Explore the vast range of titles available.

The present opinion deals with the assessment of the data provided by interested business operators in support of an amendment of the EU specifications for titanium dioxide (E 171) with respect to the inclusion of additional parameters related to its particle size distribution. Titanium dioxide which is used as a food additive E 171 in food undergoes no surface treatment and is not coated. It consists of anatase or rutile generally containing small amounts of the other phase (rutile or anatase, < 2% m/m) and it may also contain small quantities (< 0.5%) of constituent particle growth and crystal phase control agents (alumina, sodium or potassium in combination with phosphate). Particle size analyses, by TEM, SEM, XDC or DC, have been carried out on five commercial brands of anatase E 171 and one of rutile E 171 manufactured by the only three EU manufacturers that, according to information submitted by interested business operators, produce food‐grade titanium dioxide. Interested business operators proposed to introduce in the EU specifications for E 171 a specification of more than 100 nm for median Feret min diameter and less than 50% of the number of constituent particles below 100 nm; measured by EM in both cases. The Panel, after reviewing the data, concluded that a specification of more than 100 nm for median minimal external dimension, equivalent to less than 50% of the number of constituent particles with a median minimal external dimension below 100 nm, should be inserted in the current EU specifications. The Panel considered that the conclusions made, and the uncertainties identified, in the previous EFSA assessments on E 171 remain valid. The Panel reiterates the need for the further research as recommended in the previous opinions in order to decrease the level of uncertainty and acknowledged that additional studies with characterised E 171 are being carried out by interested business operators.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) evaluated the safety of proposed changes to the currently permitted uses of the food additive steviol glycosides (E 960a–d) and of a proposed modification of the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) from 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day to 6 or 16 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as steviol equivalents. Currently, steviol glycosides (E 960a–d) are authorised in the EU in 32 different food categories (FCs). An extension of use was proposed for four new uses within FC 7.2 ‘Fine bakery wares’. In addition, an increase of the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for FC 14.1.3 ‘Fruit nectars’ and for three uses within FC 14.1.4 ‘Flavoured drinks’ was requested. Consequently, the Panel updated the exposure estimates using the protocol for assessing exposure to sweeteners, developed to consider the specificities related to consumers' exposure to this functional class of food additives. Considering the proposed extension of use and increase of the MPLs, together with the currently authorised uses (at the MPLs) of E 960a–d, the highest 95th percentiles of exposure are 4.1 and 6.9 mg/kg bw per day for infants and toddlers, respectively. Based on the currently available absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) dataset for steviol glycosides (E 960a–d), the Panel concluded that that there is insufficient justification to increase the current ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as steviol equivalents. With respect to the proposed extension of use and increase of the MPLs, the Panel concluded that the calculated, conservative, dietary exposure would result in an increased exceedance of the ADI for toddlers at the 95th percentile.

The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of pullulan (E 1204) when used as a food additive and with the new application on the extension of use to several food categories. Pullulan (E 1204) is obtained by fermentation of a food‐grade hydrolysed starch with non‐genetically modified Aureobasidium pullulans ■■■■■. Based on the available information, the Panel considered that the manufacturing process of pullulan (E 1204) using this microorganism does not raise a safety concern. The Panel confirmed that pullulan (E 1204) is of no concern for genotoxicity. In vitro, pullulan (E 1204) is broken down by salivary and pancreatic amylase and intestinal iso‐amylase and it is further metabolised to short chain fatty acids in the colon by fermentation. Human adult volunteer studies suggested that effects of pullulan (E 1204) are similar to the effects of other poorly digestible carbohydrate polymers including modified celluloses and that mild undesirable gastrointestinal symptoms (i.e. abdominal fullness, flatulence, bloating and cramping) may occur at doses of 10 g pullulan per day and greater. The Panel compared the dose of 10 g pullulan per day with the dietary exposure estimates to pullulan (E 1204) in its currently permitted uses and considering the proposed changes to the currently permitted uses. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for pullulan (E 1204) and there is no safety concern for the currently reported uses and use levels. Additionally, the Panel concluded that the exposure estimates considering the proposed changes to the currently permitted uses and use levels of pullulan (E 1204) are of no safety concern. The estimates for dietary exposure to pullulan (E 1204) indicate that individuals with a high level of exposure, principally coming from food supplements, may experience mild gastrointestinal symptoms at the currently reported uses and use levels.

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. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6918/full

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the ‘safe levels of intake’ established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162).

The 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.

The 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.

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

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.

The European Commission asked EFSA to review whether the authorisation of N,N‐bis(2‐hydroxyethyl)alkyl(C8‐C18)amine (FCM No 19) and N,N‐bis(2‐hydroxyethyl)alkyl(C8‐C18)amine hydrochlorides (FCM No 20) is still in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004, as provided for in Article 12(3). The FCM Panel concluded that some uses of the substance N,N‐bis(2‐hydroxyethyl)alkyl(C8‐C18)amine (FCM No 19) are not in accordance with this Regulation, since the migration is likely to exceed the current SML(T) of 1.2 mg/kg food under certain conditions of use. Based on the provided data, the FCM Panel concluded that the FCM substance No 19, N,N‐bis(2‐hydroxyethyl)alkyl(C8‐C18)amine, is not of safety concern for the consumer if (i) the substance is used at up to 0.1% w/w as polymer production aid and as processing aid to manufacture polyolefin materials and articles of thickness up to 1 mm that are intended for contact with all types of food except infant foods. This exception for infant foods and the restriction for maximum thickness do not apply to caps of bottles; (ii) the migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food; (iii) the source of the alkyl group is either from hydrogenated vegetable oil or synthetic from ethylene oligomers with a high degree of linear structure and (iv) the impurities do not exceed 5% w/w. As they bear unsaturation, PFAEO‐coco, PFAEO‐oleyl, PFAEO‐HT, PFAEO‐T and PFAO‐C18 do not fall within the scope of the FCM substance No 19. The information related to these substances was only considered supportive for FCM substance No 19. If they were intended to be used to manufacture FCMs, a proper application following the EFSA Guidance documents should be submitted. No uses of the FCM substance No 20, N,N‐bis(2‐hydroxyethyl)alkyl(C8‐C18)amine hydrochlorides, were claimed and no information was provided to support that the current authorisation is in accordance with the Regulation (EC) No 1935/2004.