Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP Panel) was asked by the European Commission to update its 2005 risk assessments of di‐butylphthalate (DBP), butyl‐benzyl‐phthalate (BBP), bis(2‐ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), di‐isononylphthalate (DINP) and di‐isodecylphthalate (DIDP), which are authorised for use in plastic food contact material (FCM). Dietary exposure estimates (mean and high (P95)) were obtained by combining literature occurrence data with consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive Database. The highest exposure was found for DINP, ranging from 0.2 to 4.3 and from 0.4 to 7.0 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day for mean and high consumers, respectively. There was not enough information to draw conclusions on how much migration from plastic FCM contributes to dietary exposure to phthalates. The review of the toxicological data focused mainly on reproductive effects. The CEP Panel derived the same critical effects and individual tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) (mg/kg bw per day) as in 2005 for all the phthalates, i.e. reproductive effects for DBP (0.01), BBP (0.5), DEHP (0.05), and liver effects for DINP and DIDP (0.15 each). Based on a plausible common mechanism (i.e. reduction in fetal testosterone) underlying the reproductive effects of DEHP, DBP and BBP, the Panel considered it appropriate to establish a group‐TDI for these phthalates, taking DEHP as index compound as a basis for introducing relative potency factors. The Panel noted that DINP also affected fetal testosterone levels at doses around threefold higher than liver effects and therefore considered it conservative to include it within the group‐TDI which was established to be 50 μg/kg bw per day, expressed as DEHP equivalents. The aggregated dietary exposure for DBP, BBP, DEHP and DINP was estimated to be 0.9–7.2 and 1.6–11.7 μg/kg bw per day for mean and high consumers, respectively, thus contributing up to 23% of the group‐TDI in the worst‐case scenario. For DIDP, not included in the group‐TDI, dietary exposure was estimated to be always below 0.1 μg/kg bw per day and therefore far below the TDI of 150 μg/kg bw per day. This assessment covers European consumers of any age, including the most sensitive groups. Based on the limited scope of the mandate and the uncertainties identified, the Panel considered that the current assessment of the five phthalates, individually and collectively, should be on a temporary basis. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1747/full

This Guidance document describes harmonised risk assessment methodologies for combined exposure to multiple chemicals for all relevant areas within EFSA's remit, i.e. human health, animal health and ecological areas. First, a short review of the key terms, scientific basis for combined exposure risk assessment and approaches to assessing (eco)toxicology is given, including existing frameworks for these risk assessments. This background was evaluated, resulting in a harmonised framework for risk assessment of combined exposure to multiple chemicals. The framework is based on the risk assessment steps (problem formulation, exposure assessment, hazard identification and characterisation, and risk characterisation including uncertainty analysis), with tiered and stepwise approaches for both whole mixture approaches and component‐based approaches. Specific considerations are given to component‐based approaches including the grouping of chemicals into common assessment groups, the use of dose addition as a default assumption, approaches to integrate evidence of interactions and the refinement of assessment groups. Case studies are annexed in this guidance document to explore the feasibility and spectrum of applications of the proposed methods and approaches for human and animal health and ecological risk assessment. The Scientific Committee considers that this Guidance is fit for purpose for risk assessments of combined exposure to multiple chemicals and should be applied in all relevant areas of EFSA's work. Future work and research are recommended. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1589/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1602/full

High‐pressure processing (HPP) is a non‐thermal treatment in which, for microbial inactivation, foods are subjected to isostatic pressures (P) of 400–600 MPa with common holding times (t) from 1.5 to 6 min. The main factors that influence the efficacy (log10 reduction of vegetative microorganisms) of HPP when applied to foodstuffs are intrinsic (e.g. water activity and pH), extrinsic (P and t) and microorganism‐related (type, taxonomic unit, strain and physiological state). It was concluded that HPP of food will not present any additional microbial or chemical food safety concerns when compared to other routinely applied treatments (e.g. pasteurisation). Pathogen reductions in milk/colostrum caused by the current HPP conditions applied by the industry are lower than those achieved by the legal requirements for thermal pasteurisation. However, HPP minimum requirements (P/t combinations) could be identified to achieve specific log10 reductions of relevant hazards based on performance criteria (PC) proposed by international standard agencies (5–8 log10 reductions). The most stringent HPP conditions used industrially (600 MPa, 6 min) would achieve the above‐mentioned PC, except for Staphylococcus aureus. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), the endogenous milk enzyme that is widely used to verify adequate thermal pasteurisation of cows’ milk, is relatively pressure resistant and its use would be limited to that of an overprocessing indicator. Current data are not robust enough to support the proposal of an appropriate indicator to verify the efficacy of HPP under the current HPP conditions applied by the industry. Minimum HPP requirements to reduce Listeria monocytogenes levels by specific log10 reductions could be identified when HPP is applied to ready‐to‐eat (RTE) cooked meat products, but not for other types of RTE foods. These identified minimum requirements would result in the inactivation of other relevant pathogens (Salmonella and Escherichia coli) in these RTE foods to a similar or higher extent.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338–341, E 343, E 450–452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80–90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1624/full

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the additive silver nanoparticles intended to be used in plastics. All the silver particles are in the size range of 1–100 nm, with about 15 nm mean diameter and 99% by number of particles below 20 nm. The additive is intended to be used as a surface biocide at up to 0.025% w/w in non‐polar plastics for contact with a wide variety of foods, times, temperatures and food contact surface/mass of food ratios. The particulate form is maintained when the additive is incorporated into plastics, albeit with some aggregation/agglomeration observed. The data and information on theoretical considerations, on specific migration and abrasion tests show that, under the intended and tested conditions of uses, the silver nanoparticles stay embedded in the polymer, do not migrate and resist release by abrasion, thus, do not give rise to exposure via food and to toxicological concern. There is migration of silver in soluble ionic form up to 6 μg/kg food from the surface of the additive particles. This is below the group restriction of 50 μg silver/kg food proposed by the AFC Panel in 2004 and would lead to a maximum exposure from FCM that would be below the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 0.9 μg silver ions/kg body weight (bw) per day established by ECHA. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the substance does not raise safety concern for the consumer if used as an additive at up to 0.025% w/w in polymers, such as polyolefins, polyesters and styrenics, that do not swell in contact with aqueous foods and food simulants. The Panel noted, however, that exposure to silver from other sources of dietary exposure may exceed the ADI set by ECHA.

This opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954) as food additives. Saccharin is the chemically manufactured compound 1,2‐benzisothiazol‐3(2H)‐one‐1,1‐dioxide. Along with its sodium (Na), potassium (K) and calcium (Ca) salts, they are authorised as sweeteners (E 954). E 954 can be produced by two manufacturing methods i.e. Remsen‐Fahlberg and Maumee. No analytical data on potential impurities were provided for products manufactured with the Maumee process; therefore, the Panel could only evaluate saccharins (E 954) manufactured with the Remsen‐Fahlberg process. The Panel concluded that the newly available studies do not raise a concern for genotoxicity of E 954 and the saccharins impurities associated with the Remsen‐Fahlberg manufacturing process. For the potential impurities associated with the Maumee process, a concern for genotoxicity was identified. The data set evaluated consisted of animals and human studies. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and considered the decrease in body weight in animal studies as the relevant endpoint for the derivation of a reference point. An ADI of 9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as free imide, was derived for saccharins (E 954). This ADI replaces the ADI of 5 mg /kg bw per day (expressed as sodium saccharin, corresponding to 3.8 mg /kg bw per day saccharin as free imide) established by the Scientific Committee on Food. The Panel considered the refined brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario the most appropriate exposure scenario for the risk assessment. The Panel noted that the P95 exposure estimates for chronic exposure to saccharins (E 954) were below the ADI. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider the revision of the EU specifications of saccharin and its sodium, potassium and calcium salts (E 954).

