Flavouring Group Evaluation 413 (FGE.413): Naringenin

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of naringenin [FL-no: 16.132] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. No other substances with sufficient structural similarity have been identified in existing FGEs that could be used to support a read-across approach. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of [FL-no: 16.132] was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with naringenin, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The use of naringenin as a flavouring substance at added portions exposure technique (APET) exposure levels is unlikely to pose a risk for drug interaction. For the toxicological evaluation of naringenin, the Panel requested an extended one-generation toxicity study on naringenin, in line with the requirements of the Procedure and to investigate the consequence of a possible endocrine-disrupting activity. The Panel considered that changes in thymus weight, litter size, post-implantation loss and a consistent reduced pup weight in the high-dose F2 generation could not be dismissed and selected therefore, the mid-dose of 1320 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the parental males as the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of the study. The exposure estimates for [FL-no: 16.132] (31,500 and 50,000 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were above the threshold of toxicological of concern (TTC) for its structural class (III). Using the NOAEL of 1320 mg/kg bw per day at step A4 of the procedure, margins of exposure (MoE) of 1590 and 630 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. Based on the calculated MoEs, the Panel concluded that the use of naringenin as a flavouring substance does not raise a safety concern.

Flavouring group evaluation 419 (FGE.419): 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of 2-methyl-1-(2-(5-(p-tolyl)-1H-imidazol-2-yl)piperidin-1-yl)butan-1-one [FL-no: 16.134] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and is chemically synthesised. In food, it is intended to be used as a flavouring substance only in chewing gum. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL-no: 16.134] was estimated to be 45 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 28.4 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. [FL-no: 16.134] did not show genotoxicity in a bacterial reverse mutation test and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus assay. Based on the submitted toxicokinetic and metabolism data, it can be predicted that the flavouring substance is metabolised to innocuous products only. The Panel derived a lower confidence limit of the benchmark dose (BMDL) of 0.71 mg/kg bw per day for a 20% increase in the relative thyroid (including parathyroid) weight observed in a 90-day toxicity study in rats. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 887 and 374 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL-no: 16.134], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure, based on the intended use and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL-no: 16.134] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste and mouthwash is also not of safety concern.

Protocol for designing INVITES-IN, a tool for assessing the internal validity of in vitro studies

This protocol describes the design and development of a tool for evaluation of the internal validity of in vitro studies, which is needed to include the data as evidence in systematic reviews and chemical risk assessments. The tool will be designed specifically to be applied to cell culture studies, including, but not restricted to, studies meeting the new approach methodology (NAM) definition. The tool is called INVITES-IN (IN VITro Experimental Studies INternal validity). In this protocol, three of the four studies that will be performed to create the release version of INVITES-IN are described. In the first study, evaluation of existing assessment tools will be combined with focus group discussions to identify how characteristics of the design or conduct of an in vitro study can affect its internal validity. Bias domains and items considered to be of relevance for in vitro studies will be identified. In the second study, group agreement on internal validity domains and items of importance for in vitro studies will be identified via a modified Delphi methodology. In the third study, the draft version of the tool will be created, based on the data on relevance and importance of bias domains and items collected in Studies 1 and 2. A separate protocol will be prepared for the fourth study, which includes the user testing and validation of the tool, and collection of users' experience.

Soil properties influence the toxicity and availability of Zn from ZnO nanoparticles to earthworms

To develop models that support site-specific risk assessment for nanoparticles (NPs), a better understanding of how NP transformation processes, bioavailability and toxicity are influenced by soil properties is needed. In this study, the influence of differing soil properties on the bioavailability and toxicity of zinc oxide (ZnO) NPs and ionic Zn to the earthworm Eisenia fetida was investigated. Earthworms were exposed to ZnO_NPs and ionic Zn, between 100 and 4400 mg Zn/kg, in four different natural soils (organic matter content: 1.8-16.7%, soil pH: 5.4-8.3, representing sandy loam to calcareous soils). Survival and reproduction were assessed after 28 and 56 days, respectively. Zn concentrations in soil pore waters were measured while labile concentrations of Zn were measured using an in-situ dynamic speciation technique (diffusive gradient in thin films, DGT). Earthworm Zn tissue concentrations were also measured. Soil properties influenced earthworm reproduction between soil controls, with highest reproductive output in soils with pH values of 6-7. Toxicity was also influenced by soil properties, with EC₅₀s based on total Zn in soil ranging from 694 to >2200 mg Zn/kg for ZnO_NP and 277-734 mg Zn/kg for ionic Zn. Soil pore water and DGT measurements showed good agreement in the relative amount of Zn extracted across the four soils. Earthworms exposed to ZnO_NPs survived higher Zn concentrations in the soils and had higher tissue concentrations compared with ionic Zn exposures, particularly in the high organic content calcareous soil. These higher tissue concentrations in ZnO_NP exposed earthworm could have consequences for the persistence and trophic mobility of Zn in terrestrial systems and need to be further investigated to elucidate if there any longer-term risks associated with sustained input of ZnO_NP to soil.

