Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for iron.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for iron. Systematic reviews were conducted to identify evidence regarding high iron intakes and risk of chronic diseases, adverse gastrointestinal effects and adverse effects of iron supplementation in infancy, young childhood and pregnancy. It is established that systemic iron overload leads to organ toxicity, but no UL could be established. The only indicator for which a dose-response could be established was black stools, which reflect the presence of large amounts of unabsorbed iron in the gut. This is a conservative endpoint among the chain of events that may lead to systemic iron overload but is not adverse per se. Based on interventions in which black stools did not occur at supplemental iron intakes of 20-25 mg/day (added to a background intake of 15 mg/day), a safe level of intake for iron of 40 mg/day for adults (including pregnant and lactating women) was established. Using allometric scaling (body weight0.75), this value was scaled down to children and adolescents and safe levels of intakes between 10 mg/day (1-3 years) and 35 mg/day (15-17 years) were derived. For infants 7-11 months of age who have a higher iron requirement than young children, allometric scaling was applied to the supplemental iron intakes (i.e. 25 mg/day) and resulted in a safe level of supplemental iron intake of 5 mg/day. This value was extended to 4-6 month-old infants and refers to iron intakes from fortified foods and food supplements, not from infant and follow-on formulae. The application of the safe level of intake is more limited than a UL because the intake level at which the risk of adverse effects starts to increase is not defined.

Scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level for selenium.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for selenium. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to identify evidence regarding excess selenium intake and clinical effects and potential biomarkers of effect, risk of chronic diseases and impaired neuropsychological development in humans. Alopecia, as an early observable feature and a well-established adverse effect of excess selenium exposure, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base a UL for selenium. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 330 µg/day is identified from a large randomised controlled trial in humans (the Selenium and Vitamin E Cancer Prevention Trial (SELECT)), to which an uncertainty factor of 1.3 is applied. A UL of 255 µg/day is established for adult men and women (including pregnant and lactating women). ULs for children are derived from the UL for adults using allometric scaling (body weight0.75). Based on available intake data, adult consumers are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high daily doses of selenium or regular consumers of Brazil nuts. No risk has been reported with the current levels of selenium intake in European countries from food (excluding food supplements) in toddlers and children, and selenium intake arising from the natural content of foods does not raise reasons for concern. Selenium-containing supplements in toddlers and children should be used with caution, based on individual needs.

Evidence to Underpin Vitamin A Requirements and Upper Limits in Children Aged 0 to 48 Months: A Scoping Review.

Vitamin A deficiency is a major health risk for infants and children in low- and middle-income countries. This scoping review identified, quantified, and mapped research for use in updating nutrient requirements and upper limits for vitamin A in children aged 0 to 48 months, using health-based or modelling-based approaches. Structured searches were run on Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central, from inception to 19 March 2021. Titles and abstracts were assessed independently in duplicate, as were 20% of full texts. Included studies were tabulated by question, methodology and date, with the most relevant data extracted and assessed for risk of bias. We found that the most recent health-based systematic reviews and trials assessed the effects of supplementation, though some addressed the effects of staple food fortification, complementary foods, biofortified maize or cassava, and fortified drinks, on health outcomes. Recent isotopic tracer studies and modelling approaches may help quantify the effects of bio-fortification, fortification, and food-based approaches for increasing vitamin A depots. A systematic review and several trials identified adverse events associated with higher vitamin A intakes, which should be useful for setting upper limits. We have generated and provide a database of relevant research. Full systematic reviews, based on this scoping review, are needed to answer specific questions to set vitamin A requirements and upper limits.

The use of categorical regression in the assessment of the risks of nutrient deficiency and excess

Exposure-response assessment methods have shifted towards more quantitative approaches, with health risk assessors exploring more statistically driven techniques. These assessments, however, usually rely on one critical health effect from a single key study. Categorical regression addresses this limitation by incorporating data from all relevant studies ­ including human, animal, and mechanistic studies ­ thereby including a broad spectrum of health endpoints and exposure levels for exposure-response analysis in an objective manner. Categorical regression requires the establishment of ordered response categories corresponding to increasingly severe adverse health outcomes and the availability of a comprehensive database that summarizes all data on different outcomes from different studies, including the exposure or dose at which these out-comes are observed and their severity. It has found application in the risk assessment of essential nutrients and trace metals. Since adverse effects may arise from either deficient or excess exposure, the exposure-response curve is U-shaped, which provides a basis for determining optimal intake levels that minimize the joint risks of deficiency and excess. This article provides an overview of the use of categorical regression fit exposure-response models incorporating data from multiple evidence streams. An extension of categorical regression that permits the simultaneous analysis of excess and deficiency toxicity data is presented and applied to comprehensive databases on copper and manganese. Future applications of cat-egorical regression will be able to make greater use of diverse data sets developed using new approach methodologies, which can be expected to provide valuable information on toxic responses of varying severity.

