Interlaboratory validation of the ToxTracker assay: An in vitro reporter assay for mechanistic genotoxicity assessment.

ToxTracker is a mammalian cell reporter assay that predicts the genotoxic properties of compounds with high accuracy. By evaluating induction of various reporter genes that play a key role in relevant cellular pathways, it provides insight into chemical mode-of-action (MoA), thereby supporting discrimination of direct-acting genotoxicants and cytotoxic chemicals. A comprehensive interlaboratory validation trial was conducted, in which the principles outlined in OECD Guidance Document 34 were followed, with the primary objectives of establishing transferability and reproducibility of the assay and confirming the ability of ToxTracker to correctly classify genotoxic and non-genotoxic compounds. Reproducibility of the assay to predict genotoxic MoA was confirmed across participating laboratories and data were evaluated in terms of concordance with in vivo genotoxicity outcomes. Seven laboratories tested a total of 64 genotoxic and non-genotoxic chemicals that together cover a broad chemical space. The within-laboratory reproducibility (WLR) was up to 98% (73%-98% across participants) and the overall between-laboratory reproducibility (BLR) was 83%. This trial confirmed the accuracy of ToxTracker to predict in vivo genotoxicants with a sensitivity of 84.4% and a specificity of 91.2%. We concluded that ToxTracker is a robust in vitro assay for the accurate prediction of in vivo genotoxicity. Considering ToxTracker's robust standalone accuracy and that it can provide important information on the MoA of chemicals, it is seen as a valuable addition to the regulatory in vitro genotoxicity battery that may even have the potential to replace certain currently used in vitro battery assays.

Establishing a quantitative framework for regulatory interpretation of genetic toxicity dose-response data: Margin of exposure case study of 48 compounds with both in vivo mutagenicity and carcinogenicity dose-response data.

Quantitative relationships between carcinogenic potency and mutagenic potency have been previously examined using a benchmark dose (BMD)-based approach. We extended those analyses by using human exposure data for 48 compounds to calculate carcinogenicity-derived and genotoxicity-derived margin of exposure values (MOEs) that can be used to prioritize substances for risk management. MOEs for 16 of the 48 compounds were below 10,000, and consequently highlighted for regulatory concern. Of these, 15 were highlighted using genotoxicity-derived (micronucleus [MN] dose-response data) MOEs. A total of 13 compounds were highlighted using carcinogenicity-derived MOEs; 12 compounds were overlapping. MOEs were also calculated using transgenic rodent (TGR) mutagenicity data. For 10 of the 12 compounds examined using TGR data, the results similarly revealed that mutagenicity-derived MOEs yield regulatory decisions that correspond with those based on carcinogenicity-derived MOEs. The effect of benchmark response (BMR) on MOE determination was also examined. Reinterpretation of the analyses using a BMR of 50% indicated that four out of 15 compounds prioritized using MN-derived MOEs based on a default BMR of 5% would have been missed. The results indicate that regulatory decisions based on in vivo genotoxicity dose-response data would be consistent with those based on carcinogenicity dose-response data; in some cases, genotoxicity-based decisions would be more conservative. Going forward, and in the absence of carcinogenicity data, in vivo genotoxicity assays (MN and TGR) can be used to effectively prioritize substances for regulatory action. Routine use of the MOE approach necessitates the availability of reliable human exposure estimates, and consensus regarding appropriate BMRs for genotoxicity endpoints.

Impact of sampling time on the detection of mutations in rapidly proliferating tissues using transgenic rodent gene mutation models: A review.

The OECD Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) for the Transgenic Rodent Gene Mutation Assay has undergone several revisions to update the recommended design for studying mutations in somatic tissues and male germ cells. The recently revised TG recommends a single sampling time of 28 days following 28 days of exposure (i.e., 28 + 28 days) for all tissues, irrespective of proliferation rates. An alternative design (i.e., 28 + 3 days) is appropriate when germ cell data is not required, nor considered. While the 28 + 28 days design is clearly preferable for slowly proliferating somatic tissues and germ cells, there is still uncertainty about the impact of extending the sampling time to 28 days for rapidly somatic tissues. Here, we searched the available literature for evidence supporting the applicability and utility of the 28 + 28 days design for rapidly proliferating tissues. A total of 79 tests were identified. When directly comparing results from both designs in the same study, there was no evidence that the 28 + 28 days regimen resulted in a qualitatively different outcome from the 28 + 3 days design. Studies with a diverse range of agents that employed only a 28 + 28 days protocol provide further evidence that this design is appropriate for rapidly proliferating tissues. Benchmark dose analyses demonstrate high quantitative concordance between the 28 + 3 and 28 + 28 days designs for rapidly proliferating tissues. Accordingly, our review confirms that the 28 + 28 days design is appropriate to assess mutagenicity in both slowly and rapidly proliferating somatic tissues, and germ cells, and provides further support for the recommended design in the recently adopted TG 488.

