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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |