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

Vitamins and minerals: issues associated with too low and too high population intakes

There is an ongoing increase in the availability of foods fortified with micronutrients and dietary supplements. This may result in differing intakes of micronutrients within the population and perhaps larger differences in intakes. Insight into population micronutrient intakes and evaluation of too low or too high intakes is required to see whether there are potential problems regarding inadequacy or excessive intakes. Too low population intakes are evaluated against an estimated average requirement; potential too high population intakes are evaluated against a tolerable upper intake level (UL). Additional health effects, seriousness, and incidence of these health effects are not considered but these can be taken into account in a benefit-risk assessment. Furthermore, authorities would like to regulate food fortification and supplementation in such a way that most of the population is not at risk of potentially high intakes. Several models are available for estimating maximum levels of micronutrients for food fortification and dietary supplements. Policy makers and risk managers need to decide how to divide the ‘free space’ between food fortification and/or dietary supplements, while protecting populations from adverse health effects

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2013. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 93, Revision 1 (FGE.93Rev1)

International audienc

Healthy Start vitamins—a missed opportunity:findings of a multimethod study

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and provide a real-life view of the operation of the Healthy Start vitamins scheme. SETTING: The study took place in primary care and community settings that served rural, urban and ethnically diverse populations, in two sentinel sites: London, and Yorkshire and the Humber. An online consultation and stakeholder workshops elicited views from across England. PARTICIPANTS: 669 health and social care practitioners including health visitors, midwives, public health practitioners, general practitioners, paediatricians and support staff participated in focus group discussions (n=49) and an online consultation (n=620). 56 participants representing health and social care practitioners, policymakers, service commissioners, and voluntary and independent sectors took part in stakeholder workshops. METHODS: Three-phase multimethod study comprising focus group discussions, an online consultation and stakeholder workshops. Qualitative data were analysed thematically and quantitative data from the online survey were analysed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Study participants were concerned about the low uptake of Healthy Start vitamin supplements and the consequences of this for health outcomes for women and young children. They experienced Healthy Start vitamin distribution as logistically complex, requiring the time, resources and creative thinking of a range of local and regional practitioners from senior strategists to administrative support workers. In the light of this, many participants argued that moving to universal provision of vitamin supplements would be more cost-effective than the current system. CONCLUSIONS: There is consistency of views of health practitioners that the current targeted system of providing free vitamin supplements for low-income childbearing women and young children via the Healthy Start programme is not fulfilling its potential to address vitamin deficiencies. There is wide professional and voluntary sector support for moving from the current targeted system to provision of free vitamin supplements for all pregnant and new mothers, and children up to their fifth birthday

Policy masquerading as science: an examination of non-state actor involvement in European risk assessment policy for genetically modified animals

In 2013, at the request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) announced a new risk assessment policy: Guidance on the environmental risks of genetically modified (GM) animals (‘Guidance’). This policy specifies the issues to be addressed in future risk assessments for GM animals. EFSA is the European Commission's scientific arm, responsible for food-related risk assessment. EFSA relies heavily on independent experts and consults non-state actors. Employing expert interviews and documentary analysis, the article explores non-state actor involvement in a traditionally expert domain through a case study. Analysis of EFSA's consultation demonstrates the inability of non-state actors to influence policy. The article argues that despite international legal obligations to develop risk assessment policy, the European Commission failed to recognize the Guidance as policy. When policy masquerades as science, unjustified restrictions are placed on non-state actor involvement and value judgements are cloaked from public scrutiny

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 77, Revision 1 (FGE.77Rev1): Consideration of Pyridine, Pyrrole and Quinoline Derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting)

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 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by the JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional toxicity data have become available for isoquinoline [FL-no: 14.001], pyrrole [FL-no: 14.041] and 2-acetylpyrrole [FL-no: 14.047]. The toxicity data on 2-acetylpyrrole should also cover 2-propionylpyrrole [FL-no: 14.068]. Further, additional genotoxicity data on 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042] have become available. The Panel concluded that for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042], the new genotoxicity data did not clear the concern with respect to genotoxicity in vitro and accordingly the substance is not evaluated through the Procedure. For 18 substances [FL-no: 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 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 FGE, the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, “No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances” based on the MSDI approach. For three substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.045 and 14.046], additional toxicological data are still required. 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

EFSA CEF Panel (EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids), 2014. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 82, Revision 1 (FGE.82Rev1): Consideration of Epoxides evaluated by the JECFA (65 th meeting)

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 five epoxides evaluated by the JECFA at the 65th meeting in 2005. This revision is made due to inclusion of one additional substance, beta-ionone epoxide [FL-no: 07.170], cleared for genotoxicity concern and due to additional toxicity data have become available for beta-caryophyllene epoxide [FL-no: 16.043]. Since publication of FGE.82 one substance epoxy oxophorone [FL-no: 16.051] is no longer supported for use as flavouring substances in Europe by Industry and will therefore not be considered any further. 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 four substances [FL-no: 16.015, 16.018, 16.040 and 16.043] the Panel agreed with the JECFA conclusion, “No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances” based on the MSDI approach. For one substance [FL-no: 07.170] additional toxicity data are required. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and for four substances, the information is adequate; but for the substance [FL-no: 07.170] further information on stereoisomerism is required