ABSTRACT
Following two requests from the European Commission (EC), the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the revision of the tolerable upper intake level (UL) for vitamin D and to propose a conversion factor (CF) for calcidiol monohydrate into vitamin D3 for labelling purposes. Vitamin D refers to ergocalciferol (vitamin D2), cholecalciferol (vitamin D3), and calcidiol monohydrate. Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted to assess the relative bioavailability of calcidiol monohydrate versus vitamin D3 on serum 25(OH)D concentrations, and for priority adverse health effects of excess vitamin D intake, namely persistent hypercalcaemia/hypercalciuria and endpoints related to musculoskeletal health (i.e. falls, bone fractures, bone mass/density and indices thereof). Based on the available evidence, the Panel proposes a CF for calcidiol monohydrates of 2.5 for labelling purposes. Persistent hypercalciuria, which may be an earlier sign of excess vitamin D than persistent hypercalcaemia, is selected as the critical endpoint on which to base the UL for vitamin D. A lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) of 250 µg/day is identified from two randomised controlled trials in humans, to which an uncertainty factor of 2.5 is applied to account for the absence of a no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL). A UL of 100 µg vitamin D equivalents (VDE)/day is established for adults (including pregnant and lactating women) and for adolescents aged 11-17 years, as there is no reason to believe that adolescents in the phase of rapid bone formation and growth have a lower tolerance for vitamin D compared to adults. For children aged 1-10 years, a UL of 50 µg VDE/day is established by considering their smaller body size. Based on available intake data, European populations are unlikely to exceed the UL, except for regular users of food supplements containing high doses of vitamin D.
ABSTRACT
[Table: see text] Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to provide scientific and technical guidance for the preparation and presentation of a dossierfor evaluation of an infant and/or follow-on formula manufactured from protein hydrolysates. This guidance document addresses the information and data to be submitted to EFSA on infant and follow-on formulae manufactured from protein hydrolysates with respect to the nutritional safety and suitability of the specific formula and/or the formula's efficacy in reducing the risk of developing allergy to milk proteins. The guidance will be further reviewed and updated with the experience gained from the evaluation of specificdossiers, and in the light of applicable Unionguidelines and legislation. The guidance was adopted by the Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies on 5 April 2017.Upon request from the European Commission in 2020, it has been revised to inform food business operators of the new provisions in the pre-submission phase and in the procedure set out in the General Food Law, as amended by the Transparency Regulation. This revised guidance applies to all dossiers submitted as of 27 March 2021 and shall be consulted for the preparation of dossiers intended to be submitted from that date onwards. For dossiers submitted prior to 27 March 2021, the previous guidance, published in May 2017 remains applicable.
ABSTRACT
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 barley starch to be used in the manufacturing of several foods as ingredient, of the food additive modified starch and of glucose syrups pursuant to Article 21(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011, as notified by Lyckeby Starch AB. The applicant provided information on the manufacturing process and data on the content of total protein, gluten and allergenic proteins in barley starch. The applicant also performed IgE-binding in vitro tests, which were considered inconclusive by the Panel. No human intervention studies with barley starch or food products thereof were provided by the applicant, except for a DBPCFC with barley starch hydrolysate in cereal allergic individuals. The Panel notes that glucose syrups based on barley have been already exempted from allergen labelling as per Annex II of Regulation (EU) No 1169/2011 and that the current application is for the exemption from labelling of all foods manufactured from barley starch. In all the scenarios considered for the anticipated intake, the calculated total protein intake from barley starch was above the MED/MOED for wheat (expressed in mg of wheat protein) in adults (10 mg) and children (2 mg). The Panel concludes that the data available are insufficient to conclude on the likelihood of adverse allergic reactions in cereal-allergic individuals upon consumption of barley starch under the conditions of use proposed by the applicant, and that the consumption of foodstuffs produced from barley starch as starting (raw) material or foodstuffs containing barley starch as an ingredient is unlikely to cause an adverse reaction in individuals with coeliac disease who are not allergic to cereals, provided that the value of gluten for 'gluten-free' foods (20 mg/kg) is not exceeded.
