Risk Assessment Of Food Additives Research Articles

The food additive xylitol enhances the butyrate formation by the child gut microbiota developed in a dynamic colonic simulator

The gut microbiota should be included in the scientific processes of risk assessment of food additives. Xylitol is a sweetener that shows low digestibility and intestinal absorption, implying that a high proportion of consumed xylitol could reach the colonic microbiota. The present study has evaluated the dose-dependent effects of xylitol intake on the composition and the metabolic activity of the child gut-microbiota. The study was conducted in a dynamic simulator of the colonic microbiota (BFBL Gut Simulator) inoculated with a child pooled faecal sample and supplemented three times per day, for 7 days, with increasing xylitol concentrations (1 g/L, 3 g/L and 5 g/L). Sequencing of 16S rRNA gene amplicons and group-specific quantitative PCR indicated a xylitol dose-response effect on the abundance of Lachnospiraceae, particularly the genera Blautia, Anaerostipes and Roseburia. The microbial changes observed with xylitol corresponded with a dose-dependant effect on the butyrate concentration that, in parallel, favoured an increase in epithelial integrity of Caco-2 cells. The study represents a detailed observation of the bacterial taxa that are the main contributors to the metabolism of xylitol by the child gut microbiota and the results could be relevant in the risk assessment re-evaluation of xylitol as a sweetener.

Influence of consumption of the food additive carrageenan on the gut microbiota and the intestinal homeostasis of mice.

The safety of the carrageenan (CGN) consumption as a food additive is under debate, with negative effects being associated with the products of hydrolysis of CGN. Moreover, there is an increasing need to integrate gut microbiome analysis in the scientific risk assessment of food additives. The objective of this study was to test the effects of CGN consumption on the gut microbiota and the intestinal homeostasis of young male and female mice. Female and male ICR-CD1 mice (8 weeks old) orally received 540 mg kg-1 day-1 of CGN, representing the maximum-level exposure assessment scenario surveyed for children, over the course of two weeks. Fecal material and peritoneal immune cells were analyzed to determine changes in the fecal microbiota, based on the analysis of bacterial 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequences and short-chain fatty acid (SCFA) concentrations, and some immune functions and redox parameters of peritoneal leukocytes. Non-significant microbiota taxonomical changes associated with CGN intake were found in the mouse stools, resulting the housing time in an increase in bacterial groups belonging to the Bacteroidota phylum. The PICRUSt2 functional predictions showed an overall increase in functional clusters of orthologous genes (COGs) involved in carbohydrate transport and metabolism. A significant increase in the cytotoxicity of fecal supernatants was observed in CGN-fed mice, which correlated with worsening of immune functions and oxidative parameters. The altered immunity and oxidative stress observed in young mice after the consumption of CGN, along with the fecal cytotoxicity shown towards intestinal epithelial cells, may be associated with the gut microbiota's capacity to degrade CGN. The characterization of the gut microbiota's ability to hydrolyze CGN should be included in the risk assessment of this food additive.

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

Endorsement date21 January 2021Implementation date27 March 2021 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.

Gıda Katkı Maddelerinin Sağlık Üzerine Etkileri: Risk Değerlendirme

Gıda katkı maddeleri, tüketiciye sunulan gıdaların görünüş ve lezzet gibi duyusal özelliklerini arzu edilen duruma getirmek, kalite özelliklerini korumak, gıda değerini korumak, raf ömrünü uzatmak ve gıda çeşitliliğini artırmak için teknolojik amaç doğrultusunda kullanılmaktadır. Gıda katkı maddelerinin araştırılması ve gıda endüstrisinde kullanımı, ekonominin yanı sıra ulusal gıda bilimi ve teknolojisinin gelişim düzeyini de gösteren önemli bir unsurdur. Son yıllarda yaşam tarzı ve beslenme alışkanlıklarının değişmesiyle birlikte işlenmiş ve ambalajlı gıdaların tüketimini arttırmıştır. Bu durum, bu kimyasal maddelerin tüketiminin artmasına bağlı olarak, kabul edilebilir günlük alım düzeylerinin aşma riskini beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu derleme yazıda gıda katkı maddelerinin sağlık üzerine etkilerinin incelenmesi ve risk değerlendirmesi yapılması amaçlanmıştır.

Guidance on safety evaluation of sources of nutrients and bioavailability of nutrient from the sources.

Whenever new substances are proposed for use as sources of nutrients in food supplements, foods for the general population or foods for specific groups, EFSA is requested by the European Commission to perform an assessment of their safety and 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 document should replace the previous guidance issued by the Scientific Committee for Food and published in 2001.

