Safety assessment of kola nut extract as a food ingredient.

Kola nut extract is used in the food industry as a flavoring ingredient. Kola nut extract is derived from the seeds of primarily two tropical Cola species (Cola nitida (Vent.) Schott et Endl. or Cola acuminata (Beauv.) Schott et Endl.) of the Family, Sterculiaceae. Present day consumption of kola nut extract is 0.69 mg/kg/day. Caffeine and theobromine are two important constituents of kola nuts. Although limited biological data are available for kola nut extract specifically, the published data of the major constituents of kola nuts suggest the pharmacological/toxicological properties of kola nut extract, parallel to those of a roughly equivalent dose of caffeine. Frank developmental/reproductive effects have not been reported and changes in offspring cannot be extrapolated to humans. A NOEL/NOAEL cannot be defined for repeated oral exposure to kola nut extract from available data. Notwithstanding the foregoing, U.S. consumers have a history of safe consumption of cola-type beverages containing kola nut extract that dates at least to the late 19th Century, with a significant global history of exposure to the intact kola nuts that date centuries longer.

Supplementation of the diet with the functional fiber PolyGlycoplex is well tolerated by healthy subjects in a clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The relationship of dietary fiber to overall health is of great importance, as beneficial effects have been demonstrated with the use of fiber from diverse sources, some traditional, other novel. PolyGlycopleX (PGX) is a unique proprietary product composed of three water-soluble polysaccharides, that when processed using novel technology give rise to a final product - a soluble, highly viscous functional fiber. METHODS: Because of its potential use in food and dietary supplements, a randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled clinical study was conducted to evaluate the tolerance to PGX ingestion for 21 days, to a maximum dose level of 10 g per day, in healthy male and female volunteers. The main objective of the study was to evaluate the overall gastrointestinal (GI) tolerance, while secondary objectives were to evaluate possible changes in hematological, biochemical, urinary and fecal parameters. RESULTS: Results show that PGX is well tolerated as part of a regular diet with only mild to moderate adverse effects, similar to those seen with a moderate intake of dietary fiber in general, and fruits and vegetables. Because PGX is a highly viscous, functional fiber, it also demonstrates several physiological responses including, but not limited to maintaining healthy total and LDL cholesterol and uric acid levels.

Safety assessment of coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.) essential oil as a food ingredient.

Coriander essential oil is used as a flavor ingredient, but it also has a long history as a traditional medicine. It is obtained by steam distillation of the dried fully ripe fruits (seeds) of Coriandrum sativum L. The oil is a colorless or pale yellow liquid with a characteristic odor and mild, sweet, warm and aromatic flavor; linalool is the major constituent (approximately 70%). Based on the results of a 28 day oral gavage study in rats, a NOEL for coriander oil is approximately 160 mg/kg/day. In a developmental toxicity study, the maternal NOAEL of coriander oil was 250 mg/kg/day and the developmental NOAEL was 500 mg/kg/day. Coriander oil is not clastogenic, but results of mutagenicity studies for the spice and some extracts are mixed; linalool is non-mutagenic. Coriander oil has broad-spectrum, antimicrobial activity. Coriander oil is irritating to rabbits, but not humans; it is not a sensitizer, although the whole spice may be. Based on the history of consumption of coriander oil without reported adverse effects, lack of its toxicity in limited studies and lack of toxicity of its major constituent, linalool, the use of coriander oil as an added food ingredient is considered safe at present levels of use.

In vitro and in vivo safety studies of a proprietary whey extract.

A proprietary whey growth factor extract (WGFE) or Lactermin (Lact milk; ermin growth factors) is a whey fraction of milk containing the major proteins lactoperoxidase and lactoferrin, together with a variety of minor proteins and peptides such as the growth factors IGF-I, IGF-II, PDGF, FGF, TGF-ss and betacellulin. This growth factor component of milk has been suggested to possess biological properties such as the promotion of tissue repair and anti-inflammatory activity. In this study the safety of Lactermin has been evaluated using genotoxicity assays (Ames, mouse lymphoma and micronucleus assay) and in a subchronic (13 week) rat oral toxicity study. In vitro Lactermin did not show any mutagenic properties in the Ames or mouse lymphoma assay and in vivo did not show any adverse clinical effects or in the bone marrow of male or female mice. In the subchronic oral toxicity study in which 10 rats per sex were fed Lactermin mixed with rat diet to deliver doses of 300, 1000 and 3000 mg/kg/day for 13 weeks, male and female rats did not show any test article-related clinical observations or effects on body weight, food consumption, ophthalmic effects, functional observational battery, organ weights, locomotor activity, hematology, serum chemistry, urinalysis or macroscopic or microscopic pathology. The results from the genotoxicity studies and the subchronic oral toxicity study suggest Lactermin is safe for consumption with a no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 3000 mg/kg/day.

Safety assessment of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6) dimethylpyrazine as a food ingredient.

