Re-evaluation of guar gum (E 412) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Guar gum (E 412) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of guar gum (E 412) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants). In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. In the response to EFSA requests, one IBO stated that E 412 is not used in food categories 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1, but it is present in products under food category 13.1.5.2. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are not sufficient to support the safe use of guar gum (E 412) in food for infants (below and above 16 weeks of age) and young children under FC 13.1.1, 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2. Additionally, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the IBO support further amendments of the specifications for E 412 laid down in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Assessment of the three-test genetic toxicology battery for groundwater metabolites

The two-test in vitro battery for genotoxicity testing (Ames and micronucleus) has in the majority of cases replaced the three-test battery (as two-test plus mammalian cell gene mutation assay) for the routine testing of chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, and agrochemical metabolites originating from food and feed as well as from water treatment. The guidance for testing agrochemical groundwater metabolites, however, still relies on the three-test battery. Data collated in this study from 18 plant protection and related materials highlights the disparity between the often negative Ames and in vitro chromosome aberration data and frequently positive in vitro mammalian cell gene mutation assays. Sixteen of the 18 collated materials with complete datasets were Ames negative, and overall had negative outcomes in in vitro chromosome damage tests (weight of evidence from multiple tests). Mammalian cell gene mutation assays (HPRT and/or mouse lymphoma assay (MLA)) were positive in at least one test for every material with this data. Where both MLA and HPRT tests were performed on the same material, the HPRT seemed to give fewer positive responses. In vivo follow-up tests included combinations of comet assays, unscheduled DNA synthesis, and transgenic rodent gene mutation assays, all gave negative outcomes. The inclusion of mammalian cell gene mutation assays in a three-test battery for groundwater metabolites is therefore not justified and leads to unnecessary in vivo follow-up testing.

Follow-up of the re-evaluation of quillaia extract (E 999) as a food additive and safety of the proposed extension of uses

Quillaia extract (E 999) was re-evaluated in 2019 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF). EFSA derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 3 mg saponins/kg bw per day for E 999. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow-up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs) to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 999. Additionally, this opinion deals with the assessment of the proposed extension of use for E 999 in food supplements supplied in a solid and liquid form, excluding food supplements for infants and young children and, as a carrier in botanical nutrients. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use, if authorised, could result in an exceedance of the ADI at the maximum of the ranges of the mean for children, adolescents and the elderly, and for all populations at the 95th percentile. An additional proposed extension of use for E 999 to be used as a carrier for glazing agents on entire fresh fruits and vegetables has been received. Since no information on the proposed use levels of E 999 on a saponins content basis has been provided by this applicant, the Panel was not able to evaluate the safety of this extension of use. Considering the technical data submitted, the Panel recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 999, mainly to lower the limits for lead, mercury and arsenic and to include a maximum limit for cadmium and for calcium oxalate. The Panel also recommended that the limits would be expressed on a saponins basis. The Panel proposed to revise the definition of E 999 to better describe the composition in a qualitative way.

Safety evaluation of the food additive steviol glycosides, predominantly Rebaudioside M, produced by fermentation using Yarrowia lipolyticaVRM

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a new process to produce steviol glycosides by fermentation of simple sugars using a genetically modified strain of Yarrowia lipolytica (named Y. lipolytica VRM). The manufacturing process may result in impurities different from those that may be present in the other steviol glycosides E 960a-d, therefore the Panel concluded that separate specifications are required for the food additive produced as described in the current application. Viable cells and DNA from the production strain are not present in the final product. The Panel considered that the demonstration of the absence of kaurenoic acid in the proposed food additive, using a method with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.3 mg/kg, is adequate to dispel the concerns for potential genotoxicity. Given that all steviol glycosides follow the same metabolic pathways, the Panel considered that the current steviol glycosides would fall within the same group of substances. Therefore, the Panel considered that the already existing data on rebaudioside M and structurally related steviol glycosides are sufficient, and a similar metabolic fate and toxicity is expected for the food additive. The results from the bacterial reverse mutation assay and the in vitro micronucleus assay were negative and indicated absence of genotoxicity from the food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as steviol equivalents, was considered to be applicable to the proposed food additive. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycosides, predominantly Rebaudioside M, produced by fermentation using Y. lipolytica VRM, to be used as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels.

Safety evaluation of synthesised DNA oligonucleotides as a food additive

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of synthesised DNA oligonucleotides as a new food additive, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. Considering that the additional information requested by the Panel during the risk assessment was not provided by the applicant, the assessment was concluded on the basis of the sole information available in the application. The proposed food additive consists of purified synthetic DNA sequences intended to be used for traceability purposes, alone or combined with carriers. Information provided by the applicant on the identity, characterisation and production process of the proposed food additive was considered insufficient. The Panel considered that the product specifications as proposed by the applicant do not adequately define and characterise the proposed food additive. The applicant proposed for the food additive the maximum use levels of 0.001 mg/kg for a variety of food categories. The food additive was also proposed as a Group I additive at a specific maximum level of quantum satis. The applicant did not provide exposure estimates according to the EFSA ANS Panel guidance (2012). No biological or toxicological data were provided by the applicant for the proposed food additive. Considering the inadequate information available and the uncertainty introduced by the proposal at quantum satis, along with the insufficient specifications, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food additive as proposed and described by the applicant.