Evaluating Hazards Posed by Additives in Food: A Review of Studies Adopting a Risk Assessment Approach

Processing and packaging has increased the use of food additives in the food industry. Some of these additives have associated health risks. This review looks at studies on risk assessment of food additives published between 2000-2015. These studies have majorly focused on synthetic food colors and preservatives like benzoate, sorbate, nitrite and nitrate. Most of the studies have shown that the intake was below the acceptable daily intake (ADI) for average consumers. For extreme consumers (95th percentile), intake was found to be above the ADI or approaching ADI for additives like sunset yellow FCF, erythrosine, tartrazine, sulphite, benzoate and nitrite. It is advisable to look at multiple scenarios of dietary exposure while evaluating risk. A surveillance system which documents adverse effects to food additives as well as monitors risk on a regular basis is important for every country to have. Such data would be beneficial to regulatory authorities as well as the industry in fixing usage levels of the additive in an effort to minimize health risk.

"The Dose Makes the Poison": Informing Consumers About the Scientific Risk Assessment of Food Additives.

Intensive risk assessment is required before the approval of food additives. During this process, based on the toxicological principle of "the dose makes the poison,ˮ maximum usage doses are assessed. However, most consumers are not aware of these efforts to ensure the safety of food additives and are therefore sceptical, even though food additives bring certain benefits to consumers. This study investigated the effect of a short video, which explains the scientific risk assessment and regulation of food additives, on consumers' perceptions and acceptance of food additives. The primary goal of this study was to inform consumers and enable them to construct their own risk-benefit assessment and make informed decisions about food additives. The secondary goal was to investigate whether people have different perceptions of food additives of artificial (i.e., aspartame) or natural origin (i.e., steviolglycoside). To attain these research goals, an online experiment was conducted on 185 Swiss consumers. Participants were randomly assigned to either the experimental group, which was shown a video about the scientific risk assessment of food additives, or the control group, which was shown a video about a topic irrelevant to the study. After watching the video, the respondents knew significantly more, expressed more positive thoughts and feelings, had less risk perception, and more acceptance than prior to watching the video. Thus, it appears that informing consumers about complex food safety topics, such as the scientific risk assessment of food additives, is possible, and using a carefully developed information video is a successful strategy for informing consumers.

714 The adequacy of the interspecies toxicokinetic (Safety factor) used INT EH risk assessment of food additives

714 The adequacy of the interspecies toxicokinetic (Safety factor) used INT EH risk assessment of food additives

Methods for Health Risk Assessment of Chemicals: Are They Relevant for Alcohol?

A description is given of the principles used for toxicological risk assessment of food additives and environmental contaminants. The terminology is not generally accepted. Hazard identification is to identi whether a substance may cause toxic effects in man. Dose‐response assessment is to understand the relationship between exposure and various toxic effects. The shape of dose‐response curves is discussed. For most effects (including nongenotoxic carcinogens), a threshold is assumed, under which there is no risk. For genotoxic compounds, no such threshold is assumed. For substances with a threshold, an uncertainty factor is applied to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level or the lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect level, to arrive at an acceptable or tolerable daily intake. In the case of ethanol, some of these principles of toxicological risk assessment may be used and based on epidemiological dose‐response data. The critical effects are liver effects, fetal damage, and cancer. All of these effects may be assumed to have thresholds. Possible uncertainty factors are discussed. However, because of the decreased risk of cardiovascular effects at low/moderate intakes and the fact that alcohol intake is a lifestyle factor, it is doubtful whether the application of a no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level/uncertainty factor approach—as used for food additives and environmental pollutants, to which there is unavoidable exposure—is really applicable or meaningful for ethanol.

Methods for health risk assessment of chemicals: are they relevant for alcohol?

A description is given of the principles used for toxicological risk assessment of food additives and environmental contaminants. The terminology is not generally accepted. Hazard identification is to identify whether a substance may cause toxic effects in man. Dose-response assessment is to understand the relationship between exposure and various toxic effects. The shape of dose-response curves is discussed. For most effects (including nongenotoxic carcinogens), a threshold is assumed, under which there is no risk. For genotoxic compounds, no such threshold is assumed. For substances with a threshold, an uncertainty factor is applied to the no-observed-adverse-effect level or the lowest-observed-adverse-effect level, to arrive at an acceptable or tolerable daily intake. In the case of ethanol, some of these principles of toxicological risk assessment may be used and based on epidemiological dose-response data. The critical effects are liver effects, fetal damage, and cancer. All of these effects may be assumed to have thresholds. Possible uncertainty factors are discussed. However, because of the decreased risk of cardiovascular effects at low/moderate intakes and the fact that alcohol intake is a lifestyle factor, it is doubtful whether the application of a no-observed-adverse-effect level/uncertainty factor approach--as used for food additives and environmental pollutants, to which there is unavoidable exposure--is really applicable or meaningful for ethanol.