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.
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.
The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance (E)‐3‐benzo1,3dioxol‐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.
The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of the substance 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde FL‐no: 05.229 as a new flavouring substance, in accordance ...with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. 2‐Hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde belongs to chemical group 23 (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000) and is structurally related to the hydroxy‐ and alkoxy‐ring substituted benzyl derivatives evaluated in FGE.52 and in FGE.20Rev4. The Panel considered the structural/metabolic similarity sufficient to evaluate the candidate substance following a group‐based approach according to the EFSA Guidance on the data required for the risk assessment of flavourings to be used in or on foods. The information provided on the manufacturing process, the composition and the stability of FL‐no: 05.229 was considered sufficient. From studies carried out with this substance, the Panel concluded that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. Based on QSAR evaluation of possible metabolism, and based on information from structurally related substances, various metabolic routes can be anticipated, which only result in the formation of innocuous metabolites. The exposure estimates for FL‐no: 05.229 (24 and 60 μg/person per day for children and adults, respectively) were below the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) for its structural class (I). Accordingly, toxicity studies are not required and the Panel concluded at step A3 of the Procedure that 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde is not of safety concern when used as a flavouring substance at the intended uses and use levels. Cumulative exposure estimates for 2‐hydroxy‐4‐methoxybenzaldehyde and three structurally related substances (2.4 and 6.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults and children, respectively) are above the TTC for structural class I, but below the ADI (acceptable daily intake) of 0‐10 mg/kg bw per day for vanillin, which is one of these structurally related substances. Therefore, the cumulative exposure to these four substances FL‐no: 05.015, 05.018, 05.229 and 09.749 also does not raise a safety concern.
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.
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.
Abstract Mesenchymal stem cells (MSC) as vehicles of therapeutic genes represent a unique tool to activate drugs within a neoplastic mass due to their property to home and engraft into tumours. In ...particular, MSC expressing the cytosine deaminase::uracil phosphoribosyltransferase (CD-MSC) have been previously demonstrated to inhibit growth of subcutaneous prostate cancer xenografts thanks to their ability to convert the non-toxic 5-fluorocytosine into the antineoplastic 5-fluorouracil. Since both the immune system and the tumour microenvironment play a crucial role in directing cancer progression, in order to advance towards clinical applications, we tested the therapeutic potential of this approach on animal models that develop autochthonous prostate cancer and preserve an intact immune system. As cell vectors, we employed adipose-tissue and bone-marrow MSC. CD-MSC toxicity on murine prostate cancer cells and tumour tropism were verified in vitro and ex-vivo before starting the preclinical studies. Magnetic Resonance Imaging was utilised to follow orthotopic tumour progression. We demonstrated that intravenous injections of CD-MSC cells, followed by intraperitoneal administration of 5-fluorocytosine, caused tumour regression in the transgenic adenocarcinoma of the mouse prostate (TRAMP) model, which develops aggressive and spontaneous prostate cancer. These results add new insights to the therapeutic potential of specifically engineered MSC in prostate cancer disease.
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.
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.
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.
PDF
