. For infants 7–11 months of age who have a higher iron requirement than young children, allometric scaling was applied to the supplemental iron intakes (i.e. 25 mg/day) and resulted in a safe level of supplemental iron intake of 5 mg/day. This value was extended to 4–6 month‐old infants and refers to iron intakes from fortified foods and food supplements, not from infant and follow‐on formulae. The application of the safe level of intake is more limited than a UL because the intake level at which the risk of adverse effects starts to increase is not defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following two requests from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for preformed vitamin A and β‐carotene. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted for priority adverse health effects of excess vitamin A intake, namely teratogenicity, hepatotoxicity and endpoints related to bone health. Available data did not allow to address whether β‐carotene could potentiate preformed vitamin A toxicity. Teratogenicity was selected as the critical effect on which to base the UL for preformed vitamin A. The Panel proposes to retain the UL for preformed vitamin A of 3000 μg RE/day for adults. This UL applies to men and women, including women of child‐bearing age, pregnant and lactating women and post‐menopausal women. This value was scaled down to other population groups using allometric scaling (body weight0.75), leading to ULs between 600 μg RE/day (infants 4–11 months) and 2600 μg RE/day (adolescents 15–17 years). Based on available intake data, European populations are unlikely to exceed the UL for preformed vitamin A if consumption of liver, offal and products thereof is limited to once per month or less. Women who are planning to become pregnant or who are pregnant are advised not to consume liver products. Lung cancer risk was selected as the critical effect of excess supplemental β‐carotene. The available data were not sufficient and suitable to characterise a dose–response relationship and identify a reference point; therefore, no UL could be established. There is no indication that β‐carotene intake from the background diet is associated with adverse health effects. Smokers should avoid consuming food supplements containing β‐carotene. The use of supplemental β‐carotene by the general population should be limited to the purpose of meeting vitamin A requirements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of plant preparations from the root or rhizome of Rheum palmatum L., Rheum officinale Baill. and their hybrids, from the bark of Rhamnus frangula L. and Rhamnus purshiana DC. and from the leaf or fruit of Cassia senna L., which have been placed under Union scrutiny in Part C of Annex III in accordance with Article 8(4) of Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006. The NDA Panel reviewed the additional scientific data submitted during the period of scrutiny and the public consultation by interested parties. The pertinent scientific data were in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies on the plant preparations under consideration. All the results of the genotoxicity studies on plant preparations were negative. However, the plant preparations that were tested in the submitted studies were not sufficiently characterised with respect to the content of total and individual hydroxyanthracene derivatives (HADs) and components other than HADs. The studies confirmed the presence of ■■■■■, known to be genotoxic in vivo, and ■■■■■, shown to be genotoxic in vitro. In line with the EFSA Scientific Committee statement on genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures, considering the presence of an in vivo genotoxic compound, the plant preparations used in these studies have to be considered of concern for genotoxicity. Thus, the safety of preparations containing HADs from the root or rhizome of Rheum palmatum L., Rheum officinale Baill. and their hybrids, from the leaf or fruit of Cassia senna L. and from the bark of Rhamnus frangula L. and Rhamnus purshiana DC. cannot be established based on the submitted studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for manganese. Systematic reviews of the literature of human and animal data were conducted to assess evidence regarding excess manganese intake (including authorised manganese salts) and the priority adverse health effect, i.e. manganese‐induced neurotoxicity. Available human and animal studies support neurotoxicity as a critical effect, however, data are not sufficient and suitable to characterise a dose–response relationship and identify a reference point for manganese‐induced neurotoxicity. In the absence of adequate data to establish an UL, estimated background dietary intakes (i.e. manganese intakes from natural dietary sources only) observed among high consumers (95th percentile) were used to provide an indication of the highest level of intake where there is reasonable confidence on the absence of adverse effects. A safe level of intake of 8 mg/day was established for adults ≥ 18 years (including pregnant and lactating women) and ranged between 2 and 7 mg/day for other population groups. The application of the safe level of intake is more limited than an UL because the intake level at which the risk of adverse effects starts to increase is not defined. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: https://efsa.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.p211201 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for folic acid/folate. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess evidence on priority adverse health effects of excess intake of folate (including folic acid and the other authorised forms, (6S)‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid glucosamine and l‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid calcium salts), namely risk of cobalamin‐dependent neuropathy, cognitive decline among people with low cobalamin status, and colorectal cancer and prostate cancer. The evidence is insufficient to conclude on a positive and causal relationship between the dietary intake of folate and impaired cognitive function, risk of colorectal and prostate cancer. The risk of progression of neurological symptoms in cobalamin‐deficient patients is considered as the critical effect to establish an UL for folic acid. No new evidence has been published that could improve the characterisation of the dose–response between folic acid intake and resolution of megaloblastic anaemia in cobalamin‐deficient individuals. The ULs for folic acid previously established by the Scientific Committee on Food are retained for all population groups, i.e. 1000 μg/day for adults, including pregnant and lactating women, 200 μg/day for children aged 1–3 years, 300 μg/day for 4–6 years, 400 μg/day for 7–10 years, 600 μg/day for 11–14 years and 800 μg/day for 15–17 years. A UL of 200 μg/day is established for infants aged 4–11 months. The ULs apply to the combined intake of folic acid, (6S)‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid glucosamine and l‐5‐methyltetrahydrofolic acid calcium salts, under their authorised conditions of use. It is unlikely that the ULs for supplemental folate are exceeded in European populations, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of folic acid/5‐methyl‐tetrahydrofolic acid salts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following an application from Greenleaf Medical AB, submitted for authorisation of a health claim pursuant to Article 13(5) of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Sweden, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to Appethyl® and reduction of body weight. Appethyl® is an aqueous extract from spinach leaves standardised by the manufacturing process and its lipase/colipase inhibition capacity in vitro. The Panel considers that the food is sufficiently characterised. A reduction in body weight is a beneficial physiological effect for overweight/obese individuals. The applicant identified a total of three human intervention studies that investigated the effects of Appethyl® on body weight as being pertinent to the claim. In weighing the evidence, the Panel took into account that Appethyl® (5 g/day for 12 weeks) had no effect on body weight as compared to placebo under minimal dietary counselling and moderate physical activity, and that no beneficial physiological effects are to be expected for the target population of overweight/obese individuals from the weight loss that could be attributed to the intervention with Appethyl® under predefined energy restriction and moderate physical activity. The Panel also considered that the effect of Appethyl® (5 g/day for 24 weeks) on body weight maintenance after initial weight loss shown in one study has not been replicated in different settings, which questions the external validity of the results, and that no evidence was provided for a plausible mechanism by which daily consumption of Appethyl® could exert a sustained effect on body weight in humans. The Panel concludes that a cause‐and‐effect relationship has not been established between the consumption of Appethyl® and a reduction of body weight under the conditions of use proposed by the applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to review a scientific assessment related to a notification from DuPont Nutrition Biosciences Aps on behenic acid from mustard seeds to be used in the manufacturing of certain emulsifiers pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 – for permanent exemption from labelling. The EC requested EFSA to consider comments raised by the German authorities in relation to: (a) the maximum amount of mustard protein that could be consumed from the emulsifiers manufactured from behenic acid (E470a, E471 and E477) on a single occasion and (b) the minimal observed eliciting dose (MOED) triggering allergic reactions in mustard‐allergic individuals. The maximum amount of mustard protein content in behenic acid was re‐assessed in view of new analytical data provided by the applicant. Intake estimates by the EFSA ANS Panel for E471 (adults) were used as a proxy for the combined intake (E470a, E471 and E477). Food challenge data and systematic reviews thereof deriving population minimal observed eliciting dose distributions for mustard protein were used to calculate the MOED and estimate the risk. The margin of exposure between the MOED (0.26 mg mustard protein) and the maximum amount of mustard protein that could be consumed from the emulsifiers on a single occasion (0.00895475 mg) is 29. It is predicted that between 0.1% and 1% of the mustard allergic population would react with mild objective symptoms to that dose. Overall, the assessment is conservative, particularly in relation to the exposure. Based on the information and data available, the NDA Panel concludes that it is extremely unlikely (≤ 1% probability) that oral consumption of emulsifiers to be manufactured using behenic acid from mustard seeds (i.e. E470a, E471 and E477) will trigger an allergic reaction in mustard‐allergic individuals under the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following two requests from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D and to propose a conversion factor (CF) for calcidiol monohydrate into vitamin D3 for labelling purposes. Vitamin D refers to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), and calcidiol monohydrate. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess the relative bioavailability of calcidiol monohydrate versus vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and for priority adverse health effects of excess vitamin D intake, namely persistent hypercalcaemia/hypercalciuria and endpoints related to musculoskeletal health (i.e. falls, bone fractures, bone mass/density and indices thereof). Based on the available evidence, the Panel proposes a CF for calcidiol monohydrates of 2.5 for labelling purposes. Persistent hypercalciuria, which may be an earlier sign of excess vitamin D than persistent hypercalcaemia, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base the UL for vitamin D. A lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (LOAEL) of 250 μg/day is identified from two randomised controlled trials in humans, to which an uncertainty factor of 2.5 is applied to account for the absence of a no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL). A UL of 100 μg vitamin D equivalents (VDE)/day is established for adults (including pregnant and lactating women) and for adolescents aged 11–17 years, as there is no reason to believe that adolescents in the phase of rapid bone formation and growth have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults. For children aged 1–10 years, a UL of 50 μg VDE/day is established by considering their smaller body size. Based on available intake data, European populations are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin D. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following an application from Procter & Gamble BV pursuant to Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1924/2006 via the Competent Authority of Belgium, the Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the scientific substantiation of a health claim related to choline and contribution to normal liver function of the foetus and exclusively breastfed infant. The scope of the application was proposed to fall under a health claim referring to children's development and health. The Panel considers that choline is sufficiently characterised. The claimed effect proposed by the applicant is contribution 'to normal foetal and infant development, especially liver'. The proposed target population is 'unborn fetuses and breastfed infants'. Choline is involved in the structure of cell membranes, cell signalling, metabolism and transport of lipids and cholesterol and neurotransmitter synthesis. Although choline can be synthesised de novo by the human body, depletion‐repletion studies in humans show that low choline intake leads to liver dysfunction and muscle damage, which are reverted by the administration of dietary choline. For these functions, de novo synthesis of choline by the human body is insufficient and choline must be obtained from dietary sources. No human studies have addressed the effect of low maternal dietary choline intake on liver function in the fetus or exclusively breastfed infants. However, the Panel considers that the biological role of choline in normal liver function and dietary choline being essential for the function applies to all ages, including fetus and infants. The Panel concludes that a cause and effect relationship has been established between the intake of choline by pregnant and lactating women and contribution to normal liver function of the fetus and exclusively breastfed infants. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission asked EFSA to deliver an opinion on the nutritional safety and suitability of a specific protein hydrolysate. It is derived from a whey protein concentrate and used in an infant and follow‐on formula manufactured by FrieslandCampina Nederland B.V., which submitted a dossier to the European Commission to request an amendment of Regulation (EU) 2016/127 with respect to the protein sources that may be used in the manufacture of infant and/or follow‐on formula. The protein hydrolysate under evaluation is sufficiently characterised with respect to the fraction of the hydrolysed protein. In the pertinent intervention study provided, an infant formula manufactured from the protein hydrolysate with a protein content of 2.4 g/100 kcal and consumed as the sole source of nutrition by infants for 3 months led to a growth equivalent to a formula manufactured from intact cow's milk protein with a protein content of 2.1 g/100 kcal. Data on gastrointestinal tolerance of the formula did not raise any concerns. No experimental data have been provided on the nutritional safety and suitability of this protein source in follow‐on formula. Given that it is consumed with complementary foods and the protein source is nutritionally safe and suitable in an infant formula that is the sole source of nutrition of infants, the Panel considers that the protein hydrolysate is also a nutritionally safe and suitable protein source for use in follow‐on formula. The Panel concludes that the protein hydrolysate under evaluation is a nutritionally safe and suitable protein source for use in infant and follow‐on formula, as long as the formula in which it is used contains a minimum of 2.4 g/100 kcal protein and complies with the compositional criteria of Regulation (EU) 2016/127 and the amino acid pattern in its Annex IIIA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pregnant women and children are especially vulnerable to exposures to food contaminants, and a balanced diet during these periods is critical for optimal nutritional status. Objectives: Our objective was to study the association between diet and measured blood and urinary levels of environmental contaminants in mother-child pairs from six European birth cohorts (n = 818 mothers and 1,288 children). Methods: We assessed the consumption of seven food groups and the blood levels of organochlorine pesticides, polybrominated diphenyl ethers, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and heavy metals and urinary levels of phthalate metabolites, phenolic compounds, and organophosphate pesticide (OP) metabolites. Organic food consumption during childhood was also studied. We applied multivariable linear regressions and targeted maximum likelihood based estimation (TMLE). Results: Maternal high ([greater than or equal to] 4 times/week) versus low (200% higher Hg and As [GM ratio = 3.87 (95% CI: 1.91, 4.31) and GM ratio = 2.68 (95% CI: 2.23, 3.21)] concentrations. Using TMLE analysis, we estimated that fish consumption within the recommended 2-3 times/week resulted in lower PFAS, Hg, and As compared with higher consumption. Fruit consumption was positively associated with OP metabolites. Organic food consumption was negatively associated with OP metabolites. Discussion: Fish consumption is related to higher PFAS, Hg, and As exposures. In addition, fruit consumption is a source of exposure to OPs. https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP5324, Introduction During gestation and early postnatal development, the fetus and the child, respectively, are vulnerable to the effects of environmental chemicals due to rapid cellular differentiation and tissue development and [...]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin B6. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted by a contractor. The relationship between excess vitamin B6 intakes and the development of peripheral neuropathy is well established and is the critical effect on which the UL is based. A lowest‐observed‐effect‐level (LOAEL) could not be established based on human data. A reference point (RP) of 50 mg/day is identified by the Panel from a case–control study, supported by data from case reports and vigilance data. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 4 is applied to the RP to account for the inverse relationship between dose and time to onset of symptoms and the limited data available. The latter covers uncertainties as to the level of intake that would represent a LOAEL. This leads to a UL of 12.5 mg/day. From a subchronic study in Beagle dogs, a LOAEL of 50 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day can be identified. Using an UF of 300, and a default bw of 70 kg, a UL of 11.7 mg/day can be calculated. From the midpoint of the range of these two ULs and rounding down, a UL of 12 mg/day is established by the Panel for vitamin B6 for adults (including pregnant and lactating women). ULs for infants and children are derived from the UL for adults using allometric scaling: 2.2–2.5 mg/day (4–11 months), 3.2–4.5 mg/day (1–6 years), 6.1–10.7 mg/day (7–17 years). Based on available intake data, EU populations are unlikely to exceed ULs, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin B6. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]