Occupational exposure to hexavalent chromium. Part II. Hazard assessment of carcinogenic effects.

Hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)) compounds have been studied extensively and several agencies have described their toxicological profile. In the past, personnel of the Dutch Ministry of Defence may have been exposed to Cr(VI) during maintenance activities on NATO equipment. To investigate if this exposure may have caused irreversible adverse health effects, the Dutch National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM) summarized all available knowledge from previous evaluations. This information was complemented with a scoping review to retrieve new scientific literature. All scientific evidence was evaluated in workshops with external experts to come to an overview of irreversible adverse health effects that could be caused by occupational exposure to Cr(VI) compounds. This review provides the hazard assessment for occupational exposure to Cr(VI) and carcinogenic effects by integrating and weighting evidence provided by international agencies complemented with newly published studies. It was concluded that occupational exposure to Cr(VI) can cause lung cancer, nose and nasal sinus cancer in humans. Cr(VI) is suspected to cause stomach cancer and laryngeal cancer in humans. It is currently insufficiently clear if Cr(VI) can cause cancer of the small intestine, oral cavity, pancreas, prostate or bladder in humans.

Use of in vitro 3D tissue models in genotoxicity testing: Strategic fit, validation status and way forward. Report of the working group from the 7th International Workshop on Genotoxicity Testing (IWGT).

Use of three-dimensional (3D) tissue equivalents in toxicology has been increasing over the last decade as novel preclinical test systems and as alternatives to animal testing. In the area of genetic toxicology, progress has been made with establishing robust protocols for skin, airway (lung) and liver tissue equivalents. In light of these advancements, a "Use of 3D Tissues in Genotoxicity Testing" working group (WG) met at the 7th IWGT meeting in Tokyo in November 2017 to discuss progress with these models and how they may fit into a genotoxicity testing strategy. The workshop demonstrated that skin models have reached an advanced state of validation following over 10 years of development, while liver and airway model-based genotoxicity assays show promise but are at an early stage of development. Further effort in liver and airway model-based assays is needed to address the lack of coverage of the three main endpoints of genotoxicity (mutagenicity, clastogenicity and aneugenicity), and information on metabolic competence. The IWGT WG believes that the 3D skin comet and micronucleus assays are now sufficiently validated to undergo an independent peer review of the validation study, followed by development of individual OECD Test Guidelines.

Application of the adverse outcome pathway framework to genotoxic modes of action.

In May 2017, the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute's Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee hosted a workshop to discuss whether mode of action (MOA) investigation is enhanced through the application of the adverse outcome pathway (AOP) framework. As AOPs are a relatively new approach in genetic toxicology, this report describes how AOPs could be harnessed to advance MOA analysis of genotoxicity pathways using five example case studies. Each of these genetic toxicology AOPs proposed for further development includes the relevant molecular initiating events, key events, and adverse outcomes (AOs), identification and/or further development of the appropriate assays to link an agent to these events, and discussion regarding the biological plausibility of the proposed AOP. A key difference between these proposed genetic toxicology AOPs versus traditional AOPs is that the AO is a genetic toxicology endpoint of potential significance in risk characterization, in contrast to an adverse state of an organism or a population. The first two detailed case studies describe provisional AOPs for aurora kinase inhibition and tubulin binding, leading to the common AO of aneuploidy. The remaining three case studies highlight provisional AOPs that lead to chromosome breakage or mutation via indirect DNA interaction (inhibition of topoisomerase II, production of cellular reactive oxygen species, and inhibition of DNA synthesis). These case studies serve as starting points for genotoxicity AOPs that could ultimately be published and utilized by the broader toxicology community and illustrate the practical considerations and evidence required to formalize such AOPs so that they may be applied to genetic toxicity evaluation schemes. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:114-134, 2020. © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

In utero Exposure to Genotoxicants Leading to Genetic Mosaicism: An Overlooked Window of Susceptibility in Genetic Toxicology Testing?