Flavouring Group Evaluation 21 Revision 6 (FGE.21Rev6): thiazoles, thiophenes, thiazoline and thienyl derivatives from chemical groups 29 and 30

The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the flavouring substances 2,4-dimethyl-3-thiazoline [FL-no: 15.060] and 2-isobutyl-3-thiazoline [FL-no: 15.119] in Flavouring Group Evaluation 21 revision 6 (FGE.21Rev6). FGE.21Rev6 deals with 41 flavouring substances of which 39 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern when based on the MSDI approach. For [FL-no: 15.060 and 15.119], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.21. Genotoxicity data have been submitted for the supporting substance 4,5-dimethyl-2-isobutyl-3-thiazoline [FL-no: 15.032] evaluated in FGE.76Rev2. The concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out for [FL-no: 15.032] and for the structurally related substances [FL-no: 15.060 and 15.119], but not for aneugenicity. Therefore, the aneugenic potential of [FL-no: 15.060 and 15.119] should be investigated in studies with the individual substances. For [FL-no: 15.054, 15.055, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], (more reliable) information on uses and use levels is needed to (re)calculate the mTAMDIs in order to finalise their evaluation. Provided that information is submitted for [FL-no: 15.060 and 15.119] with respect to potential aneugenicity, that would allow evaluation of these substances through the Procedure, also for these two substances, more reliable data on uses and use levels would be required. Upon submission of such data, additional data on toxicity may become necessary for all seven substances. For [FL-no: 15.054, 15.057, 15.079 and 15.135], information on the actual percentages of stereoisomers in the material of commerce based on analytical data should be provided.

Scientific opinion on Flavouring group evaluation 216 revision 2 (FGE.216Rev2): consideration of the genotoxicity potential of α,β-unsaturated 2-phenyl-2-alkenals from subgroup 3.3 of FGE.19

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) 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). In FGE.216 and in FGE.216Rev1, the CEF Panel requested additional genotoxicity data on 2-phenylcrotonaldehyde [FL-no: 05.062], the representative for these five substances. New experimental data on [FL-no: 05.062] were provided and are evaluated in the present revision of FGE.216 (FGE.216Rev2). Based on the new data, the Panel concluded that, for all the five substances, the concerns for gene mutations and clastogenicity are ruled out by the negative results observed in an in vivo gene mutation assay and in an in vivo comet assay, respectively. In vitro, [FL-no: 05.062] induced micronuclei through an aneugenic mode of action. The available in vivo micronucleus studies were inconclusive and cannot be used to rule out potential aneugenicity of [FL-no: 05.062] in vivo. Therefore, the Panel compared the lowest concentration resulting in aneugenicity in vitro with the use levels reported for this substance. Based on this comparison, the Panel concluded that the use of the flavouring substance [FL-no: 05.062] at the reported use levels in several food categories would raise a concern for aneugenicity. Based on structural similarity, for the remaining four substances in this FGE [FL-no: 05.099, 05.100, 05.175 and 05.222], an aneugenic potential may also be anticipated. For these four substances, individual data are needed to establish whether they have aneugenic potential. Accordingly, it is currently not appropriate to assess any of these five substances through the Procedure for the evaluation of flavouring substances.

Scientific opinion on flavouring group evaluation 415 (FGE.415): (E)‐3‐benzo[1,3]dioxol‐5‐yl‐N,N‐diphenyl‐2‐propenamide

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance (E)‐3‐benzo[1,3]dioxol‐5‐yl‐N,N‐diphenyl‐2‐propenamide [FL‐no: 16.135] as a new flavouring substance, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The substance has not been reported to occur naturally and it is chemically synthesised. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food, but not intended to be used in beverages. The chronic dietary exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 780 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 480 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. [FL‐no: 16.135] did not show genotoxic effects in bacterial mutagenicity and mammalian cell micronucleus assays in vitro. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study in rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived a BMDL of 101 mg/kg bw per day from a 90‐day toxicity study. Based on this BMDL, adequate margins of exposure of 7,800 and 3,200 could be calculated for adults and children, respectively. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.135], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach, based on the intended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix B. The Panel further concluded that the combined exposure to [FL‐no: 16.135] from its use as a food flavouring substance and from its presence in toothpaste is also not of safety concern.

Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water content is estimated at 56 wt%, the total identified volatile fraction accounts for 28 wt% of the primary product, corresponding to 64% of the solvent‐free mass, while the unidentified fraction amounts to 16 wt% of the primary product. Analytical data provided for three batches demonstrated that their batch‐to‐batch‐variability was sufficiently low. However, for the batch used for the toxicological studies, there were substantial deviations in the concentration of nearly all the constituents compared to the other three batches. The dietary exposure of Prosmoke BW 01 was estimated to be between 6.2 and 9.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively, using SMK‐EPIC and SMK‐TAMDI. Using the FAIM tool, the 95th percentile exposure estimates ranged from 3.2 mg/kg bw per day for the elderly to 17.9 mg/kg bw per day for children. The Panel noted that furan‐2(5H)‐one is present in all batches of the primary product at an average concentration of 0.88 wt%. This substance was evaluated by the FAF Panel as genotoxic in vivo after oral exposure. The Panel considered that the (geno)toxicity studies available on the whole mixture were not adequate to support the safety assessment, due to limitations in these studies and because they were performed with a batch which may not be representative for the material of commerce. Considering that the exposure estimates for furan‐2(5H)‐one are above the TTC value of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day (or 0.15 μg/person per day) for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that Prosmoke BW 01 raises a concern with respect to genotoxicity.

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 63, Revision 4 (FGE.63Rev4): consideration of aliphatic secondary saturated and unsaturated alcohols, ketones and related esters evaluated by JECFA (59th and 69th meetings) structurally related to flavouring substances evaluated by EFSA in FGE.07Rev6

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 43 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 63 (FGE.63), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Twenty‐nine substances have already been considered in FGE.63 and its revisions ([FL‐no: 02.023, 02.099, 02.104, 02.136, 02.155, 02.252, 07.015, 07.069, 07.081, 07.099, 07.100, 07.101, 07.102, 07.114, 07.123, 07.151, 07.190, 07.240, 07.247, 07.249, 07.256, 09.281, 09.282, 09.657, 09.658, 09.923, 09.924, 09.925 and 09.936]). The remaining 14 flavouring substances have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.204Rev1 ([FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.177, 07.188 and 07.244]) and they are considered in this revision 4 of FGE.63. 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 43 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 for 43 flavouring substances. However, for 14 of these flavouring substances in the present revision and for 10 of the substances in the previous revision (FGE.63Rev3), the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes’ (mTAMDIs) values are equal to or above the TTCs for their structural classes (I and II). For 15 substances previously evaluated in FGE.63Rev3, use levels are still needed to calculate the mTAMDI estimates. Therefore, in total for 39 flavouring substances, more data on uses and use levels should be provided to finalise their safety evaluations.

