Percorrer por autor "EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings)"
A mostrar 1 - 3 de 3
Resultados por página
Opções de ordenação
- 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 sucralose (E 955) as a food additive and evaluation of a new application on extension of use of sucralose (E 955) in fine bakery waresPublication . EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings); Castle, Laurence; Andreassen, Monica; Aquilina, Gabriele; Bastos, Maria Lourdes; Boon, Polly; Fallico, Biagio; FitzGerald, Reginald; Fernandez, Maria Jose Frutos; Grasl-Kraupp, Bettina; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; Gürtler, Rainer; Houdeau, Eric; Kurek, Marcin; Louro, Henriqueta; Morales, Patricia; Passamonti, Sabina; Batke, Monika; Dourus, Antonios; Chipman, James; Crebelli, Riccardo; Fürst, Peter; Halldorsson, Thorhallur; Mirat, Manuela; Mortensen, Alicja; Wright, Matthew; Lindtner, Oliver; Barmaz, Stefania; Civitella, Consuelo; Horvath, Zsuzsanna; Levorato, Sara; Mazzoli, Elena; Rasinger, Josef Daniel; Rincon, Ana Maria; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Lodi, FedericaThe present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as food additive and with the safety of a proposed extension of use in food category (FC) 7.2 ‘Fine bakery wares’. Based on the available data, no safety concerns arose for genotoxicity of sucralose (E 955) and its impurities and degradation products. Based on the weight of evidence (WoE), the Panel considered the decrease in body weight observed in rats as the relevant endpoint for the derivation of a reference point (RP). The Panel performed a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis on the data from the longest study (combined chronic and carcinogenicity study) with a modified benchmark dose response to account for the poor palatability of sucralose. The resulting RP was 55 mg/kg bw per day (benchmark dose lower confidence limit; BMDL). The Panel considered it appropriate to derive chemical‐specific assessment factor for sucralose and concluded that there is no need to revise the current ADI of 15 mg/kg bw per day of sucralose (E 955) previously established by the Scientific Committee on Food. The exposure estimates considering the currently authorised uses did not exceed the ADI. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels of sucralose (E 955). The overall exposure did not increase substantially when considering the proposed extension of use. However, based on the available data and the identified uncertainties regarding the potential formation of chlorinated compounds under the wide range of baking processes that may be applicable for FC 7.2, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the proposed extension of use of E 955 in this FC. The Panel issued recommendations to the European Commission, primarily to consider a revision of the EU specifications for sucralose.
- Safety evaluation of curdlan as a food additivePublication . 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; Barat Baviera, José Manuel; Degen, Gisela; Gott, David; Herman, Lieve; Leblanc, Jean‐Charles; Moldeus, Peter; Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine; Wölfle, Detlef; Civitella, Consuelo; Entrena, Jaime Aguilera; Mech, Agnieszka; Multari, Salvatore; Ruggeri, Laura; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Vermeiren, Sam; Castle, Laurence; EFSA FAF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings)The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of curdlan as a new food additive used as firming and gelling agent, stabiliser, thickener. Curdlan is a high molecular weight polysaccharide consisting of β-1,3-linked glucose units, produced by fermentation from Rhizobium radiobacter biovar 1 strain NTK-u. The toxicological dataset consisted of sub-chronic, chronic and carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity studies as well as genotoxicity. In vivo data showed that curdlan is not absorbed as such but is extensively metabolised by the gut microbiota into CO2 and other innocuous compounds. Curdlan was not genotoxic and was well-tolerated with no overt organ-specific toxicity. Effects observed at very high doses of curdlan, such as decreased growth and increased cecum weight, are common for indigestible bulking compounds and therefore considered physiological responses. In a combined three-generation reproductive and developmental toxicity study, decreased pup weight was observed during lactation at 7500 mg curdlan/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested. The Panel considered the observed effects as treatment-related and adverse, although likely secondary to nutritional imbalance and identified a conservative no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 2500 mg/kg bw per day. Despite the limitations noted in the dataset, the Panel was able to conclude applying the margin of exposure (MOE) approach. Given that curdlan and its break-down products are not absorbed and that the identified adverse effect is neither systemic nor local, no adjustment factor was deemed necessary. Thus, an MOE of at least 1 was considered sufficient. The highest exposure estimate was 1441 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile of the proposed maximum use level exposure assessment scenario. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of curdlan as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels.