Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive:Question No EFSA-Q-2008-223

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Quinoline Yellow (E 104). Quinoline Yellow has been previously evaluated by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 1975, 1978 and 1984, and the EU Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) in 1984. Both committees established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 0-10 mg/kg body weight (bw). Studies not evaluated by JECFA and the SCF included a chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase in rats and a study on behaviour in children by McCann et al. from 2007. The latter study concluded that exposure to a mixture of colours including Quinoline Yellow resulted in increased hyperactivity in 8- to 9-years old children. The Panel concurs with the conclusion from a previous EFSA opinion on the McCann et al. study that the findings of the study cannot be used as a basis for altering the ADI. The Panel notes that Quinoline Yellow was negative in in vitro genotoxicity as well as in long term carcinogenicity studies. The Panel concludes that the currently available database on semi-chronic, reproductive, developmental and long-term toxicity of Quinoline Yellow, including a study in rats not apparently taken into consideration by JECFA or the SCF, provides a rationale for re-definition of the ADI. Using the NOAEL of 50 mg/kg bw/day provided by the chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study with a reproductive toxicity phase carried out in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to this NOAEL, the Panel establishes an ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day. The Panel notes that at the maximum levels of use of Quinoline Yellow, refined intake estimates are generally well over the ADI of 0.5 mg/kg bw/day

New spaces of food justice

‘Food is fundamental to life’ (Sbicca 2012, 456) and this shared need establishes food as a site of potential for connective and convivial practices and relations. Yet, when we realise that more than one billion people are undernourished worldwide (Food Ethics Council 2010), despite the fact that the world produces enough food to feed billions more than the current global population of seven billion (Holt-Gimenez et al. 2012), the social, political, economic and environmental challenges posed by contemporary food systems start to become apparent. Given current global production levels – whether we agree with the social and environmental implications of these or not – it is clear that malnutrition rates worldwide are not simply an indicator of agricultural praxis but demonstrate the continued, broader social and structural issues of access, equity and justice. Recognising that many feel increasingly disenfranchised from formal political representation, marginalised by a hegemonic neoliberal capitalism or disconnected from ‘healthy’ social or environmental relations, food offers an opportunity to re-engage individuals and society with critical questions and practices of justice because, as Allen (2008, 159) notes, ‘no other public issue is as accessible to people in their daily lives as that of food justice. Everyone – regardless of age, gender, ethnicity, or social class – eats. We are all involved and we are all implicated’. The multiplicity of ways in which we can engage with food – including growing, buying, eating, cooking, writing, processing, marketing, selling and watching – enacts its radical potential as a set of dynamic socio-material relations (Alkon 2013; Alkon et al. 2013) that can both conform to and subvert existing practices and understandings, enabling food to ‘speak’ to many different people in a range of different contexts. Although this multiplicity has its dangers (Heynen, Kurtz, and Trauger 2012), it also means that food matters and matters in complex and diverse ways: ‘It rallies people and it often induces unexpected changes in society’ (Van der Ploeg 2013, 999)

The Hunger Games

Governments and their international agencies (FAO, World Bank) conceive of the eradication of hunger and poverty as a worthy wish that will eventually be realized through economic growth. They also make great cosmetic efforts to present as good-looking trend pictures as they can. Citizens ought to insist that the eradication of severe deprivations is a human rights correlative duty that permits no avoidable delay. Academics ought to collaborate toward providing a systematic alternative monitoring of what progress has really been made against undernourishment and other povertyrelated deprivations

Scientific Opinion on the revised exposure assessment of steviol glycosides (E 960) for the proposed uses as a food additive

Following a request from the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) carried out an exposure assessment of steviol glycosides (E 960) from its use as a food additive, taking into account the proposed extension of uses. In 2010, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) adopted a scientific opinion on the safety of steviol glycosides (E 960) and established an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. Conservative estimates of exposure, both in adults and children, suggested that it is likely that the ADI would be exceeded at the maximum proposed use level. In 2011, EFSA carried out a revised exposure assessment for steviol glycosides based on revised proposed uses and concluded that high level dietary exposure in children may still exceed the ADI. The current refined exposure estimates are based on the currently authorised uses, the proposed extension, and the EFSA Comprehensive Food Consumption Database. The mean dietary exposure to steviol glycosides ranges from 0.1 mg/kg bw/day in adults and the elderly, to 2.4 mg/kg bw/day in toddlers. Estimates at the 95th percentile of exposure range from 0.3 to 4.3 mg/kg bw/day in the elderly and toddlers, respectively. The Panel concluded that dietary exposure to steviol glycosides is considerably lower than that in the previous exposure assessment. Overall, the revised exposure estimates for all age groups remain below the ADI, except for toddlers at the upper range of the high level (95th percentile) estimates, in one country. Moreover, the Panel noted that table top sweeteners may represent an important source of exposure and therefore a MPL with a numerical value, rather than quantum satis, would be preferable, to allow for a more precise estimation of the potential maximum level of exposure from table top sweeteners