2-Ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine (CAS No. 27043-05-6), a heterocyclic, nitrogen-containing compound, is used in the food industry as a flavor ingredient for its characteristic roasted odor and flavor, reminiscent of roasted cocoa or nuts. Pyrazines, including 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, are widely distributed in foods and because of their natural unavoidable occurrence in cooked food; therefore, pyrazine compounds, including 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, are commonly consumed in the daily diet. 2-Ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine is oxidized in rats almost exclusively via its aliphatic side-chain to carboxylic acid derivatives. The LD(50) of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine in rats was reported as 460 mg/kg and it is reported to be irritating to the skin, eyes and the upper respiratory tract. Two 90-day rat feeding studies have been conducted on 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, with the one reporting a no effect level of 12.5mg/kg/day (both sexes) and a second study reporting a NOAEL of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine 17 and 18 mg/kg/day for male and female rats, respectively. Although no genotoxicity studies were found on 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine, structurally similar pyrazine derivatives were reported as clastogenic in mammalian cells and non-mutagenic in bacterial assays. The relevance of the positive results in assays with Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Chinese hamster ovary cells in vitro is unclear. The data and information available, including a prolonged history of safe use, indicate that at the current level of intake, the food flavoring use of 2-ethyl-3,(5 or 6)-dimethylpyrazine is safe.

Safety assessment of Ylang-Ylang (Cananga spp.) as a food ingredient.

Ylang-Ylang oil is used in the food industry as a flavor ingredient. It is a complex chemical mixture in the form of an essential oil extracted by water or water-and-steam distillation from the fresh flowers of Cananga odorata Hook. f. & Thomson. Ylang-Ylang oil has been reported to cause dermal sensitization reactions in animals and humans, but it is unclear what constituent(s) within the essential oil comprise the offending agent(s) and whether some Ylang-Ylang oils that have had certain constituent(s) removed are any less prone to cause such allergic reactions. There is no indication in the literature that food exposure to Ylang-Ylang oil has caused allergic reactions. One subchronic inhalation toxicity study, involving Ylang-Ylang oil as part of a larger fragrance raw materials mixture, gave no indication of causing adverse effects, but the relevance to risk assessment of oral food flavoring use exposures is likely minimal. No further toxicity data for Ylang-Ylang oil have been reported. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Ylang-Ylang oil has a long history of fragrance and food flavoring use, with no indication that its estimated consumption from food flavoring use (0.0001 mg/kg/day) has led to any adverse human health effects. These data indicate that at the current level of intake as a food ingredient, Ylang-Ylang oil does not pose a health risk to humans.

Safety assessment of sandalwood oil (Santalum album L.).

Sandalwood (Santalum album L.) is a fragrant wood from which oil is derived for use in food and cosmetics. Sandalwood oil is used in the food industry as a flavor ingredient with a daily consumption of 0.0074 mg/kg. Over 100 constituents have been identified in sandalwood oil with the major constituent being alpha-santalol. Sandalwood oil and its major constituent have low acute oral and dermal toxicity in laboratory animals. Sandalwood oil was not mutagenic in spore Rec assay and was found to have anticarcinogenic, antiviral and bactericidal activity. Occasional cases of irritation or sensitization reactions to sandalwood oil in humans are reported in the literature. Although the available information on toxicity of sandalwood oil is limited, it has a long history of oral use without any reported adverse effects and is considered safe at present use levels.

Safety assessment of myristic acid as a food ingredient.

Myristic acid is used in the food industry as a flavor ingredient. It is found widely distributed in fats throughout the plant and animal kingdom, including common human foodstuffs, such as nutmeg. Myristic acid (a 14-carbon, straight-chain saturated fatty acid) has been shown to have a low order of acute oral toxicity in rodents. It may be irritating in pure form to skin and eyes under exaggerated exposure conditions, but is not known or predicted to induce sensitization responses. Myristic acid did not induce a mutagenic response in either bacterial or mammalian systems in vitro. Relevant subchronic toxicity data are available on closely related fatty acid analogs. In particular, a NOEL of >6000mg/kg was reported for lauric acid (a 12-carbon, straight-chain saturated fatty acid) following dietary exposure to male rats for 18 weeks and a NOEL of >5000mg/kg was reported for palmitic acid (a 16-carbon, straight-chain saturated fatty acid) following dietary exposure to rats for 150 days. The data and information that are available indicate that at the current level of intake, food flavoring use of myristic acid does not pose a health risk to humans.

Toxicology and pharmacology of sodium ricinoleate.

