Showing papers by "Sabina Passamonti published in 2020"

Anthocyanins: From plant pigments to health benefits at mitochondrial level.

Abstract: Anthocyanins are water-soluble pigments providing certain color for various plant parts, especially in edible berries. Earlier these compounds were only known as natural food colorants, the stabili...

Safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive: to expand the list of steviol glycosides to all those identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni

Abstract: The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of the proposed amendment of the specifications for steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive, in particular to expand the list of steviol glycosides to 60 steviol glycosides identified in the leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana Bertoni. With the existing specifications, the food additive must be comprised of not less than 95% of the 11 named steviol glycosides. The proposed change is to include all 60 steviol glycosides in the same limit value of 95% and this would allow the presence of up to 5% of impurities. FAF Panel considered that all steviol glycosides share the same metabolic fate, and therefore, the safety of 60 identified steviol glycosides can be based on read-across from toxicological data previously evaluated by EFSA and the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day will apply to all those steviol glycosides. However, according to the proposed change in specifications, there remains a small but not insignificant fraction of the additive that would be undefined and therefore cannot be evaluated by the Panel. The Panel concluded that the inclusion of the 60 steviol glycosides in the proposed specifications for steviol glycoside (E960) would not be of safety concern. However, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the proposed amendment to the specifications of steviol glycosides (E 960) as food additive if the purity assay value of not less than 95% for the total content of steviol glycosides is maintained.

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

Abstract: EFSA is re-evaluating the safety of food additives already permitted in the Union before 20 January 2009 and issuing scientific opinions on their safety in line with Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Acacia gum (E 414) was re-evaluated in 2017 by the former EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient sources added to Food (ANS). As follow-up to this assessment, the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of acacia gum (E 414) as carry-over in food for infants below 16 weeks of age belonging to food categories 13.1.1 (Infant formulae) and 13.1.5.1 (Dietary foods for infants for special medical purposes and special formulae for infants) and to address the issues already identified during the re-evaluation of the food additive when used in food for the general population. The process involved the publication of a call for data to allow the interested parties to provide the requested information to complete the risk assessment. Based on the analytical data submitted in response to this call, the Panel recommended to lower the limits in the specifications for toxic elements and identified the need for further specifications for aluminium, microbiological criteria and protein residues. The Panel noted that information was not provided for oxidising enzymes and recommended that oxidases and peroxidases should be inactivated during the manufacturing process. The interested parties did not submit toxicological, clinical and post-marketing surveillance data specific for the assessment of the safety of acacia gum (E 414) in infants below 16 weeks of age. However, taking the highest doses tested without adverse effects from the subchronic studies available from the previous re-evaluation and comparing them with the estimated exposure in infants, the margins of safety were large indicating that there is no reason for health concern.

Re‐evaluation of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive

Abstract: Acknowledgements: The Panel wishes to thank Claude Lambre, Esraa Elewa and Galvin Eyong 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.

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

Abstract: 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.

Re-evaluation of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives

Abstract: The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of Sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) as food additives. The Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) assigned these food additives together with other aluminium-containing food additives a provisional tolerable weekly intake (PTWI) of 7 mg aluminium/kg body weight (bw). In 2008, EFSA established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw per week. Sodium aluminium silicate was shown in rats to be absorbed to a limited extent at 0.12 ± 0.011%. The Panel considered that potassium aluminium silicate would be absorbed and become systemically available similarly to sodium aluminium silicate. No information on the physicochemical characterisation of sodium aluminium silicate and potassium aluminium silicate when used as food additives has been submitted and only very limited toxicological data were available for sodium aluminium silicate. Exposure to E 554 was calculated based on the reported use levels in food supplements. Exposure to aluminium from this use of E 554 was calculated to exceed the TWI for aluminium. Based on the data provided by interested business operators, the Panel considered that E 555 is not being used as a carrier, but as an inseparable component of 'potassium aluminium silicate-based pearlescent pigments'. The Panel calculated the regulatory maximum exposure to E 555 as a carrier for titanium dioxide (E 171) and iron oxides and hydroxides (E 172). Exposure to aluminium from this single use at the maximum permitted level could theoretically far exceed the TWI. Considering that only very limited toxicological data and insufficient information on the physicochemical characterisation of both food additives were available, the Panel concluded that the safety of sodium aluminium silicate (E 554) and potassium aluminium silicate (E 555) could not be assessed.

Human elastin-like polypeptides as a versatile platform for exploitation of ultrasensitive bilirubin detection by UnaG.

