The safety evaluation of food flavoring substances: the role of genotoxicity studies

Abstract

The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) Expert Panel relies on the weight of evidence from all available data in the safety evaluation of flavoring substances. This process includes data from genotoxicity studies designed to assess the potential of a chemical agent to react with DNA or otherwise cause changes to DNA, either in vitro or in vivo. The Panel has reviewed a large number of in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies during the course of its ongoing safety evaluations of flavorings. The adherence of genotoxicity studies to standardized protocols and guidelines, the biological relevance of the results from those studies, and the human relevance of these studies are all important considerations in assessing whether the results raise specific concerns for genotoxic potential. The Panel evaluates genotoxicity studies not only for evidence of genotoxicity hazard, but also for the probability of risk to the consumer in the context of exposure from their use as flavoring substances. The majority of flavoring substances have given no indication of genotoxic potential in studies evaluated by the FEMA Expert Panel. Examples illustrating the assessment of genotoxicity data for flavoring substances and the consideration of the factors noted above are provided. The weight of evidence approach adopted by the FEMA Expert Panel leads to a rational assessment of risk associated with consumer intake of flavoring substances under the conditions of use.

Revisiting the evidence for genotoxicity of acrylamide (AA), key to risk assessment of dietary AA exposure

“…The potential of an agent to damage DNA either directly by covalent binding or indirectly by otherwise altering its function and integrity commonly is referred to as genotoxic potential. The classical default position for regulatory authorities in cases of compelling evidence for genotoxicity was that there is no acceptable level of exposure (Gooderham et al 2020 ). A more refined evaluation of the associated health risk however not only evaluates data on the genotoxic hazard, but also potential exposure, the dose–response relationship, and the key mode(s) of action, with emphasis on realistic consumers exposure scenarios.…”

Soman-induced toxicity, cholinesterase inhibition and neuropathology in adult male Göttingen minipigs

“…In rats, exposure to GD has also been demonstrated to result in damage to the LGN region [ 38 , 52 ]. Interestingly, epidemiological studies of sarin-exposed human victims report persistent visual impairment, yet animal models to date have not modelled these visual effects [ 32 ]. Damage to the visual system (optic tract, LGN, and optic nerve of the superior colliculus) is also observed in rodent blast models [ 28 ] as well as in humans exposed to blast [ 24 ].…”

Natural Bioactive Compounds from Food Waste: Toxicity and Safety Concerns

“…The genotoxicity evaluates the effect of the substances on the DNA, i.e., mutagenicity, and genotoxicity. It is known that genetic modification and germ cells are associated with severe health effects such as degenerative diseases and cancer, even occur at low exposure levels [ 103 ]. Furthermore, the alteration on the DNA may induce abortions, infertility, and/or heritable damage.…”