Smoke Flavourings Research Articles

Scientific Opinion on the safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Scansmoke R909

This opinion concerns the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Scansmoke R909. The Panel considered the technical and analytical data provided acceptable to characterise the Primary Product and to demonstrate its batch-to-batch variability and stability. Two in vivo genotoxicity tests were negative and sufficient to eliminate the concerns over the in vitro genotoxicity. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 1250 mg/kg bw/day from a 90-day study in rats. Based on this NOAEL and on the intake data calculated with the use levels of the Primary Product Scansmoke R909 provided by the applicant for the 18 food categories, the margins of safety would amount to 100 and 160 for the intake estimates based on the upper use levels, and to 350 and 420 when normal use levels are considered. When assuming the use in traditionally smoked products only, the margins of safety would amount to 210 and 300 for the intake estimates based on the upper use levels, and to 520 and 735 when normal use levels are considered. The fact that these margins of safety based on a 90-day toxicity study are inadequate, and in addition, data on reproduction and developmental toxicity and long term studies are absent, it is concluded that the uses and use levels for the Primary Product in a wide range of product categories would require a larger margin of safety. The Panel concludes that the margins of safety are insufficient and that the use of Primary Product Scansmoke R909 at the proposed uses and use levels is of safety concern.

Scientific Opinion on safety of smoke flavour Primary Product – TRADISMOKE™ A MAX

This opinion concerns the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product TRADISMOKETM A MAX. The Panel considered the technical and analytical data provided acceptable to characterise the Primary Product and to demonstrate its batch-to-batch variability and stability. Two in vivo genotoxicity tests were negative and sufficient to eliminate the concerns over the in vitro genotoxicity. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 1000 mg/kg bw/day from a 90-day study in rats. Based on this NOAEL and on the intake data calculated with the use levels of the Primary Product TRADISMOKETM A MAX provided by the applicant for the 18 food categories, the margins of safety would amount to 30 and 61 for the intake estimates based on the upper use levels, and to 139 and 294 when normal use levels are considered. When assuming the use in traditionally smoked products only, the margins of safety would amount to 83 and 120 for the intake estimates based on the upper use levels, and to 417 and 588 when normal use levels are considered. The fact that these margins of safety based on a 90-day toxicity study are inadequate, and in addition, that data on reproduction and developmental toxicity and long term studies are absent, it is concluded that the uses and use levels for the Primary Product in a wide range of product categories would require a larger margin of safety. The Panel concludes that the margins of safety are insufficient and that the use of Primary Product TRADISMOKETM A at the proposed uses and use levels is of safety concern.

Statement on the Safety Evaluation of Smoke Flavourings Primary Products: Interpretation of the Margin of Safety

Statement on the Safety Evaluation of Smoke Flavourings Primary Products: Interpretation of the Margin of Safety

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product - Fumokomp

This Opinion concerns the safety of the smoke flavouring Primary Product Fumokomp. The Panel considered the technical and analytical data provided acceptable to characterise the Primary Product and to demonstrate its batch-to-batch variability and stability. The product has been tested in in vitro and in vivo genotoxicity studies and in a 90-day feeding study in rats. While a positive result was obtained in one out of three in vitro genotoxicity tests, two in vivo genotoxicity tests were negative and sufficient to eliminate the concerns over the in vitro genotoxicity. The 90-day study was conducted before the advent of GLP, and only a summary report was available. In addition the identity of the material tested in this study is unknown. Therefore the Panel was not able to confirm the validity of the study and concluded that the toxicological data do not enable the safety of Fumokomp to be established.

Short-term bactericidal efficacy of lauric arginate against Listeria monocytogenes present on the surface of frankfurters.

