Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 200, Revision 1 (FGE.200 Rev.1): 74 α,β-unsaturated aliphatic aldehydes and precursors from chemical subgroup 1.1.1 of FGE.19

Food-Borne Chemical Carcinogens and the Evidence for Human Cancer Risk

Commonly consumed foods and beverages can contain chemicals with reported carcinogenic activity in rodent models. Moreover, exposures to some of these substances have been associated with increased cancer risks in humans. Food-borne carcinogens span a range of chemical classes and can arise from natural or anthropogenic sources, as well as form endogenously. Important considerations include the mechanism(s) of action (MoA), their relevance to human biology, and the level of exposure in diet. The MoAs of carcinogens have been classified as either DNA-reactive (genotoxic), involving covalent reaction with nuclear DNA, or epigenetic, involving molecular and cellular effects other than DNA reactivity. Carcinogens are generally present in food at low levels, resulting in low daily intakes, although there are some exceptions. Carcinogens of the DNA-reactive type produce effects at lower dosages than epigenetic carcinogens. Several food-related DNA-reactive carcinogens, including aflatoxins, aristolochic acid, benzene, benzo[a]pyrene and ethylene oxide, are recognized by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) as causes of human cancer. Of the epigenetic type, the only carcinogen considered to be associated with increased cancer in humans, although not from low-level food exposure, is dioxin (TCDD). Thus, DNA-reactive carcinogens in food represent a much greater risk than epigenetic carcinogens.

The role of endogenous versus exogenous sources in the exposome of putative genotoxins and consequences for risk assessment

The “totality” of the human exposure is conceived to encompass life-associated endogenous and exogenous aggregate exposures. Process-related contaminants (PRCs) are not only formed in foods by heat processing, but also occur endogenously in the organism as physiological components of energy metabolism, potentially also generated by the human microbiome. To arrive at a comprehensive risk assessment, it is necessary to understand the contribution of in vivo background occurrence as compared to the ingestion from exogenous sources. Hence, this review provides an overview of the knowledge on the contribution of endogenous exposure to the overall exposure to putative genotoxic food contaminants, namely ethanol, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, acrylamide, acrolein, α,β-unsaturated alkenals, glycation compounds, N-nitroso compounds, ethylene oxide, furans, 2- and 3-MCPD, and glycidyl esters. The evidence discussed herein allows to conclude that endogenous formation of some contaminants appears to contribute substantially to the exposome. This is of critical importance for risk assessment in the cases where endogenous exposure is suspected to outweigh the exogenous one (e.g. formaldehyde and acrolein).

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 7, Revision 6 (FGE.07Rev6): saturated and unsaturated aliphatic secondary alcohols, ketones and esters of secondary alcohols and saturated linear or branched‐chain carboxylic acids from chemical group 5

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 55 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 07 (FGE.07), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Fifty‐three substances have already been considered in FGE.07 and its revisions. This revision 6 includes two additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.201Rev2 (4‐methyl‐3‐hepten‐5‐one [FL‐no: 07.261]) and FGE.204Rev1 (non‐2‐en‐4‐one, [FL‐no: 07.187]). 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 the 55 substances gives rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the ‘Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. Normal and maximum use levels were available for all flavouring substances. For 52 substances, including the newly included substances [FL‐no: 07.187 and 07.261], their ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) estimates were above the TTC for their structural classes (I and II). Therefore, for these 52 flavouring substances, more detailed data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 72, Revision 2 (FGE.72Rev2): consideration of aliphatic, branched-chain saturated and unsaturated alcohols, aldehydes, acids and related esters evaluated by JECFA (61st, 68th and 69th meetings) and structurally related to flavouring substances in FGE.05Rev3

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 31 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 72 (FGE.72), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty-three substances have already been considered in FGE.72 and FGE.72Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.011, 02.012, 02.027, 02.029, 02.058, 02.076, 02.109, 05.020, 05.021, 05.124, 05.148, 05.169, 08.036, 08.044, 08.047, 08.055, 08.064, 08.070, 08.079, 09.273, 09.408, 09.931 and 16.001]). The remaining eight flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 05.114]) and FGE.201Rev2 ([FL-no: 02.174, 05.033, 05.090, 05.095, 05.105, 05.107 and 05.126]) and they are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.72. 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 31 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. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate for all 31 flavouring substances. For 21 substances, evaluated through the Procedure in the previous revision (FGE.72Rev1), no normal and maximum use levels are available. For four substances, the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) intake estimates are equal to ([FL-no: 05.090]) or above ([FL-no: 05.107, 05.105, 05.033]) the TTC for their structural class. Therefore, for these 25 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.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 5, Revision 3 (FGE.05Rev3): Branched- and straight-chain unsaturated aldehydes, dienals, unsaturated and saturated carboxylic acids and related esters with saturated and unsaturated aliphatic alcohols and a phenylacetic acid related ester from chemical groups 1, 2, 3, 5 and 15

