In preparation of receiving dossiers on food enzymes, in 2009, the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids published guidance on data requirements and methodologies foreseen in the risk assessment of food enzymes. Based on experiences gained in assessing submitted dossiers, the Panel noted that the Budget method, an approach originally designed to assess food additives, was not appropriate for the purpose of assessing food enzymes. Consequently, the Panel undertook the task of developing an alternative assessment methodology. The Panel recommends the use of actual food consumption data for the assessment of dietary exposure to food enzymes. Consequently, individual data reported in the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database will be used in the evaluation of food enzyme dossiers. It is envisaged that, during the evaluation of dossiers, a process‐based tool, based on summary statistics reported in the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, will be developed. As each process will require information on several input parameters, it is foreseen that the tool will be rolled out process‐by‐process over a period of time in collaboration with stakeholders.

The present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including data obtained with TiO 2 nanoparticles ( NP s) and data from an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity ( EOGRT ) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO 2 NP s < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO 2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO 2 NP s (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO 2 NP s, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO 2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico‐chemical properties of TiO 2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO 2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO 2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut‐off value for TiO 2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO 2 NP s. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP Panel) was asked by the European Commission to update its 2005 risk assessments of di-butylphthalate (DBP), butylbenzyl-phthalate (BBP), bis(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate (DEHP), di-isononylphthalate (DINP) and diisodecylphthalate (DIDP), which are authorised for use in plastic food contact material (FCM). Dietary exposure estimates (mean and high (P95)) were obtained by combining literature occurrence data with consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive Database. The highest exposure was found for DINP, ranging from 0.2 to 4.3 and from 0.4 to 7.0 lg/kg body weight (bw) per day for mean and high consumers, respectively. There was not enough information to draw conclusions on how much migration from plastic FCM contributes to dietary exposure to phthalates. The review of the toxicological data focused mainly on reproductive effects. The CEP Panel derived the same critical effects and individual tolerable daily intakes (TDIs) (mg/kg bw per day) as in 2005 for all the phthalates, i.e. reproductive effects for DBP (0.01), BBP (0.5), DEHP (0.05), and liver effects for DINP and DIDP (0.15 each). Based on a plausible common mechanism (i.e. reduction in fetal testosterone) underlying the reproductive effects of DEHP, DBP and BBP, the Panel considered it appropriate to establish a group-TDI for these phthalates, taking DEHP as index compound as a basis for introducing relative potency factors. The Panel noted that DINP also affected fetal testosterone levels at doses around threefold higher than liver effects and therefore considered it conservative to include it within the group-TDI which was established to be 50 lg/kg bw per day, expressed as DEHP equivalents. The aggregated dietary exposure for DBP, BBP, DEHP and DINP was estimated to be 0.9-7.2 and 1.6-11.7 lg/kg bw per day for mean and high consumers, respectively, thus contributing up to 23% of the group-TDI in the worst-case scenario. For DIDP, not included in the group-TDI, dietary exposure was estimated to be always below 0.1 lg/kg bw per day and therefore far below the TDI of 150 lg/kg bw per day. This assessment covers European consumers of any age, including the most sensitive groups. Based on the limited scope of the mandate and the uncertainties identified, the Panel considered that the current assessment of the five phthalates, individually and collectively, should be on a temporary basis. ):5838 related chronic hepatic and renal effects in rats was identified. An uncertainty factor of 100 was applied for deriving the TDI of 0.15 mg/kg bw per day for DINP.-For DIDP, a NOAEL of 15 mg DIDP/kg bw per day for liver effects in dogs wasidentified. An uncertainty factor of 100 was applied for deriving the TDI of 0.15 mg/kg bw per day for DIDP. 1 ECHA (2017a) used a factor of 3 (total UF 300) for the extrapolation from LOAEL to NAEL.The CEP Panel considers that the effect on the liver is still the most sensitive endpoint for these two phthalates. However, the possibility to establish HBGVs for re...

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80-90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes.

This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2017.EN-1224/full