Guidance for establishing and applying tolerable upper intake levels for vitamins and essential minerals: Draft for internal testing.

Vitamins and essential minerals are micronutrients that are essential for the normal functioning of the human body. However, they may lead to adverse health effects if consumed in excess. The concept of a tolerable upper intake level (UL) is a science-based reference value, which was introduced to support policy-makers and other relevant actors in managing the risks of excess nutrient intake. EFSA's principles for establishing ULs for vitamins and minerals were originally developed by the Scientific Committee on Food in 2000. Since then, experience has been gained and the scientific field developed. This guidance from the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens provides an updated framework to support EFSA's UL assessments. It covers aspects related to the planning of the risk assessment (problem formulation and definition of methods) and its implementation (evidence retrieval, appraisal, synthesis, integration, uncertainty analysis). As in the previous framework, the general principles developed for the risk assessment of chemicals in food are applied (hazard identification, hazard characterisation, intake assessment, risk characterisation). Peculiar to nutrients are their biochemical and physiological roles and the specific and selective mechanisms that maintain the systemic homoeostasis and body burden of the nutrient. These must be considered when conducting a risk assessment of nutrients. This document constitutes a draft guidance that will be applied in EFSA's assessments during a 1-year pilot phase and be revised and complemented as necessary. Before finalisation of the guidance, a public consultation will be launched.

Lower carbohydrate diets for adults with type 2 diabetes.

In May 2021, the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published a risk assessment on lower carbohydrate diets for adults with type 2 diabetes (T2D)(). The purpose of the report was to review the evidence on 'low'-carbohydrate diets compared with the current UK government advice on carbohydrate intake for adults with T2D. However, since there is no agreed and widely utilised definition of a 'low'-carbohydrate diet, comparisons in the report were between lower and higher carbohydrate diets. SACN's remit is to assess the risks and benefits of nutrients, dietary patterns, food or food components for health by evaluating scientific evidence and to make dietary recommendations for the UK based on its assessment(). SACN has a public health focus and only considers evidence in healthy populations unless specifically requested to do otherwise. Since the Committee does not usually make recommendations relating to clinical conditions, a joint working group (WG) was established in 2017 to consider this issue. The WG comprised members of SACN and members nominated by Diabetes UK, the British Dietetic Association, Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of General Practitioners. Representatives from NHS England and NHS Health Improvement, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and devolved health departments were also invited to observe the WG. The WG was jointly chaired by SACN and Diabetes UK.

Guidance on safety evaluation of sources of nutrients and bioavailability of nutrient from the sources (Revision 1).

[Table: see text] This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of new substances that are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups and an assessment of the bioavailability of the nutrient from the proposed source. This guidance describes the scientific data required to allow an evaluation of the safety of the source within the established framework for risk assessment of food additives and novel food ingredients and the bioavailability of the nutrient from this source. This document is arranged in five main sections: one on technical data aimed at characterising the proposed source and at identifying potential hazards resulting from its manufacture and stability in food; one on existing authorisations and evaluation, providing an overview of previous assessments on the proposed source and their conclusions; one on proposed uses and exposure assessment section, allowing an estimate of the dietary exposure to the source and the nutrient based on the proposed uses and use levels; one on toxicological data, describing approaches which can be used to identify (in conjunction with data on manufacture and composition) and to characterise hazards of the source and any relevant breakdown products; the final section on bioavailability focuses on determining the extent to which the nutrient from the proposed source is available for use by the body in comparison with one or more forms of the same nutrient that are already permitted for use on the positive lists. This guidance was adopted by the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS Panel) on 16 May 2018. Upon request from EFSA, the present guidance has been revised to inform applicants of new provisions set out in Regulation (EC) No 178/2002, as amended by Regulation (EU) 2019/1381 on the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain.

Statement on the derivation of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients.