Reasoned opinion on the modification of the existing MRLs for cyflufenamid in pome fruits, cucurbits (inedible peel) and gherkins

In accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, France, hereafter referred to as the evaluating Member State (EMS), received an application from the company Nisso Chemical Europe GmbH to modify the existing MRLs for the active substance cyflufenamid in pome fruit (quinces, medlar, loquat), cucurbits with inedible peel (pumpkins, watermelons) and gherkins. In order to accommodate for the intended uses of cyflufenamid, France proposed to raise the existing MRLs from the limit of quantification of 0.02 mg/kg to 0.05 mg/kg in pome fruit and gherkins and 0.04 mg/kg in cucurbits with inedible peel. France drafted an evaluation report in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, which was submitted to the European Commission and forwarded to EFSA. According to EFSA the data are sufficient to derive a MRL proposal of 0.06 mg/kg for the intended use on quinces, medlar and loquat in France, 0.05 mg/kg for the intended use on pumpkins and watermelons in France and 0.08 mg/kg for the intended use on gherkins in France. Alternatively, the existing MRLs of 0.05 mg/kg on apples and pears and 0.04 mg/kg on melons, which were derived from the same residue data using the previous valid statistically-based calculation method, could be extrapolated to the whole group of pome fruit and cucurbits with inedible peel, respectively. Adequate analytical enforcement methods are available to control the residues of cyflufenamid in the commodities under consideration. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concludes that the proposed use of cyflufenamid on quinces, medlar, loquat, pumpkins, watermelons and gherkins will not result in a consumer exposure exceeding the toxicological reference values and therefore is unlikely to pose a public health concern

Checklists and Technical Guidelines to Combat Illegal, Unreported and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing

The purpose of this document is to aggregate the coastal, flag and port State responsibilities to combat IUU fishing contained in select international fisheries instruments within a single reference document. The responsibilities are presented as a checklist, in questionnaire format. The document aims to serve both as a reference document for professionals as well as an assessment tool for practitioners, in order to facilitate the identification of legal, policy, institutional and operational weaknesses at the national level when implementing coastal, flag and port State responsibilities to combat IUU fishing. This is the first volume in the series of “Checklists and technical guidelines to combat illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing”

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 213, Revision 1 (FGE.213Rev1): Consideration of genotoxic potential for α , β -Unsaturated Alicyclic ketones and precursors from chemical subgroup 2.7 of FGE.19. EFS

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 26 flavouring substances from subgroup 2.7 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 213. In the first version of FGE.213 the Panel concluded based on available genotoxicity data that a concern regarding genotoxicity could be ruled out for [FL-no: 07.047, 07.056, 07.057, 07.075, 07.076, 07.080, 07.117, 07.118, 07.119, 07.120 and 07.168], but for the remaining 15 substances in subgroup 2.7 further genotoxicity data were required. Based on new submitted genotoxicity data, the Panel concluded in FGE.213Rev1 that the concern regarding genotoxicity could be ruled out for 13 substances in subgroup 2.7 [FL-no: 02.106, 07.008, 07.010, 07.041, 07.083, 07.089, 07.108, 07.109, 07.127, 07.136, 07.200, 07.224 and 09.305] but not for maltol [FL-no: 07.014] and maltyl isobutyrate [FL-no: 09.525]

Minimising food waste: a call for multidisciplinary research

Food losses and waste has always been a significant global problem for mankind, and one which has become increasingly recognised as such by policy makers, food producers, processors, retailers, and consumers. It is however an emotive subject whereby the extent, accuracy, and resolution of available data on postharvest loss and waste is questionable such that key performance indicators on waste can be misinformed. The nature and extent of food waste differs amongst developed economies, economies in transition, and developing economies. Whilst most emphasis has been put on increasing future crop production, far less resource has been and is still channelled towards enabling both established and innovative food preservation technologies to reduce food waste while maintaining safety and quality. Reducing food loss and waste is a more tractable problem than increasing production in the short to medium term, as its solution is not directly limited, for instance, by available land and water resources. Here we argue the need for a paradigm shift of current funding strategies and research programmes which will encourage the development, implementation, and translation of collective biological, engineering, and management solutions to better preserve and utilise food. Such cross disciplinary thinking across global supply chains is an essential element in the pursuit of sustainable food and nutritional security. The implementation of allied technological and management solutions is reliant on there being sufficient skilled human capital and resource. There is currently a lack of robust postharvest research networks outside of the developed world, and insufficient global funding mechanisms which can support such interdisciplinary collaborations. There is thus a collective need for schemes which encourage inter-supply chain research, knowledge exchange and capacity building to reduce food losses and waste