Current issue

Just Published: May, 2016

Scientific Opinions: Opinions of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel

MCPD and glycidyl esters in food

Chemical contaminants
Jan Alexander, Lars Barregard, Margherita Bignami, Sandra Ceccatelli, Bruce Cottrill, Michael Dinovi, Lutz Edler, Bettina Grasl-Kraupp, Christer Hogstrand, Laurentius (Ron) Hoogenboom, Helle Katrine Knutsen, Carlo Stefano Nebbia, Isabelle Oswald, Annette Petersen, Vera Maria Rogiers, Martin Rose, Alain-Claude Roudot, Tanja Schwerdtle, Christiane Vleminckx, G€unter Vollmer and Heather Wallace
EFSA Journal 2016;14(5):4426 [159 pp.].

EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on free and esterified 3- and 2-monochloropropane-1, 2-diol (MCPD) and glycidyl esters in food. Esters of 3- and 2-MCPD and glycidol are contaminants of processed vegetable oils; free MCPDs are formed in some processed foods. The Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM Panel) evaluated 7,175 occurrence data. Esters of 3- and 2-MCPD and glycidyl esters were found at the highest levels in palm oil/fat, but most vegetable oil/fats contain substantial quantities. Mean middle bound (MB) dietary exposure values to total 3-MCPD, 2-MCPD and glycidol, respectively, across surveys and age groups in μg/kg body weight (bw) per day were 0.2–1.5, 0.1–0.7 and 0.1–0.9; high exposure (P95) values were 0.3–2.6, 0.2–1.2 and 0.2–2.1. Animal studies show extensive hydrolysis of esterified 3-MCPD and glycidol following oral administration; esterified and free forms were assumed to contribute equally to internal exposures. Nephrotoxicity was consistently observed in rats treated with 3-MCPD. Data on 2-MCPD toxicity were insufficient for dose–response assessments. Chronic treatment with glycidol increased the incidence of tumours in several tissues of rats and mice, likely via a genotoxic mode of action. The Panel selected a BMDL10 value for 3-MCPD of 0.077 mg/kg bw per day for induction of renal tubular hyperplasia in rats and derived a tolerable daily intake (TDI) of 0.8 μg/kg bw per day. The mean exposure to 3-MCPD was above the TDI for ‘Infants’, ‘Toddlers’ and ‘Other children’. For glycidol, the Panel selected a T25 value of 10.2 mg/kg bw per day for neoplastic effects in rats. The margins of exposure (MoEs) were 11,300–102,000 and 4,900–51,000 across surveys and age groups at mean and P95 exposures, respectively. An exposure scenario for infants receiving formula only resulted in MoEs of 5,500 (mean) and 2,100 (P95). MoEs of 25,000 or higher were considered of low health concern.

Scientific Opinions: Statements of the Scientific Committee/Scientific Panel

Analysis of the need for an update of the guidance documents

Animal feed
Gabriele Aquilina, Giovanna Azimonti, Vasileios Bampidis, Maria de Lourdes Bastos, Georges Bories, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Gerhard Flachowsky, Jürgen Gropp, Boris Kolar, Maryline Kouba, Secundino López Puente, Marta López-Alonso, Alberto Mantovani, Baltasar Mayo, Fernando Ramos, Guido Rychen, Maria Saarela, Roberto Edoardo Villa, Robert John Wallace and Pieter Wester
EFSA Journal 2016;14(5):4473 [8 pp.].

The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) adopted a series of guidance documents which complement the Regulations governing the authorisation of feed additives. These are intended to help applicants in their preparation of technical dossiers. Although most guidance documents prepared by the Panel have been updated at some point, experience has shown that some elements are in need of technical update. Consequently, the EFSA has asked the FEEDAP Panel to identify from the current guidance documents those that need to be updated. The FEEDAP Panel addressed this by considering the experience gained since the last major revision of the individual guidance documents. Each of the Standing Working Groups of the FEEDAP Panel were asked to identify issues which have arisen during additive assessments and which suggested the need for elements of the guidance to be reconsidered. In addition, consideration was given to the relevant overarching guidance documents produced by the EFSA Scientific Committee and to developments in assessment tools provided by EFSA and other international organisations. The analysis of the information collected indicated a number of broad areas in the existing guidance which need possible revision. In particular, since the existing guidance on environmental risk assessment is no longer aligned to other EFSA outputs, the Panel proposes that revision of this guidance should be given the highest priority. The Panel then proposes the revision of the three guidance documents concerned with safety (target animals, consumer and user) followed by the guidance on efficacy. In parallel, the data necessary to establish the characterisation of the additive should be reviewed and modified as necessary. The FEEDAP Panel considers it fundamental to involve industry, consumer associations and experts from Member States risk assessment bodies in the early stages of the guidance revision.