Follow-up of the re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosins (E 445) as a food additive

Glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR) (E 445) were re-evaluated in 2018. On the toxicity database and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 was considered temporary. The conclusions of the assessment were restricted to GEWR derived from Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow-up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs). Considering the technical data submitted by IBOs, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 445, mainly a revision of the definition of the food additive and lowering the limits for toxic elements. Considering the available toxicological database evaluated during the re-evaluation of E 445 by the ANS Panel in 2018, and the toxicological studies submitted by the IBOs, the Panel established an ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 976 mg/kg bw per day from the newly available dietary reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Since GEWR from P. palustris and P. elliottii were tested in the toxicity studies considered to establish the ADI and in the absence of detailed information on the chemical composition (major constituents) in GEWR generated from other Pinus species, thus not allowing read across, the ADI is restricted to the GEWR (E 445) manufactured from P. palustris and P. elliottii. The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern for the use of GEWR (E 445), at either the maximum permitted levels or at the reported uses and use levels.

Follow-up of the re-evaluation of indigo carmine (E 132) as a food additive

Indigo carmine (E 312) was re-evaluated in 2014 by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). The ANS Panel confirmed the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for indigo carmine allocated by JECFA (1975). The ANS Panel indicated that the ADI was applicable to a material with a purity of 93% pure colouring and manufactured using processes resulting in comparable residuals as material used in the Borzelleca et al. studies (1985, 1986) and Borzelleca and Hogan (1985) which were the basis for deriving the ADI. The ANS Panel considered that any extension of the ADI to indigo carmine of lower purity and/or manufactured using a different process would require new data to address the adverse effects on the testes observed in the Dixit and Goyal (2013) study. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, an IBO submitted technical and toxicological data. Considering the technical data, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 132, mainly to lower the limits for toxic elements. Considering the toxicological data, an IBO has submitted a 56-day dietary study to address the adverse effects on testes using a material with 88% purity. The results of this study submitted did not confirm the severe adverse effects observed in the Dixit and Goyal study. Considering all the available information, the Panel confirmed the ADI of 5 mg/kg bw per day for indigo carmine (E 132) disodium salts, meeting the proposed revisions of the specifications (85% minimum for the colouring matter). The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of indigo carmine (E 132) disodium salts at the reported use levels and submitted analytical data.

Assessment of indoor air quality and comfort by comparing an energy simulation and actual data in Native American shelters

Introduction: This research will determine if a native American shelter (wigwam) can create comfort and if while doing so can provide healthy indoor air quality (IAQ) levels as defined by current standards. Concurrent to this research a technique to digitally model the outcomes of comfort created within the shelter was developed.

Methods: A fullsize example of a wigwam was built and data from inside and outside the wigwam monitored for comparison. Data collected both inside and outside was temperature and relative humidity of the air, collected inside the wigwam were CO2, VOC, and PM2.5 levels. The wigwam allowed us to compare the accuracy of a digital model created in Design Builder. The Design Builder model was made to the specific size, materials, and location of the actual wigwam. This allowed an accurate comparison of temperature and relative humidity levels. Design-Builder accurately recreated the attributes of the full-size wigwam.

Results and Discussion: It was found that comfort can be achieved to modern standards in this native shelter; as temperature, relative humidity, and rainfall exposure can all be controlled to acceptable levels. Indoor air quality is always at an acceptable level when a fire isn’t active. When an open fire is introduced, the particulates and VOC released into the interior of the wigwam are at dangerous levels. A woodstove with flue pipe allowed for comfort to be maintained at healthier air quality levels but did not reach acceptable levels for particulate matter.

Follow‐up of the re‐evaluation of glycerol (E 422) as a food additive

Glycerol (E 422) was re‐evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to that assessment, in this opinion, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) addresses the data gaps identified to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 422 in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. The Panel performed a risk assessment of undesirable impurities present in E 422. The Panel concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for the four toxic elements (arsenic, lead, mercury and cadmium) should be lowered based on actual levels in the commercial food additive E 422. The Panel recommended setting a numerical limit value for acrolein in the specifications for E 422. The potential exposure to free 3‐monochloropropanediol at the maximum limit of 0.1 mg/kg, as laid out in the specifications for E 422, does not give rise to a health concern. The Panel recommended to consider modifying the definition of E 422 in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 indicating that E 422 is obtained only from vegetable oils and fats and undergoes purification processes that involve distillation, and other clean up steps to obtain refined glycerol. Overall, the Panel concluded that the technical data provided support an amendment of the specifications for glycerol (E 422).

