Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32626329›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2019

Re-evaluation of phosphoric acid-phosphates - di-, tri- and polyphosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives and the safety of proposed extension of use.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Maged Younes, Gabriele Aquilina, Laurence Castle, Karl-Heinz Engel, Paul Fowler, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Peter Fürst, Rainer Gürtler, Trine Husøy and 16 more

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

58 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 129 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)
Maged Younes
Gabriele Aquilina
Laurence Castle
Karl-Heinz Engel
Paul Fowler
Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez
Peter Fürst
Rainer Gürtler
Trine Husøy
Wim Mennes
Peter Moldeus
Agneta Oskarsson
Romina Shah
Ine Waalkens-Berendsen
Detlef Wölfle
Peter Aggett
Adamasco Cupisti
Cristina Fortes
Gunter Kuhnle
Inger Therese Lillegaard
Michael Scotter
Alessandra Giarola
Ana Rincon
Alexandra Tard
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Absorption Systems (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings added to Food (FAF) provided a scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of phosphates (E 338-341, E 343, E 450-452) as food additives. The Panel considered that adequate exposure and toxicity data were available. Phosphates are authorised food additives in the EU in accordance with Annex II and III to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008. Exposure to phosphates from the whole diet was estimated using mainly analytical data. The values ranged from 251 mg P/person per day in infants to 1,625 mg P/person per day for adults, and the high exposure (95th percentile) from 331 mg P/person per day in infants to 2,728 mg P/person per day for adults. Phosphate is essential for all living organisms, is absorbed at 80-90% as free orthophosphate excreted via the kidney. The Panel considered phosphates to be of low acute oral toxicity and there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity and carcinogenicity. No effects were reported in developmental toxicity studies. The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) for phosphates expressed as phosphorus of 40 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day and concluded that this ADI is protective for the human population. The Panel noted that in the estimated exposure scenario based on analytical data exposure estimates exceeded the proposed ADI for infants, toddlers and other children at the mean level, and for infants, toddlers, children and adolescents at the 95th percentile. The Panel also noted that phosphates exposure by food supplements exceeds the proposed ADI. The Panel concluded that the available data did not give rise to safety concerns in infants below 16 weeks of age consuming formula and food for medical purposes.

Indexed as

acceptable daily intakefood additivephosphatesphosphorusrisk assessmentsafety

Identifiers

PMID32626329
PMCPMC7009158
OpenAlexW2951867791

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.