Network
Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.
Publication
Featured researches published by Gerard Mulder.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Kevin Chipman; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; Karla Pfaff; Gilles Riviere; Jannavi Srinivasan; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Leon Brimer; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Agneta Oskarsson; Camilla Svendsen
Abstract The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4′,5,7‐trihydroxyflavanone or naringenin [FL‐no: 16.132], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 410 (FGE.410), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance occurs naturally in grapefruits, oranges and tomatoes. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance with flavour‐modifying properties in specific categories of food. Information on specifications and manufacturing of [FL‐no: 16.132] were considered adequate; however, data on stability in food are incomplete. The Panel noted that the available genotoxicity studies have significant shortcomings and are insufficient to conclude on the genotoxic potential of naringenin. Therefore, [FL‐no: 16.132] cannot be evaluated through the Procedure. Additionally, the Panel noted that inhibition of CYP 450 by [FL‐no: 16.132] has been clearly demonstrated in animal species in vivo which implies that the substance may interact with the metabolism and elimination of medicines and no convincing information is available that this does not pose a risk to humans at the estimated levels of exposure. To continue with the safety assessment of [FL‐no: 16.132], a bacterial gene mutation assay and an in vitro micronucleus assay (according to OECD guidelines 471, 487 and GLP) are required. Even if these studies do not indicate a genotoxic potential, additional toxicological data are needed to finalise the evaluation.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Kevin Chipman; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; Karla Pfaff; Gilles Riviere; Jannavi Srinivasan; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Leon Brimer; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Agneta Oskarsson; Camilla Svendsen; Jan van Benthem
Abstract The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids of the EFSA was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of 22 pyridine, pyrrole and quinoline derivatives evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting). The revision of this consideration is made since additional genotoxicity data have become available for 6‐methylquinoline [FL‐no: 14.042]. The genotoxicity data available rule out the concern with respect to genotoxicity and accordingly the substance is evaluated through the Procedure. For all 22 substances [FL‐no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.004, 14.007, 14.030, 14.038, 14.039, 14.041, 14.042, 14.045, 14.046, 14.047, 14.058, 14.059, 14.060, 14.061, 14.065, 14.066, 14.068, 14.071, 14.072 and 14.164] considered in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE), the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ based on the Maximised Survey‐derived Daily Intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been evaluated, and the information is considered adequate for all the substances. For the following substances [FL‐no: 13.134, 14.001, 14.030, 14.041, 14.042, 14.058, 14.072], the Industry has submitted use levels for normal and maximum use. For the remaining 15 substances, use levels are needed to calculate the modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intakes (mTAMDIs) in order to identify those flavouring substances that need more refined exposure assessment and to finalise the evaluation.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Kevin Chipman; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; Karla Pfaff; Gilles Riviere; Jannavi Srinivasan; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Leon Brimer; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Agneta Oskarsson; Camilla Svendsen
Abstract The Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) of EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of the use of the substance (S)‐1‐(3‐(((4‐amino‐2,2‐dioxido‐1H‐benzo[c][1,2,6]thiadiazin‐5‐yl)oxy)methyl)piperidin‐1‐yl)‐3‐methylbutan‐1‐one [FL‐no: 16.129], as a flavouring substance. The substance is intended to be used in the form of its sodium salt as a flavour modifier in beverages. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 16.129] would not raise a concern with respect to genotoxicity under conditions where it remains stable and does not undergo photodegradation. However, the data provided do not rule out genotoxicity for the degradation products. A 90‐day toxicity study with [FL‐no: 16.129] in rats showed no adverse effects at exposure up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day. No developmental toxicity was observed in rats at dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. An adequate margin of safety was calculated for [FL‐no: 16.129]. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 16.129] and its sodium salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of intake. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier at levels up to those specified in beverages, but not to the degradation products that may be formed upon exposure to ultraviolet‐A (UV‐A) light. The conditions protecting [FL‐no: 16.129] from photodegradation have not been adequately investigated. It is also unclear if degradation occurs in the absence of UV light. Based on the data provided, the Panel cannot conclude on the safety of [FL‐no: 16.129] when used as a flavour modifier.
