Rainer Gürtler

Toxicological assessment of 3-chloropropane-1,2-diol and glycidol fatty acid esters in food.

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.

Regulatory toxicology in the twenty-first century: challenges, perspectives and possible solutions

Abstract The advent of new testing systems and “omics”-technologies has left regulatory toxicology facing one of the biggest challenges for decades. That is the question whether and how these methods can be used for regulatory purposes. The new methods undoubtedly enable regulators to address important open questions of toxicology such as species-specific toxicity, mixture toxicity, low-dose effects, endocrine effects or nanotoxicology, while promising faster and more efficient toxicity testing with the use of less animals. Consequently, the respective assays, methods and testing strategies are subject of several research programs worldwide. On the other hand, the practical application of such tests for regulatory purposes is a matter of ongoing debate. This document summarizes key aspects of this debate in the light of the European “regulatory status quo”, while elucidating new perspectives for regulatory toxicity testing.

Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Foodon a request from the Commission related to an applicationon the use of cassia gum as a food additive

The Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in Contact with Food (the Panel) is asked to advise the Commission on the implications for human health of chemically defined flavouring substances used in or on foodstuffs in the Member States. In particular, the Scientific Panel is asked to evaluate the 47 flavouring substances in this Flavouring Group Evaluation 6, Revision 1 (FGE.06Rev1), using the procedure as referred to in the Commission Regulation EC No 1565/2000. These 47 flavouring substances belong to chemical groups 1 and 4 of Annex I of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000.

Re‐evaluation of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) as a food additive

Abstract The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) provides a scientific opinion re‐evaluating the safety of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) when used as a food additive. In 1996, the Scientific Committee on Food (SCF) established an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 25 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for propane‐1,2‐diol. Propane‐1,2‐diol is readily absorbed from the gastrointestinal and is expected to be widely distributed to organs and tissues. The major route of metabolism is oxidation to lactic acid and pyruvic acid. At high concentrations, free propane‐1,2‐diol is excreted in the urine. No treatment‐related effects were observed in subchronic toxicity studies. The available data did not raise concern with respect to genotoxicity. Haematological changes suggestive of an increased red blood cell destruction with a compensatory increased rate of haematopoiesis were observed at the highest dose level (5,000 mg/kg bw per day) in a 2‐year study in dogs. No adverse effects were reported in a 2‐year chronic study in rats with propane‐1,2‐diol (up to 2,500 mg/kg bw per day). The SCF used this study to derive the ADI. No adverse effects were observed in the available reproductive and developmental toxicity studies. Propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) is authorised according to Annex III in some food additives, food flavourings, enzymes and nutrients and it is then carried over to the final food. Dietary exposure to E 1520 was assessed based on the use levels and analytical data. The Panel considered that for the food categories for which information was available, the exposure was likely to be overestimated. Considering the toxicity database, the Panel concluded that there was no reason to revise the current ADI of 25 mg/kg bw per day. The Panel also concluded that the mean and the high exposure levels (P95) of the brand‐loyal refined exposure scenario did not exceed the ADI in any of the population groups from the use of propane‐1,2‐diol (E 1520) at the reported use levels and analytical results.

Clarification of some aspects related to genotoxicity assessment

Abstract The European Commission requested EFSA to provide advice on the following: (1) the suitability of the unscheduled DNA synthesis (UDS) in vivo assay to follow‐up positive results in in vitro gene mutation tests; (2) the adequacy to demonstrate target tissue exposure in in vivo studies, particularly in the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus test; (3) the use of data in a weight‐of‐evidence approach to conclude on the genotoxic potential of substances and the consequent setting of health‐based guidance values. The Scientific Committee concluded that the first question should be addressed in both a retrospective and a prospective way: for future assessments, it is recommended no longer performing the UDS test. For re‐assessments, if the outcome of the UDS is negative, the reliability and significance of results should be carefully evaluated in a weight‐of‐evidence approach, before deciding whether more sensitive tests such as transgenic assay or in vivo comet assay would be needed to complete the assessment. Regarding the second question, the Scientific Committee concluded that it should be addressed in lines of evidence of bone marrow exposure: toxicity to the bone marrow in itself provides sufficient evidence to allow concluding on the validity of a negative outcome of a study. All other lines of evidence of target tissue exposure should be assessed within a weight‐of‐evidence approach. Regarding the third question, the Scientific Committee concluded that any available data that may assist in reducing the uncertainty in the assessment of the genotoxic potential of a substance should be taken into consideration. If the overall evaluation leaves no concerns for genotoxicity, health‐based guidance values may be established. However, if concerns for genotoxicity remain, establishing health‐based guidance values is not considered appropriate.

