5-Hydroxymethylfurfural (5-HMF) as a product of the Maillard reaction is found in many foods. Estimated intakes range between 4 and 30  mg per person and day, while an intake of up to 350  mg can result from, e.g., beverages made from dried plums. In vitro genotoxicity was positive when the metabolic preconditions for the formation of the reactive metabolite 5-sulphoxymethylfurfural were met. However, so far in vivo genotoxicity was negative. Results obtained in short-term model studies for 5-HMF on the induction of neoplastic changes in the intestinal tract were negative or cannot be reliably interpreted as "carcinogenic". In the only long-term carcinogenicity study in rats and mice no tumours or their precursory stages were induced by 5-HMF aside from liver adenomas in female mice, the relevance of which must be viewed as doubtful. Hence, no relevance for humans concerning carcinogenic and genotoxic effects can be derived. The remaining toxic potential is rather low. Various animal experiments reveal that no adverse effect levels are in the range of 80-100  mg/kg body weight and day. Safety margins are generally sufficient. However, 5-HMF exposure resulting from caramel colours used as food additives should be further evaluated.

The EFSA Scientific Committee addressed in this document the peculiarities related to the genotoxicity assessment of chemical mixtures. The EFSA Scientific Committee suggests that first a mixture should be chemically characterised as far as possible. Although the characterisation of mixtures is relevant also for other toxicity aspects, it is particularly significant for the assessment of genotoxicity. If a mixture contains one or more chemical substances that are individually assessed to be genotoxic in vivo via a relevant route of administration, the mixture raises concern for genotoxicity. If a fully chemically defined mixture does not contain genotoxic chemical substances, the mixture is of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. If a mixture contains a fraction of chemical substances that have not been chemically identified, experimental testing of the unidentified fraction should be considered as the first option or, if this is not feasible, testing of the whole mixture should be undertaken. If testing of these fraction(s) or of the whole mixture in an adequately performed set of in vitro assays provides clearly negative results, the mixture does not raise concern for genotoxicity. If in vitro testing provides one or more positive results, an in vivo follow‐up study should be considered. For negative results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), the possible limitations of in vivo testing should be weighed in an uncertainty analysis before reaching a conclusion of no concern with respect to genotoxicity. For positive results in the in vivo follow‐up test(s), it can be concluded that the mixture does raise a concern about genotoxicity.

Fatty acid esters of 3-chloropropane-1,2-diol (3-MCPD) and glycidol are a newly identified class of food process contaminants. They are widespread in refined vegetable oils and fats and have been detected in vegetable fat-containing products, including infant formulas. There are no toxicological data available yet on the 3-MCPD and glycidol esters, and the primary toxicological concern is based on the potential release of 3-MCPD or glycidol from the parent esters by lipase-catalyzed hydrolysis in the gastrointestinal tract. Although 3-MCPD is assessed as a nongenotoxic carcinogen with a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 2 μg/kg body weight (bw), glycidol is a known genotoxic carcinogen, which induces tumors in numerous organs of rodents. The initial exposure estimates, conducted by Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) under the assumption that 100% of the 3-MPCD and glycidol are released from their esters, revealed especially that infants being fed commercial infant formula could ingest harmful amounts of 3-MCPD and glycidol. However, the real oral bioavailability may be lower. As this gives rise for toxicological concern, the currently available toxicological data of 3-MCPD and glycidol and their esters are summarized in this review and discussed with regard to data gaps and further research needs.

In preparation of receiving dossiers on food enzymes, in 2009, the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids published guidance on data requirements and methodologies foreseen in the risk assessment of food enzymes. Based on experiences gained in assessing submitted dossiers, the Panel noted that the Budget method, an approach originally designed to assess food additives, was not appropriate for the purpose of assessing food enzymes. Consequently, the Panel undertook the task of developing an alternative assessment methodology. The Panel recommends the use of actual food consumption data for the assessment of dietary exposure to food enzymes. Consequently, individual data reported in the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database will be used in the evaluation of food enzyme dossiers. It is envisaged that, during the evaluation of dossiers, a process‐based tool, based on summary statistics reported in the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, will be developed. As each process will require information on several input parameters, it is foreseen that the tool will be rolled out process‐by‐process over a period of time in collaboration with stakeholders.

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of silicon dioxide (E 551) when used as a food additive. The forms of synthetic amorphous silica (SAS) used as E 551 include fumed silica and hydrated silica (precipitated silica, silica gel and hydrous silica). The Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) 'not specified' for silicon dioxide and silicates. SAS materials used in the available biological and toxicological studies were different in their physicochemical properties; their characteristics were not always described in sufficient detail. Silicon dioxide appears to be poorly absorbed. However, silicon-containing material (in some cases presumed to be silicon dioxide) was found in some tissues. Despite the limitations in the subchronic, reproductive and developmental toxicological studies, including studies with nano silicon dioxide, there was no indication of adverse effects. E 551 does not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity. In the absence of a long-term study with nano silicon dioxide, the Panel could not extrapolate the results from the available chronic study with a material, which does not cover the full-size range of the nanoparticles that could be present in the food additive E 551, to a material complying with the current specifications for E 551. These specifications do not exclude the presence of nanoparticles. The highest exposure estimates were at least one order of magnitude lower than the no observed adverse effect levels (NOAELs) identified (the highest doses tested). The Panel concluded that the EU specifications are insufficient to adequately characterise the food additive E 551. Clear characterisation of particle size distribution is required. Based on the available database, there was no indication for toxicity of E 551 at the reported uses and use levels. Because of the limitations in the available database, the Panel was unable to confirm the current ADI 'not specified'. The Panel recommended some modifications of the EU specifications for E 551.