Follow-up of the re-evaluation of polyglycerol polyricinoleate (E 476) as a food additive

Polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR, E 476) was re‐evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to this assessment, in this opinion, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring (FAF) addresses the data gaps identified to support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 476. Additionally, this opinion deals with the assessment of the proposed extension of use for E 476 in edible ices and a revision of the maximum permitted level in emulsified sauces. The Panel concluded that the proposed extension of use, if authorised, would not give rise to a safety concern. Additionally, the Panel performed a risk assessment of undesirable impurities potentially present in E 476. The Panel concluded that the maximum limits in the EU specifications for the four toxic elements (arsenic, lead, mercury, cadmium) should be lowered based on actual levels in the commercial food additive E 476. The Panel also concluded that maximum limits for glycidyl esters and 3‐monochloropropanediol should be included in the EU specifications for E 476. Alternatively, the Panel recommends an amendment of the definition of E 476 to include a requirement that the fats and oils used in the manufacturing of E 476 comply with the respective EU legislation regarding suitability for human consumption. Further, the Panel recommends a modification of the definition of E 476 indicating that polyglycerol used for the manufacturing of E 476 should be produced from glycerol meeting the specifications for E 422 (Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012). In this case, respective specification limits for epichlorohydrin, acrolein and butanetriol would not be needed for E 476. Finally, the Panel concluded that the proposed method based on the determination of ricinoleic acid is suitable for the determination of E 476 content in food.

Re-evaluation of thaumatin (E 957) as food additive

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of thaumatin (E 957) when used as a food additive. Thaumatin is a natural plant protein, consisting of thaumatin I and thaumatin II proteins together with minor amounts of plant constituents, obtained by acidic aqueous extraction of the arils of the fruit of Thaumatococcus daniellii plant. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives and considered that thaumatin is a digestible protein; adequate exposure estimates were available; there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity; no conclusion on oral allergenicity could be drawn from the available human data; no adverse effects were observed in sub-chronic toxicity studies in rats and dogs at the highest dose tested of up 5,200 and 1,476 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day, respectively, and in a prenatal developmental toxicity study up to 2,000 mg/kg bw per day; moderate confidence in the body of evidence supported the absence of association between exposure to thaumatin and adverse health outcomes. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for thaumatin (E 957) and, based on a margin of safety (MOS) of 5,417, considered to be an underestimate and derived using the highest 95th percentile (P95) exposure of 0.48 mg/kg bw per day in consumers only, there is no safety concern for thaumatin (E 957) at the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario, which was considered the most appropriate. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers introducing in the EU specifications for thaumatin (E 957) a new specification limit for the minimum combined content of thaumatin I and II proteins in E 957, a specification limit for yeast, mould counts and Salmonella spp and lowering the existing maximum limit for arsenic along with the inclusion of maximum limits for mercury and cadmium.

In Silico Approaches In Carcinogenicity Hazard Assessment: Current Status and Future Needs

Historically, identifying carcinogens has relied primarily on tumor studies in rodents, which require enormous resources in both money and time. In silico models have been developed for predicting rodent carcinogens but have not yet found general regulatory acceptance, in part due to the lack of a generally accepted protocol for performing such an assessment as well as limitations in predictive performance and scope. There remains a need for additional, improved in silico carcinogenicity models, especially ones that are more human-relevant, for use in research and regulatory decision-making. As part of an international effort to develop in silico toxicological protocols, a consortium of toxicologists, computational scientists, and regulatory scientists across several industries and governmental agencies evaluated the extent to which in silico models exist for each of the recently defined 10 key characteristics (KCs) of carcinogens. This position paper summarizes the current status of in silico tools for the assessment of each KC and identifies the data gaps that need to be addressed before a comprehensive in silico carcinogenicity protocol can be developed for regulatory use.

Scientific opinion on flavouring group evaluation 414 (FGE.414): 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde [FL-no: 05.229] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. 2-Hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde belongs to chemical group 23 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000) and is structurally related to the hydroxy- and alkoxy-ring substituted benzyl derivatives evaluated in FGE.52 and in FGE.20Rev4. The Panel considered the structural/metabolic similarity sufficient to evaluate the candidate substance following a group-based approach according to the EFSA Guidance on the data required for the risk assessment of flavourings to be used in or on foods. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL-no: 05.229] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with this substance, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. Based on QSAR evaluation of possible metabolism, and based on information from structurally related substances, various metabolic routes can be anticipated, which only result in the formation of innocuous metabolites. The exposure estimates for [FL-no: 05.229] (24 and 60 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were below the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for its structural class (I). Accordingly, toxicity studies are not required and the Panel concluded at step A3 of the Procedure that 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde is not of safety concern when used as a flavouring substance at the intended uses and use levels. Cumulative exposure estimates for 2-hydroxy-4-methoxybenzaldehyde and three structurally related substances (2.4 and 6.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults and children, respectively) are above the TTC for structural class I, but below the ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 0-10 mg/kg bw per day for vanillin, which is one of these structurally related substances. Therefore, the cumulative exposure to these four substances [FL-no: 05.015, 05.018, 05.229 and 09.749] also does not raise a safety concern.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) as food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of their re-evaluation as food additives for uses in foods for all population groups

Mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavouring was requested to assess mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 471) for its use as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants). In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive in 2017 when used in food for the general population. The Panel considered that there is no indication of adverse effects from the available animal studies at the highest dose tested and from the post marketing data. A comparison was made between the daily exposure to the sum of mono- and di-acylglycerols from breast milk and that resulting from the use of E 471 in the infant formula. The Panel noted that the resulting exposures are in the same order of magnitude. Overall, the Panel concluded that there is no reason for a safety concern when E 471 used as food additive in FC 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1 and according to the Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The risk assessment for toxic elements and impurities clearly indicated the need to lower the current maximum limits for arsenic, lead, cadmium and mercury and to include limits for glycidyl esters, 3-monochloropropane diol and erucic acid in the EU specifications of E 471.

