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 present opinion deals with an updated safety assessment of the food additive titanium dioxide (E 171) based on new relevant scientific evidence considered by the Panel to be reliable, including data obtained with TiO 2 nanoparticles ( NP s) and data from an extended one‐generation reproductive toxicity ( EOGRT ) study. Less than 50% of constituent particles by number in E 171 have a minimum external dimension < 100 nm. In addition, the Panel noted that constituent particles < 30 nm amounted to less than 1% of particles by number. The Panel therefore considered that studies with TiO 2 NP s < 30 nm were of limited relevance to the safety assessment of E 171. The Panel concluded that although gastrointestinal absorption of TiO 2 particles is low, they may accumulate in the body. Studies on general and organ toxicity did not indicate adverse effects with either E 171 up to a dose of 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day or with TiO 2 NP s (> 30 nm) up to the highest dose tested of 100 mg/kg bw per day. No effects on reproductive and developmental toxicity were observed up to a dose of 1,000 mg E 171/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested in the EOGRT study. However, observations of potential immunotoxicity and inflammation with E 171 and potential neurotoxicity with TiO 2 NP s, together with the potential induction of aberrant crypt foci with E 171, may indicate adverse effects. With respect to genotoxicity, the Panel concluded that TiO 2 particles have the potential to induce DNA strand breaks and chromosomal damage, but not gene mutations. No clear correlation was observed between the physico‐chemical properties of TiO 2 particles and the outcome of either in vitro or in vivo genotoxicity assays. A concern for genotoxicity of TiO 2 particles that may be present in E 171 could therefore not be ruled out. Several modes of action for the genotoxicity may operate in parallel and the relative contributions of different molecular mechanisms elicited by TiO 2 particles are not known. There was uncertainty as to whether a threshold mode of action could be assumed. In addition, a cut‐off value for TiO 2 particle size with respect to genotoxicity could not be identified. No appropriately designed study was available to investigate the potential carcinogenic effects of TiO 2 NP s. Based on all the evidence available, a concern for genotoxicity could not be ruled out, and given the many uncertainties, the Panel concluded that E 171 can no longer be considered as safe when used as a food additive.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific evaluation on the risk to human health of the presence of furan and methylfurans (2-methylfuran, 3-methylfuran and 2,5-dimethylfuran) in food. They are formed in foods during thermal processing and can co-occur. Furans are produced from several precursors such as ascorbic acid, amino acids, carbohydrates, unsaturated fatty acids and carotenoids, and are found in a variety of foods including coffee and canned and jarred foods. Regarding furan occurrence, 17,056 analytical results were used in the evaluation. No occurrence data were received on methylfurans. The highest exposures to furan were estimated for infants, mainly from ready-to-eat meals. Grains and grain-based products contribute most for toddlers, other children and adolescents. In adults, elderly and very elderly, coffee is the main contributor to dietary exposure. Furan is absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract and is found in highest amounts in the liver. It has a short half-life and is metabolised by cytochrome P450 2E1 (CYP2E1) to the reactive metabolite, cis-but-2-ene-1,4-dialdehyde (BDA). BDA can bind covalently to amino acids, proteins and DNA. Furan is hepatotoxic in rats and mice with cholangiofibrosis in rats and hepatocellular adenomas/carcinomas in mice being the most prominent effects. There is limited evidence of chromosomal damage in vivo and a lack of understanding of the underlying mechanism. Clear evidence for indirect mechanisms involved in carcinogenesis include oxidative stress, gene expression alterations, epigenetic changes, inflammation and increased cell proliferation. The CONTAM Panel used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach for the risk characterisation using as a reference point a benchmark dose lower confidence limit for a benchmark response of 10% of 0.064 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for the incidence of cholangiofibrosis in the rat. The calculated MOEs indicate a health concern. This conclusion was supported by the calculated MOEs for the neoplastic effects.

No abstract

The Scientific Committee (SC) reconfirms that the benchmark dose (BMD) approach is a scientifically more advanced method compared to the no‐observed‐adverse‐effect‐level (NOAEL) approach for deriving a Reference Point (RP). The major change compared to the previous Guidance (EFSA SC, 2017) concerns the Section 2.5, in which a change from the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm is recommended. In the former, uncertainty about the unknown parameters is measured by confidence and significance levels, interpreted and calibrated under hypothetical repetition, while probability distributions are attached to the unknown parameters in the Bayesian approach, and the notion of probability is extended to reflect uncertainty of knowledge. In addition, the Bayesian approach can mimic a learning process and reflects the accumulation of knowledge over time. Model averaging is again recommended as the preferred method for estimating the BMD and calculating its credible interval. The set of default models to be used for BMD analysis has been reviewed and amended so that there is now a single set of models for quantal and continuous data. The flow chart guiding the reader step‐by‐step when performing a BMD analysis has also been updated, and a chapter comparing the frequentist to the Bayesian paradigm inserted. Also, when using Bayesian BMD modelling, the lower bound (BMDL) is to be considered as potential RP, and the upper bound (BMDU) is needed for establishing the BMDU/BMDL ratio reflecting the uncertainty in the BMD estimate. This updated guidance does not call for a general re‐evaluation of previous assessments where the NOAEL approach or the BMD approach as described in the 2009 or 2017 Guidance was used, in particular when the exposure is clearly lower (e.g. more than one order of magnitude) than the health‐based guidance value. Finally, the SC firmly reiterates to reconsider test guidelines given the wide application of the BMD approach.