A Kinetic Approach for Assessing the Uptake of Ag from Pristine and Sulfidized Ag Nanomaterials to Plants

Nanomaterials (NMs) are thermodynamically unstable by nature, and exposure of soil organisms to NMs in the terrestrial environment cannot be assumed constant. Thus, steady-state conditions may not apply to NMs, and bioaccumulation modeling for uptake should follow a dynamic approach. The one-compartment model allows the uptake and elimination of a chemical to be determined, while also permitting changes in exposure and growth to be taken into account. The aim of the present study was to investigate the accumulation of Ag from different Ag NM types (20 nm Ag⁰ NMs, 50 nm Ag⁰ NMs, and 25 nm Ag₂ S NMs) in the crop plant wheat (Triticum aestivum). Seeds were emerged in contaminated soils (3 or 10 mg Ag/kg dry soil, nominal) and plants grown for up to 42 d postemergence. Plant roots and shoots were collected after 1, 7, 14, 21, and 42 d postemergence; and total Ag was measured. Soil porewater Ag concentrations were also measured at each sampling time. Using the plant growth rates in the different treatments and the changing porewater concentrations as parameters, the one-compartment model was used to estimate the uptake and elimination of Ag from the plant tissues. The best fit of the model to the data included growth rate and porewater concentration decline, while showing elimination of Ag to be close to zero. Uptake was highest for Ag⁰ NMs, and size did not influence their uptake rates. Accumulation of Ag from Ag₂ S NMs was lower, as reflected by the lower porewater concentrations. Environ Toxicol Chem 2021;40:1861-1872. © 2021 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of SETAC.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 67, Revision 3 (FGE.67Rev3): consideration of 23 furan-substituted compounds evaluated by JECFA at the 55th, 65th, 69th and 86th meetings

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059] and 2-acetylfuran [FL-no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL-no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI-B [FL-no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL-no: 13.054] and [FL-no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B-side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2-acetylfuran and 2-pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL-no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 Revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3): furfuryl and furan derivatives with and without additional side-chain substituents and heteroatoms from chemical group 14

The Panel on Food additives and Flavourings of the EFSA was requested to update Flavouring Group Evaluation 13 using the Procedure as outlined in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000, to include an evaluation of the flavouring substances 2-ethyl-5-methylfuran [FL-no: 13.125] and 2-octylfuran [FL-no: 13.162]. FGE.13 revision 3 (FGE.13Rev3) deals with 26 flavourings substances of which 24 have been already evaluated to be of no safety concern. For [FL-no: 13.125] and [FL-no: 13.162], a concern for genotoxicity was raised in FGE.13Rev1. This concern could be ruled out based on new genotoxicity data on supporting substances in FGE.67Rev3. Subsequently, [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162] were evaluated, through a stepwise approach that integrates intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity, along the B-side of the Procedure, making use of a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. The Panel derived this BMDL from an oral subchronic toxicity study with the supporting substance 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059]. Using this BMDL, for [FL-no: 13.125 and 13.162], adequate margins of safety were calculated based on the MSDI approach. The Panel concluded that the 26 candidate substances in FGE.13Rev3 do not give rise to safety concerns at their levels of dietary intake, when estimated on the basis of the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce have been provided for all 26 substances. Data on uses and use levels are needed for [FL-no: 13.130]. For 21 flavouring substances [FL-no: 13.011, 13.102, 13.108, 13.113, 13.114, 13.122, 13.125, 13.127, 13.129, 13.132, 13.133, 13.135, 13.136, 13.139, 13.141, 13.143, 13.146, 13.149, 13.162, 13.178 and 13.185], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the TTC for their structural class and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

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

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.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 Revision 1 (FGE.204Rev1): consideration of genotoxicity data on representatives for 17 monounsaturated, aliphatic, α,β-unsaturated ketones and precursors from chemical subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of the flavouring substances from subgroup 1.2.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 204 (FGE.204). In the present revision of this FGE (FGE.204Rev1), the FAF Panel evaluated new data provided by Industry following a request from the former Panel on Food Contact materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel). This request followed from positive results in an in vitro micronucleus test for clastogenicity and a negative result, but with no proof of bone marrow exposure, in an in vivo micronucleus assay for the representative substance 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177]. Subsequently, the Industry submitted an in vivo comet assay which was considered equivocal in the liver. The study was repeated confirming that 7‐methyl‐3‐octenone‐2 [FL‐no: 07.177] did not induce primary DNA damage in the liver and duodenum. Based on the available data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity can be ruled out for [FL‐no: 07.177] and the 15 structurally related substances [FL‐no: 02.102, 02.193, 07.044, 07.048, 07.082, 07.104, 07.105, 07.106, 07.107, 07.121, 07.139, 07.187, 07.188, 07.244, 07.258] which can be evaluated through the Procedure for flavouring substances.

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

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.

