Browsing by Author "Boon, Polly"
Now showing 1 - 10 of 19
Results Per Page
Sort Options
- Flavouring group evaluation 418 (FGE. 418): 3‐[3‐(2‐isopropyl‐5‐methyl‐cyclohexyl)‐ureido]‐butyric acid ethyl esterPublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl-Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Benigni, Romualdo; Chipman, Kevin; Cordelli, Eugenia; Degen, Gisela; Engel, Karl-Heinz; Fowler, Paul; Carfí, Maria; Gagliardi, Gabriele; Mech, Agnieszka; Multari, Salvatore; Martino, CarlaThe EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 3‐[3‐(2‐isopropyl‐5‐methyl‐cyclohexyl)‐ureido]‐butyric acid ethyl ester [FL‐no: 16.136] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and it is chemically synthesised. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL‐no: 16.136] was considered sufficient. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.136] estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET) is calculated to be 860 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 540 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.136] did not show genotoxic effects in bacterial mutagenicity and mammalian cell micronucleus assays in vitro. No ADME studies on [FL‐no: 16.136] were provided. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study, no maternal or fetal toxicity was observed in rats dosed up to 1000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. In a 90‐day toxicity study in rats, no adverse effects were observed. In this study, the Panel considered that the NOAEL is 777 and 923 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested) for male and female rats, respectively. Considering the lowest NOAEL of 777 mg/kg bw per day, as a reference point, adequate margins of exposure of 55 × 103 and 21 × 103 were calculated for adults and children, respectively, when considering the chronic APET dietary exposure estimates. The Panel concluded that the use of 3‐[3‐(2‐isopropyl‐5‐methylcyclohexyl)‐ureido]‐butyric acid ethyl ester [FL‐no: 16.136] as a flavouring substance under the proposed conditions of use does not raise a safety concern at the dietary exposure estimates calculated using the APET approach.
- Flavouring group evaluation 420 (FGE.420): Hesperetin dihydrochalconePublication . Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl-Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Degen, Gisela; Engel, Karl-Heinz; Fowler, Paul; Carfí, Maria; Civitella, Consuelo; Dino, Borana; Gagliardi, Gabriele; Mech, Agnieszka; Zakidou, Panagiota; Martino, Carla; EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of hesperetin dihydrochalcone [FL-no: 16.137] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance is structurally related to the group of flavonoids evaluated in FGE.32 and is the aglycone of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone. Based on the data provided for [FL-no: 16.137], the Panel considered that a read-across between hesperetin dihydrochalcone and the substances in FGE.32 is not needed. Nevertheless, the flavonoids evaluated in FGE.32 were considered in a cumulative exposure assessment. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL-no: 16.137] was considered sufficient. The Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. No absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) studies on [FL-no: 16.137] were provided, but studies investigating the ADME of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone were submitted. The Panel noted that [FL-no: 16.137] has the same fate in the organism, as that of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone and considered that [FL-no: 16.137] can be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only. In a prenatal developmental toxicity study, no maternal or foetal toxicity was observed. In a 90-day toxicity study, indications were obtained that the substance affects thyroid hormone levels at all doses tested (100-1000 mg/kg bw per day). Since these changes were not accompanied by apical findings indicative of hypothyroidism, the Panel considered these hormonal effects as not adverse. Using 1000 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day as reference point, adequate margins of exposure were calculated for adults and children, when considering the chronic added portions exposure technique (APET) dietary exposure estimates. Cumulative chronic exposure estimates to [FL-no: 16.137] and the four structurally related substances evaluated in FGE.32 do not raise a safety concern. The use of [FL-no: 16.137] as food flavouring, under the proposed conditions of use, does not raise a safety concern.