Ricinoleic acid constitutes approximately 90% of the fatty acid content of castor oil. Castor oil is known for its purgative effects and can be used to induce labor. Both castor oil and ricinoleic acid are approved for use in food. The mechanistic basis for purgative actions likely includes the membrane-disruptive effects of detergent-like molecules, such as sodium ricinoleate (a 'soap'). These effects have been shown to be dose-related and to exhibit a threshold below which no laxative response was evident, in both animals and in humans. Castor oil was not toxic in subchronic feeding studies in rodents at doses ranging up to 10-20% of the diet. Sodium ricinoleate, as a surfactant, demonstrates predictable skin and mucus membrane irritant effects, and may induce a Type IV dermal sensitization response in those previously sensitized to it. However, food-grade castor oil and sodium ricinoleate are prepared in such a manner as to be free of the castor bean constituents that have been proven to be the source of reported Type I immediate hypersensitivity responses. Feeding studies with castor oil in rodents provide a basis for a no observable adverse effect level (NOAEL) estimate of 7,500 mg/kg/day and 5,000 mg/kg/day in mice and rats, respectively (). Applying an uncertainty factor of 100 to the lesser of these NOAELs, one can thus estimate an acceptable daily intake (ADI) in man to be 50 mg/kg, or 3,000 mg of castor oil per day in an average 60 kg person. As ricinoleic acid constitutes approximately 90% of castor oil, applying this calculation to the 3,000 mg/day estimated ADI in humans for castor oil (given the rapid hydrolysis of castor oil glyceride in the gastrointestinal tract), the acceptable daily intake of ricinoleic acid may be as high as 2,400 mg/person.

The importance of GRAS to the functional food and nutraceutical industries.

At a time when 150 million Americans spend over $20.5 billion on functional foods, nutraceuticals and dietary supplements, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is doing little to ensure that all the safe and efficacious products that could come to the market are allowed to do so. FDA has only responded slowly and reluctantly to Congressional action and to mandates from the Courts to implement the law. Additionally, FDA had set the bar too high for Health Claims and was forced by the Courts to implement a more reasonable standard, but the response, Qualified Health Claims, has failed to gain the confidence of the public because of the confusing wording of the claims demanded by FDA. Congressional efforts to assure consumer access to dietary supplements have been met with similar resistance from FDA. The Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) was the product of a compromise with a lower threshold for demonstration of safety (reasonable expectation of no harm) that would be met by consumer self-policing and assumption of some risk. FDA has thwarted this effort by raising the bar for New Dietary Ingredient Notifications (NDIN) to what appears to be the higher threshold for the safety of food ingredients (reasonable certainty of no harm)--FDA apparently sees these two safety thresholds as a distinction without a difference. As a result, increasing numbers of dietary supplement manufacturers, unwilling to gamble the future of their products to a system that provides little hope for the FDA's response of "no objection", have committed the additional resources necessary to obtain Generally Recognized As Safe (GRAS) status for their supplements. The pressure on FDA and Congress for change is again building with increased dissatisfaction among consumers as the result of confusing labels. A second force for change will be a need to uncouple the FDA mandated substance-disease relationship and return to the substance-claim relationship to allow for progress in nutrigenomics and metabolomics, which will result in an increasing number of substance-biomarker claims.

Generally recognized as safe (GRAS): history and description.

Generally recognized as safe (GRAS), a system for review and approval of ingredients for addition to food, was conceived at a time when the need for a less doctrinaire review of food ingredients was critical. The GRAS approval process for a food ingredient relies on the judgment of "...experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety..." the end product of which is no better or worse than that by FDA, but often more expeditious. The process and requirements for a successful GRAS determination are discussed and compared with that of the food additive petition (FAP) process. The future of the GRAS process is assured by its history of successful performance, bringing safe food ingredients to the consumer in a timely manner.

Safety of ephedra: lessons learned.

The safe use of ephedra represents the best possible outcome of a convergence of variables, some with troubling potential outcomes. Commercially used ephedra and its products is prepared from Ephedra spp. and as such is subject to a variety of influences (including differences in species and strain; growth, harvest and storage conditions) all of which may influence the content of constituents (which may, in turn, affect the absorption, distribution, and metabolism of active constituents) and taken together, influences the net pharmacological effect. Further, as a natural substance with an easily perceived and desirable (i.e. weight-loss) pharmacological effect, ephedra is also susceptible to a variety of adulterants, both economic and efficacious. All of the foregoing represent potential for misadventure before ephedra even reaches the consumer. The consumer introduces a constellation of variables as well, including, but not limited to, acute and chronic diseases, inborn errors in metabolism, simultaneous use of prescription and over-the-counter drugs, dietary supplements, alcohol, illicit substances and certain foods (e.g. chocolate, caffeinated drinks), all or some of which may exert synergistic, additive or even antagonistic influences on the desired physiologic outcome. The foregoing not withstanding, the majority of the published nonclinical and clinical studies, and history of use, support the safety of ephedra at the proposed use levels. However, the reports of adverse events submitted to FDA raise concern about the risk associated with ephedra without establishing a direct causal relationship. Given the foregoing, how best can a decision on safety be made? Should the question actually be "can ephedra be as toxic as reported?"