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 71 Revision 1 (FGE.71Rev1): consideration of aliphatic, linear, α,β-unsaturated alcohols, aldehydes, carboxylic acids, and related esters evaluated by JECFA (63rd and 69th meeting) structurally related to flavouring substances evaluated in FGE.05Rev3

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 39 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 71 (FGE.71), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.71 [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. The remaining 30 substances [FL-no: 02.020, 02.050, 02.090, 02.112, 02.137, 02.156, 02.210, 05.037, 05.060, 05.070, 05.073, 05.076, 05.078, 05.102, 05.109, 05.150, 05.171, 05.179, 09.276, 09.277, 09.303, 09.385, 09.394, 09.395, 09.396, 09.397, 09.398, 09.399, 09.678 and 09.841] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and they are considered in this revision. 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 39 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, except for [FL-no: 08.073 and 09.235]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.054, 08.073, 08.123, 09.037, 09.156, 09.157, 05.158, 09.235, 09.239]. For two flavouring substances [FL-no: 02.020 and 05.076], the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake' (mTAMDI) estimates are above the TTC for their structural class I. Therefore, additional information on uses and use levels should be provided for these eleven substances in order to finalise their evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 Revision 2 (FGE.61Rev2): consideration of aliphatic acetals evaluated by JECFA (57th, 63rd and 68th meetings) structurally related to acetals evaluated by EFSA in FGE.03Rev2

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 12 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 61 (FGE.61), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Nine substances have already been considered in FGE.61 and FGE.61Rev1 [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037, 06.081]. The remaining three substances [FL-no: 06.025, 06.031 and 06.072] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and are considered in this revision 2 of FGE.61. 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 12 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 nine flavouring substances [FL-no: 06.001, 06.004, 06.005, 06.008, 06.009, 06.015, 06.028, 06.037 and 06.081], use levels are still needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake (mTAMDI) values in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation accordingly.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 215 Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1): seven α,β-unsaturated cinnamyl ketones from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 3.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 215, Revision 1 (FGE.215Rev1). In FGE.215, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out and requested in vivo data for the two representative substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.024] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030]. The Flavour Industry has provided additional genotoxicity studies for both representative substances [FL-no: 07.024] and [FL-no: 07.030]. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for the representative substance [FL-no: 07.024] and for the structurally related substances 4-phenylbut-3-en-2-ol [FL-no: 02.066] and 3-methyl-4-phenylbut-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.027] which can accordingly be evaluated through the Procedure in FGE.69. For the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030], the Panel concluded that [FL-no: 07.030] is aneugenic in vitro. For such substances, there is currently no agreed follow-up strategy to finalise their safety assessment. The Panel is aware that the EFSA Scientific Committee is going to address this issue and a statement clarifying the assessment of in vitro aneugenic substances is under preparation. The Panel concluded therefore that, for the time being, the representative substance 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)pent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.030] and the structurally related substances vanillylidene acetone [FL-no: 07.046] and 1-(4-methoxyphenyl)-4-methylpent-1-en-3-one [FL-no: 07.049] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. The Panel further concluded that 4-(2,3,6-trimethylphenyl)but-3-en-2-one [FL-no: 07.206] is to be considered as a stand-alone substance due to the presence of the methyl groups, therefore, in vitro genotoxicity data were requested for [FL-no: 07.206]. Industry communicated that the evaluation of [FL-no: 07.206] is not supported any longer, therefore additional data were not submitted.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 70, Revision 1 (FGE.70Rev1): consideration of aliphatic, linear, α,β-unsaturated, di- and trienals and related alcohols, acids and esters evaluated by JECFA (61st-68th-69th meeting)

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate 29 flavouring substances attributed to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 70 (FGE.70), using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Seven substances have already been considered in FGE.70 [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. The remaining 22 substances [FL-no: 02.049, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172, 09.947, 02.139, 02.153, 02.162, 02.188, 05.057, 05.064, 05.071, 05.084, 05.101, 05.108, 05.125, 05.127, 05.140, 05.141, 05.173 and 09.573] have been cleared with respect to genotoxicity in FGE.200Rev1 and FGE.203Rev2 and are considered in this revision. 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 29 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, except for [FL-no: 09.371 and 09.840]. For these two substances, data on the composition of the stereoisomeric mixture should be requested. Data on the identity and contents of secondary components should be requested for [FL no: 09.260]. Normal and maximum use levels should be provided for seven flavouring substances [FL-no: 08.085, 09.194, 09.260, 09.300, 09.371, 09.639 and 09.840]. For six flavouring substances [FL-no: 05.057, 05.058, 05.111, 05.120, 05.172 and 09.947] further information is required based on the comparison of the 'modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes' (mTAMDIs) with the TTCs. This includes more reliable data on use and use levels and then, if required, additional toxicological data.

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.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 210 Revision 3 (FGE.210Rev3): Consideration of genotoxic potential for α,β-unsaturated alicyclic ketones and precursors from chemical subgroup 2.4 of FGE.19

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 5 flavouring substances in Flavouring Group Evaluation 210 Revision 3 (FGE.210Rev3). In FGE.210, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids concluded that the genotoxic potential could not be ruled out for any of the flavouring substances. In FGE.210Rev1, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for eight substances [FL-no: 02.105, 07.007, 07.009, 07.011, 07.036, 07.088, 07.091 and 07.170]. In FGE.210 Rev2, the concern for genotoxic potential has been ruled out for allyl α-ionone [FL-no: 07.061]. In the present revision of FGE 210 (FGE.210Rev3), additional in vitro and in vivo data on the representative substance α-damascone [FL-no: 07.134] are evaluated. To investigate equivocal and positive results observed in in vitro micronucleus studies, an in vivo combined micronucleus (bone marrow) and comet assay (liver and duodenum) was performed. α-Damascone did not induce micronuclei in bone marrow and no primary DNA damage in duodenum; however, an increase in primary DNA damage was observed in liver. This positive result was attributed by the applicant to a high level of peroxides in the sample tested. Therefore, the comet assay was repeated with a new sample of α-damascone, confirming the negative results observed in duodenum, but equivocal results were observed in liver. Two additional in vivo comet assays in liver were performed in order to clarify the potential impact of peroxides on the obtained results from the genotoxicity testing. However, the materials studied in these tests were not suitable to establish the potential role of peroxides in the genotoxicity of α-damascone. The Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity cannot be ruled out for α-damascone [FL-no: 07.134] and the four structurally related substances [FL-no: 07.130, 07.225, 07.226 and 07.231].