- Flavouring Group Evaluation 80, Revision 2 (FGE.80Rev2): Consideration of alicyclic, alicyclic‐fused and aromatic‐fused ring lactones evaluated by the JECFA (61st and 82nd meetings) structurally related to an aromatic lactone evaluated in FGE.27Publication . Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; Fitzgerald, Reginald; Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Benigni, Romualdo; Degen, Gisela; Engel, Karl‐Heinz; Fowler, Paul; Nørby, Karin; Svendsen, Camilla; Carfí, Maria; Dino, Borana; Gagliardi, Gabriele; Martino, Carla; Mennes, Wim; EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 14 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 80 (FGE.80), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirteen substances have already been considered in FGE.80 and its revision and in FGE.96 [FL‐no: 10.005, 10.024, 10.025, 10.050, 10.061, 10.069, 10.070, 10.072, 10.169, 13.009, 13.012, 13.161 and 16.055]. The remaining flavouring substance 3a,4,5,7a‐tetrahydro‐3,6‐dimethylbenzofuran‐2(3H)‐one [FL‐no: 10.057] has been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.217Rev3 and it is considered in this revision 2 of FGE.80. The substance [FL‐no: 10.057] was evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 10.057] does not give rise to safety concerns at its levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered and the information provided was complete for [FL‐no: 10.057]. However, for the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 10.057] in the present revision and for eight substances evaluated in previous revisions, the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) values are above the TTC for their structural class (III). For four substances previously evaluated in FGE.80Rev1 and in FGE.96, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 13 flavouring substances, data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations. For [FL‐no: 10.050, 10.069 and 13.161], information on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures is needed.
- Follow‐up of the re‐evaluation of silver (E 174) as a food additive (EFSA‐Q‐2023‐00169)Publication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Castle, Laurence; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Kurek, Marcin Andrzej; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Oomen, Agnes; Corsini, Emanuela; Wright, Matthew; Furst, Peter; Gaffet, Eric; Loeschner, Katrin; Mast, Jan; Undas, Anna; Mech, Agnieszka; Rincon, Ana Maria; Ruggeri, Laura; Smeraldi, CamillaSilver (E 174) is a food colour that was re‐evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel (2016). The ANS Panel concluded that the information available then, was insufficient to assess the safety of silver as food additive. The major issues included limited characterisation of silver E 174 (e.g. quantity of nanoparticles) and release of ionic silver. Following a European Commission call for further data to fill the data gap, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of silver (E 174). One interested business operator (IBO) submitted limited data on particle size distribution and morphology, two genotoxicity studies and one subchronic study. The Panel concluded that the technical data submitted on physicochemical characterisation of all types of silver used as food additive E 174 were not adequate. As a result, the Panel was unable to propose changes to the EU specifications of E174 on particle size and morphology. As the additional information requested was not provided, the assessment was based solely on the submitted data. Nonetheless, given the data provided and silver insolubility in water, the Panel concluded that E174 requires risk assessment at the nanoscale following the EFSA Guidance on Risk assessment of nanomaterials to be applied in the food and feed chain, to complement the conventional risk assessment. The Panel considered that the genotoxicity data and sub‐chronic toxicity data were inadequate. Consequently, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food additive silver E 174.
- Re‐evaluation of acesulfame K (E 950) as food additivePublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl-Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Batke, Monika; Bruzell, Ellen; Chipman, James; Cheyns, Karlien; Crebelli, Riccardo; Fortes, Cristina; Fürst, Peter; Halldorsson, Thorhallur; Leblanc, Jean-Charles; Mirat, Manuela; Lindtner, Oliver; Mortensen, Alicja; Barmaz, Stefania; Wright, Matthew; Civitella, Consuelo; Le Gall, Pauline; Mazzoli, Elena; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Rincon, Ana; Tard, Alexandra; Lodi, FedericaThe present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of acesulfame K (E 950) as a food additive. Acesulfame K (E 950) is the chemically manufactured compound 6‐methyl‐1,2,3‐oxathiazin‐4(3H)‐one‐2,2‐dioxide potassium salt. It is authorised for use in the European Union (EU) in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The assessment involved a comprehensive review of existing authorisations, evaluations and new scientific data. Acesulfame K (E 950) was found to be stable under various conditions; at pH lower than 3 with increasing temperatures, it is degraded to a certain amount. Based on the available data, no safety concerns arise for genotoxicity of acesulfame K (E 950) and its degradation products. For the potential impurities, based on in silico data, a concern for genotoxicity was identified for 5‐chloro‐acesulfame; a maximum limit of 0.1 mg/kg, or alternatively, a request for appropriate genotoxicity data was recommended. Based on the synthesis of systematically appraised evidence of human and animal studies, the Panel concluded that there are no new studies suitable for identification of a reference point (RP) on adverse effects. Consequently, the Panel established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 15 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on the highest dose tested without adverse effects in a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study in rats; a study considered of moderate risk of bias and one of two key studies from the previous evaluations by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA). This revised ADI replaces the ADI of 9 mg/kg bw per day established by the SCF. The Panel noted that the highest estimate of exposure to acesulfame K (E 950) was generally below the ADI in all population groups. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider the revision of the EU specifications of acesulfame K (E 950).