In utero development represents a sensitive window for the induction of mutations. These mutations may subsequently expand clonally to populate entire organs or anatomical structures. Although not all adverse mutations will affect tissue structure or function, there is growing evidence that clonally expanded genetic mosaics contribute to various monogenic and complex diseases, including cancer. We posit that genetic mosaicism is an underestimated potential health problem that is not fully addressed in the current regulatory genotoxicity testing paradigm. Genotoxicity testing focuses exclusively on adult exposures and thus may not capture the complexity of genetic mosaicisms that contribute to human disease. Numerous studies have shown that conversion of genetic damage into mutations during early developmental exposures can result in much higher mutation burdens than equivalent exposures in adults in certain tissues. Therefore, we assert that analysis of genetic effects caused by in utero exposures should be considered in the current regulatory testing paradigm, which is possible by harmonization with current reproductive/developmental toxicology testing strategies. This is particularly important given the recent proposed paradigm change from simple hazard identification to quantitative mutagenicity assessment. Recent developments in sequencing technologies offer practical tools to detect mutations in any tissue or species. In addition to mutation frequency and spectrum, these technologies offer the opportunity to characterize the extent of genetic mosaicism following exposure to mutagens. Such integration of new methods with existing toxicology guideline studies offers the genetic toxicology community a way to modernize their testing paradigm and to improve risk assessment for vulnerable populations. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:55-65, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.

Utility of a next generation framework for assessment of genomic damage: A case study using the industrial chemical benzene.

We recently published a next generation framework for assessing the risk of genomic damage via exposure to chemical substances. The framework entails a systematic approach with the aim to quantify risk levels for substances that induce genomic damage contributing to human adverse health outcomes. Here, we evaluated the utility of the framework for assessing the risk for industrial chemicals, using the case of benzene. Benzene is a well-studied substance that is generally considered a genotoxic carcinogen and is known to cause leukemia. The case study limits its focus on occupational and general population health as it relates to benzene exposure. Using the framework as guidance, available data on benzene considered relevant for assessment of genetic damage were collected. Based on these data, we were able to conduct quantitative analyses for relevant data sets to estimate acceptable exposure levels and to characterize the risk of genetic damage. Key observations include the need for robust exposure assessments, the importance of information on toxicokinetic properties, and the benefits of cheminformatics. The framework points to the need for further improvement on understanding of the mechanism(s) of action involved, which would also provide support for the use of targeted tests rather than a prescribed set of assays. Overall, this case study demonstrates the utility of the next generation framework to quantitatively model human risk on the basis of genetic damage, thereby enabling a new, innovative risk assessment concept. Environ. Mol. Mutagen. 61:94-113, 2020. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Environmental Mutagen Society.

In vivo genotoxicity testing strategies: Report from the 7th International workshop on genotoxicity testing (IWGT).

The working group reached complete or majority agreement on many issues. Results from TGR and in vivo comet assays for 91 chemicals showed they have similar ability to detect in vivo genotoxicity per se with bacterial mutagens and Ames-positive carcinogens. TGR and comet assay results were not significantly different when compared with IARC Group 1, 2 A, and unclassified carcinogens. There were significantly more comet assay positive responses for Group 2B chemicals, and for IARC classified and unclassified carcinogens combined, which may be expected since mutation is a sub-set of genotoxicity. A liver comet assay combined with the bone marrow/blood micronucleus (MNviv) test would detect in vivo genotoxins that do not exhibit tissue-specific or site-of-contact effects, and is appropriate for routine in vivo genotoxicity testing. Generally for orally administered substances, a comet assay at only one site-of-contact GI tract tissue (stomach or duodenum/jejunum) is required. In MNviv tests, evidence of target tissue exposure can be obtained in a number of different ways, as recommended by ICH S2(R1) and EFSA (Hardy et al., 2017). Except for special cases the i.p. route is inappropriate for in vivo testing; for risk evaluations more weight should be given to data from a physiologically relevant administration route. The liver MN test is sufficiently validated for the development of an OECD guideline. However, the impact of dosing animals >6 weeks of age needs to be evaluated. The GI tract MN test shows promise but needs more validation for an OECD guideline. The Pig-a assay detects systemically available mutagens and is a valuable follow-up to in vitro positive results. A new freeze-thaw protocol provides more flexibility. Mutant reticulocyte and erythrocyte frequencies should both be determined. Preliminary data are available for the Pig-a assay in male rat germ cells which require validation including germ cell DNA mutation origin.

A mode-of-action ontology model for safety evaluation of chemicals: Outcome of a series of workshops on repeated dose toxicity.

Repeated dose toxicity evaluation aims at assessing the occurrence of adverse effects following chronic or repeated exposure to chemicals. Non-animal approaches have gained importance in the last decades because of ethical considerations as well as due to scientific reasons calling for more human-based strategies. A critical aspect of this challenge is linked to the capacity to cover a comprehensive set of interdependent mechanisms of action, link them to adverse effects and interpret their probability to be triggered in the light of the exposure at the (sub)cellular level. Inherent to its structured nature, an ontology addressing repeated dose toxicity could be a scientific and transparent way to achieve this goal. Additionally, repeated dose toxicity evaluation through the use of a harmonized ontology should be performed in a reproducible and consistent manner, while mimicking as accurately as possible human physiology and adaptivity. In this paper, the outcome of a series of workshops organized by Cosmetics Europe on this topic is reported. As such, this manuscript shows how experts set critical elements and ways of establishing a mode-of-action ontology model as a support to risk assessors aiming to perform animal-free safety evaluation of chemicals based on repeated dose toxicity data.

Simulation of mouse and rat spermatogenesis to inform genotoxicity testing using OECD test guideline 488.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guideline (TG) 488 for the transgenic rodent (TGR) mutation assay recommends two sampling times for assessing germ cell mutagenicity following the required 28-day exposure period: 28 + > 49 days for mouse sperm and 28 + >70 days for rat sperm from the cauda epididymis, or three days (i.e., 28 + 3d) for germ cells from seminiferous tubules (hereafter, tubule germ cells) plus caudal sperm for mouse and rat. Although the latter protocol is commonly used for mutagenicity testing in somatic tissues, it has several shortcomings for germ cell testing because it provides limited exposure of the proliferating phase of spermatogenesis when mutations are fixed in the transgene. Indeed, analysis of sperm at 28 + 3d has generated negative results with established germ cell mutagens, while the analysis of tubule germ cells has generated both positive and either negative or equivocal results. The Germ Cell workgroup of the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute modelled mouse and rat spermatogenesis to better define the exposure history of the cell population collected from seminiferous tubules. The modelling showed that mouse tubule germ cells at 28 + 3d receive, as a whole, 42% of the total exposure during the proliferating phase. This percentage increases to 99% at 28 + 28d and reaches 100% at 28 + 30d. In the rat, these percentages are 22% and 80% at 28 + 3d and 28 + 28d, reaching 100% at 28 + 44d. These results show that analysis of tubule germ cells at 28 + 28d may be an effective protocol for assessing germ cell mutagenicity in mice and rats using TG 488. Since TG 488 recommends the 28 + 28d protocol for slow dividing somatic tissues, this appears to be a better compromise than 28 + 3d when slow dividing somatic tissues or germ cells are the critical tissues of interest.

Identifying germ cell mutagens using OECD test guideline 488 (transgenic rodent somatic and germ cell gene mutation assays) and integration with somatic cell testing.

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guideline 488 (TG 488) provides recommendations for assessing germ cell and somatic cell mutagenicity using transgenic rodent (TGR) models. However, important data gaps exist for selecting an optimal approach for simultaneously evaluating mutagenicity in both cell types. It is uncertain whether analysis of germ cells from seminiferous tubules (hereafter, tubule germ cells) or caudal sperm within the recommended design for somatic tissues (i.e., 28 days of exposure plus three days of fixation time, 28 + 3d) has enough sensitivity to detect an effect as compared with the analysis of sperm within the recommended design for germ cells (i.e., 28 + 49d and 28 + 70d for mouse and rat, respectively). To address these data gaps, the Germ Cell workgroup of the Genetic Toxicology Technical Committee of the Health and Environmental Sciences Institute reviewed the available TGR mutagenicity data in male germ cells, and, characterized the exposure history of tubule germ cells for different sampling times to evaluate its impact on germ cell mutagenicity testing using TG 488. Our analyses suggest that evaluating mutant frequencies in: i) sperm from the cauda epididymis at 28 + 3d does not provide meaningful mutagenicity data; ii), tubule germ cells at 28 + 3d provides reliable mutagenicity data only if the results are positive; and iii) tubule germ cells at 28 + 28d produces reliable positive and negative results in both mice and rats. Thus, the 28 + 28d regimen may provide an approach for simultaneously assessing mutagenicity in somatic tissues and germ cells from the same animals. Further work is required to support the 28 + 28d protocol for tissues other than slowly proliferating tissues as per current TG 488. Finally, recommendations are provided to guide the experimental design for germ cell mutagenicity data for regulatory submission, as well as other possible approaches to increase the reliability of the TGR assay.

Is current risk assessment of non-genotoxic carcinogens protective?