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 501 (FGE.501): Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable)

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the product Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) [FL-no: 21.002] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 501 (FGE.501), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat-treated canola oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET) was calculated to be 0.402 and 0.252 mg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and for a 15-kg child, respectively. Based on exposure estimate and the results from the repeated-dose toxicity studies, a sufficient margin of safety could be calculated. However, the Panel noted that for six constituents of the flavouring there is an indication for genotoxicity. Therefore, these six substances have to be further considered. Until these evaluations have been finalised the safety of Grill flavour concentrate (vegetable) cannot be fully assessed.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3): consideration of genotoxicity data on alicyclic aldehydes with α,β‐unsaturation in ring/side‐chain and precursors from chemical subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of flavouring substances from subgroup 2.2 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 208 Revision 3 (FGE.208Rev3). In FGE.208Rev1, the Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) evaluated genotoxicity studies on the representative substance p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐al [FL‐no: 05.117], which was found to be genotoxic in vivo. The Panel concluded that there was a potential safety concern for the nine substances in this FGE that were all represented by [FL‐no: 05.177]. Consequently, substance [FL‐no: 05.117], as well as four substances ([FL‐no: 05.121, 09.272, 09.899 and 09.900]), no longer supported by industry were deleted from the Union List. In FGE.208Rev2, the Panel assessed genotoxicity studies submitted on five flavouring substances [FL‐no: 02.060, 02.091, 05.106, 09.278 and 09.302] and concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for these substances, except from myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106] for which the available data were considered equivocal. Thus, industry provided additional genotoxicity studies (a bacterial reverse mutation assay and a combined in vivo bone marrow erythrocytes micronucleus test and Comet assay in liver and duodenum) for this substance which were evaluated in the present opinion, FGE.208Rev3. Based on these new data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity could be ruled out for myrtenal [FL‐no: 05.106]. Subsequently, this substance can be evaluated through the Procedure.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 Revision 2 (FGE.217Rev2), consideration of genotoxic potential for α,β-unsaturated ketones and precursors from chemical subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19: lactones

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to evaluate the genotoxic potential of 12 flavouring substances from subgroup 4.1 of FGE.19 in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 217 (FGE.217). Based on experimental data, in previous versions of this FGE (FGE.217 and FGE217Rev1), for 6-methylcoumarin [FL-no: 13.012] and 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methylfuran-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.023] the concern for genotoxicity was ruled out. 6-Methylcoumarin was evaluated using the Procedure in FGE.80Rev1. For 5-ethyl-3-hydroxy-4-methylfuran-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.023] and the structurally related substance 3-hydroxy-4,5-dimethylfuran-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.030], no further EFSA considerations were needed because these substances were evaluated by JECFA before 2000. Also based on experimental data, in FGE217Rev1, the concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out for furan-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.066] and 3,4-dimethyl-5-pentylidenefuran-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.042], which later substance represents the following flavourings: [FL-no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170]. In the current revision of this FGE (FGE217Rev2), based on the results of additional genotoxicity studies, the FAF Panel concluded that [FL-no: 10.066] is genotoxic in vivo. Therefore, furan-2(5H)-one [FL-no: 10.066] cannot be evaluated according to the Procedure. For [FL-no: 10.042] in order to rule out a concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact, the FAF Panel requests results from an in vivo comet assay in duodenum. In addition, [FL-no: 10.042] has also been identified as an aneugenic substance in vitro. Until the concern for clastogenicity at site of first contact for [FL-no: 10.042] and the concern for aneugenicity can be ruled out, this substance and [FL-no: 10.034, 10.036, 10.043, 10.046, 10.054, 10.057, 10.060 and 10.170] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411): 2‐(4‐methylphenoxy)‐N‐(1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yl)‐N‐(thiophen‐2‐ylmethyl)acetamide from chemical group 30 (miscellaneous substances)

EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2‐(4‐methylphenoxy)‐N‐(1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yl)‐N‐(thiophen‐2‐ylmethyl)acetamide [FL‐no: 16.133], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food but not intended to be used in beverages, except for milk and dairy based beverages that are opaque. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 225 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 142 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. A 90‐day oral gavage study in rats showed no adverse effects at doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.133], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach and based on the recommended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix  B. This conclusion does not apply for use in beverages where the substance can be subject to phototransformation.

Hypotheses and evidence related to intense sweeteners and effects on appetite and body weight changes: A scoping review of reviews

Observed associations between consumption of diet foods and obesity have sparked controversy over whether intense sweeteners may promote weight gain, despite their negligible energy contribution. We conducted a scoping review of reviews, to obtain an overview of hypotheses, research approaches and features of the evidence on intense sweeteners' potential relationships to appetite and weight changes. We searched for reviews of the scientific literature published from 2006 to May 2017. Two reviewers independently assessed title and abstracts, and full text publications. Arksey and O'Malley's framework for scoping reviews guided the process. We extracted and charted data on characteristics of the reviews and the evidence presented. The 40 included reviews present hypotheses both on how intense sweeteners can reduce or maintain body weight and on how these can promote weight gain. We classified only five publications as systematic reviews; another nine presented some systematic approaches, while 26 reviews did not describe criteria for selecting or assessing the primary studies. Evidence was often presented for intense sweeteners as a group or unspecified, and against several comparators (e.g. sugar, water, placebo, intake levels) with limited discussion on the interpretation of different combinations. Apart from the observational studies, the presented primary evidence in humans is dominated by small studies with short follow-up-considered insufficient to assess weight change. Systematic reviews of animal studies are lacking in this topic area. The systematic evidence only partly explore forwarded hypotheses found in the literature. Primary studies in humans seem to be available for systematic exploration of some hypotheses, but long-term experimental studies in humans appear sparse. With few exceptions, the reviews on intense sweeteners and weight change underuse systematic methodology, and thus, the available evidence. Further studies and systematic reviews should be explicit about the hypothesis explored and elucidate possible underlying mechanisms.