The antimicrobial lauric arginate (LAE) alone or in combination with an antimicrobial liquid smoke extract was studied as a postlethality treatment against Listeria monocytogenes on vacuum-packaged frankfurters. Treatment with 2 ml of 5,000 ppm of LAE reduced L. monocytogenes from 7.13 to 5.82 log CFU per package on day 0, and treatment with 3 ml reduced populations from 7.22 to 5.79 log CFU per package on day 0. Treatment with LAE and smoke flavor did not result in significantly different populations of L. monocytogenes (P < 0.05) compared with LAE alone. Log reductions on frankfurters 48 h after treatment with 3 to 4.5 ml of 5000 ppm of LAE ranged from 1.80 to 2.22, but these values were not significantly different between treatment volumes. Populations on dip-inoculated frankfurters 1 h after spraying with 2.5 ml of water (control) were 7.69 log CFU per package, and frankfurters treated with 2.5 ml of 5000 or 8000 ppm of LAE had populations of 6.03 and 5.85 log CFU per package, respectively. On spot-inoculated frankfurters, spray treatment with 2.5 ml of water resulted in L. monocytogenes counts of 8.16 log CFU per package after 1 h, whereas spray treatment with LAE at 5000 and 8000 ppm reduced counts within 1 h to 6.80 and 6.13 log CFU per package, respectively. All treatments resulted in reductions of > or = 1.68 log CFU per package, and many of the treatments caused a > 2-log reduction within 48 h. In this study, the shortterm efficacy of LAE against L. monocytogenes on vacuum-packaged frankfurters was demonstrated, providing support for use of this postlethality treatment on frankfurters and sausages for control of this pathogen.

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product – SmokEz C‐10

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product – SmokEz C‐10

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product – SmokEz Enviro 23

EFSA JournalVolume 7, Issue 6 1092 OpinionOpen Access Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product – SmokEz Enviro 23 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Search for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Search for more papers by this author First published: 12 June 2009 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1092 Panel members: Arturo Anadón, David Bell, Mona-Lise Binderup, Wilfried Bursch, Laurence Castle, Riccardo Crebelli, Karl-Heinz Engel, Roland Franz, Nathalie Gontard, Thomas Haertlé, Trine Husøy, Klaus-Dieter Jany, Catherine Leclercq, Jean-Claude Lhuguenot, Wim C. Mennes, Maria Rosaria Milana, Karla Pfaff, Kettil Svensson, Fidel Toldrá, Rosemary Waring, Detlef Wölfle. Acknowledgement: The European Food Safety Authority wishes to thank the members of the Working Group for the preparation of this opinion: D. Arcella, A. Carere, K.-H. Engel, D.M. Gott, J. Gry, R. Gürtler, D. Meier, I. Pratt, I.M.C.M. Rietjens∗, R. Simon and R. Walker. Adoption date: 14 May 2009 Published date: 12 June 2009 Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-264 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume7, Issue6June 20091092 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Safety of smoke flavour primary product ‐ Scansmoke SEF7525

EFSA JournalVolume 7, Issue 6 1093 OpinionOpen Access Safety of smoke flavour primary product - Scansmoke SEF7525 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Search for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)Search for more papers by this author First published: 12 June 2009 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1093 Panel members: Arturo Anadón, David Bell, Mona-Lise Binderup, Wilfried Bursch, Laurence Castle, Riccardo Crebelli, Karl-Heinz Engel, Roland Franz, Nathalie Gontard, Thomas Haertlé, Trine Husøy, Klaus-Dieter Jany, Catherine Leclercq, Jean-Claude Lhuguenot, Wim C. Mennes, Maria Rosaria Milana, Karla Pfaff, Kettil Svensson, Fidel Toldrá, Rosemary Waring, Detlef Wölfle. Acknowledgement: The European Food Safety Authority wishes to thank the members of the Working Group for the preparation of this opinion: D. Arcella, A. Carere, K.-H. Engel, D.M. Gott, J. Gry, R. Gürtler, D. Meier2, I. Pratt, I.M.C.M. Rietjens3, R. Simon and R. Walker. Adoption date: 14 May 2009 Published date: 12 June 2009 Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-262 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume7, Issue6June 20091093 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Smoke Concentrate 809045

EFSA JournalVolume 7, Issue 4 981 OpinionOpen Access Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Smoke Concentrate 809045 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Search for more papers by this author European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Search for more papers by this author First published: 06 April 2009 https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2009.981 Panel members: Arturo Anadón, David Bell, Mona-Lise Binderup, Wilfried Bursch, Laurence Castle, Riccardo Crebelli, Karl-Heinz Engel4, Roland Franz, Nathalie Gontard, Thomas Haertlé, Trine Husøy, Klaus-Dieter Jany, Catherine Leclercq, Jean-Claude Lhuguenot, Wim C. Mennes, Maria Rosaria Milana, Karla Pfaff, Kettil Svensson, Fidel Toldrá, Rosemary Waring, Detlef Wölfle. Acknowledgement: The European Food Safety Authority wishes to thank the members of the Working Group for the preparation of this opinion: D. Arcella, A. Carere, K.-H. Engel, D.M. Gott, J. Gry, R. Gürtler, D. Meier5, I. Pratt, I. Rietjens, R. Simon and R. Walker. Adoption date: 29 January 2009 Published date: 6 April 2009 Question number: EFSA-Q-2005-270 AboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onEmailFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditWechat Volume7, Issue4April 2009981 ReferencesRelatedInformation

