Cargando…

Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water conten...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Younes, Maged, Aquilina, Gabriele, Castle, Laurence, Engel, Karl‐Heinz, Fowler, Paul J, Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose, Fürst, Peter, Gundert‐Remy, Ursula, Gürtler, Rainer, Husøy, Trine, Manco, Melania, Moldeus, Peter, Passamonti, Sabina, Shah, Romina, Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine, Wölfle, Detlef, Wright, Matthew, Benigni, Romualdo, Bolognesi, Claudia, Cordelli, Eugenia, Chipman, Kevin, Degen, Gisela, Nørby, Karin, Svendsen, Camilla, Carfì, Maria, Martino, Carla, Tard, Alexandra, Vianello, Giorgia, Mennes, Wim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9131929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35646165
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7299
_version_ 1784713275169046528
author Younes, Maged
Aquilina, Gabriele
Castle, Laurence
Engel, Karl‐Heinz
Fowler, Paul J
Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose
Fürst, Peter
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Gürtler, Rainer
Husøy, Trine
Manco, Melania
Moldeus, Peter
Passamonti, Sabina
Shah, Romina
Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine
Wölfle, Detlef
Wright, Matthew
Benigni, Romualdo
Bolognesi, Claudia
Cordelli, Eugenia
Chipman, Kevin
Degen, Gisela
Nørby, Karin
Svendsen, Camilla
Carfì, Maria
Martino, Carla
Tard, Alexandra
Vianello, Giorgia
Mennes, Wim
author_facet Younes, Maged
Aquilina, Gabriele
Castle, Laurence
Engel, Karl‐Heinz
Fowler, Paul J
Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose
Fürst, Peter
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Gürtler, Rainer
Husøy, Trine
Manco, Melania
Moldeus, Peter
Passamonti, Sabina
Shah, Romina
Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine
Wölfle, Detlef
Wright, Matthew
Benigni, Romualdo
Bolognesi, Claudia
Cordelli, Eugenia
Chipman, Kevin
Degen, Gisela
Nørby, Karin
Svendsen, Camilla
Carfì, Maria
Martino, Carla
Tard, Alexandra
Vianello, Giorgia
Mennes, Wim
collection PubMed
description The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water content is estimated at 56 wt%, the total identified volatile fraction accounts for 28 wt% of the primary product, corresponding to 64% of the solvent‐free mass, while the unidentified fraction amounts to 16 wt% of the primary product. Analytical data provided for three batches demonstrated that their batch‐to‐batch‐variability was sufficiently low. However, for the batch used for the toxicological studies, there were substantial deviations in the concentration of nearly all the constituents compared to the other three batches. The dietary exposure of Prosmoke BW 01 was estimated to be between 6.2 and 9.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively, using SMK‐EPIC and SMK‐TAMDI. Using the FAIM tool, the 95th percentile exposure estimates ranged from 3.2 mg/kg bw per day for the elderly to 17.9 mg/kg bw per day for children. The Panel noted that furan‐2(5H)‐one is present in all batches of the primary product at an average concentration of 0.88 wt%. This substance was evaluated by the FAF Panel as genotoxic in vivo after oral exposure. The Panel considered that the (geno)toxicity studies available on the whole mixture were not adequate to support the safety assessment, due to limitations in these studies and because they were performed with a batch which may not be representative for the material of commerce. Considering that the exposure estimates for furan‐2(5H)‐one are above the TTC value of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day (or 0.15 μg/person per day) for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that Prosmoke BW 01 raises a concern with respect to genotoxicity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9131929
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91319292022-05-26 Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01 Younes, Maged Aquilina, Gabriele Castle, Laurence Engel, Karl‐Heinz Fowler, Paul J Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose Fürst, Peter Gundert‐Remy, Ursula Gürtler, Rainer Husøy, Trine Manco, Melania Moldeus, Peter Passamonti, Sabina Shah, Romina Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine Wölfle, Detlef Wright, Matthew Benigni, Romualdo Bolognesi, Claudia Cordelli, Eugenia Chipman, Kevin Degen, Gisela Nørby, Karin Svendsen, Camilla Carfì, Maria Martino, Carla Tard, Alexandra Vianello, Giorgia Mennes, Wim EFSA J Scientific Opinion The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of Prosmoke BW 01 as a new smoke flavouring primary product, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 2065/2003. Prosmoke BW01 is produced by pyrolysis of beechwood (Fagus sylvatica L.) sawdust. Its water content is estimated at 56 wt%, the total identified volatile fraction accounts for 28 wt% of the primary