- Re‐evaluation of argon (E 938) and helium (E 939) as food additivesPublication . EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; Fitzgerald, Reginald; Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Multari, Salvatore; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Rincon, Ana Maria; Vermeiren, Sam; Smeraldi, CamillaThe Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of the two food additives argon (E 938) and helium (E 939). Argon (Ar) and helium (He) are two noble gases, highly stable single atoms. Their chemical inertness is well known. Their physicochemical properties have served as a basis for their previous evaluations by SCF and JECFA, which have considered the use of these food additives safe even in the absence of a toxicological evaluation. No business operator or other interested party provided information in response to the call for data published by EFSA to support the re-evaluation of these two food additives with respect to their identity and specifications, manufacturing process (including the identification and quantification of potential impurities) and how they are applied to food to exert their technological function. One business operator replied to the call for data issued by EFSA reporting use levels of E 938 as a packaging gas in one food category. Based on their physicochemical properties, both gases are considered by the Panel to be of low toxicological concern when used as food additives. No information was available on the potential presence of impurities of toxicological concern resulting from the manufacturing process(es) applied to the production of the food additives E 938 and E 939. The Panel however noted that a minimum purity of 99.0% is required to comply with existing specifications. The Panel concluded that the use of argon (E 938) and helium (E 939) as food additives does not raise a safety concern. The Panel recommended an amendment of the existing EU specifications to introduce the respective CAS numbers.
- Re‐evaluation of butane (E 943a), isobutane (E 943b) and propane (E 944) as food additivesPublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings; Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; Fitzgerald, Reginald; Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Gagliardi, Gabriele; Multari, Salvatore; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Rincon, Ana Maria; Smeraldi, CamillaThe Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of butane (E 943a), isobutane (E 943b) and propane (E 944) as food additives. Butane, isobutane and propane are short‐chain (C3–C4) alkanes, which are in gaseous state at room temperature. Their currently permitted use in food is in vegetable oil pan spray (for professional use only) and water‐based emulsion spray as propellants at quantum satis. They can also be used in food colour preparations with a maximum residual limit of 1 mg/kg in food. Two interested business operators (IBOs) provided information in response to the call for data published by EFSA reporting typical and maximum use levels. The toxicological hazards of the three gases via inhalation are known, however this route of exposure is not considered relevant for their safety assessment as food additives. Existing EU specifications for the three food additives already contain limits for the toxic impurity 1,3‐butadiene (1,3‐BD), however due to a lack of information on the manufacturing processes used, uncertainties do remain regarding the potential presence of other impurities not listed in the current EU specifications for food additives. Based on their physicochemical properties, the three gases are considered by the Panel to be of low toxicological concern when used as food additives and their dietary exposure very low. The Panel concluded that the use of butane (E 943a), isobutane (E 943b) and propane (E 944) as food additives at the currently permitted uses and use levels does not raise a safety concern. The Panel made some recommendations for amending existing EU specifications for butane (E 943a), isobutane (E 943b) and propane (E 944).
