Re-evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) as a food additive.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) when used as a food additive. It is obtained by catalytic hydrogenation of a flavanone - neohesperidine - which is naturally occurring and thus isolated by alcohol extraction in bitter oranges (Citrus aurantium). Based on in vivo data in rat, neohesperidine dihydrochalcone is likely to be absorbed, also in humans, and to become systemically available. It does not raise a concern regarding genotoxicity. The toxicity data set consisted of studies on subchronic and prenatal developmental toxicity. No human studies were available. The data set was considered sufficient to derive a new acceptable daily intake (ADI). Based on the weight of evidence (WoE) analysis, the Panel considered unlikely that neohesperidine dihydrochalcone would lead to adverse effects on health in animals in the dose ranges tested. The Panel also considered that a carcinogenicity study was not warranted and that the lack of human data did not affect the overall confidence in the body of evidence. The Panel derived an ADI of 20 mg/kg bodyweight (bw) per day based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 4,000 mg/kg bw per day from a 13-week study in rat, applying the standard default factors of 100 for inter- and intraspecies differences and of 2 for extrapolation from subchronic to chronic exposure. For the refined brand-loyal exposure assessment scenario, considered to be the most appropriate for the risk assessment, the exposure estimates at the mean ranged from < 0.01 to 0.09 mg/kg bw per day and at the 95th percentile (P95) from 0.01 to 0.24 mg/kg bw per day. Considering the derived ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day, the exposure estimates were below the reference value in all age groups. Therefore, the Panel concluded that dietary exposure to the food additive neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) at the reported uses and use levels would not raise a safety concern.

Safety assessment of titanium dioxide (E171) as a food additive.

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.

Review and priority setting for substances that are listed without a specific migration limit in Table 1 of Annex 1 of Regulation 10/2011 on plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with food.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) was requested by the European Commission to review the substances for which a Specific Migration Limit (SML) is not assigned in Regulation (EU) No 10/2011. These substances had been covered by the Generic SML of 60 mg/kg food, but with Regulation (EU) 2016/1416 it was removed, necessitating their re-examination. EFSA was requested to identify those substances requiring an SML to ensure the authorisation is sufficiently protective to health, grouping them in high, medium and low priority to serve as the basis for future re-evaluations of individual substances. The CEP Panel established a stepwise procedure. This took into account existing hazard assessments for each substance on carcinogenicity/mutagenicity/reprotoxicity (CMR), bioaccumulation and endocrine disruptor (ED) properties along with the use of in silico generated predictions on genotoxicity. Molecular weights and boiling points were considered with regard to their effect on potential consumer exposure. This prioritisation procedure was applied to a total of 451 substances, from which 78 substances were eliminated at the outset, as they had previously been evaluated by EFSA as food contact substances. For 89 substances, the Panel concluded that a migration limit should not be needed. These are in the lists 0 and 1 of the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), defined as substances for which an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) does not need to be established, along with substances that are controlled by existing restrictions and/or generic limits. Of the remaining 284 substances, 179 were placed into the low priority group, 102 were placed into the medium priority group and 3 were placed into the high priority group, i.e. salicylic acid (FCM No 121), styrene (FCM No 193) and lauric acid, vinyl ester (FCM No 436).