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Unismoke

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Unismoke

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Zesti Smoke Code 10

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product Zesti Smoke Code 10

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product ‐ Scansmoke PB 1110

Safety of smoke flavour Primary Product ‐ Scansmoke PB 1110

Characteristics of dry- and brine-salted salmon later treated with liquid smoke flavouring

The use of smoke flavourings for the processing of salmon has begun to substitute traditional smoking methods. This review examines the quality issues associated with salted salmon ‘smoked’ by this technique along the salting and smoking steps. Firstly, the evidence is examined to determine whether dry or brine salting is better for salmon flesh destined to be treated by liquid smoking. Secondly, influence of liquid smoking on the sensorial, physicochemical and textural characteristics of the flesh are described, as are its effects on potential spoilage organisms.;

In Vitro Studies on the Genotoxic Effects of Wood Smoke Flavors

Smoke flavors based on the thermal decomposition of wood have been applied to a variety of food products as an alternative for traditional smoking. Despite its increasing use, the available genotoxicity data on wood smoke flavors (WSF) are still controversial. Thus, potential genotoxic effects of WSF in four short-term in vitro genotoxicity assays were investigated, which included the Ames assay, chromosomal aberration assay, micronucleus test and the alkaline comet assay. WSF did not cause any mutation in the Ames assay using five tester strains at six concentrations of 0.16, 0.31, 0.63, 1.25, 2.5 and 5 µl/plate. To assess clastogenic effect, the in vitro chromosomal aberration assay was performed using Chinese hamster lung cells. No statistically significant increase in the number of metaphases with structural aberrations was observed at the concentrations of 1.25, 2.5, and 5 µl/ml. The in vitro comet assay and micronucleus test results obtained on L5178Y cells also revealed that WSF has no genotoxicity potential, although there was a marginal increase in micronuclei frequencies and DNA damage in the respective micronucleus and comet assays. Taken together, based on the results obtained from these four in vitro studies, it is concluded that WSF is not a mutagenic agent in bacterial cells and causes no chromosomal and DNA damage in mammalian cells in vitro.

Potential hazards in smoke-flavored fish

Smoking is widely used in fish processing for the color and flavor. Smoke flavorings have evolved as a successful alternative to traditional smoking. The hazards of the fish products treated by liquid-smoking process are discussed in this review. The smoke flavoring is one important ingredient in the smoke-flavored fish. This paper gives the definition of smoke flavorings and the hazard of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) residue in the smoke flavorings on the market. It gives also an assessment of chemical hazards such as carcinogenic PAHs, especially Benzo-[a]pyrene, as well as biological hazards such as Listeria monocytogenes, Clostridium botulinum, histamine and parasites in smoke-flavored fish. The limitations in regulations or standards are discussed. Smoke flavored fish have lower content of PAHs as compared with the traditional smoking techniques if the PAHs residue in smoke flavorings is controlled by regulations or standards.

Composition of Phenolic Compounds and Antioxidant Activity of Commercial Aqueous Smoke Flavorings

The antioxidant activity of 12 aqueous commercial smoke flavorings used in the food industry was determined by two methods: bleaching of the carotenoid crocin and scavenging of the DPPH radical. The reaction with the DPPH radical was evaluated by calculating the effective concentration (EC50) and the antiradical efficiency (AE). A gas chromatography-mass spectrometry method was, moreover, used for the determination of 2-methoxyphenols, 2,6-dimethoxyphenols, and dihydroxybenzenes. The methoxyphenols were extracted from the aqueous smoke by dichloromethane, and also the residue aqueous phase was analyzed to determine the more water-soluble dihydroxybenzenes. The recovery and the repeatability of the method are reported. The total phenolic concentrations of the smoke flavorings showed a wide range, from about 1000 to 25000 mg/kg. Considering the three classes of compounds, the concentrations were about 300-3000 mg/kg for the 2-methoxyphenols, 200-11000 mg/kg for the 2,6-dimethoxyphenols, and 140-10000 mg/kg for the dihydroxybenzenes. The range of the antioxidant activities of the smoke flavorings was wide, reflecting the wide range of the phenolic concentrations. Good correlations were obtained between the total phenolic concentration and the antioxidant activities determined by both the DPPH and crocin assays.

Sensorial and Physicochemical Characteristics of Salmon (Salmo salar) Treated by Different Smoking Processes during Storage

This study compares the effects of four different smoking processes on the sensorial and physicochemical characteristics of Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar) fillets. Two commercial liquid smoke flavourings (FA and FB) and two types of wood used for cold-smoking wood smoke generation (BS: Beech wood and OS: Oak wood) are investigated. Comparisons were made over a 45 day storage period. Control salmon samples (Cn) (i.e., samples that underwent no smoke treatment of any kind) were characterised by their low colour intensity, firmness, fat release and fibrousness and high adhesiveness, pH, TBARS and TMA values, and a strong amine odour. Fillets treated with smoke flavouring FA showed characteristics very similar to those of the Cn samples, however their colour and smoke odour are more intense and their adhesiveness, amine odour and TMA values lower. Fish treated with smoke flavouring FB show low brightness and pH, but high firmness, elasticity, colour intensity and a high expressible water content. Salmon samples smoked with BS or OS smoke had a low intensity amine odour as well as low brightness, pH, TBARS and TMA values, high colour and smoke odour intensities, and a high fat release value. The effect of storage time on sensorial and physicochemical parameters was evident: the values recorded for certain characteristics decrease, such as, colour intensity, elasticity or firmness, and others increase, such as, amine odour, expressible water content or TMA, and some showing a linear relationship with time (elasticity or amine odour intensity).

Effect of Inhibitory Extracts Derived from Liquid Smoke Combined with Postprocess Pasteurization for Control of Listeria monocytogenes on Ready-to-Eat Meats

Surface pasteurization was examined in combination with low-phenolic antimicrobial extracts derived from liquid smoke to inhibit and prevent the growth of Listeria monocytogenes during the shelf life of ready-to-eat meats. In preliminary trials with retail frankfurters, one smoke derivative (2-min dip) produced a 0.3-log reduction of L. monocytogenes and a 1-min inbag pasteurization (73.9°C) produced a 2.9-log reduction, whereas a combination of the two treatments produced a 5.3-log reduction that resulted in no detectable Listeria by week 3 under accelerated shelf-life conditions (10°C). In trials with frankfurters manufactured without lactate or diacetate that were treated with a shortened 1-s dip, this smoke extract and one with reduced smoke flavor and color both produced a >4.5-log reduction of L. monocytogenes on frankfurters when heated at 73.9°C for 1 min, with no recoverable Listeria detected for 10 weeks when stored at 6.1°C. When deli turkey breast chubs manufactured without lactate, diacetate, or nitrite were treated with a 1-s dip in combination with radiant-heat pasteurization (270°C), growth of L. monocytogenes was retarded but not prevented. However, in a similar study in which smoke extract treatment of deli turkey breast was combined with in-bag postpackage pasteurization (water submersion at 93.3°C), a 60-, 45-, or even 30-s heat treatment resulted in a 2- to 3-log reduction of L. monocytogenes, with no growth on the meat during 10 weeks of storage at 6.1°C. These findings indicate that reduced-acid low-phenolic antimicrobial liquid smoke derivatives combined with surface pasteurization are capable of reducing or preventing growth of L. monocytogenes to meet the criteria for the U.S. Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service Alternative 1 process for ready-to-eat deli meat products manufactured without lactate or diacetate.

Validation of the analytical procedure for the determination of polyaromatic hydrocarbons in smoke flavourings using high performance liquid chromatography coupled to an ultraviolet, diode array or fluorescence detector

High performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) coupled to an ultraviolet (UV), diode array or fluorescence detector (UV/DAD/FLD) has been used to set up an analytical procedure for the quantification of 16 EU priority polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in smoke flavourings. The following parameters have been determined for the 16 EU priority PAHs: limit of detection, limit of quantification, precision (repeatability and intermediate precision), recovery and measurement uncertainty, using the concept of accuracy profiles. They were in close agreement with quality criteria described in the Commission Regulation (EC) no. 627/2006 concerning PAHs in smoke flavourings.

Risk assessment of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) on the Smoke Flavouring Primary Product ‐ FF‐B

Risk assessment of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings, processing aids and materials in contact with food (AFC) on the Smoke Flavouring Primary Product ‐ FF‐B