- Re‐evaluation of citric acid esters of mono‐ and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472c) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow‐up of its re‐evaluationPublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl-Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Passamonti, Sabina; Wölfle, Detlef; Dusemund, Birgit; Turck, Dominique; Barmaz, Stefania; Tard, Alexandra; Rincon, Ana MariaCitric acid esters of mono‐ and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472c) was re‐evaluated in 2020 by the Food Additives and Flavourings Panel (FAF Panel) along with acetic acid, lactic acid, tartaric acid, mono‐ and diacetyltartaric acid, mixed acetic and tartaric acid esters of mono‐ and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472a,b,d,e,f). As a follow‐up to this assessment, the FAF Panel was requested to assess the safety of citric acid esters of mono‐ and diglycerides of fatty acids (E 472c) for its use as food additive in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories (FCs) 13.1.1 (Infant formulae as defined by Directive 2006/141/EC) 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 recommendation of the re‐evaluation of E 472c as a food additive to update the EU specifications in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012. For this, a call for data was published to allow interested partied to provide the requested information for a risk assessment. The Panel concluded that the technical data provided by the interested business operators support an amendment of the EU specifications for E 472c. Regarding the safety of the use of E 472c in food for infants below 16 weeks of age, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern from its use at the reported use levels and at the maximum permitted levels in food for infants below 16 weeks of age (FCs 13.1.1 and 13.1.5.1).
- Re‐evaluation of neotame (E 961) as food additivePublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Batke, Monika; Bruzell, Ellen; Chipman, James; Crebelli, Riccardo; Fortes, Cristina; Fürst, Peter; Gaffet, Eric; Karlien, Cheyns; Halldorsson, Thorhallur; Leblanc, Jean‐Charles; Lindtner, Oliver; Loeschner, Katrin; Mast, Jan; Mirat, Manuela; Mortensen, Alicja; Undas, Anna; Wright, Matthew; Barmaz, Stefania; Civitella, Consuelo; Abrahantes, Jose Cortiñas; Le Gall, Pauline; Mazzoli, Elena; Mech, Agnieszka; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Rincon, Ana; Riolo, Francesca; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Zakidou, Panagiota; Lodi, FedericaThe present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of neotame (E 961) as a food additive. Neotame is the chemically manufactured compound N‐[N‐(3,3‐dimethylbutyl)‐l‐α‐aspartyl]‐l‐phenylalanine 1‐methyl ester. The main impurity of neotame (E 961) is also a degradation product (de‐esterified form), N‐[N‐(3,3‐dimethylbutyl)‐l‐α‐aspartyl]‐l‐phenylalanine (NC‐00751) and the primary metabolite. No new data were received following the call for biological and toxicological data. A summary of the toxicological studies available in the EFSA opinion of 2007 is presented and studies gathered from the literature are summarised. Neotame is rapidly absorbed and pre‐systemically metabolised, systemic intact neotame is likely to be excreted in the urine with its metabolites. The potential aneugenic effects at the site of contact are not expected to occur; overall, there is no concern for genotoxicity of neotame (E 961) at the maximum permitted levels or reported use levels. A review of the other endpoints from the already available toxicological database did not indicate an adverse effect for neotame at the highest doses tested. The Panel established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 10 mg/kg bw per day for neotame based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1000 mg/kg bw per day from a 52‐week chronic and 104‐week carcinogenicity studies in rats. This ADI replaces the ADI of 2 mg/kg bw per day established by EFSA in 2007. The resulting exposure to methanol and its metabolite formaldehyde from the use of neotame at the ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day does not raise a concern. The dietary exposure estimates of neotame (E 961) for the different population groups of all exposure scenarios did not exceed the ADI. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for neotame (E 961) at the currently permitted and reported uses and use levels. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider revising the EU specifications of neotame (E 961).
- Re‐evaluation of oxygen (E 948) and hydrogen (E 949) as food additivesPublication . EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose; Grasl‐Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert‐Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Smeraldi, Camilla; Di Ciano, Samuele; Dino, Borana; Mazzoli, Elena; Rincon, Ana MariaThe Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of oxygen (E 948) and hydrogen (E 949) as food additives. Their currently permitted use in food in the European Union (EU) is in all food categories, including in foods for infants and young children at quantum satis (QS). They can also be used in food additive preparations, food enzymes and nutrients also at QS. No interested business operators (IBOs) provided information in response to the call for data published by EFSA to support their re‐evaluation. The original evaluation by the EU in 1990 indicated their use as packaging gases, and in the case of oxygen (E 948), also as propellant. The Panel considered the two gases to be of low toxicological concern when used as food additives and their dietary exposure very low. The Panel concluded that the use of oxygen (E 948) and hydrogen (E 949) as food additives does not raise a safety concern. The Panel made some recommendations for amending existing EU specifications for both oxygen (E 948) and hydrogen (E 949).