ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026
Scientific opinion on the amendment of the specifications for vegetable carbon (E 153) as a food additive.
Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Scientific opinion on the amendment of the specifications for vegetable carbon (E 153) as a food additive.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The food additive vegetable carbon (E 153) was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2012. During that re-evaluation, data gaps were identified, in particular with respect to impurities and particle characterisation. Following a European Commission call for data to address these gaps, one interested business operator (IBO) submitted analytical data on toxic elements, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and particle size distribution of commercial samples of E 153. The present opinion deals with the assessment of the data provided by the IBO in response to the European Commission call. Based on the analytical data provided, the Panel concluded that the information on toxic elements supports a revision of the current EU specification limits for arsenic, cadmium, mercury and lead, and the introduction of a limit for aluminium. Regarding PAHs, the Panel assessed the risks associated with benzo[a]pyrene and PAH4 under several scenarios and concluded that the resulting margins of exposure (MOE) were above the level of concern but recommended lowering the current limit for benzo[a]pyrene and introducing a limit for PAH4 in the EU specifications for E 153. For what concerns the data on particle size distribution and morphology, the Panel considered that, due to methodological limitations, these data did not allow a full characterisation of the materials used as a food additive and did not adequately support an amendment of the specifications in relation to particle properties. Nevertheless, the Panel concluded that a fraction of small particles, including nanoparticles, is present in vegetable carbon (E 153) and noted that the substance is insoluble in water. Therefore, in line with the EFSA Guidance on Particles-TR, the Panel concluded that the risk assessment of E 153 performed by the EFSA ANS Panel in 2012 should be complemented with nanoscale considerations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.