This Statement presents a proposal for harmonising the establishment of Health-Based Guidance Values (HBGVs) for regulated products that are also nutrients. This is a recurrent issue for food additives and pesticides, and may occasionally occur for other regulated products. The Statement describes the specific considerations that should be followed for establishing the HBGVs during the assessment of a regulated product that is also a nutrient. It also addresses the elements to be considered in the intake assessment; and proposes a decision tree for ensuring a harmonised process for the risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients. The Scientific Committee recommends the involvement of the relevant EFSA Panels and units, in order to ensure an integrated and harmonised approach for the hazard and risk characterisation of regulated products that are also nutrients, considering the intake from all relevant sources.

Re-evaluation of phosphoric acid-phosphates - di-, tri- and polyphosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives and the safety of proposed extension of use.

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.

Dietary reference values for chloride.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) has derived dietary reference values (DRVs) for chloride. There are no appropriate biomarkers of chloride status, no balance studies and no adequate evidence on the relationship between chloride intake and health outcomes that can be used to set DRVs for chloride. There is a close relationship between sodium and chloride balances in the body. Sodium chloride is the main source of both electrolytes in European diets and similar urinary excretion levels of sodium and chloride (on a molar basis) are typically observed in Western populations. Hence, the Panel considered that reference values for chloride can be set at values equimolar to the reference values for sodium for all population groups, and are as follows: 1.7 g/day for children aged 1-3 years, 2.0 g/day for children aged 4-6 years, 2.6 g/day for children aged 7-10 years, 3.1 g/day for children aged 11-17 years and 3.1 g/day for adults including pregnant and lactating women. Consistent with the reference values for sodium, these levels of chloride intake are considered to be safe and adequate for the general EU population, under the consideration that the main dietary source of chloride intake is sodium chloride. For infants aged 7-11 months, an adequate intake of 0.3 g/day is set.

Dietary reference values for sodium.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) derived dietary reference values (DRVs) for sodium. Evidence from balance studies on sodium and on the relationship between sodium intake and health outcomes, in particular cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related endpoints and bone health, was reviewed. The data were not sufficient to enable an average requirement (AR) or population reference intake (PRI) to be derived. However, by integrating the available evidence and associated uncertainties, the Panel considers that a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day represents a level of sodium for which there is sufficient confidence in a reduced risk of CVD in the general adult population. In addition, a sodium intake of 2.0 g/day is likely to allow most of the general adult population to maintain sodium balance. Therefore, the Panel considers that 2.0 g sodium/day is a safe and adequate intake for the general EU population of adults. The same value applies to pregnant and lactating women. Sodium intakes that are considered safe and adequate for children are extrapolated from the value for adults, adjusting for their respective energy requirement and including a growth factor, and are as follows: 1.1 g/day for children aged 1-3 years, 1.3 g/day for children aged 4-6 years, 1.7 g/day for children aged 7-10 years and 2.0 g/day for children aged 11-17 years, respectively. For infants aged 7-11 months, an Adequate Intake (AI) of 0.2 g/day is proposed based on upwards extrapolation of the estimated sodium intake in exclusively breast-fed infants aged 0-6 months.

Chapter 7. The Contributions of the ESPGHAN Committees on Nutrition to Paediatric Nutrition.

The first Committee on Nutrition (CoN) was founded in 1974. Two years later nutrition (N) was added to the society's name, which then became ESPGAN. The Committee systematised compositional and quality criteria for breast milk substitutes and food for special medical purposes, the first of many examples on how recommendations and comments published by the Committees on Nutrition (CsoN) were adopted by the European Economic Community, later the European Union and also influenced the World Health Organization/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Codex standards. A second CoN focusing on preterm infants was established in 1979 and its recommendations on nutrition of these infants were widely implemented. The third and standing CoN, established 1986, started to organise high-quality symposia at the annual meetings appreciating the need to enhance the expertise in nutritional research. From 1991 the CoN has organised Summer Schools in paediatric nutrition for young colleagues further emphasising its educational interest and more recently an annual, more specialised Nutrition Masterclass. Successively the interest of the CoN has expanded to other areas, such as highlighting dilemmas and uncertainties in the field of nutrition including the design, choice of outcomes and statistical analysis of trials in infant nutrition. The work of the CsoN have had great impact on paediatric nutrition and the committee will continue its important role by writing commentaries and systematic reviews and revising guidelines when required to inform and stimulate discussion among colleagues as well as stimulate training in paediatric nutrition by organising workshops and scientific meetings, training courses, and other approaches, and by interaction with other expert groups.

