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

Maged Younes, Gabriele Aquilina, Laurence Castle, Karl-Heinz Engel, Paul Fowler, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Peter Fürst, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Rainer Gürtler, Trine Husøy, Melania Manco, Peter Moldeus, Agneta Oskarsson, Sabina Passamonti, Romina Shah, Ine Waalkens-Berendsen, Detlef Wölfle, Matthew Wright, Romualdo Benigni, Claudia BolognesiKevin Chipman, Eugenia Cordelli, Gisela Degen, Daniel Marzin, Camilla Svendsen, Giorgia Vianello, Wim Mennes, EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)

Research output: Contribution to specialist publicationArticle

2 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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.
Original languageEnglish
Pagese06154
Number of pages49
Volume18
No.6
Specialist publicationEFSA Journal
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2020

Bibliographical note

Acknowledgments: The Panel wishes to thank the hearing experts Vibe Beltoft and Karin Nørby for the support provided to this scientific output.

Keywords

  • Flavourings
  • α
  • β-unsaturated carbonyls and precursors
  • FGE.91Rev2
  • JECFA

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this