EFSA Journal | 2018
Flavourings (Faf); Maged Younes; Gabriele Aquilina; Laurence Castle; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez; Peter Fürst; Ursula Gundert-Remy; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Peter Moldeus; Agneta Oskarsson; Sandra Rainieri; Romina Shah; Ine Waalkens‐Berendsen; Detlef Wölfle; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Claudia Bolognesi; Leon Brimer; Kevin Chipman; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Camilla Svendsen; Jan van Benthem; Maria Anastassiadou; Maria Carfì
Abstract EFSA was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 2‐(4‐methylphenoxy)‐N‐(1H‐pyrazol‐3‐yl)‐N‐(thiophen‐2‐ylmethyl)acetamide [FL‐no: 16.133], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 411 (FGE.411), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as a flavouring substance in specific categories of food but not intended to be used in beverages, except for milk and dairy based beverages that are opaque. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 225 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 142 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. A 90‐day oral gavage study in rats showed no adverse effects at doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for [FL‐no: 16.133], when used as a flavouring substance at the estimated level of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach and based on the recommended uses and use levels as specified in Appendix B. This conclusion does not apply for use in beverages where the substance can be subject to phototransformation.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; André Penninks; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Andrew Smith; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Corina-Aurelia Zugravu; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Leon Brimer; Gerard Mulder; Maria Anastassiadou; Wim Mennes
Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to evaluate N‐(2‐methylcyclohexyl)‐2,3,4,5,6‐pentafluoro‐benzamide [FL‐no: 16.119] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 302, using the Procedure in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The substance is intended to be used as a flavour modifier and the current evaluation is only applicable to this use. Information on the ratios of diastereoisomers of the substance has been provided (cis 20–40% and trans 60–80%). Information on the ratio of enantiomers is lacking. The available data on genotoxicity do not preclude the evaluation of the candidate substance [FL‐no: 16.119] through the Procedure. The substance was evaluated through the B‐side of the Procedure. A ‘No Observed Adverse Effect Level’ (NOAEL) of 55 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day could be derived for [FL‐no: 16.119] from a 90‐day subchronic toxicity study in rats. This NOAEL provides an adequate margin of safety of 1.4 × 106, based on the ‘Maximised Survey‐Derived Daily Intake’ (MSDI) of 2.4 μg/capita per day. Based on the ‘modified Theoretical Added Maximum Daily Intake’ (mTAMDI) approach, the Panel concluded that more information is needed on use and use levels. Besides the safety assessment of this flavouring substance, the specifications for the material of commerce have also been considered. Additional information on the stereoisomeric composition of the flavouring substance is required.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; André Penninks; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Andrew Smith; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Corina-Aurelia Zugravu; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Leon Brimer; Gerard Mulder; Francesca Marcon; Maria Anastassiadou; Maria Carfì; Wim Mennes
Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids was requested to consider evaluations of flavouring substances assessed since 2000 by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), and to decide whether further evaluation is necessary, as laid down in Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. The present consideration concerns a group of four flavouring substances consisting of isopulegone and three other substances evaluated by JECFA at the 55th meeting. This revision is made due to additional toxicity data available for (1R,2S,5R)‐isopulegol [FL‐no: 02.067]. The substances were evaluated through a stepwise approach that integrates information on structure–activity relationships, intake from current uses, toxicological threshold of concern, and available data on metabolism and toxicity. p‐Mentha‐1,4(8)‐dien‐3‐one [FL‐no: 07.127] is no longer supported by the flavour industry and was not evaluated. In agreement with JECFA, the Panel evaluated the candidate substances in this Flavouring Group Evaluation (FGE) via the B‐side of the Procedure. Based on a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) from a 90‐day oral toxicity study on [FL‐no: 02.067], adequate margins of safety for the three candidate substances could be calculated. Therefore, the Panel agrees with the JECFA conclusion, ‘No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances’ based on the maximised survey‐derived daily intake (MSDI) approach. Besides the safety assessment of these flavouring substances, the specifications for the materials of commerce have also been considered and found adequate. For the three substances evaluated in this FGE, use levels have become available and the modified theoretical added maximum daily intakes (mTAMDIs) were estimated. For [FL‐no: 02.067 and 07.067], the mTAMDI exceeds the toxicological threshold of concern for their structural classes and need more refined exposure assessment to finalise the evaluation.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; André Penninks; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Andrew Smith; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Corina-Aurelia Zugravu; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Leon Brimer; Gerard Mulder; Maria Anastassiadou; Wim Mennes
Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implications for human health of the flavouring substance 4‐amino‐5‐(3‐(isopropylamino)‐2,2‐dimethyl‐3‐oxopropoxy)‐2‐methylquinoline‐3‐carboxylic acid [FL‐no: 16.130], in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 407 (FGE.407), according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The substance has not been reported to occur in natural source materials of botanical or animal origin. It is intended to be used as both the parent compound and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt as a flavouring substance with modifying properties in specific categories of food. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the added portions exposure technique (APET), is calculated to be 882 μg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 547 μg/person per day for a 15‐kg 3‐year‐old child. There is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. A 90‐day dietary administration study in rats showed no adverse effects for doses up to 100 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, providing an adequate margin of safety. Developmental toxicity was not observed in a study with rats at the dose levels up to 1,000 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel concluded that [FL‐no: 16.130] and its hemisulfate monohydrate salt are not expected to be of safety concern at the estimated levels of dietary exposure calculated using the APET approach. This conclusion applies only to the use of the substance as a flavour modifier as requested and when used at the levels as specified for foods from different food categories.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Kevin Chipman; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; Karla Pfaff; Gilles Riviere; Jannavi Srinivasan; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Leon Brimer; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Agneta Oskarsson; Camilla Svendsen
Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the implication for human health of the product Grillin’ 5078 [FL‐no: 21.003] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 502, according to Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council. The product is derived from heat‐treated high oleic sunflower oil and intended to be used as a food flavouring with charbroiled or grilled aroma in a wide variety of food categories either in liquid or powder form. Information on manufacturing and compositional data was considered adequate to show the reproducibility of the production process. However, the Panel noted that a considerable amount of the non‐volatile fraction of the product could not be identified. The chronic dietary exposure to the substance estimated using the Added Portions Exposure Technique (APET) was calculated to be 60 mg/person per day for a 60‐kg adult and 37.8 mg/person per day for a 15‐kg child. The data submitted for evaluating the genotoxic potential of the flavouring was considered insufficient. There are still 12 substances in the flavouring for which the evaluation of genotoxic potential is pending. No toxicity studies have been provided on the final product itself. Only information on a number of constituents of the flavouring and data on toxicity of several thermally treated fats and oils were provided by the applicant. However, the Panel considered the time–temperature conditions that were applied in the preparation of the substances tested as not comparable to those applied in the course of the production of the flavouring. The Panel concluded that on the basis of the data provided by the applicant the safety of Grillin’ 5078 cannot be established.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; André Penninks; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Andrew Smith; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Corina-Aurelia Zugravu; Ulla Beckman Sundh; Leon Brimer; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Maria Anastassiadou; Davide Arcella; Maria Carfì; Silvia Valtueña Martínez; Wim Mennes
Abstract Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) was requested to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety assessment of the flavouring substances caffeine [FL‐no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL‐no: 16.032] in the Flavouring Group Evaluation 49, Revision 1. Consequent to the 2015 scientific opinion from the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) on the safety of caffeine from all dietary sources, the CEF Panel considered it inappropriate to evaluate the two substances through the Procedure. For caffeine, the Panel based its assessment on the safety threshold of 5.7 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for adults, except pregnant/lactating women, and 3 mg/kg bw per day for children, adolescents, pregnant and lactating women, as established by the NDA Panel. The safety evaluation of theobromine takes into account that approximately 11% of an oral dose of caffeine is metabolised to theobromine and that both substances have a similar pharmacological profile. For the exposure assessment, a brand loyalty model was chosen. In this model, it was assumed that a consumer is exposed on a long‐term basis to a specific category of food (i.e. non‐alcoholic beverages), containing caffeine or theobromine at their respective maximum use levels. For the rest of the categories, normal use levels applied. Daily dietary exposure to caffeine and theobromine (excluding systemic exposure) added as a chemically defined flavouring substance ranged 0–2.3 and 0–0.4 mg/kg bw, respectively, across all population groups. The Panel concluded that caffeine [FL‐no: 16.016] and theobromine [FL‐no: 16.032] would not be expected to present safety concern based on their estimated levels of intake from their use as flavouring substances.
EFSA Journal | 2017
Vittorio Silano; Claudia Bolognesi; Laurence Castle; Kevin Chipman; Jean-Pierre Cravedi; Karl-Heinz Engel; Paul Fowler; Roland Franz; Konrad Grob; Rainer Gürtler; Trine Husøy; Sirpa Kärenlampi; Maria Rosaria Milana; Karla Pfaff; Gilles Riviere; Jannavi Srinivasan; Maria de Fátima Tavares Poças; Christina Tlustos; Detlef Wölfle; Holger Zorn; Romualdo Benigni; Mona-Lise Binderup; Leon Brimer; Francesca Marcon; Daniel Marzin; Pasquale Mosesso; Gerard Mulder; Agneta Oskarsson; Camilla Svendsen; Maria Anastassiadou
Abstract Benzophenone [FL‐no: 07.032] has been evaluated as a flavouring substance, in FGE.69, by the EFSA Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food in 2008. Benzophenone was evaluated also by JECFA (2011) and by IARC (2013) based on studies that were not considered in the EFSA opinion on FGE.69. Therefore, the Commission requested the CEF Panel to carry out a review of existing literature on the safety of this flavouring substance. In the framework of the evaluation of benzophenone as a food contact material, the CEF Panel established a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.03 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day (2009). In the present Opinion, the Panel considered the already existing evaluations by EFSA, JECFA, IARC and available literature data on benzophenone toxicity. Moreover, new data on the use levels of benzophenone as a flavouring substance have been provided. The Panel considers that there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The Panel considers the endocrine activities of benzophenone and its metabolite 4‐hydroxybenzophenone as weak and not directly related to the observed toxic effects including the neoplastic effects in rodents. The Panel confirms that the conservative approach taken by EFSA (2009) to derive a TDI of 0.03 mg/kg bw for benzophenone is appropriate to cover the non‐neoplastic effects in the chronic toxicity studies and the neoplastic effects induced in the rodent carcinogenicity studies. The TDI is in the same order of magnitude as the chronic dietary exposure of adults and children to benzophenone (10–20 μg/kg bw per day) for the amount of added flavouring substance. The Panel considers that the calculated TDI and exposure estimate are based on conservative assumptions. The Panel concludes that there is no safety concern for benzophenone under the current condition of use as a flavouring substance.