Safety evaluation of crosslinked polyacrylic acid polymers (carbomer) as a new food additive

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of crosslinked polyacrylic acid polymers (carbomer) proposed for use as food additive in solid and liquid food supplements. Carbomer is formed from the monomer, acrylic acid, which is polymerised and crosslinked with allyl pentaerythritol (APE). The polymers are synthesised in ethyl acetate using ■■■■■ as free-radical polymerisation initiator. In vivo data showed no evidence for systemic availability or biotransformation of carbomer. Carbomer does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. Considering the available data set, the Panel derived an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 190 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,500 mg/kg bw per day from a sub-chronic 13-week study in rat, applying a compound specific uncertainty factor (UF) of 8. At the proposed maximum use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 1.1 to 90.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 12.5 to 237.4 mg/kg bw per day. At the proposed typical use level, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 0.7 to 60.2 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 10.3 to 159.5 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel noted that the maximum proposed use levels would result in exposure estimates close to or above the ADI. The Panel also noted that level of exposure to carbomer from its proposed use is likely to be an overestimation. Taking a conservative approach, the Panel considered that exposure to carbomer would not give rise to a safety concern if the proposed maximum use level for solid food supplements is lowered to the typical use level reported by the applicant.

Safety evaluation of steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts. These steviol glycoside preparations are produced via enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A extracts obtained from stevia plant using two UDP-glucosyltransferases and one sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K-12 that facilitate the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extracts via glycosidic bonds. The Panel considered that the parental strain is a derivative of E. coli K-12 which is well characterised and its safety has been documented; therefore, it is considered to be safe for production purposes. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts using UDP-glucosyltransferases and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified strains of E. coli K-12, to be used as a food additive. The Panel recommends the European Commission to consider the proposal of establishing separate specifications for steviol glycoside preparations, including rebaudioside AM, obtained by enzymatic bioconversion of highly purified stevioside and/or rebaudioside A stevia leaf extracts in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

Safety evaluation of long-chain glycolipids from Dacryopinax spathularia

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of long-chain glycolipids from Dacryopinax spathularia (also called AM-1) as a food additive. AM-1 is a purified mixture of long-chain glycolipid congeners obtained by fermentation of the edible non-genetically modified fungus Dacryopinax spathularia. AM-1 glycolipids have very low oral bioavailability and overall available toxicology data do not demonstrate any adverse effects of the proposed food additive. Considering the available data set the Panel established an ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day based on a range of NOAELs between 1,000 and 1,423 mg/kg bw per day (the highest doses tested), from the reproductive and a prenatal developmental toxicity studies in rats and 90-day studies in rat and dog. At the proposed maximum use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from 0.01 to 1.07 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 0 to 3.1 mg/kg mg/kg bw per day. At the proposed typical use levels, the exposure estimates ranged at the mean from < 0.01 mg/kg bw per day to 0.23 mg/kg bw per day and at the p95 from 0 to 0.64 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel noted that the highest estimate of exposure of 3.1 mg/kg bw per day (in toddlers) is within the established ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day and concluded that the exposure to long-chain glycolipids from Dacryopinax spathularia does not raise a safety concern at the uses and use levels proposed by the applicant.

Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive

The present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including data obtained with TiO2 nanoparticles (NPs) and data from an extended one-generation reproductive toxicity (EOGRT) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO2 NPs < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO2 NPs (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO2 NPs, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico-chemical properties of TiO2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut-off value for TiO2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO2 NPs. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.

Scientific Guidance for the preparation of applications on smoke flavouring primary products

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications on smoke flavouring primary products. This guidance describes the scientific data to be included in the applications for the authorisation of new smoke flavouring primary products, as well as for the renewal or for the modification of existing authorisations, submitted respectively under Articles 7, 12 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: the characterisation of the primary product, including the description of the source materials, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications and stability; the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure; the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the identified components and of the unidentified fraction of the primary product, 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. A description of the standard uncertainties relevant for the evaluation of primary products and how these are considered in the standardised risk assessment procedure is also included. The applicant should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the smoke flavouring primary product. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the primary product and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment under the proposed conditions of use.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 67, Revision 3 (FGE.67Rev3): consideration of 23 furan-substituted compounds evaluated by JECFA at the 55th, 65th, 69th and 86th meetings

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059] and 2-acetylfuran [FL-no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL-no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI-B [FL-no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL-no: 13.054] and [FL-no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B-side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2-acetylfuran and 2-pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL-no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 Revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3): furfuryl and furan derivatives with and without additional side-chain substituents and heteroatoms from chemical group 14