Scientific opinion on flavouring group evaluation 77, revision 3 (FGE.77Rev3): consideration of pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting) structurally related to pyridine, pyrrole, indole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by EFSA in FGE.24Rev2

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (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 JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6-methylquinoline [FL-no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 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 Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the Maximised Survey-derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. 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. For the following substances [FL-no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 74, Revision 4 (FGE.74Rev4): Consideration of aliphatic sulphides and thiols evaluated by JECFA (53rd and 61st meeting) structurally related to aliphatic and alicyclic mono-, di-, tri- and polysulphides with or without additional oxygenated functional groups from chemical group 20 evaluated by EFSA in FGE.08Rev5

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 (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of this FGE is on the assessment of recently submitted toxicity data on methyl propyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.020], being the representative for a group of seven additional flavouring substances: diallyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.009], dimethyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.013], dipropyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.023], methyl allyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.045], diallyl polysulfides [FL‐no: 12.074], methyl ethyl trisulfide [FL‐no: 12.155] and diisopropyl trisulphide [FL‐no: 12.280]. Specifications have been provided for all substances. The Panel decided that the 90‐day study submitted for [FL‐no: 12.020] can be considered only once it is clearly demonstrated that the material tested is representative of the material of commerce and that potential reaction products of the components are not of safety concern. Therefore, no conclusion on the safety of the eight flavouring substances [FL‐no: 12.009, 12.013, 12.020, 12.023, 12.045, 12.074, 12.155 and 12.280] can be reached. For 2‐methyl‐4‐oxopentane‐2‐thiol [FL‐no: 12.169] and 2‐mercapto‐2‐methylpentan‐1‐ol [FL‐no: 12.241], additional subchronic toxicity data are required. The remaining nine substances [FL‐no: 12.088, 12.179, 12.198, 12.212, 12.238, 12.239, 12.255, 12.257 and 12.291] in this FGE are not considered of safety concern under the intended conditions of use.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 406 (FGE.406): (S)-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the use of the substance (S)-1-(3-(((4-amino-2,2-dioxido-1H-benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin-5-yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin-1-yl)-3-methylbutan-1-one [FL-no: 16.129], as a flavouring substance. The substance is intended to be used in the form of its sodium salt as a flavour modifier in beverages. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] would not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity under conditions where it remains stable and does not undergo photodegradation. However, the data provided do not rule out genotoxicity for the degradation products. A 90-day toxicity study with [FL-no: 16.129] in rats showed no adverse effects at exposure up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No developmental toxicity was observed in rats at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. An adequate margin of safety was calculated for [FL-no: 16.129]. The Panel concluded that [FL-no: 16.129] and its sodium salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of intake. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier at levels up to those specified in beverages, but not to the degradation products that may be formed upon exposure to ultraviolet-A (UV-A) light. The conditions protecting [FL-no: 16.129] from photodegradation have not been adequately investigated. It is also unclear if degradation occurs in the absence of UV light. Based on the data provided, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of [FL-no: 16.129] when used as a flavour modifier.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 410 (FGE.410): 4',5,7-trihydroxyflavanone from chemical group 25 (phenol derivatives containing ring-alkyl, ring-alkoxy, and side-chains with an oxygenated functional group)

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4′,5,7‐trihydroxyflavanone or naringenin [FL‐no: 16.132], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 410 (FGE.410), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance occurs naturally in grapefruits, oranges and tomatoes. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance with flavour‐modifying properties in specific categories of food. Information on specifications and manufacturing of [FL‐no: 16.132] were considered adequate; however, data on stability in food are incomplete. The Panel noted that the available genotoxicity studies have significant shortcomings and are insufficient to conclude on the genotoxic potential of naringenin. Therefore, [FL‐no: 16.132] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. Additionally, the Panel noted that inhibition of CYP 450 by [FL‐no: 16.132] has been clearly demonstrated in animal species in vivo which implies that the substance may interact with the metabolism and elimination of medicines and no convincing information is available that this does not pose a risk to humans at the estimated levels of exposure. To continue with the safety assessment of [FL‐no: 16.132], a bacterial gene mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay (according to OECD guidelines 471, 487 and GLP) are required. Even if these studies do not indicate a genotoxic potential, additional toxicological data are needed to finalise the evaluation.

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 73, Revision 4 (FGE.73Rev4): consideration of alicyclic alcohols, aldehydes, acids and related esters evaluated by JECFA (59th and 63rd meeting) structurally related to primary saturated or unsaturated alicyclic alcohols, aldehydes, acids and esters evaluated by EFSA in FGE.12Rev5

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present revision of FGE.73 concerns the inclusion of four additional flavouring substances (p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐ol [FL‐no: 02.060], myrtenol [FL‐no: 02.091], p‐mentha‐1,8‐dien‐7‐yl acetate [FL‐no: 09.278] and myrtenyl acetate [FL‐no: 09.302]) evaluated by JECFA at the 59th meeting. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach integrating information on structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological thresholds of concern (TTC), and available data on metabolism and toxicity. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated 22 and one candidate substances via the A and the B‐side of the Procedure, respectively, and concluded for all substances ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ based on the maximised survey‐derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. The specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered. Adequate specifications, including complete purity criteria and identity data, are available for 22 out of the 23 JECFA substances evaluated in this FGE. For [FL‐no: 09.278], the stereoisomeric composition is not specified. For the six substances with [FL‐no: 02.060, 02.091, 09.034, 09.278, 09.302 and 09.712] evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For two substances [FL‐no: 09.034, and 09.712], the mTAMDI estimates were above the TTC for their structural class and more detailed information is needed to finalise their evaluation. For the remaining 17 substances evaluated through the Procedure, use levels are needed to calculate the mTAMDIs in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment in order to finalise the evaluation.

