Safety in use of glucosylated steviol glycosides as a food additive in different food categories

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. According to the applicant, glucosylated steviol glycosides preparations consist of not less than 95% (on anhydrous basis) total steviol glycosides, made up of glucosylated steviol glycosides of different molecular weights as well as any remaining steviol glycosides. The applicant proposed that glucosylated steviol glycosides and parent steviol glycosides undergo a common metabolic process in pathway following ingestion and suggested that data from steviol glycosides can be used for read‐across to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The limited evidence provided in the application dossier did not demonstrate the complete hydrolysis of the glucosylated steviol glycosides. No toxicological studies on glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations under evaluation have been provided for its assessment. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to assess the safety of the glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations to be used as a new food additive

Evaluation of di‐calcium malate, used as a novel food ingredient and as a source of calcium in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes

The present scientific opinion deals with the evaluation of the safety of di‐calcium malate (DCM) proposed as a novel food ingredient and as a source of calcium for use in foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and food for special medical purposes (FSMP), and with the bioavailability of calcium from this source. The structural formula of the proposed complex is based on expert judgement and not supported by any analytical data. On the basis of the available data, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient scientific evidence of a difference between the proposed novel food ingredient named as di‐calcium malate (DCM) and calcium malate already authorised as a source of calcium included in Annex II to Directive 2002/46/EC. Accordingly, the Panel was unable to assess the safety of DCM as a novel food ingredient. On the basis of the results provided, the Panel considered that DCM does not completely dissociate into calcium and malic acid. The Panel concluded that when DCM dissociates, calcium would be available following ingestion of DCM and the bioavailability would appear similar to values reported for other sources of calcium already permitted. Furthermore, the Panel concluded that on the basis of the information available it was not possible to calculate the exposure to DCM as a source of calcium to foods for the general population, food supplements, total diet replacement for weight control and FSMP

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

Safety of ethyl lauroyl arginate (E 243) as a food additive in the light of the new information provided and the proposed extension of use

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: Eleonora Alquati, Anna Christodoulidou and Fabiola Pizzo.Publisher PD

Opinion on the re-evaluation of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Publisher PD

Safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for enzymatically produced steviol glycosides (E 960c): Rebaudioside D produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications of enzymatically produced steviol glycosides (E 960c) with respect to the inclusion of rebaudioside D produced via enzyme-catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside D (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucosyltransferase (UGT) and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeast K. phaffii UGT-A, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The same enzymes from K. phaffii UGT-A may be used in the manufacturing process of the food additive, rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from stevia (E 960c(i)). The Panel considered that separate specifications would be needed for this food additive produced via the manufacturing process described in the current application, aligned with those already established for E 960c(i). The Panel concluded that there is no toxicological concern for Rebaudioside D produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP-glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase produced by a genetically modified strain of the yeast K. phaffii. However, based on the available data, the Panel could not exclude the possibility that some residual amount of DNA coding for the kanamycin resistance gene could remain in the final product. Should this gene propagate in microbiota due to the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product, this would be of concern. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of Rebaudioside D produced via this enzymatic bioconversion was not sufficiently demonstrated with the available data given that the absence of recombinant DNA was not shown

Safety evaluation of buffered vinegar as a food additive

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of buffered vinegar as a new food additive. Buffered vinegar is a liquid or dried product prepared by adding sodium/potassium hydroxides (E 524 to E 525) and sodium/potassium carbonates (E 500 to E 501) to vinegar, compliant with European Standard EN 13188:2000 and exclusively obtained from an agricultural source origin (except wood/cellulose). The primary constituents of buffered vinegar are acetic acid and its salts. No biological or toxicological data obtained with the proposed food additive were submitted by the applicant as part of the dossier as, following oral ingestion, buffered vinegar dissociates into the acetic anion and acetate a natural constituent of the diet, and of the human body for which extensive data on their biological effects exist and for which EFSA in 2013 has previously concluded that the establishment of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) is not considered necessary. At the proposed maximum/typical use levels, the mean exposure to buffered vinegar from its use as a food additive expressed as acetic acid equivalents ranged from 8.9 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day in infants to 280.3 mg/kg bw per day in children. The 95th percentile of exposure to buffered vinegar ranged from 27.9 mg/kg bw per day in infants to 1,078 mg/kg bw per day in toddlers. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of buffered vinegar as a food additive at the proposed maximum/typical use levels. The Panel could not conclude on the safety for the proposed uses at quantum satis as Group I food additive since the resulting exposure could not be estimated

Re-evaluation of Quillaia extract (E 999) as a food additive and safety of the proposed extension of use

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thanks the members of the former Working Group Application of the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources for the preparatory work on this scientific output and Fabiola Pizzo for the support provided to this scientific output. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Publisher PD

Opinion on the re-evaluation of ascorbyl palmitate (E 304i) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups

Publisher PD

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

Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank the following for the support provided to this scientific output: Ana Campos Fernandes, Laura Ciccolallo, Esraa Elewa, Galvin Eyong, Christina Kyrkou, Irene Munoz, Giorgia Vianello, the members of the SCER Cross-cutting WG nanotechnologies: Jacqueline Castenmiller, Mohammad Chaudhry, Roland Franz, David Gott, Stefan Weigel and the former member of the SCER Cross-cutting WG Genotoxicity Maciej Stepnik. The FAF Panel wishes to acknowledge all European competent institutions, Member State bodies and other organisations that provided data for this scientific output.Peer reviewedPublisher PD