The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings of the EFSA was requested to update Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 using the Procedure as outlined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, to include an evaluation of the flavouring substances 2-ethyl-5-methylfuran [FL-no: 13.125] and 2-octylfuran [FL-no: 13.162]. FGE.13 revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3) deals with 26 flavourings substances of which 24 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern. For [FL-no: 13.125] and [FL-no: 13.162], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.13Rev1. This concern could be ruled out based on new genotoxicity data on supporting substances in FGE.67Rev3. Subsequently, [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162] were evaluated, through a stepwise approach that integrates intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity, along the B-side of the Procedure, making use of a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived this BMDL from an oral subchronic toxicity study with the supporting substance 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059]. Using this BMDL, for [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162], adequate margins of safety were calculated based on the MSDI approach. The Panel concluded that the 26 candidate substances in FGE.13Rev3 do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 26 substances. Data on uses and use levels are needed for [FL-no: 13.130]. For 21 flavouring substances [FL-no: 13.011, 13.102, 13.108, 13.113, 13.114, 13.122, 13.125, 13.127, 13.129, 13.132, 13.133, 13.135, 13.136, 13.139, 13.141, 13.143, 13.146, 13.149, 13.162, 13.178 and 13.185], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

Re-evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) as a food additive

This opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) when used as a food additive. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain additives and considered that: adequate exposure estimates were available; the margin of safety (MOS)/margin of exposure (MOE) for arsenic was between 0.5-14 and 8.5 for lead; the exhaustions of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for cadmium would be 165%, 10% for mercury, whereas the exhaustion of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for nickel would be 9%; the absorption is limited and part of polydextrose is fermented in the large intestine into short-chain fatty acids (SCFA); adequate toxicity data were available; there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity; no adverse effects were reported in subchronic studies in rats, dogs or monkeys nor in chronic or carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the highest doses tested of up 12,500 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and 15,000 mg/kg bw per day, respectively; the nephrocalcinosis in dogs given high doses of polydextrose was considered to be a treatment-related but a secondary effect related to diarrhoea, and hence not relevant for the risk assessment; no adverse effects were reported in reproductive or developmental toxicity studies in rats administered up to 10,000 mg polydextrose/kg bw per day, or in a developmental toxicity study in rabbits up to 1,818 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested). Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for polydextrose (E 1200), and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of polydextrose as a food additive. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers to lower the maximum limit for lead and to introduce limits for arsenic, cadmium and mercury in the EU specifications for polydextrose (E 1200), and to verify that polydextrose-N as a food additive (E 1200) is no longer marketed in the EU.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) as food additives in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of their re-evaluation as food additives for uses in foods for all population groups

Pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) were re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of pectins (E 440i,ii) for their uses as food additives in food for infants below 16 weeks of age. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the same food additive. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. Based on the information submitted in response to the call for data, the FAF Panel considered it feasible to amend the current specifications, in particular for the toxic elements arsenic, lead, cadmium, mercury and for sulfur dioxide and to introduce new specifications for aluminium and microbiological criteria. Studies on neonatal piglets, clinical studies and post-marketing data were made available during the call for data. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them, but the results of the adequate piglet study could serve to derive a reference point. When calculating the margin of safety for pectins exposure, this was below 1 for some scenarios. At the maximum permitted levels (MPLs), an internal methanol dose would be produced that could lead to adverse health effects in infants below 16 weeks of age. The FAF Panel recommended a reduction of the MPL of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) in food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2, in order to reduce the exposure to both the additives themselves and to methanol.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 69, Revision 1 (FGE.69Rev1): consideration of aromatic substituted secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA (57th meeting), structurally related to aromatic ketones from chemical group 21 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.16Rev2

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 35 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 69 (FGE.69), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirty-two substances have already been considered in FGE.69 [FL-no: 02.033, 02.034, 02.036, 02.064, 02.065, 02.080, 07.004, 07.013, 07.022, 07.023, 07.025, 07.026, 07.028, 07.029, 07.032, 07.038, 07.040, 07.042, 07.070, 07.079, 07.086, 07.087, 09.144, 09.178, 09.179, 09.189, 09.200, 09.231, 09.249, 09.476, 09.486 and 09.501]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.024 and 07.027] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.215Rev1 and are considered in this revision FGE.69Rev1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach, namely the Procedure, 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 considered that for 33 flavouring substances evaluated through the Procedure the specifications are adequate and the Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' when based on the MSDI approach. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 07.038 and 07.042], there is insufficient information on their chemical identity to reach a final conclusion. For six substances [FL-no: 02.066, 07.013, 07.024, 07.028, 07.032 and 07.086], there is no concern when the exposure was estimated based on the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) approach. For 28 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. For one substance [FL-no: 07.027], more reliable data on uses and use levels are required in order to finalise the safety evaluation.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Lecithins (E 322) were re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As follow-up to that assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of lecithins (E 322) for uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1 and as carry over in line with Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive (E 322). The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. Based on the information submitted in response to the call for data, the FAF Panel considered it feasible to amend the EU specifications, in particular for the toxic elements arsenic, lead, mercury and introduce new specifications for cadmium and microbiological criteria. The safety issue identified by the ANS Panel in 2017 concerned potential neurodevelopmental effects. For the reason that choline is a precursor of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, the Panel considered it appropriate to address the safety of lecithins (E 322) as food additive in infant formula used in infants below the age of 16 weeks by comparing the concentration of choline in human milk with that in the formula. The Panel concluded that the intake of lecithins (E 322) as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1 does not raise safety concerns up to the maximum permitted level (MPL) of lecithins (E 322).

