No abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed a new scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for the authorisation of flavourings to be used in or on foods. This guidance applies to applications for a new authorisation as well as for a modification of an existing authorisation of a food flavouring, submitted under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. It defines the scientific data required for the evaluation of those food flavourings for which an evaluation and approval is required according to Article 9 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. This applies to flavouring substances, flavouring preparations, thermal process flavourings, flavour precursors, other flavourings and source materials, as defined in Article 3 of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008. Information to be provided in all applications relates to: (a) the characterisation of the food flavouring, including the description of its identity, manufacturing process, chemical composition, specifications, stability and reaction and fate in foods; (b) the proposed uses and use levels and the assessment of the dietary exposure and (c) the safety data, including information on the genotoxic potential of the food flavouring, toxicological data other than genotoxicity and information on the safety for the environment. For the toxicological studies, a tiered approach is applied, for which the testing requirements, key issues and triggers are described. Applicants should generate the data requested in each section to support the safety assessment of the food flavouring. Based on the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the food flavouring and conclude whether or not it presents risks to human health and to the environment, if applicable, under the proposed conditions of use.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Derchia D.C. Plastics (EU register number RECYC258), which uses the Starlinger deCON technology. The input material is hot washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the SSP reactor (step 3) are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, pressure and residence time for steps 2 and 3, reduced gas flow rate for step 2 and gas volume/PET mass ratio for step 3. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Petecoflex (EU register number RECYC259), which uses the Starlinger deCON technology. The input material is hot washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the SSP reactor (step 3) are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, pressure and residence time for steps 2 and 3, reduced gas flow rate for step 2 and gas volume/PET mass ratio for step 3. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.

Glycerol esters of wood rosin (GEWR) (E 445) were re‐evaluated in 2018. On the toxicity database and given the absence of reproductive and developmental toxicity data, the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 12.5 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for GEWR (E 445) established by the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) in 1994 was considered temporary. The conclusions of the assessment were restricted to GEWR derived from Pinus palustris and Pinus elliottii and with a chemical composition in compliance with GEWR used in the toxicological testing. Following a European Commission call for data to submit data to fill the data gaps, the present follow‐up opinion assesses data provided by interested business operators (IBOs). Considering the technical data submitted by IBOs, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) recommended some modifications of the existing EU specifications for E 445, mainly a revision of the definition of the food additive and lowering the limits for toxic elements. Considering the available toxicological database evaluated during the re‐evaluation of E 445 by the ANS Panel in 2018, and the toxicological studies submitted by the IBOs, the Panel established an ADI of 10 mg/kg bw per day based on the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 976 mg/kg bw per day from the newly available dietary reproduction/developmental toxicity screening study in rats and applying an uncertainty factor of 100. Since GEWR from P. palustris and P. elliottii were tested in the toxicity studies considered to establish the ADI and in the absence of detailed information on the chemical composition (major constituents) in GEWR generated from other Pinus species, thus not allowing read across, the ADI is restricted to the GEWR (E 445) manufactured from P. palustris and P. elliottii. The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern for the use of GEWR (E 445), at either the maximum permitted levels or at the reported uses and use levels.