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) was requested by the European Commission to re‐evaluate the safety of styrene (FCM No 193) for use in plastic food contact materials (FCM) following the classification by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as ‘probably carcinogenic to humans’. The IARC Monograph pertains to hazard identification, based on studies on high‐dose occupational exposures by inhalation and animal studies, also mainly by inhalation. The Panel considered that the IARC conclusions cannot be directly applied to the evaluation of risks for consumers from the oral exposure to styrene, but also concluded that, based on the data provided in the IARC Monograph and by the industry, a concern for genotoxicity associated with oral exposure to styrene cannot be excluded. The migration of styrene into foods packed in styrenic plastics is below 10 μg/kg for the majority of the foods, but up to 230 μg/kg was reported. Migration tends to be high for contact with fatty foods, and/or with high surface to volume ratios of the FCM. Dietary exposure of the consumers to styrene migrating from styrenic plastics was estimated in the order of 0.1 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day. It is in the same range as exposure from styrene present in foods as such. The dietary exposure (food component plus migration from styrenic plastics) is similar or lower than that by inhalation in the general population. Taking the human exposure data into account, the Panel concluded that a systematic review of genotoxicity and mechanistic data, comparative toxicokinetics and analysis of species differences is required for assessing the safety of styrene for its use in FCM.

This opinion addresses the re‐evaluation of erythritol (E 968) as food additive and an application for its exemption from the laxative warning label requirement as established under Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011. Erythritol is a polyol obtained by fermentation with Moniliella pollinis BC or Moniliella megachiliensis KW3‐6, followed by purifications and drying. Erythritol is readily and dose‐dependently absorbed in humans and can be metabolised to erythronate to a small extent. Erythritol is then excreted unchanged in the urine. It does not raise concerns regarding genotoxicity. The dataset evaluated consisted of human interventional studies. The Panel considered that erythritol has the potential to cause diarrhoea in humans, which was considered adverse because its potential association with electrolyte and water imbalance. The lower bound of the range of no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) for diarrhoea of 0.5 g/kg body weight (bw) was identified as reference point. The Panel considered appropriate to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) at the level of the reference point. An ADI of 0.5 g/kg bw per day was considered by the Panel to be protective for the immediate laxative effect as well as potential chronic effects, secondary to diarrhoea. The highest mean and 95th percentile chronic exposure was in children (742 mg/kg bw per day) and adolescents (1532 mg/kg bw per day). Acute exposure was maximally 3531 mg/kg bw per meal for children at the 99th percentile. Overall, the Panel considered both dietary exposure assessments an overestimation. The Panel concluded that the exposure estimates for both acute and chronic dietary exposure to erythritol (E 968) were above the ADI, indicating that individuals with high intake may be at risk of experiencing adverse effects after single and repeated exposure. Concerning the new application, the Panel concluded that the available data do not support the proposal for exemption.

Read‐across is a method used in chemical risk assessment to predict the toxicological properties of a target substance by using data from structurally and mechanistically similar substances, known as source substances. EFSA's Scientific Committee has developed an approach for using read‐across in food and feed risk assessment. This method provides a step‐by‐step guide to applying read‐across as part of a weight‐of‐evidence evaluation for individual substances. It includes an explanation of the key aspects to consider at each step of the read‐across workflow, i.e. problem formulation, target substance characterisation, source substance identification, source substance evaluation, data gap filling, uncertainty assessment, conclusion and reporting. It highlights the importance of clarity, impartiality and quality to derive transparent and reliable read‐across conclusions. A particular emphasis is placed on the analysis of uncertainty and whether the overall uncertainty can be lowered to tolerable levels by using standardised approaches, and/or additional data from new approach methodologies (NAMs). The guidance outlines methods to integrate data from NAMs to support read‐across in the relevant steps, improving the robustness of the assessment. The ultimate goal is to equip risk assessors and applicants with a comprehensive framework to carry out read‐across assessments systematically and transparently, thereby supporting the safety evaluation of chemicals in the food and feed chain. This publication is linked to the technical report \"Public consultation on the draft guidance on the use of read‐across for chemical safety assessment in food and feed\": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2025.EN-9569 This publication is linked to the event report \"Workshop on read‐across: role and guidance in chemical risk assessment\": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2025.EN-9521 This publication is linked to the external scientific report \"Read‐Across Application for Food or Feed Ingredients\": https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2024.EN-8811