Safety of low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L-HPC) to be used as a food additive in food supplements in tablet form.

Low-substituted hydroxypropyl cellulose (L-HPC) is a low-substituted poly(hydroxypropyl) ether of cellulose. L-HPC is proposed for use as a food additive in food supplements in solid form (tablet), with a maximum use level of 20,000 mg/kg and a typical use level of 10,000 mg/kg. Exposure estimates to L-HPC from its proposed use were calculated for both typical and maximum use levels. Due to the close chemical relationship between L-HPC and other celluloses recently re-evaluated by EFSA, the Panel decided to read-across the biological data already evaluated in the context of the re-evaluation programme. The Panel concluded that there was no safety concern from the proposed use and use levels of L-HPC.

Re-evaluation of celluloses E 460(i), E 460(ii), E 461, E 462, E 463, E 464, E 465, E 466, E 468 and E 469 as food additives.

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of microcrystalline cellulose (E 460(i)), powdered cellulose (E 460(ii)), methyl cellulose (E 461), ethyl cellulose (E 462), hydroxypropyl cellulose (E 463), hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose (E 464), ethyl methyl cellulose (E 465), sodium carboxy methyl cellulose (E 466), enzymatically hydrolysed carboxy methyl cellulose (E 469) and cross-linked carboxy methyl cellulose (E 468) as food additives. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for unmodified and modified celluloses. Celluloses are not absorbed and are excreted intact in the faeces; in addition, microcrystalline cellulose, powdered and modified celluloses could be fermented by the intestinal flora in animals and humans. Specific toxicity data were not always available for all the celluloses evaluated in the present opinion and for all endpoints. Given their structural, physicochemical and biological similarities, the Panel considered it possible to read-across between all the celluloses. The acute toxicity of celluloses was low and there was no genotoxic concern. Short-term and subchronic dietary toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 462, E 463, E 464, E 466 and E 469 at levels up to 10% did not indicate specific treatment related adverse effects. In chronic toxicity studies performed with E 460(i), E 461, E 463, E 464, E 465 and E 466, the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) values reported ranged up to 9,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No carcinogenic properties were detected for microcrystalline cellulose and modified celluloses. Adverse effects on reproductive performance or developmental effects were not observed with celluloses at doses greater than 1,000 mg/kg bw by gavage (often the highest dose tested). The combined exposure to celluloses (E 460-466, E 468 and E 469) at 95th percentile of the refined (brand-loyal) exposure assessment for the general population was up to 506 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there was no need for a numerical ADI and that there would be no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels for the unmodified and modified celluloses (E 460(i); E 460(ii); E 461-466; E 468 and E 469). The Panel considered an indicative total exposure of around 660-900 mg/kg bw per day for microcrystalline, powdered and modified celluloses.

Safety of orthosilicic acid-vanillin complex (OSA-VC) as a novel food ingredient to be used in food supplements as a source of silicon and bioavailability of silicon from the source.

The present scientific opinion deals with the safety of orthosilicic acid-vanillin complex (OSA-VC) as a novel food ingredient for use as a source of silicon (Si) in food supplements and with the bioavailability of Si from this source. OSA-VC is stable in liquid solution at low pH values. OSA from OSA-VC was available as revealed by the increase in plasma Si concentrations after oral ingestion in human volunteers. The toxicological data provided in support of the current application were not in accordance with the Tier 1 requirement of the 'Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations'; however, this was considered justified by the Panel given that OSA-VC at pH 6.8 dissociates into orthosilicic acid and vanillin. The daily consumption of OSA-VC at the dose recommended by the applicant would provide a supplemental intake of Si of approximately 10-18 mg Si/day which would result in an estimated total intake of roughly 30-70 mg Si/day. The maximum vanillin intake resulting from the consumption of OSA-VC would be less than 5% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) value for vanillin of 10 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in 2002. The Panel concluded that there would be no safety concern with the proposed use and use level of OSA-VC as a novel food ingredient intended to be used as a source of Si in food supplements for the adult population. The Panel concluded that OSA, measured as Si, is bioavailable following ingestion of OSA-VC and appears similar to values reported in the literature for other established sources of OSA.

