Abstract
Majority of consumer goods are required to be presented with good aesthetics in order to improve acceptability in terms of colours and in some instances taste. When related to food, beverages and drug products, additives are usually added to mask un-inviting colours, obscure offensive odours and increase taste. Food additives therefore include colourants, sweeteners, preservatives and anti-caking agents. Admissible daily intake limits are often recommended for these additives. Being food products, the amount consumed over time may be subject to individual preferences and thus negating the desire to regulate and control the amount consumed cumulatively. There have been several concerns about the safety of food additives and several batteries of tests, and reports are available in literature. This review attempted to give an update on reports that have surfaced in literature over recent past on the use and safety of food colours and other additives. Some safety concerns have been related to three determinations; cytotoxicity, genotoxicity and induction or potential of inducing mutagenicity. In order to accomplish these targeted evaluations, several tests have been prescribed by International conference on harmonization (ICH), organization for economic co-operation and development (OECD) and European food safety authority (EFSA). It is observed that no single test can give a full proof of safety of these food colours and additives, hence minimal tests are recommended to be carried out in order to guarantee safety of these products. Survey of literature, revealed that once some approved additives or colours become a subject of safety concerns, comprehensive evaluations are carried out by researchers and these have often led to the de-classification of some hitherto reported agents as being non-genotoxic or non-carcinogenic. The declassifications of some food colors and additives as human carcinogens are regularly done following the comprehensive evaluation of results of mutagenicity and genotoxicity tests in vitro and some in vivo tests in mammalian tissues and whole animals. However, such declassifications are often done with caution and the implication is that regular and more comprehensive tests must be carried out. In addition, the requirements of testing for chronic exposures to this and other agents must be emphasized to prevent occurrence of subtle yet terrible side effects resulting from consuming sub-toxic doses of the additives over time. Key words: Food colour, food additive, cytotoxicity, genotoxicity, mutagenicity, safety concerns.
Highlights
Food additives are substances that are deliberately added to food substances to impart desired characteristics.They are used for various purposes including preservation, aesthetics, taste masking and sweetening (Yu et al, 2002; Güngörmüş and Kılıç, 2012)
A number of studies describing the administration of sunset yellow in doses of 0 to 2% in mice for periods of 52 to 80 weeks have reported no significant difference in the incidence of tumours when compared with appropriate control groups (Bonser et al, 1956; Gaunt et al, 1974; JECFA, 1982; European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), 2009).Similar long-term studies in rats, hamster and dogs have not detected any carcinogenic effects associated with the dye when administered up to 5% doses (JECFA, 1982; EFSA, 2009)
In a genotoxicity assessment of 39 food additives using comet assay on eight mouse organs, benzoic acid and sodium benzoate did not produce DNA damage in any of the organ at all tested doses (Sasaki et al, 2002)
Summary
Food additives are substances that are deliberately added to food substances to impart desired characteristics. In a genotoxicity assessment of 39 food additives using comet assay on eight mouse organs, benzoic acid and sodium benzoate did not produce DNA damage in any of the organ at all tested doses (Sasaki et al, 2002). Prolonged storage of sodium sorbate has reportedly yielded an oxidative degradation product, 4, 5-oxohexanoate which is mutagenic in the Ames test (Jung et al, 1992; Schiffmann and Schlatter, 1992) and may be partly responsible for the weak genotoxic results reported in cultured Chinese hamster V79 cells and wing spot test of Drosophila (Hasegawa et al, 1984; Schlatter et al, 1992) The latter result emphasizes the need to consider the effect of metabolism on toxicities of the food colors and other additives. This requires that genotoxicity tests must be sensitive (able to give positive results with carcinogens) and specific, that is, able to give negative results with noncarcinogens
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
