Re-evaluation of erythritol (E 968) as a food additive.

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.

Guidance on protocol development for EFSA generic scientific assessments.

EFSA Strategy 2027 outlines the need for fit-for-purpose protocols for EFSA generic scientific assessments to aid in delivering trustworthy scientific advice. This EFSA Scientific Committee guidance document helps address this need by providing a harmonised and flexible framework for developing protocols for EFSA generic assessments. The guidance replaces the 'Draft framework for protocol development for EFSA's scientific assessments' published in 2020. The two main steps in protocol development are described. The first is problem formulation, which illustrates the objectives of the assessment. Here a new approach to translating the mandated Terms of Reference into scientifically answerable assessment questions and sub-questions is proposed: the 'APRIO' paradigm (Agent, Pathway, Receptor, Intervention and Output). Owing to its cross-cutting nature, this paradigm is considered adaptable and broadly applicable within and across the various EFSA domains and, if applied using the definitions given in this guidance, is expected to help harmonise the problem formulation process and outputs and foster consistency in protocol development. APRIO may also overcome the difficulty of implementing some existing frameworks across the multiple EFSA disciplines, e.g. the PICO/PECO approach (Population, Intervention/Exposure, Comparator, Outcome). Therefore, although not mandatory, APRIO is recommended. The second step in protocol development is the specification of the evidence needs and the methods that will be applied for answering the assessment questions and sub-questions, including uncertainty analysis. Five possible approaches to answering individual (sub-)questions are outlined: using evidence from scientific literature and study reports; using data from databases other than bibliographic; using expert judgement informally collected or elicited via semi-formal or formal expert knowledge elicitation processes; using mathematical/statistical models; and - not covered in this guidance - generating empirical evidence ex novo. The guidance is complemented by a standalone 'template' for EFSA protocols that guides the users step by step through the process of planning an EFSA scientific assessment.

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.

Re-evaluation of thaumatin (E 957) as food additive.

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.

Re-evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) as a food additive.

This opinion deals with the re-evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) when used as a food additive. The Panel followed the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain additives and considered that: adequate exposure estimates were available; the margin of safety (MOS)/margin of exposure (MOE) for arsenic was between 0.5-14 and 8.5 for lead; the exhaustions of the tolerable weekly intake (TWI) for cadmium would be 165%, 10% for mercury, whereas the exhaustion of the tolerable daily intake (TDI) for nickel would be 9%; the absorption is limited and part of polydextrose is fermented in the large intestine into short-chain fatty acids (SCFA); adequate toxicity data were available; there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity; no adverse effects were reported in subchronic studies in rats, dogs or monkeys nor in chronic or carcinogenicity studies in mice and rats at the highest doses tested of up 12,500 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and 15,000 mg/kg bw per day, respectively; the nephrocalcinosis in dogs given high doses of polydextrose was considered to be a treatment-related but a secondary effect related to diarrhoea, and hence not relevant for the risk assessment; no adverse effects were reported in reproductive or developmental toxicity studies in rats administered up to 10,000 mg polydextrose/kg bw per day, or in a developmental toxicity study in rabbits up to 1,818 mg/kg bw per day (the highest dose tested). Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for polydextrose (E 1200), and that there is no safety concern for the reported uses and use levels of polydextrose as a food additive. The Panel recommended that European Commission considers to lower the maximum limit for lead and to introduce limits for arsenic, cadmium and mercury in the EU specifications for polydextrose (E 1200), and to verify that polydextrose-N as a food additive (E 1200) is no longer marketed in the EU.

Re-evaluation of name of hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) as food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) when used as a food additive. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Hydrogenated poly-1-decene is of low acute toxicity and does not raise concern for genotoxicity. Toxicity and carcinogenicity, as well as reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, were not available; therefore, the Panel based the derivation of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) identified in the subchronic study in rats and established an ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day. Dietary exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario. Mean exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) from its use as a food additive ranged from no exposure in infants to 2.35 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) ranged from 0 mg/kg bw per day in infants and adults to 6.69 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The exposure estimates in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario did not exceed the ADI of 20 mg/kg bw per day for all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to hydrogenated poly-1-decene (E 907) does not raise a safety concern when used at the maximum permitted levels.