product, corresponding to 64% of the solvent‐free mass, while the unidentified fraction amounts to 16 wt% of the primary product. Analytical data provided for three batches demonstrated that their batch‐to‐batch‐variability was sufficiently low. However, for the batch used for the toxicological studies, there were substantial deviations in the concentration of nearly all the constituents compared to the other three batches. The dietary exposure of Prosmoke BW 01 was estimated to be between 6.2 and 9.2 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, respectively, using SMK‐EPIC and SMK‐TAMDI. Using the FAIM tool, the 95th percentile exposure estimates ranged from 3.2 mg/kg bw per day for the elderly to 17.9 mg/kg bw per day for children. The Panel noted that furan‐2(5H)‐one is present in all batches of the primary product at an average concentration of 0.88 wt%. This substance was evaluated by the FAF Panel as genotoxic in vivo after oral exposure. The Panel considered that the (geno)toxicity studies available on the whole mixture were not adequate to support the safety assessment, due to limitations in these studies and because they were performed with a batch which may not be representative for the material of commerce. Considering that the exposure estimates for furan‐2(5H)‐one are above the TTC value of 0.0025 μg/kg bw per day (or 0.15 μg/person per day) for DNA‐reactive mutagens and/or carcinogens, the Panel concluded that Prosmoke BW 01 raises a concern with respect to genotoxicity. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-05-25 /pmc/articles/PMC9131929/ /pubmed/35646165 http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7299 Text en © 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Scientific Opinion
Younes, Maged
Aquilina, Gabriele
Castle, Laurence
Engel, Karl‐Heinz
Fowler, Paul J
Frutos Fernandez, Maria Jose
Fürst, Peter
Gundert‐Remy, Ursula
Gürtler, Rainer
Husøy, Trine
Manco, Melania
Moldeus, Peter
Passamonti, Sabina
Shah, Romina
Waalkens‐Berendsen, Ine
Wölfle, Detlef
Wright, Matthew
Benigni, Romualdo
Bolognesi, Claudia
Cordelli, Eugenia
Chipman, Kevin
Degen, Gisela
Nørby, Karin
Svendsen, Camilla
Carfì, Maria
Martino, Carla
Tard, Alexandra
Vianello, Giorgia
Mennes, Wim
Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title_full Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title_fullStr Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title_full_unstemmed Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title_short Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01
title_sort scientific opinion on prosmoke bw 01
topic Scientific Opinion
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9131929/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35646165
http://dx.doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7299
work_keys_str_mv AT scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT younesmaged scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT aquilinagabriele scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT castlelaurence scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT engelkarlheinz scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT fowlerpaulj scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT frutosfernandezmariajose scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT furstpeter scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT gundertremyursula scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT gurtlerrainer scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT husøytrine scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT mancomelania scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT moldeuspeter scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT passamontisabina scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT shahromina scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT waalkensberendsenine scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT wolfledetlef scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT wrightmatthew scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT benigniromualdo scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT bolognesiclaudia scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT cordellieugenia scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT chipmankevin scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT degengisela scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT nørbykarin scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT svendsencamilla scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT carfimaria scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT martinocarla scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT tardalexandra scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT vianellogiorgia scientificopiniononprosmokebw01
AT menneswim scientificopiniononprosmokebw01