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate 54 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 05 (FGE.05), using the Procedure as referred to in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. This Revision 3 includes 17 additional substances which have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 ([FL-no: 02.192, 02.231, 05.072, 05.144, 05.184, 05.189, 05.190, 05.191, 05.195, 09.247, 09.400, 09.866, 09.948]) and in FGE.203Rev2 ([FL-no: 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196]). 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 the 54 substances gives rise to safety concern at their levels of dietary intake, estimated on the basis of the 'Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake' (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of the flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate, except for 10 substances ([FL-no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.181, 09.329, 09.335, 09.379 and 09.637]) for which quantitative figures on the composition of stereoisomeric mixtures are missing and for [FL-no: 09.578] complete specifications should be provided. Normal and maximum use levels were not available for [FL-no: 08.072, 08.083, 08.101, 08.119, 08.120, 09.287, 09.326 and 09.578]. Except for flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.072, 05.081, 05.186, 05.194, 05.196, 09.934 and 09.942], more reliable intake data should be requested for all the 46 flavouring substances, for which use levels were submitted, as their modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) exposure estimates are above the threshold of concern for structural classes I and II. This would include more reliable intake data and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

Safety and efficacy of eight compounds belonging to different chemical groups when used as flavourings for cats and dogs

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 23 compounds belonging to different chemical groups. This opinion concerns eight out of the 23 compounds, which are currently authorised for use as flavours in food. The Panel concludes that the eight additives are safe for cats and dogs at the proposed use level: phenylmethanethiol [12.005] and benzyl methyl sulfide [12.077] at 0.05 mg/kg complete feed; 2‐pentylthiophene [15.096] at 0.1 mg/kg complete feed; tridec‐2‐enal [05.078] and 12‐methyltridecanal [05.169] at 0.5 mg/kg complete feed; 2,5‐dimethylphenol [04.019] at the 1 mg/kg complete feed; hexa‐2(trans),4(trans)‐dienal [05.057] at 1.5 mg/kg complete feed; 2‐ethyl‐4‐hydroxy‐5‐methyl‐3(2H)‐furanone [13.084] at 2.25 mg/kg complete feed. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the users when handling the additives. Since all eight compounds are used in food as flavourings, and their function in feed is essentially the same as that in food no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Safety and efficacy of 26 compounds belonging to chemical group 3 (α,β-unsaturated straight-chain and branched-chain aliphatic primary alcohols, aldehydes, acids and esters) when used as flavourings for all animal species and categories

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 26 compounds belonging to chemical group 3 (α,β-unsaturated straight-chain and branched-chain aliphatic primary alcohols, aldehydes, acids and esters). They are all currently authorised as flavours in food. The FEEDAP Panel was unable to perform the assessment of non-2(cis)-en-1-ol [02.112] in the absence of data on its purity. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that hex-2-en-1-ol [02.020], pent-2-en-1-ol [02.050], 2-dodecenal [05.037], nona-2,4-dienal [05.071], trans-2-nonenal [05.072], hex-2(trans)-enal [05.073], 2,4-decadienal [05.081], hepta-2,4-dienal [05.084], deca-2(trans),4(trans)-dienal [05.140], dodec-2(trans)-enal [05.144], hept-2(trans)-enal [05.150], non-2-enal [05.171], undec-2(trans)-enal [05.184], trans-2-octenal [05.190], trans-2-decenal [05.191], tr-2, tr-4-nonadienal [05.194], tr-2, tr-4-undecadienal [05.196], hex-2(trans)-enyl acetate [09.394] and hex-2-enyl butyrate [09.396] are safe at the proposed maximum use level of 5 mg/kg feed for all animal species; nona-2,6-dien-1-ol [02.049], trans-2, cis-6-nonadien-1-ol [02.231], nona-2(trans),6(cis)-dienal [05.058], nona-2(trans),6(trans)-dienal [05.172], allyl heptanoate [09.097] and allyl hexanoate [09.244] are safe at the proposed normal use levels of 1 mg/kg complete feed for all animal species. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of these compounds up to the highest safe levels in feed. In the absence of studies to assess the safety for the user, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the users when handling the additives. No environmental risk is foreseen for these compounds at the concentrations considered safe for the target species. Since the 25 compounds are used in food as flavourings and their function is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.