Abstract: A new, bifunctional recombinant protein was expressed as the fusion product of human elastin-like polypeptide (HELP) and the bilirubin-binding protein UnaG. The engineered product displays both the HELP-specific property of forming a functional hydrogel matrix and the UnaG-specific capacity of emitting green fluorescence upon ligand binding. The new fusion protein has been proven to be effective at detecting bilirubin in complex environments with high background noise. A cell culture model of the stress response, consisting of bilirubin released in the cell culture medium, was set up to assess the bilirubin-sensing properties of the functional matrix obtained by cross-linking the HELP moiety. Our engineered protein allowed us to monitor cell induction by the release of bilirubin in the culture medium on a nanomolar scale. This study shows that elastin-like protein fusion represents a versatile platform for the development of novel and commercially viable analytical and biosensing devices.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 69, Revision 1 (FGE.69Rev1): consideration of aromatic substituted secondary alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA (57th meeting), structurally related to aromatic ketones from chemical group 21 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.16Rev2.

Abstract: Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 35 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 69 (FGE.69), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Thirty‐two substances have already been considered in FGE.69 [FL‐no: 02.033, 02.034, 02.036, 02.064, 02.065, 02.080, 07.004, 07.013, 07.022, 07.023, 07.025, 07.026, 07.028, 07.029, 07.032, 07.038, 07.040, 07.042, 07.070, 07.079, 07.086, 07.087, 09.144, 09.178, 09.179, 09.189, 09.200, 09.231, 09.249, 09.476, 09.486 and 09.501]. The remaining three substances [FL‐no: 02.066, 07.024 and 07.027] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.215Rev1 and are considered in this revision FGE.69Rev1. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach, namely the Procedure, that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel considered that for 33 flavouring substances evaluated through the Procedure the specifications are adequate and the Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ when based on the MSDI approach. For two flavouring substances [FL‐no: 07.038 and 07.042], there is insufficient information on their chemical identity to reach a final conclusion. For six substances [FL‐no: 02.066, 07.013, 07.024, 07.028, 07.032 and 07.086], there is no concern when the exposure was estimated based on the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake’ (mTAMDI) approach. For 28 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly. For one substance [FL‐no: 07.027], more reliable data on uses and use levels are required in order to finalise the safety evaluation.

Opinion on the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (E 1450) 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.

Abstract: As a follow-up to the re-evaluation of starch sodium octenyl succinate (SSOS; E 1450), the Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to assess the safety of SSOS (E 1450) when used in food for infants below 16 weeks of age for food categories 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.1 and to address the data gaps identified during the re-evaluation of the SSOS (E 1450). The process involved the publication of a call for data. The Panel considered it feasible to amend the specifications based on the analytical evidence submitted. In the call for data, clinical trials were submitted to support the safe use in this age group. In addition, the report of a postnatal piglet study was provided. Due to the low internal validity of the clinical studies, the Panel concluded that a reference point could not be derived from them. The Panel noted that the uncertainty surrounding the results of the piglet study precludes deriving a reference point from this study. On the other hand, both data sources did not clearly indicate an adverse effect due to SSOS (E 1450). Given the available data, the Panel concluded that at use levels of SSOS in food for infants below 16 weeks within the range reported in the clinical studies (up to 2,725 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day), there is no indication for safety concern and reiterated the conclusion of the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) that there was no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI). When extrapolating this conclusion to the safety assessment of the food additive when used in food categories (FCs) 13.1.5.1 and 13.1.5.2 in food for infants above 16 weeks of age and young children, the Panel considered that there is no indication for safety concern also for these uses within the range reported in the clinical studies.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 91, Revision 3 (FGE.91Rev3): consideration of aliphatic, aromatic and α,β-unsaturated sulfides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd, 61st, 68th and 76th meetings), structurally related to substances in FGE.08Rev5

Abstract: The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 49 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 91 (FGE.91), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Forty‐four substances have been considered in FGE.91 and its revisions (FGE.91Rev1 and FEG.91Rev2). With regard to the remaining five flavouring substances considered in this revision 3 of FGE.91: two ([FL‐no: 12.065 and 12.079]) have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2; two ([FL‐no: 12.169 and 12.241]) were originally allocated to FGE.74Rev4 and one ([FL‐no: 12.304]) to FGE.08Rev5. The Panel considered the flavouring substance [FL‐no: 12.169] representative for the tertiary monothiols [FL‐no: 12.038, 12.085, 12.137, 12.138, 12.145, 12.252, 12.259, 12.241 and 12.304]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on the structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. The Panel concluded that none of these 49 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 49 flavouring substances. For five substances [FL‐no: 12.077, 12.162, 12.265, 12.267 and 17.036], evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.91Rev2, no normal and maximum use levels are available. For 10 substances [FL‐no: 12.065, 12.038, 12.079, 12.108, 12.139, 12.264, 12.274, 12.252, 12.284 and 12.304], the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 15 substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided in order to refine their exposure assessments and to finalise their safety evaluations.