Non-genotoxic carcinogens (NGTXCs) do not cause direct DNA damage but induce cancer via other mechanisms. In risk assessment of chemicals and pharmaceuticals, carcinogenic risks are determined using carcinogenicity studies in rodents. With the aim to reduce animal testing, REACH legislation states that carcinogenicity studies are only allowed when specific concerns are present; risk assessment of compounds that are potentially carcinogenic by a non-genotoxic mode of action is usually based on subchronic toxicity studies. Health-based guidance values (HBGVs) of NGTXCs may therefore be based on data from carcinogenicity or subchronic toxicity studies depending on the legal framework that applies. HBGVs are usually derived from No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Levels (NOAELs). Here, we investigate whether current risk assessment of NGTXCs based on NOAELs is protective against cancer. To answer this question, we estimated Benchmark doses (BMDs) for carcinogenicity data of 44 known NGTXCs. These BMDs were compared to the NOAELs derived from the same carcinogenicity studies, as well as to the NOAELs derived from the associated subchronic studies. The results lead to two main conclusions. First, a NOAEL derived from a subchronic study is similar to a NOAEL based on cancer effects from a carcinogenicity study, supporting the current practice in REACH. Second, both the subchronic and cancer NOAELs are, on average, associated with a cancer risk of around 1% in rodents. This implies that for those chemicals that are potentially carcinogenic in humans, current risk assessment of NGTXCs may not be completely protective against cancer. Our results call for a broader discussion within the scientific community, followed by discussions among risk assessors, policy makers, and other stakeholders as to whether or not the potential cancer risk levels that appear to be associated with currently derived HBGVs of NGXTCs are acceptable.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411): 2-(4-methylphenoxy)-N-(1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-N-(thiophen-2-ylmethyl)acetamide from chemical group 30 (miscellaneous substances).

EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2-(4-methylphenoxy)-N-(1H-pyrazol-3-yl)-N-(thiophen-2-ylmethyl)acetamide [FL-no: 16.133], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food but not intended to be used in beverages, except for milk and dairy based beverages that are opaque. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 225 µg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 142 µg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. A 90-day oral gavage study in rats showed no adverse effects at doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL-no: 16.133], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach and based on the recommended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix  B. This conclusion does not apply for use in beverages where the substance can be subject to phototransformation.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 406 (FGE.406): (S)-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one.

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the use of the substance (S)-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one [FL-no: 16.129], as a flavouring substance. The substance is intended to be used in the form of its sodium salt as a flavour modifier in beverages. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] would not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity under conditions where it remains stable and does not undergo photodegradation. However, the data provided do not rule out genotoxicity for the degradation products. A 90-day toxicity study with [FL-no: 16.129] in rats showed no adverse effects at exposure up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No developmental toxicity was observed in rats at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. An adequate margin of safety was calculated for [FL-no: 16.129]. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] and its sodium salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of intake. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier at levels up to those specified in beverages, but not to the degradation products that may be formed upon exposure to ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light. The conditions protecting [FL-no: 16.129] from photodegradation have not been adequately investigated. It is also unclear if degradation occurs in the absence of UV light. Based on the data provided, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of [FL-no: 16.129] when used as a flavour modifier.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 74, Revision 4 (FGE.74Rev4): Consideration of aliphatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd and 61st meeting) structurally related to aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri- and polysulphides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups from chemical group 20 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.08Rev5.

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of this FGE is on the assessment of recently submitted toxicity data on methyl propyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.020], being the representative for a group of seven additional flavouring substances: diallyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.009], dimethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.013], dipropyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.023], methyl allyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.045], diallyl polysulfides [FL-no: 12.074], methyl ethyl trisulfide [FL-no: 12.155] and diisopropyl trisulphide [FL-no: 12.280]. Specifications have been provided for all substances. The Panel decided that the 90-day study submitted for [FL-no: 12.020] can be considered only once it is clearly demonstrated that the material tested is representative of the material of commerce and that potential reaction products of the components are not of safety concern. Therefore, no conclusion on the safety of the eight flavouring substances [FL-no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155 and 12.280] can be reached. For 2-methyl-4-oxopentane-2-thiol [FL-no: 12.169] and 2-mercapto-2-methylpentan-1-ol [FL-no: 12.241], additional subchronic toxicity data are required. The remaining nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] in this FGE are not considered of safety concern under the intended conditions of use.

Scientific opinion on flavouring group evaluation 77, revision 3 (FGE.77Rev3): consideration of pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting) structurally related to pyridine, pyrrole, indole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by EFSA in FGE.24Rev2.

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. For the following substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation.