Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33552300›Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2021

Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 67, Revision 3 (FGE.67Rev3): consideration of 23 furan-substituted compounds evaluated by JECFA at the 55th, 65th, 69th and 86th meetings.

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, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Rainer Gürtler and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Scientific opinion on Prosmoke BW 01.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Scientific Opinion of Flavouring Group Evaluation 500 (FGE.500): rum ether.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2017
    Article
  10. 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

28 authors.

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
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Rainer Gürtler
Trine Husøy
Melania Manco
Peter Moldeus
Sabina Passamonti
Romina Shah
Ine Waalkens-Berendsen
Detlef Wölfle
Matthew Wright
Romualdo Benigni
Claudia Bolognesi
Kevin Chipman
Eugenia Cordelli
Gisela Degen
Daniel Marzin
Camilla Svendsen
Maria Carfì
Giorgia Vianello
Wim Mennes

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to consider the JECFA evaluations of 25 flavouring substances assigned to the Flavouring Group Evaluation 67 (FGE.67Rev3), using the Procedure as outlined in the Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000. Eleven substances have already been considered in FGE.67 and its revisions (FGE.67Rev1 and FGE.67Rev2). During the current assessment, two substances were no longer supported by industry, therefore 12 candidate substances are evaluated in FGE.67Rev3. New genotoxicity and toxicity data are available for 2-pentylfuran [FL-no: 13.059] and 2-acetylfuran [FL-no: 13.054], which are representative substances of subgroup IV [FL-no: 13.069, 13.106, 13.148] and VI-B [FL-no: 13.045, 13.070, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.138, 13.163], respectively. Based on these data, the Panel concluded that the concern for genotoxicity is ruled out for both [FL-no: 13.054] and [FL-no: 13.059] and consequently for the substances that they represent. Since the candidate substances cannot be anticipated to be metabolised to innocuous products only, they were evaluated along the B-side of the Procedure. The Panel derived a NOAEL of 22.6 mg/kg bw per day and a BMDL of 8.51 mg/kg bw per day, for 2-acetylfuran and 2-pentylfuran, respectively. For all 12 substances sufficient margins of safety were calculated when based on the MSDI approach. Adequate specifications for the materials of commerce are available for all 23 flavouring substances. The Panel agrees with JECFA conclusions, for all 23 substances, 'No safety concern at estimated levels of intake as flavouring substances' based on the MSDI approach. For 18 substances [FL-no: 13.021, 13.022, 13.023, 13.024, 13.031, 13.045, 13.047, 13.054, 13.059, 13.074, 13.083, 13.101, 13.105, 13.106, 13.138, 13.148, 13.163 and 13.190], the mTAMDI intake estimates are above the threshold of toxicological concern (TTC) for their structural classes and more reliable data on uses and use levels are required to finalise their evaluation.

Indexed as

FGE.13FGE.67Flavouringsfuran‐substituted

Identifiers

PMID33552300
PMCPMC7856567

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.