Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 82, Revision 1 (FGE.82Rev1): Consideration of Epoxides evaluated by the JECFA (65th meeting)

Flavourings,

doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3708

Cited by 31 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Toxicological data of sub‐chronic studies, from which NOAEL values could be derived, were available for terpineol 21 [02.230] in CG 6 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012a ), myrcene [01.008], limonene [01.045], p ‐cymene [01.002] and β‐caryophyllene [01.007] in CG 31 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2015 , 2016a ) and β‐caryophyllene epoxide [16.043] in CG 32 (EFSA CEF Panel, 2014 ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis¹,

Azimonti²,

Bastos³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil, also known as turpentine oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels of 35 mg/kg for laying hens, piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, rabbits, salmonids, 50 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), cattle for fattening, dairy cows, horses, dogs and ornamental fish, 20 mg/kg for cats. For the other species, the calculated safe concentrations in complete feed were 25 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 33 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 14 mg/kg for ornamental birds. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. For any other species, the additive was considered safe at 20 mg/kg complete feed. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of pine white oil up to the maximum proposed use levels in feed. The additive under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of pine white oil at the proposed use level in feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Pine white oil was recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

show abstract

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis¹,

Azimonti²,

Bastos³

et al. 2023

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Toxicological data for subchronic studies, from which NOAEL values could be derived, were available for linalool [02.013] and terpineol [02.230] 28 and in CG 6 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012a ), 1,8‐cineole in CG 16 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012d , 2021a), eugenol [04.003] in CG 18 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2011 ), cinnamaldehyde [05.014] in CG 22 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017a ), 4‐methoxybenzaldehyde [05.015] in CG 23 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012e ), thymol [04.006] in CG 25 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012f ), myrcene [01.008], d‐limonene [01.045], 1‐isopropyl‐4‐benzene [01.002] and β‐caryophyllene [01.007] in CG 31 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2015 , 2016c ), and β‐caryophyllene oxide in CG 32 (EFSA CEF Panel, 2014 ). For benzaldehyde [05.013] in CG 23, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the maximum proposed concentration of 25 mg/kg complete feed is safe, based on its structural and metabolic relationship with benzoic acid, which was considered safe up to 125 mg/kg complete feed (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012e ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of feed additives consisting of essential oils from the bark and the leaves of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis¹,

Azimonti²,

Bastos³

et al. 2022

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from the bark and the leaves of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings) in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. Owing to the presence of styrene in the essential oils under assessment, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for long‐living animals and animals for reproduction. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil are considered as safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed. For ‘short‐living’ animals, the Panel considered the use of cinnamon bark oil in water for drinking as safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. For cinnamon leaf oil, the proposed use level in water for drinking of 3 mg/L is considered as safe for ‘short‐living’ animals. No concerns for consumers were identified following the use of the additives at the use level considered safe in feed for the target species. Based on the presence of safrole ≥0.1%, cinnamon leaf oil and bark oil are classified as carcinogen (category 1B) and handled accordingly. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions in animal feed was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. verum and its preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary for cinnamon essential oils.

show abstract

“…Toxicological data for subchronic studies, from which NOAEL values could be derived, were available for octyl acetate [09.007] and ethyl acetate [09.001] in CG 1 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2013 ), 2‐ethylhexan‐1‐ol [02.082] in CG 2 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012a ), citral [05.020] in CG 3 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2016a ), linalool [02.013] and terpineol 28 [02.230] in CG 6 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012b ), 1,8‐cineole in CG 16 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012e , 2021a ), eugenol [04.003] and trans ‐anethole [04.010] in CG 18 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2011 ), cinnamaldehyde [05.014] in CG 22 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2017 ), benzyl alcohol [02.010] (EFSA FAF Panel, 2019 ) and methyl salicylate [09.749] in CG 23 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012f ), benzene‐1,3‐diol [04.047] in CG 25 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012g ), 1‐methoxy‐4‐methylbenzene [04.015] in CG 26 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012h ), myrcene [01.008] and β‐caryophyllene in CG 31 (EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2016b ), and β‐caryophyllene oxide in CG 32 (EFSA CEF Panel, 2014 ).…”

Section: Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Bampidis¹,

Azimonti²,

Bastos³

et al. 2022

EFS2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil), when used as a sensory additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the essential oil under assessment is safe up to the maximum proposed use levels in complete feed of 1 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 1.5 mg/kg for laying hens, turkeys for fattening and rabbits, 2 mg/kg for piglets, 2.5 mg/kg for pigs for fattening, 3 mg/kg for sows, 4.5 mg/kg for cattle for fattening, sheep, goats and horses, 5 mg/kg for veal calves (milk replacer), fish, dogs and ornamental fish. For cats, the calculated safe concentration in complete feed is 1 mg/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additive up to the maximum proposed use level in feed. The essential oil under assessment should be considered as irritant to skin and eyes, and as a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive in animal feed under the proposed conditions of use was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Ylang ylang oil is recognised to flavour food. Since its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

show abstract

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 82, Revision 1 (FGE.82Rev1): Consideration of Epoxides evaluated by the JECFA (65th meeting)

Cited by 31 publications

References 21 publications

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil obtained from the oleoresin of Pinus pinaster Aiton (pine white oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Safety and efficacy of feed additives consisting of essential oils from the bark and the leaves of Cinnamomum verum J. Presl (cinnamon bark oil and cinnamon leaf oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of an essential oil from the flowers of Cananga odorata (Lam.) Hook.f. & Thomson (ylang ylang oil) for use in all animal species (FEFANA asbl)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About