Refined exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) from its use as a food additive.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) when used as a food additive. The Panel previously adopted scientific opinions on the safety of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473). In the 2010 opinion, the Panel concluded that, based on the data available, the additional use of the sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) may lead to exposures in excess of the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) and sucroglycerides (E 474) established by EFSA in 2004. In 2012, an update on the exposure assessment of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) was delivered as new data were submitted to EFSA providing use levels of sucrose esters of fatty acids as a surface treatment for fresh fruits and the resulting residual levels in fruit. This assessment also resulted in exposure estimates of sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeding the ADI, although considerably lower than those estimated in 2010. The current exposure assessment is based on the recent methodology used in the re-evaluation of food additives together with reported use levels received following a call for data in 2014. New consumption data were also available since then. The Panel noted that the current exposure estimates to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) exceeded the ADI of 40 mg/kg bw per day for many population groups; especially toddlers and children and that assuming that sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473) is not used in the 24 food categories where data was not provided, these estimates very likely overestimated the real exposure to sucrose esters of fatty acids (E 473).

Re-evaluation of silicon dioxide (E 551) as a food additive.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The forms of synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) used as E 551 include fumed silica and hydrated silica (precipitated silica, silica gel and hydrous silica). The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. SAS materials used in the available biological and toxicological studies were different in their physicochemical properties; their characteristics were not always described in sufficient detail. Silicon dioxide appears to be poorly absorbed. However, silicon-containing material (in some cases presumed to be silicon dioxide) was found in some tissues. Despite the limitations in the subchronic, reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, including studies with nano silicon dioxide, there was no indication of adverse effects. E 551 does not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. In the absence of a long-term study with nano silicon dioxide, the Panel could not extrapolate the results from the available chronic study with a material, which does not cover the full-size range of the nanoparticles that could be present in the food additive E 551, to a material complying with the current specifications for E 551. These specifications do not exclude the presence of nanoparticles. The highest exposure estimates were at least one order of magnitude lower than the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) identified (the highest doses tested). The Panel concluded that the EU specifications are insufficient to adequately characterise the food additive E 551. Clear characterisation of particle size distribution is required. Based on the available database, there was no indication for toxicity of E 551 at the reported uses and use levels. Because of the limitations in the available database, the Panel was unable to confirm the current ADI 'not specified'. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 551.

Safety of hydroxyanthracene derivatives for use in food.

The Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxyanthracene derivatives and to provide advice on a daily intake that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health. Hydroxyanthracene derivatives are a class of chemical substances naturally occurring in different botanical species and used in food to improve bowel function. The ANS Panel reviewed the available scientific data on a possible relationship between hydroxyanthracene derivatives exposure and genotoxic and carcinogenic effects. On the basis of the data currently available, the Panel noted that emodin, aloe-emodin and the structurally related substance danthron have shown evidence of in vitro genotoxicity. Aloe extracts have also been shown to be genotoxic in vitro possibly due to the presence of hydroxyanthracene derivatives in the extract. Furthermore, aloe-emodin was shown to be genotoxic in vivo and the whole-leaf aloe extract and the structural analogue danthron were shown to be carcinogenic. Epidemiological data suggested an increased risk for colorectal cancer associated with the general use of laxatives, several of which contain hydroxyanthracene derivatives. Considering the possible presence of aloe-emodin and emodin in extracts, the Panel concluded that hydroxyanthracene derivatives should be considered as genotoxic and carcinogenic unless there are specific data to the contrary, such as for rhein, and that there is a safety concern for extracts containing hydroxyanthracene derivatives although uncertainty persists. The Panel was unable to provide advice on a daily intake of hydroxyanthracene derivatives that does not give rise to concerns about harmful effects to health.

Safety in use of glucosylated steviol glycosides as a food additive in different food categories.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. According to the applicant, glucosylated steviol glycosides preparations consist of not less than 95% (on anhydrous basis) total steviol glycosides, made up of glucosylated steviol glycosides of different molecular weights as well as any remaining steviol glycosides. The applicant proposed that glucosylated steviol glycosides and parent steviol glycosides undergo a common metabolic process in pathway following ingestion and suggested that data from steviol glycosides can be used for read-across to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The limited evidence provided in the application dossier did not demonstrate the complete hydrolysis of the glucosylated steviol glycosides. No toxicological studies on glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations under evaluation have been provided for its assessment. The Panel concluded that the submitted data are insufficient to assess the safety of the glucosylated steviol glycoside preparations to be used as a new food additive.