Safety assessment of the process ‘Gneuss 1’, based on Gneuss technology, used to recycle post‐consumer PET into food contact materials

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Gneuss 1 (EU register No RECYC0143). The input is washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, containing no more than 5% of PET from non‐food applications. They are extruded under vacuum into pellets or sheets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the decontamination in the extruder under vacuum degassing is the critical step for the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control its performance are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time, throughput rate, rotor speed and satellite screws speed. The operating parameters of this step are at least as severe as those obtained from the challenge test. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the recycled PET obtained from the process Gneuss 1 intended for the manufacture of articles made with up to 100% recycled post‐consumer PET and intended for contact for long‐term storage at room temperature with all types of foodstuffs is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens.

Safety assessment of the process ‘Morssinkhof Plastics’, used to recycle high‐density polyethylene and polypropylene crates for use as food contact materials

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process ‘Morssinkhof Plastics’, EU register No RECYC0142. The input consists of crates, boxes, trays, pallets and containers, hereafter termed ‘crates’, used in food contact, made of high‐density polyethylene (HDPE) or polypropylene (PP). It comprises unused damaged crates, prewashed used crates and parts of crates originating from closed and controlled product loops. The process separates crates by material type and food type (fruit, vegetables and prepacked meat vs unpacked meat). Flakes from recycled HDPE or PP are produced that will be used by customers to manufacture new crates for food contact. The Panel considered that the management system put in place to ensure compliance of the origin of the input with Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 and to provide full traceability from input to final product is the critical process step. It concluded that the input of the process ‘Morssinkhof Plastics’ originates from product loops which are in closed and controlled chains designed to ensure that only materials and articles which have been intended for food contact are used and that any contamination can be ruled out when run under the conditions described by the applicant. The recycling process ‘Morssinkhof Plastics’ is, therefore, able to produce recycled HDPE and PP suitable for manufacturing HDPE and PP crates intended to be used in contact with dry food, fruits and vegetables, prepacked and unpacked meat. The use of regrind from ‘external’ recyclers only based on private agreements, does not give reassurance to fall under the scope of Art. 4 c (i) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 282/2008 and is excluded from the present evaluation.

Safety assessment of the process ‘EstPak Plastik’, based on Starlinger Decon technology, used to recycle post‐consumer PET into food contact materials

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process EstPak Plastik (EU register No RECYC150), which is based on the Starlinger Decon technology. The decontamination efficiency of the process was demonstrated by a challenge test. The input of this process is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, mainly bottles, containing no more than 5% of PET from non‐food consumer applications. In this technology, washed and dried PET flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor (one single reactor or several reactors in parallel) at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the continuous SSP reactor (step 3) are the critical steps that determine the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters that control the performance of the process are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time and gas flow for steps 2 and 3. Under these conditions, it was demonstrated that the recycling process under evaluation, using the Starlinger Decon technology, is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process intended to be used up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill, is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens.

Safety assessment of the process ‘Envases Ureña’, based on Starlinger Decon technology, used to recycle post‐consumer PET into food contact materials

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Envases Ureña (EU register No RECYC0147), which is based on the Starlinger Decon technology. The decontamination efficiency of the process was demonstrated by a challenge test. The input of this process is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, mainly bottles, containing no more than 5% of PET from non‐food consumer applications. In this technology, washed and dried PET flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor (one single reactor or several reactors in parallel) at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the continuous SSP reactor (step 3) are the critical steps that determine the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters that control the performance of the process are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time and gas flow for steps 2 and 3. Under these conditions, it was demonstrated that the recycling process under evaluation, using the Starlinger Decon technology, is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process intended to be used up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill, is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this PET are not intended to be used and should not to be used in microwave and conventional ovens.

Safety assessment of the process ‘Concept Plastic Packaging’, based on Starlinger Decon technology, used to recycle post‐consumer PET into food contact materials

Abstract This scientific opinion of the EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF Panel) deals with the safety evaluation of the recycling process Concept Plastic Packaging (EU register No RECYC151), which is based on the Starlinger Decon technology. The decontamination efficiency of the process was demonstrated by a challenge test. The input of this process is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, mainly bottles, containing no more than 5% of PET from non‐food consumer applications. In this technology, washed and dried PET flakes are preheated before being submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) in a continuous reactor (one single reactor or several reactors in parallel) at high temperature under vacuum and gas flow. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the preheating (step 2) and the decontamination in the continuous SSP reactor (step 3) are the critical steps that determine the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters that control the performance of the process are well defined and are temperature, pressure, residence time and gas flow for steps 2 and 3. Under these conditions, it was demonstrated that the recycling process under evaluation, using the Starlinger Decon technology, is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below a conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process intended to be used up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill, is not considered of safety concern. Trays made of this PET are not intended to be used, and should not be used, in microwave and conventional ovens.