Browsing by Author "Frutos-Fernandez, Maria Jose"
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
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.
- 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 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).
- Safety evaluation of pea fibre concentrate (FIPEA) 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; Barat Baviera, José Manuel; Degen, Gisela; Gott, David; Leblanc, Jean-Charles; Moldeus, Peter; Waalkens-Berendsen, Ine; Wölfle, Detlef; Gagliardi, Gabriele; Mech, Agnieszka; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Zakidou, Panagiota; Ruggeri, LauraThe EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety assessment of the proposed use of pea fibre concentrate (FIPEA) as a food additive. FIPEA is a powder consisting mainly of dietary fibres (i.e. pectin and hemicellulose), and low amounts of protein, derived from yellow pea (P. sativum). The manufacturing process includes extensive heat treatments, (e.g. > 100°C for more than 40 min), conditions which lead to inactivation of lectins, that in FIPEA do not pose a safety concern. A specific α‐amylase is used in the manufacturing, and this should be included in the definition of the proposed specifications. The Panel considered that the additional contribution of FIPEA to the total fibre intake in adults and toddlers would be acceptable considering the levels that are considered adequate by the NDA Panel. The Panel recommended to lower the specification limits proposed for the toxic elements. The solubility test indicates that the material does not require specific assessment at the nanoscale. No toxicological data have been submitted on FIPEA. The Panel considered that, similarly to water‐soluble soybean polysaccharides, FIPEA is not absorbed intact but undergoes extensive fermentation by the intestinal microbiota in humans and is not of genotoxic concern. Dry peas (raw material) are a staple food, with a very long history of safe use in the EU. FIPEA is extracted with hot water from the insoluble fibrous material of dehulled yellow peas, therefore the structure of the fibres is not chemically modified, and no new by‐products or components of toxicological concern are expected from the manufacturing process. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that pea fibre concentrate (FIPEA) as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use levels.
- Safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications of the food additive E960c(i) or E960c(ii)Publication . 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; Ursula Gundert‐Remy; Gundert-Remy, Ursula; 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; Consuelo, Civitella; Dino, Borana; Lunardi, Simone; Mech, Agnieszka; Multari, Salvatore; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Ruggeri, LauraThe EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the EU specifications of Rebaudioside M produced via enzyme‐catalysed bioconversion (E960c(i) or E 960c(ii)), to include a different microorganism strain in the definition. Rebaudioside M is produced via enzymatic bioconversion from Stevia leaf extract, using the genetically modified yeast strain K. phaffii CGMCC 7539. The final product is composed mostly of rebaudioside M (> 97%) and a mixture of rebaudiosides A, B and D at various concentrations. The Panel considered that the proposed amendment of the specifications is justified with respect to the inclusion of a new microorganism strain, taking into account that the manufacturing process and the submitted analytical data are already covered by the parameters listed in the existing EU specifications for E 960c(i) and E 960c(ii). The Panel considered that it is in the remit of the risk managers to decide whether the proposed changes in the specifications should result in an amendment of the already existing EU specifications of E960c(i) or E960c(ii). Viable cells and DNA from the production strain are not present in the final product; hence, the manufacturing process does not raise a safety concern. The Panel considered that the proposed food additive has the same physicochemical characteristics of E 960c(i) or E 960c(ii); therefore, the biological and toxicological data considered in previous evaluations will also apply to the safety assessment of Rebaudioside M produced from K. phaffii CGMCC 7539. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern with respect to the proposed amendment to the EU specifications of E 960c(i) or E 960c(ii) related to the use of the new genetically modified strain K. phaffii CGMCC 7539 in the manufacturing process of the food additive Rebaudioside M produced via enzyme‐catalysed bioconversion.
- Scientific opinion on the safety of a proposed amendment of the conditions of use of the food additive sorbitan monostearate (E 491) in enzyme preparationsPublication . 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; Barat Baviera, José Manuel; Leblanc, Jean-Charles; Smeraldi, Camilla; Tard, Alexandra; Ruggeri, LauraThe EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety evaluation of a proposed amendment of the conditions of use of the food additive sorbitan monostearate (E 491) in accordance with Annex III, Part 3 to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, with respect to the intended use as a food additive in preparations of the food enzyme asparaginase (also known as acrylamide reducing yeast, or ARY). The group of sorbitan esters (E 491–495) was re‐evaluated by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) in 2017. The ANS Panel established a group ADI of 10 mg sorbitan/kg body weight (bw) per day applicable to the food additives E 491–495. In the present opinion the Panel calculated an updated dietary exposure estimate of sorbitan resulting from the current authorised uses of the group of sorbitan esters (E 491–495), and from the proposed amendment of the conditions of use of sorbitan monostearate (E 491) in enzyme preparations. In updating the dietary exposure with the latest dietary surveys available, the group ADI of 10 mg sorbitan/kg bw per day was exceeded in toddlers and children at the 95th percentile in the refined non‐brand loyal scenario for a limited number of dietary surveys. This observation holds true either considering the proposed amendment of the conditions of use of the food additive E 491 or only the currently permitted uses in the exposure calculations. The same conclusions apply to the dietary exposure estimates for consumers of food supplements, for which the ADI is exceeded in children at the 95th percentile. The Panel however concluded that the conservative assumptions made in the refined scenarios have resulted in a clear overestimation of the dietary exposure and therefore that the calculated exceedance of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not of safety concern. The Panel concluded that the proposed amendment of the conditions of use of sorbitan monostearate (E 491) in preparations of the food enzyme ARY has little impact on the current dietary exposure to sorbitan resulting from the already permitted uses and reported use levels of sorbitan esters (E 491–495) and would not be of safety concern.