Back to Search Start Over

Re‐evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) as a food additive

Authors :
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)
Maged Younes
Gabriele Aquilina
Laurence Castle
Gisela Degen
Karl‐Heinz Engel
Paul J Fowler
Maria José Frutos Fernandez
Peter Fürst
Ursula Gundert‐Remy
Rainer Gürtler
Trine Husøy
Melania Manco
Wim Mennes
Peter Moldeus
Sabina Passamonti
Romina Shah
Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen
Matthew Wright
Monika Batke
Polly Boon
Ellen Bruzell
James Chipman
Riccardo Crebelli
Rex FitzGerald
Cristina Fortes
Thorhallur Halldorsson
Jean‐Charles LeBlanc
Oliver Lindtner
Alicja Mortensen
Evangelia Ntzani
Heather Wallace
Claudia Cascio
Consuelo Civitella
Zsuzsanna Horvath
Federica Lodi
Agnieszka Mech
Alexandra Tard
Giorgia Vianello
Source :
EFSA Journal, Vol 20, Iss 11, Pp n/a-n/a (2022)
Publication Year :
2022
Publisher :
Wiley, 2022.

Abstract

Abstract The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone – neohesperidine – which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13‐week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter‐ and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
18314732
Volume :
20
Issue :
11
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
EFSA Journal
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.1ce753bfd86046f0a1ba696e991587c8
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7595