Re-evaluation of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201) and polyvinylpolypyrrolidone (E 1202) as food additives and extension of use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (E 1201).

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.

Letter to the editor regarding the article 'EFSA's toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?'

This letter is in response to a recent paper by Millstone and Dawson (2019) in which the authors criticise the re-evaluation of the high intensity sweetener aspartame in 2013 by the former EFSA's Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food, on the grounds that EFSA did not follow its own procedures for its risk assessment. Moreover, the authors claim that the appraisal of the available studies was asymmetrically more alert to putative false positives than to possible false negatives. In this letter it is shown that the methodology for collection and selection of the scientific information used as a basis for the aspartame risk assessment, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria applied were defined a priori and documented in the published opinion. Furthermore, the Panel applied a Weight-of-Evidence approach combined with an analysis of the biological relevance of the appraised and validated evidence for its analysis, integration and interpretation, followed by an uncertainty analysis. Finally, an analysis of the distribution of negative versus positive outcome of the studies in the context of reliability showed that the claim of bias in the scientific risk assessment of aspartame is not substantiated.

Re-evaluation of sulphuric acid and its sodium, potassium, calcium and ammonium salts (E 513, 514 (i), 514 (ii), 515 (i), 515 (ii), 516 and 517) as food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of sulphuric acid (E 513) and its sodium (E 514), potassium (E 515), calcium (E 516) and ammonium (E 517) salts when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Sulphuric acid and its sodium, potassium, calcium and ammonium salts (E 513, E 514, E 515, E 516, E 517) are authorised food additives in the EU, in accordance with Annex II and Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the refined estimated exposure non brand-loyal scenario, mean exposure ranged from 0.4 mg sulphate/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 35 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The high percentile of exposure ranged from 3 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in adolescents to 68 mg sulphate/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel considered sulphates of low acute toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The Panel noted that the exposure to sulphates at mean and 95th percentile in the non brand-loyal scenario as well as in the other scenarios, is far below the 300 mg/kg a dose that induced laxative effect in humans. Based on the toxicological database available, the Panel concluded that the exposure to sulphuric acid (E 513), sodium sulphate (E 514), potassium sulphates (E 515), calcium sulphate (E 516) and ammonium sulphate (E 517) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels and there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI).

Re-evaluation of benzyl alcohol (E 1519) as food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of benzyl alcohol (E 1519) when used as a food additive. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Benzyl alcohol (E 1519) is authorised as a food additive in the EU in accordance with Annex III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. The Panel considered benzyl alcohol of low acute toxicity with no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity and established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day based on a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 400 mg/kg bw per day from the carcinogenicity study in rats. The mean and high exposure estimates in the refined exposure scenarios were maximally 0.27 and 0.81 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers, respectively. The exposure estimates to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) were below the ADI of 4 mg/kg bw per day in all population groups. The Panel noted that also the exposure in the regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is below the ADI in all population groups. The Panel concluded that the exposure to benzyl alcohol (E 1519) does not raise a safety concern at the reported uses and use levels.

Re-evaluation of hydrochloric acid (E 507), potassium chloride (E 508), calcium chloride (E 509) and magnesium chloride (E 511) as food additives.

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of chlorides (E 507-509, E 511) as food additives. Chlorides are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. In the non- brand-loyal scenario, mean exposure to chlorides (E 507-509, E 511) as food additives ranged from 2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in the elderly to 42 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The 95th percentile of exposure ranged from 5 mg/kg bw per day in the elderly to 71 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. Chloride is an essential nutrient and after absorption is distributed to organs and tissues. The Panel considered chlorides 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 in rats following administration of magnesium chloride hexahydrate at 800 mg/kg bw per day. Some animal studies suggested a role of chloride in increasing blood pressure but based on the toxicological database available the Panel considered human data more appropriate to identify a level of chloride intake which does not raise a safety concern. The Panel identified a human dose of 40 mg chloride/kg bw per day as a reference value for the assessment. Mean levels of exposure in all age groups were below or at this reference value, which indicates no safety concern. In some age groups (toddlers, children and adolescents), the 95th percentile exposure estimates were slightly above this reference value. The Panel concluded that the exposure to chloride from hydrochloric acid and its potassium, calcium and magnesium salts (E 507, E 508, E 509 and E 511) does not raise a safety concern at the reported use and use levels.