Safety of ethyl acrylate to be used as flavouring

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested by the European Commission according to Art. 29 1(a) of the Regulation (EC) No 178/2002 to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] when used as a flavouring substance. Ethyl acrylate [FL-no: 09.037] was evaluated in 2010 by EFSA in FGE.71 as a flavouring substance, based on the 2006 JECFA evaluation. The Panel concluded that ethyl acrylate was of no safety concern at estimated level of intake as flavouring substance based on the Maximised Survey-Derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. The Panel has evaluated the new literature available and any previous assessments performed by JECFA (2006) and EFSA (2010). Moreover, new data on the use levels of ethyl acrylate as flavouring substance have been provided. For use as flavouring substance, the chronic dietary exposure estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 3,545 μg/person per day for a 60-kg adult and 2,233 μg/person per day for a 15-kg 3-year-old child. Exposure from food contact materials may be up to 6,000 μg/person per day. The Panel considered that based on the available data, which covers all relevant genetic endpoints (i.e. gene mutations, structural and numerical chromosomal aberrations) there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity of ethyl acrylate. The Panel evaluated the available carcinogenicity studies conducted in rats and mice and agreed with the NTP evaluation (1998) concluding that the forestomach squamous cell papilloma and carcinoma observed in rodents were not relevant to humans. Additionally, there was no evidence of systemic toxicity in short-term and subchronic toxicity studies. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of ethyl acrylate as a flavouring substance, under the intended conditions of use.

Safety of benzophenone to be used as flavouring

Benzophenone [FL-no: 07.032] has been evaluated as a flavouring substance, in FGE.69, by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food in 2008. Benzophenone was evaluated also by JECFA (2011) and by IARC (2013) based on studies that were not considered in the EFSA opinion on FGE.69. Therefore, the Commission requested the CEF Panel to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of this flavouring substance. In the framework of the evaluation of benzophenone as a food contact material, the CEF Panel established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day (2009). In the present Opinion, the Panel considered the already existing evaluations by EFSA, JECFA, IARC and available literature data on benzophenone toxicity. Moreover, new data on the use levels of benzophenone as a flavouring substance have been provided. The Panel considers that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The Panel considers the endocrine activities of benzophenone and its metabolite 4-hydroxybenzophenone as weak and not directly related to the observed toxic effects including the neoplastic effects in rodents. The Panel confirms that the conservative approach taken by EFSA (2009) to derive a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg bw for benzophenone is appropriate to cover the non-neoplastic effects in the chronic toxicity studies and the neoplastic effects induced in the rodent carcinogenicity studies. The TDI is in the same order of magnitude as the chronic dietary exposure of adults and children to benzophenone (10-20 μg/kg bw per day) for the amount of added flavouring substance. The Panel considers that the calculated TDI and exposure estimate are based on conservative assumptions. The Panel concludes that there is no safety concern for benzophenone under the current condition of use as a flavouring substance.

Scientific opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 502 (FGE.502): grill flavour 'Grillin' 5078'

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin’ 5078 [FL‐no: 21.003] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 502, according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat‐treated high oleic sunflower oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a considerable amount of the non‐volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15‐kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still 12 substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time–temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin’ 5078 cannot be established.

Scientific opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 503 (FGE.503): grill flavour ‘Grillin’ CB‐200SF’

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin’ CB‐200SF [FL‐no: 21.004] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 503, according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat‐treated high oleic sunflower oil, and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a substantial amount of the non‐volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15‐kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still eight substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time–temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin’ CB‐200SF cannot be established.

Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 500 (FGE.500): rum ether

The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the European Food Safety Authority was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring rum ether [FL-no: 21.001] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 500 (FGE.500), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. Rum ether is a complex mixture of volatile substances obtained by distillation of the reaction products of pyroligneous acid and ethyl alcohol under oxidative conditions in the presence of manganese dioxide and sulfuric acid. A total of 84 volatile constituents have been reported by the applicant. It is a colourless liquid with a rum-like odour and flavour. Its major uses are in the food categories beverages, confectionery and baked goods. The Panel decided to apply a congeneric group-based approach. The 84 reported constituents were allocated to 12 congeneric groups, based on structural and metabolic similarity. For eight of the congeneric groups, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the intended conditions of use. However, the Panel concluded that substances in congeneric group 1 (ethanol and acetaldehyde) and congeneric group 12 (furan) are carcinogenic and genotoxic. The Panel also identified genotoxicity concerns for substances in congeneric group 3 (3-pentene-2-one). The exposure for congeneric group 10 (ethers of various structures) was above the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) applicable for this group, but a point of departure or health based guidance value that covers all the substances in this group could not be identified. The Panel concluded that according to the overall strategy for the risk assessment of flavouring substances, the presence of genotoxic substances as process-derived constituents of rum ether is of safety concern.