Re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as food additives and extension of use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201)

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201, PVP) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202, PVPP) when used as food additives. One request for extension of use of PVP (E 1201) in foods for special medical purposes was also considered in this assessment. The Panel followed the conceptual framework under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010 and considered that: the exposure assessment was based on the reported use and use levels (one food category out of the two food categories in which PVP and PVPP are authorised); the 95th percentile of exposure to PVP and PVPP of maximally 23.7 and 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children, respectively, was overestimated, because it was assumed that 100% of the food supplements consumed contained PVP or PVPP at the maximum reported use levels; the extension of use of PVP (E 1201) to foods for special medical purposes (FC 13.2) would result in an exposure of PVP of 4.3 mg/kg bw per day for children; the absorption of PVP and PVPP is very low; sufficient toxicity data were available for PVP; there is no concern with respect to the genotoxicity of PVP and PVPP; no carcinogenic effects were reported in carcinogenicity studies in rats at a dose of 2,500 mg PVP/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there is no need for chronic toxicity/carcinogenicity data for PVPP for the safety assessment of PVPP given the chemical similarity between PVP and PVPP, and the lack of adverse effects in the available repeated dose toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for PVP and PVPP, and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of PVP and PVPP as food additives. The Panel further concluded that the proposed extension of use is not expected to be of safety concern at the proposed maximum permitted level (MPL) and recommended consumption level.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

As a follow-up to the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (SSOS; E 1450), the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of SSOS (E 1450) when used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age for food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.1 and to address the data gaps identified during the re-evaluation of the SSOS (E 1450). The process involved the publication of a call for data. The Panel considered it feasible to amend the specifications based on the analytical evidence submitted. In the call for data, clinical trials were submitted to support the safe use in this age group. In addition, the report of a postnatal piglet study was provided. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them. The Panel noted that the uncertainty surrounding the results of the piglet study precludes deriving a reference point from this study. On the other hand, both data sources did not clearly indicate an adverse effect due to SSOS (E 1450). Given the available data, the Panel concluded that at use levels of SSOS in food for infants below 16 weeks within the range reported in the clinical studies (up to 2,725 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day), there is no indication for safety concern and reiterated the conclusion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). When extrapolating this conclusion to the safety assessment of the food additive when used in food categories (FCs) 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 in food for infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the Panel considered that there is no indication for safety concern also for these uses within the range reported in the clinical studies.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 Revision 1 (FGE.204Rev1): consideration of genotoxicity data on representatives for 17 monounsaturated, aliphatic, α,β-unsaturated ketones and precursors from chemical subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the flavouring substances from subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 (FGE.204). In the present revision of this FGE (FGE.204Rev1), the FAF Panel evaluated new data provided by Industry following a request from the former Panel on Food Contact materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel). This request followed from positive results in an in vitro micronucleus test for clastogenicity and a negative result, but with no proof of bone marrow exposure, in an in vivo micronucleus assay for the representative substance 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177]. Subsequently, the Industry submitted an in vivo comet assay which was considered equivocal in the liver. The study was repeated confirming that 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177] did not induce primary DNA damage in the liver and duodenum. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for [FL‐no: 07.177] and the 15 structurally related substances [FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.187, 07.188, 07.244, 07.258] which can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances.

A Section on Service Animals in the Microbiology Teaching Laboratory Has Been Included in the 2019 Update to the Guidelines for Biosafety in Teaching Laboratories

The accommodation of service animals in microbiology teaching labs has been included in the 2019 update to the American Society of Microbiology (ASM) Guidelines for Safety in Microbiology Laboratories. This commentary includes a legal framework related to service animals, the elements included in the 2019 ASM update, and additional risk-assessment considerations for the biosafety professional.

Re-evaluation of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) assigned these food additives together with other aluminium-containing food additives a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 7 mg aluminium/kg body weight (bw). In 2008, EFSA established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw per week. Sodium aluminium silicate was shown in rats to be absorbed to a limited extent at 0.12 ± 0.011%. The Panel considered that potassium aluminium silicate would be absorbed and become systemically available similarly to sodium aluminium silicate. No information on the physicochemical characterisation of sodium aluminium silicate and potassium aluminium silicate when used as food additives has been submitted and only very limited toxicological data were available for sodium aluminium silicate. Exposure to E 554 was calculated based on the reported use levels in food supplements. Exposure to aluminium from this use of E 554 was calculated to exceed the TWI for aluminium. Based on the data provided by interested business operators, the Panel considered that E 555 is not being used as a carrier, but as an inseparable component of 'potassium aluminium silicate-based pearlescent pigments'. The Panel calculated the regulatory maximum exposure to E 555 as a carrier for titanium dioxide (E 171) and iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172). Exposure to aluminium from this single use at the maximum permitted level could theoretically far exceed the TWI. Considering that only very limited toxicological data and insufficient information on the physicochemical characterisation of both food additives were available, the Panel concluded that the safety of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) could not be assessed.