Re-evaluation of carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) as food additives.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of the safety of food-grade carrageenan (E 407) and processes Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) used as food additives. Because of the structural similarities, the Panel concluded that processed Eucheuma seaweed can be included in the evaluation of food-grade carrageenan. Poligeenan (average molecular weight 10-20 kDa) has not been authorised as a food additive and is not used in any food applications. In its evaluation of carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a), the Panel noted that the ADME database was sufficient to conclude that carrageenan was not absorbed intact; in a subchronic toxicity study performed with carrageenan almost complying with the EU specification for E 407 in rats, the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) was 3,400-3,900 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the highest dose tested; no adverse effects have been detected in chronic toxicity studies with carrageenan in rats up to 7,500 mg/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested; there was no concern with respect to the carcinogenicity of carrageenan; carrageenan and processed Eucheuma seaweed did not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity; the NOAEL of sodium and calcium carrageenan for prenatal developmental dietary toxicity studies were the highest dose tested; the safety of processed Eucheuma seaweed was sufficiently covered by the toxicological evaluation of carrageenan; data were adequate for a refined exposure assessment for 41 out of 79 food categories. However, the Panel noted uncertainties as regards the chemistry, the exposure assessment and biological and toxicological data. Overall, taking into account the lack of adequate data to address these uncertainties, the Panel concluded that the existing group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) of 75 mg/kg bw per day should be considered temporary, while the database should be improved within 5 years after publication of this opinion.

Re-evaluation of stannous chloride (E 512) as food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of stannous chloride and stannous chloride dihydrate (E 512) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Stannous chloride is only permitted as food additives in one food category and no reply on the actual use level of stannous chloride (E 512) as a food additive and on its concentration in food was provided by any interested party. According to the Mintel's Global New Products Database (GNPD), stannous chloride was not labelled on any products in the EU nor in Norway. The regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario is based on the maximum permitted levels (MPLs) for stannous chloride (E 512), which is 25 mg Sn/kg. The mean exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) from its use as a food additive was below 1.3 µg Sn/kg body weight (bw) per day for all age groups. The 95th percentile of exposure to stannous chloride (E 512) ranged from 0.0 µg Sn/kg bw per day in all groups to 11.2 µg Sn/kg bw per day in adults. Absorption of stannous chloride from the gastrointestinal tract is low there is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. Gastrointestinal irritation was reported in humans after ingestion of a bolus dose of 40 mg Sn. The Panel concluded that stannous chloride (E 512) is of no safety concern in this current authorised use and use levels.

Re-evaluation of gellan gum (E 418) as food additive.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. Following the conceptual framework for the risk assessment of certain food additives re-evaluated under Commission Regulation (EU) No 257/2010, the Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Based on the reported use levels, a refined exposure of up to 72.4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in toddlers at the 95th percentile was estimated. Gellan gum is unlikely to be absorbed intact and would not be fermented by human intestinal microbiota. There is no concern with respect to carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. No adverse effects were reported in chronic studies at the highest doses tested in mice and rats (3,627 and 1,460 mg gellan gum/kg bw per day, respectively). Repeated oral intake up to 200 mg/kg bw per day for 3 weeks had no adverse effects in humans. The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for gellan gum (E 418), and that there is no safety concern at the refined exposure assessment for the reported uses and use levels of gellan gum (E 418) as a food additive. The Panel recommended to better define the specifications of gellan gum including the absence of viable cells of the microbial source and the presence of polyhydroxybutyrate (PHB), protein and residual bacterial enzymatic activities.