Extending standard testing period in honeybees to predict lifespan impacts of pesticides and heavy metals using dynamic energy budget modelling

Concern over reported honeybee (Apis mellifera spp.) losses has highlighted chemical exposure as a risk. Current laboratory oral toxicity tests in A. mellifera spp. use short-term, maximum 96 hour, exposures which may not necessarily account for chronic and cumulative toxicity. Here, we use extended 240 hour (10 day) exposures to examine seven agrochemicals and trace environmental pollutant toxicities for adult honeybees. Data were used to parameterise a dynamic energy budget model (DEBtox) to further examine potential survival effects up to 30 day and 90 day summer and winter worker lifespans. Honeybees were most sensitive to insecticides (clothianidin > dimethoate ≫ tau-fluvalinate), then trace metals/metalloids (cadmium, arsenic), followed by the fungicide propiconazole and herbicide 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D). LC₅₀s calculated from DEBtox parameters indicated a 27 fold change comparing exposure from 48 to 720 hours (summer worker lifespan) for cadmium, as the most time-dependent chemical as driven by slow toxicokinetics. Clothianidin and dimethoate exhibited more rapid toxicokinetics with 48 to 720 hour LC₅₀s changes of <4 fold. As effects from long-term exposure may exceed those measured in short-term tests, future regulatory tests should extend to 96 hours as standard, with extension to 240 hour exposures further improving realism.

An in vitro study on the genotoxic effect of substituted furans in cells transfected with human metabolizing enzymes: 2,5-dimethylfuran and furfuryl alcohol

2,5-Dimethylfuran (DMF) and furfuryl alcohol (FFA) are two substituted furans that are formed during the processing of foods and have also been used as food flavorings. DMF and FFA are proposed to be bioactivated by human sulfotransferases (SULTs) which are not expressed in conventional cell lines used for genotoxicity testing. Therefore, in addition to the standard V79 cell line, we used a transfected V79 derived cell line co-expressing human cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2E1 and human SULT1A1 to assess the genotoxicity of DMF and FFA. The alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) assay was used to detect DNA damage in the form of single strand breaks and alkali-labile sites after exposure to DMF (0.5h; 0.5, 1, 1.5 or 2mM) or FFA (3h; 1, 3, 6 or 15mM). DMF induced DNA damage in V79 cells in a concentration-dependent manner irrespective of the expression of human CYP2E1 and SULT1A1. Almost no increase in the level of DNA damage was detected after exposure to FFA, except for a weak effect at the highest concentration in the transfected cell line. The results suggest that DNA damage in V79 cells from exposure to DMF detected by the alkaline SCGE assay is independent of human CYP2E1 and SULT1A1, and the genotoxic effect of FFA, as assessed by SCGE, is minimal in V79 cells.

The food processing contaminant glyoxal promotes tumour growth in the multiple intestinal neoplasia (Min) mouse model

Glyoxal is formed endogenously and at a higher rate in the case of hyperglycemia. Glyoxal is also a food processing contaminant and has been shown to be mutagenic and genotoxic in vitro. The tumourigenic potential of glyoxal was investigated using the multiple intestinal neoplasia (Min) mouse model, which spontaneously develops intestinal tumours and is susceptible to intestinal carcinogens. C57BL/6J females were mated with Min males. Four days after mating and throughout gestation and lactation, the pregnant dams were exposed to glyoxal through drinking water (0.0125%, 0.025%, 0.05%, 0.1%) or regular tap water. Female and male offspring were housed separately from PND21 and continued with the same treatment. One group were only exposed to 0.1% glyoxal from postnatal day (PND) 21. There was no difference in the number of intestinal tumours between control and treatment groups. However, exposure to 0.1% glyoxal starting in utero and at PND21 caused a significant increase in tumour size in the small intestine for male and female mice in comparison with respective control groups. This study suggests that glyoxal has tumour growth promoting properties in the small intestine in Min mice.

Intestinal Tumor Development in C57BL/6J-ApcMin/+ Mice Expressing Human Sulphotransferases 1A1 and 1A2 After Oral Exposure to 2,5-Dimethylfuran

BACKGROUND

2,5-dimethylfuran (DMF) is formed during heating of foods. Following side chain hydroxylation, DMF could be a substrate for human sulphotransferases (SULTs), which may lead to formation of a DNA reactive electrophile. Only few conflicting in vitro and no in vivo studies on DMF currently exist.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The tumorigenic potential of DMF was studied in multiple intestinal neoplasia Apc(Min/+) (Min) mice that are sensitive to intestinal carcinogenesis and express hSULTs 1A1 and 1A2 (Min/hSULT). Min and Min/hSULT mice were orally exposed to DMF for six weeks.

RESULTS

The intestinal tumor development of untreated female Min/hSULT mice was significantly lower compared to that of untreated Min females. No such effects of hSULTs were seen in males. DMF had a weak tumorigenic potential in the colon of female Min/hSULT mice, but not in males. Tumor development in Min mice was not affected.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the tumorigenic potential of DMF in a metabolically competent mouse model was not convincing.

Genotoxicity of three food processing contaminants in transgenic mice expressing human sulfotransferases 1A1 and 1A2 as assessed by the in vivo alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis assay

The food processing contaminants 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP), 5-hydroxymethylfurfural (HMF) and 2,5 dimethylfuran (DMF) are potentially both mutagenic and carcinogenic in vitro and/or in vivo, although data on DMF is lacking. The PHIP metabolite N-hydroxy-PhIP and HMF are bioactivated by sulfotransferases (SULTs). The substrate specificity and tissue distribution of SULTs differs between species. A single oral dose of PhIP, HMF or DMF was administered to wild-type (wt) mice and mice expressing human SULT1A1/1A2 (hSULT mice). DNA damage was studied using the in vivo alkaline single cell gel electrophoresis (SCGE) assay. No effects were detected in wt mice. In the hSULT mice, PhIP and HMF exposure increased the levels of DNA damage in the liver and kidney, respectively. DMF was not found to be genotoxic. The observation of increased DNA damage in hSULT mice compared with wt mice supports the role of human SULTs in the bioactivation of N-hydroxy-PhIP and HMF in vivo.