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

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2013. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 216, Revision 1 (FGE.216Rev1). Consideration of genotoxic potential for α,β-unsaturated 2-Phenyl -2-Alkenals from Subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19

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 five flavouring substances from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19. In the Flavouring Group Evaluation 216 (FGE.216) additional genotoxicity data were requested. Additional genotoxicity studies have now been provided for the representative substance 2-phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.062]. Based on these new data the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requests a proof of sufficient systemic exposure of animals treated with 2-phenylcrotonaldehyde. Moreover, since the substance was genotoxic only without metabolic activation, it appears necessary to prove the absence of genotoxic effect locally in the gastro intestinal system using the Comet assay

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 74, Revision 3 (FGE.74Rev3): Consideration of Simple Aliphatic Sulphides and Thiols evaluated by the JECFA (53rd and 61st meeting) Structurally related to Aliphatic and Alicyclic Mono-, Di-, Tri-, and Polysulphides with or wi thout Additional Oxygenated Functional Groups from Chemical Group 20 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.08Rev5 (2012)

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 (the 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 19 simple aliphatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by the JECFA at the 53rd meeting in 1999 and the 61st meeting in 2003. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure-activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. For nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] considered in this FGE, the Panel concluded that they would pose “No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances” based on the MSDI approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered for the substances evaluated through the Procedure and for all nine substances, the information is adequate. Thus, the Panel concluded that nine substances [FL-no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] do not give rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. For 10 candidate substances in FGE.74Rev3 [FL-no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155, 12.169, 12.241 and 12.280] evaluated through the Procedure, the Panel concluded that additional toxicity data are required

A reassessment of risk associated with dietary intake of ochratoxin A based on a lifetime exposure model

Mycotoxins, such as ochratoxin A (OTA), can occur from fungal growth on foods. OTA is considered a possible risk factor for adverse renal effects in humans based on renal tumors in male rats. For risk mitigation. Health Canada proposed maximum limits (MLs) for OTA based largely on a comparative risk assessment conducted by Health Canada (Kuiper-Goodman et al., 2010), in which analytical data of OTA in foods were used to determine the possible impact adopting MLs may have on OTA risks. The EU MLs were used for comparison and resultant risk was determined based on age–sex strata groups. These data were reevaluated here to determine comparative risk on a lifetime basis instead of age strata. Also, as there is scientific disagreement over the mechanism of OTA-induced renal tumors, mechanistic data were revisited. On a lifetime basis, risks associated with dietary exposure were found to be negligible, even without MLs, with dietary exposures to OTA three to four orders of magnitude below the pivotal animal LOAEL and the TD05. Our review of the mechanistic data supported a threshold-based mechanism as the most plausible. In particular, OTA was negative in genotoxicity assays with the highest specificity and levels of DNA adducts were very low and not typical of genotoxic carcinogens. In conclusion, OTA exposures from Canadian foods do not present a significant cancer risk

EFSA CEF Panel (Panel on Food Contac t Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids , 2013. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 2 07 (FGE.2 07 )

International audienc