Evaluation of four new studies on the potential toxicity of titanium dioxide used as a food additive (E 171).

The European Commission requested EFSA to carry out a scientific evaluation on four studies on the potential toxicity of titanium dioxide (TiO2) used as a food additive (E 171) and to indicate whether they would merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The results of the Bettini et al. (2017) study did not provide enough justification for a new carcinogenicity study, but, should additional useful mechanistic information become available, this could be reconsidered in future. The new in vitro findings in the Proquin et al. (2017) study did not modify the conclusion on the genotoxicity of TiO2 as stated in the previous EFSA opinion of 2016 on the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive. The effects of engineered TiO2 nanoparticles reported by the Guo et al. (2017) study were of uncertain biological significance and therefore of limited relevance for the risk assessment of the food additive TiO2 (E 171). There was significant uncertainty in the risk assessment performed by Heringa et al. (2016), which did not include a weight of evidence analysis of the whole database. The Panel considered that the four studies evaluated, highlighted some concerns but with uncertainties, therefore their relevance for the risk assessment was considered limited and further research would be needed to decrease the level of uncertainties. Overall, three of the studies, reporting that TiO2 induced various effects in in vitro and in vivo models, may be useful for hazard identification of TiO2. In the fourth study by Heringa et al. (2016), numerous assumptions were made, which resulted in large uncertainty in their conclusion. Altogether, the Panel concluded that the outcome of the four studies did not merit re-opening the existing opinion of EFSA related to the safety of TiO2 (E 171) as a food additive.

Re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (E 445) as a food additive.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR, E 445) when used as a food additive. Regarding GEWR originating from Pinus palustris (longleaf pine) and Pinus elliottii (slash pine), based on the overall toxicity database, and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the Panel concluded that the current acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) as established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 should be temporary pending the provision of such data. This assessment is restricted to GEWR derived from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. The Panel concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand-loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the temporary ADI in any of the population groups from the use of GEWR (E 445) as a food additive at the reported use levels. For GEWR originating from Pinus halepensis and Pinus brutia, the Panel noted that concentrations of the fractions of 'glycerol monoesters', 'free resin acids' and 'neutrals', which are considered to be of particular toxicological relevance, are not known; therefore, the evaluation of chemical equivalence with GEWR originating from P. palustris (longleaf pine) and P. elliottii (slash pine) is not possible; no data on stability were available; no toxicological data were available. Therefore, the Panel concluded that a safety assessment of GEWR originating from P. halepensis and P. brutia could not be performed. The Panel recommended the European Commission to consider an update of the definition of GEWR (E 445) in the EU specifications. It should be indicated that GEWR (E 445) (i) contain, besides the mentioned glycerol di- and triesters, a residual fraction of glycerol monoesters, and (ii) contain residual free resin acids and neutrals (non-acidic other saponifiable and unsaponifiable substances).

Re-evaluation of propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) as a food additive.

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. The Panel noted that absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) data on propane-1,2-diol alginate gave evidence for the hydrolysis of this additive into propane-1,2-diol and alginic acid. These two compounds have been recently re-evaluated for their safety of use as food additives (EFSA ANS Panel, 2017, 2018). Consequently, the Panel considered in this opinion the major toxicokinetic and toxicological data of these two hydrolytic derivatives. No adverse effects were reported in subacute and subchronic dietary studies with propane-1,2-diol alginate. The available data did not indicate a genotoxic concern for propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) when used as a food additive. Propane-1,2-diol alginate, alginic acid and propane-1,2-diol were not of concern with respect to carcinogenicity. The Panel considered that any adverse effect of propane-1,2-diol alginate would be due to propane-1,2-diol. Therefore, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of the food additive E 405 is determined by the amount of free propane-1,2-diol and the propane-1,2-diol released from the food additive after hydrolysis. According to the EU specification, the concentration of free and bound propane-1,2-diol amounts to a maximum of 45% on a weight basis. On the worst-case assumption that 100% of propane-1,2-diol would be systemically available and considering the ADI for propane-1,2-diol of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, the Panel allocated an ADI of 55 mg/kg bw per day for propane-1,2-diol alginate. The Panel concluded that exposure estimates did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane-1,2-diol alginate (E 405) as a food additive. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the authorised use levels.