Opinion on the re‐evaluation of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304i) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow‐up of its re‐evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) was re‐evaluated in 2015 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As a follow‐up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304(i)) for its uses as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and as carry over in line with Annex III, Part 5 Section B to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In addition, the FAF Panel was requested to address the issues already identified during the re‐evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested business operators to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. On the basis of the data submitted by interested business operators and the considerations from the Panel, a revision of the existing EU specifications for ascorbyl palmitate (E 304 (i)) has been recommended. Based on in vitro data, the FAF Panel assumed that ascorbyl palmitate fully hydrolyses pre‐systemically to ascorbic acid and palmitate. The Panel concluded that the intake of both metabolites, at the MPLs for ascorbyl palmitate as a food additive in infant formula belonging to FC 13.1.1 or in food for special medical purposes belonging to FC 13.1.5.1, does not raise health concerns.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 91, Revision 3 (FGE.91Rev3): consideration of aliphatic, aromatic and α,β-unsaturated sulfides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd, 61st, 68th and 76th meetings), structurally related to substances in FGE.08Rev5

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty-four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91: two ([FL-no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL-no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL-no: 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL-no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL-no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL-no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL-no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.

Re-evaluation of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive. E 900 was evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1990 and agreed with the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 1.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day previously established by Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1974. Dimethyl polysiloxane was only absorbed to a very limited extent from the gastrointestinal tract following oral administration and the vast majority was excreted unchanged in the faeces. Corneal opacities and other effects on cornea were observed in studies in rats. These effects are considered to be caused by direct contact with the test substance in the feed and/or with the test substance in the faeces and not due to systemic exposure. The Panel considered that oral exposure of dimethyl polysiloxane did not result in any systemic adverse effects in any species and dose tested and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). From a 26-month toxicity study in rats, a No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL) of 1,742 and 2,055 mg dimethyl polysiloxane/kg bw per day for female and male, respectively, was identified. Using the NOAEL 1,742 mg/kg bw per day, the Panel established an ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900 by applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Accordingly, the ADI for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) of 1.5 mg/kg bw per day, established by SCF in 1990, is withdrawn. The exposure estimates for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI of 17 mg/kg bw per day for E 900. The Panel concluded that there is not a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900). The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations for the EU specifications to be amended.

Safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive: to expand the list of steviol glycosides to all those identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read-across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained.

Safety assessment of rhamnogalacturonan-enriched carrot pectin fraction: 90-Day oral toxicity study in rats and in vitro genotoxicity studies

The dietary fibre product examined is a pectic polysaccharide extract from carrot (Daucus carota), enriched for pectin fragments comprising mainly rhamnogalacturonan-I (RG-I) (abbreviated product name cRG-I). To assess the safety of cRG-I for use as food ingredient, repeated-dose oral toxicity and in vitro genotoxicity studies were conducted. In the subchronic toxicity study (OECD test guideline 408), Wistar Hannover rats received cRG-I at dietary levels (w/w) of 0%, 2.5%, 5% and 10% for 13 weeks. cRG-I induced no adverse effects in this study. The NOAEL was 10% in the diet (equivalent to 6.9 and 7.8 g cRG-I/kg body weight/day in male and female rats, respectively). A package of three in vitro genotoxicity tests (Ames, mouse lymphoma and micronucleus assay in human peripheral blood lymphocytes) was negative for induction of point mutation and chromosome damage. An initial Ames test showed a weak positive response in Salmonella typhimurium strain (TA1537). This response was non-reproducible and attributed to microbial contamination as subsequent tests with an irradiated batch of cRG-I including a repeat Ames test were negative. cRG-I was therefore considered to be non-mutagenic.

Re-evaluation of metatartaric acid (E 353) as a food additive

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of metatartaric acid (E 353) when used as a food additive. Metatartaric acid (E 353) had been previously evaluated by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Based on the presumption that metatartaric acid is fully hydrolysed pre-systemically to l(+)-tartaric acid, the Panel concluded that metatartaric acid (E 353) should be included in the group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 240 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as tartaric acid, for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337, 354) which was established by the EFSA FAF Panel in 2020. Exposure estimates were calculated for metatartaric acid (E 353) using a maximum level and refined exposure assessment scenario. The Panel also concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of metatartaric acid (E 353) at the reported use and use level. The Panel made a number of recommendations.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 72, Revision 2 (FGE.72Rev2): consideration of aliphatic, branched-chain saturated and unsaturated alcohols, aldehydes, acids and related esters evaluated by JECFA (61st, 68th and 69th meetings) and structurally related to flavouring substances in FGE.05Rev3

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 31 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 substances more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.

Re-evaluation of l(+)-tartaric acid (E 334), sodium tartrates (E 335), potassium tartrates (E 336), potassium sodium tartrate (E 337) and calcium tartrate (E 354) as food additives

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337, 354) when used as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1990 established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, for l(+)-tartaric acid and its potassium and sodium salts. The metabolism of l(+)-tartaric acid and its potassium sodium salt was shown to be species dependent, with a greater absorption in rats than in humans. No toxic effects, including nephrotoxicity, were observed in toxicological studies in which the l(+)-form was tested. There was no indication for a genotoxic potential of tartaric acid and its sodium and potassium salts. In a chronic study in rats, no indication for carcinogenicity of monosodium l(+)-tartrate was reported at the highest dose tested (3,100 mg/kg bw per day). The available studies for maternal or developmental toxicity did not report any relevant effects; no studies for reproductive toxicity were available; however, no effects on reproductive organs were observed in the chronic toxicity study. The Panel concluded that the data on systemic availability were robust enough to derive a chemical-specific uncertainty factor instead of the usual default uncertainty factor of 100. A total uncertainty factor of 10 was derived by applying a total interspecies uncertainty factor of 1 instead of 10, based on data showing lower internal exposure in humans compared to rats. The Panel established a group ADI for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E 334-337 and E 354) of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid, by applying the total uncertainty factor of 10 to the reference point of 3,100 mg sodium tartrate/kg bw per day, approximately to 2,440 mg tartaric acid/kg bw per day. The exposure estimates for the different population groups for the refined non-brand-loyal exposure scenario did not exceed the group ADI of 240 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as tartaric acid. Some recommendations were made by the Panel.

Re-evaluation of stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive. The previously evaluated toxicological studies were not available, in addition to no genotoxicity data being available. Thus, adequate toxicity data on stearyl tartrate were not available for its re-evaluation. In addition, adequate data demonstrating the complete hydrolysis of stearyl tartrate (E 483) in the gastrointestinal tract and/or presystemically, that could allow read-across from data on its constituents, were lacking. Therefore, the safety of the use of stearyl tartrate as a food additive could not be assessed and the acceptable intake established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1978 could not be confirmed. Exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) was calculated using the maximum level exposure assessment scenario as neither use levels nor analytical data were available. Mean exposure to stearyl tartrate (E 483) as a food additive ranged from 0.1 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 82.5 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in adults to 192.7 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel also noted that information from the Mintel's GNPD indicates that only two products have been labelled with stearyl tartrate (E 483) since 1996. Some recommendations were proposed by the Panel.

Re-evaluation of acetic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, mono- and diacetyltartaric acid, mixed acetic and tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472a-f) as food additives

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of acetic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid, mono- and diacetyltartaric acids, mixed acetic and tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472a-f) as food additives. All substances had been previously evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) and by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). Hydrolysis of E472a,b,c,e was demonstrated in various experimental systems, although the available data on absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion (ADME) were limited. The Panel assumed that E472a-f are extensively hydrolysed in the GI tract and/or (pre-)systemically after absorption into their individual hydrolysis products which are all normal dietary constituents and are metabolised or excreted intact. No adverse effects relevant for humans have been identified from the toxicological database available for E472a-f. The Panel considered that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for E 472a,b,c. The Panel also considered that only l(+)-tartaric acid has to be used in the manufacturing process of E472d,e,f. The Panel established ADIs for E 472d,e,f based on the group ADI of 240 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as tartaric acid, for l(+)-tartaric acid-tartrates (E334-337, 354) and considering the total amount of l(+)-tartaric acid in each food additive. Exposure estimates were calculated for all food additives individually, except for E 472e and f, using maximum level, refined exposure and food supplements consumers only scenarios. Considering the exposure estimates, there is no safety concern at their reported uses and use levels. In addition, exposure to tartaric acid released from the use of E 472d,e,f was calculated. The Panel also proposed a number of recommendations.

Re-evaluation of name of hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) as food additive

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) when used as a food additive. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene is of low acute toxicity and does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, were not available; therefore, the Panel based the derivation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) identified in the subchronic study in rats and established an ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day. Dietary exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Mean exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive ranged from no exposure in infants to 2.35 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants and adults to 6.69 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The exposure estimates in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario did not exceed the ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) does not raise a safety concern when used at the maximum permitted levels.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 Revision 1 (FGE.71Rev1): consideration of aliphatic, linear, α,β-unsaturated alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and related esters evaluated by JECFA (63rd and 69th meeting) structurally related to flavouring substances evaluated in FGE.05Rev3

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 39 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for [FL-no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.020 and 05.076], the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 Revision 2 (FGE.61Rev2): consideration of aliphatic acetals evaluated by JECFA (57th, 63rd and 68th meetings) structurally related to acetals evaluated by EFSA in FGE.03Rev2

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of the 12 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

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

Safety of use of Monk fruit extract as a food additive in different food categories

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

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 215 Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1): seven α,β-unsaturated cinnamyl ketones from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 215, Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1). In FGE.215, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requested in vivo data for the two representative substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.024] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030]. The Flavour Industry has provided additional genotoxicity studies for both representative substances [FL-no: 07.024] and [FL-no: 07.030]. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for the representative substance [FL-no: 07.024] and for the structurally related substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-ol [FL-no: 02.066] and 3-methyl-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.027] which can accordingly be evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.69. For the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030], the Panel concluded that [FL-no: 07.030] is aneugenic in vitro. For such substances, there is currently no agreed follow-up strategy to finalise their safety assessment. The Panel is aware that the EFSA Scientific Committee is going to address this issue and a statement clarifying the assessment of in vitro aneugenic substances is under preparation. The Panel concluded therefore that, for the time being, the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030] and the structurally related substances vanillylidene acetone [FL-no: 07.046] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4-methylpent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.049] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. The Panel further concluded that 4-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.206] is to be considered as a stand-alone substance due to the presence of the methyl groups, therefore, in vitro genotoxicity data were requested for [FL-no: 07.206]. Industry communicated that the evaluation of [FL-no: 07.206] is not supported any longer, therefore additional data were not submitted.