ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026
The 2024 European Union monitoring report on food additives and flavourings (1st pilot).
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.
- The 2024 European Union monitoring report on food additives and flavourings (1st pilot).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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This EFSA report presents the results of the 2024 European Union (EU) pilot monitoring programme on food additives and flavourings, in response to a mandate from the European Commission. This pilot focused on three food additives, green S (E 142), ponceau 4R (E 124) and tartrazine (E 102), and two flavourings, caffeine (FL No 16.016) and pulegone (Annex III of Regulation (EC) No 1334/2008). The aim of the monitoring programme is to evaluate the occurrence and use of these substances, estimate chronic dietary exposure across population groups and compare the outcomes with previous EFSA assessments. Monitoring data were collected from 22 EU Member States and five food business operators, comprising 18,296 analytical results from 8943 food samples and 663 use levels. Dietary exposure was assessed using three refined exposure scenarios: non-brand-loyal, brand-loyal and food-supplement 'consumers only' scenarios. For the three food additives, all exposure estimates were well below their respective acceptable daily intakes (ADIs). For pulegone, exposure estimates were below the tolerable daily intake (TDI). For caffeine, as already reported in previous EFSA assessments, exposure estimates in several dietary surveys exceeded doses of no safety concern, particularly in adults and the elderly, largely driven by the consumption of foods with naturally occurring caffeine such as coffee and tea rather than foods with added caffeine. Caffeine exposure was higher as compared with previous assessments; the current estimates are considered as largely overestimated due to some limitations in the concentration data and the methodology used in the assessment. Overall, different challenges and misreporting were identified when preparing the monitoring report that might have biased, to different extents, the dietary exposure estimations for the substances assessed. Therefore, conclusions derived in the framework of this first pilot are not yet considered to be sufficiently robust for decision-making, and further actions will be taken to strengthen the collection and analysis of the monitoring data in the next report.
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.