Re-evaluation of aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate (E 541) as food additives.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are permitted as food additives in only a few specific products and the exposure is probably near zero. Aluminium compounds have low bioavailability and low acute toxicity. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. The no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) for aluminium compounds in subchronic studies was 52 mg Al/kg body weight (bw) per day in rats and 90 mg Al/kg bw per day in dogs and the lowest NOAEL for neurotoxicity in rats was 30 mg Al/kg bw per day and for developing nervous system was 10-42 mg Al/kg bw per day in studies in mice and rats. The Panel concluded that aluminium sulphates (E 520-523) and sodium aluminium phosphate, acidic (E 541) are of no safety concern in the current authorised uses and use levels.

Re-evaluation of sodium ferrocyanide (E 535), potassium ferrocyanide (E 536) and calcium ferrocyanide (E 538) as food additives.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of sodium ferrocyanide (E 535), potassium ferrocyanide (E 536), and evaluating the safety of calcium ferrocyanide (E 538) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Ferrocyanides (E 535-538) are solely authorised in two food categories as salt substitutes. To assess the dietary exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535-538) from their use as food additives, the exposure was calculated based on regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario (maximum permitted level (MPL)) and the refined exposure assessment scenario. Dietary exposure to ferrocyanides was calculated based on mean and high levels consumption of salts in both the regulatory maximum level and the refined scenario. In the MPL scenario, the exposure to ferrocyanides (E 535-538) from their use as a food additive was up to 0.009 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in children and adolescents. In the refined estimated exposure scenario, the exposure was up to 0.003 mg/kg bw per day in children and adolescents. Absorption of ferrocyanides is low and there is no accumulation in human. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. Reproductive studies were not available, but a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1,000 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day (highest dose tested) was identified from a prenatal developmental toxicity study. The kidney appeared to be the target organ for ferrocyanides toxicity and 4.4 mg sodium ferrocyanide/kg bw per day was identified as the NOAEL for the renal effects in a chronic (2-year) study in rats. Assuming that the toxicity of this compound is due to the ferrocyanide ion only, the Panel established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for sodium, potassium and calcium ferrocyanide of 0.03 mg/kg bw per day expressed as ferrocyanide ion. The Panel concluded that ferrocyanides (E 535-538) are of no safety concern at the current authorised use and use levels.

Re-evaluation of locust bean gum (E 410) as a food additive.

Following a request from European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) as a food additive. Locust bean gum (E 410) is an authorised food additive in the EU. Locust bean gum (E 410) as specified in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 is derived from the ground endosperm of the seeds of the strains of carob tree, Ceratonia siliqua (L.) Taub. (Family Leguminosae). An acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' was allocated by the Joint Food and Agriculture Organization/World Health Organization Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1981. Although not evaluated by the Scientific Committee for Food (SCF), it was accepted by the SCF in 1991 for use in weaning food, and in 1994, in infant formulae for special medical purposes. Locust bean gum is practically undigested, not absorbed intact, but significantly fermented by enteric bacteria in humans. No adverse effects were reported in 90-day toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in rodents at the highest doses tested and there was no concern with respect to the genotoxicity and to reproductive and developmental toxicity of locust bean gum (E 410). The Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical ADI for locust bean gum (E 410), and that there is no safety concern for the general population at the refined exposure assessment for its reported uses as a food additive. However, infants and young children consuming foods for special medical purposes may show a higher susceptibility to gastrointestinal effects of locust bean gum due to their underlying medical condition. The Panel concluded that the available data do not allow an adequate assessment of the safety of locust bean gum (E 410) in these foods for infants and young children.