| Literature DB >> 35600273 |
Maged Younes, Gabriele Aquilina, Karl-Heinz Engel, Paul J Fowler, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Peter Fürst, Rainer Gürtler, Ursula Gundert-Remy, Trine Husøy, Melania Manco, Wim Mennes, Peter Moldeus, Sabina Passamonti, Romina Shah, Ine Waalkens-Berendsen, Matthew Wright, José Manuel Barat Baviera, Gisela Degen, Lieve Herman, Jean-Charles Leblanc, Detlef Wölfle, Jaime Aguilera, Alessandra Giarola, Camilla Smeraldi, Giorgia Vianello, Laurence Castle.
Abstract
The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications of enzymatically produced steviol glycosides (E 960c) with respect to the inclusion of rebaudioside D produced via enzyme-catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside D (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)-glucosyltransferase (UGT) and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeast K. phaffii UGT-A, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The same enzymes from K. phaffii UGT-A may be used in the manufacturing process of the food additive, rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from stevia (E 960c(i)). The Panel considered that separate specifications would be needed for this food additive produced via the manufacturing process described in the current application, aligned with those already established for E 960c(i). The Panel concluded that there is no toxicological concern for Rebaudioside D produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP-glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase produced by a genetically modified strain of the yeast K. phaffii. However, based on the available data, the Panel could not exclude the possibility that some residual amount of DNA coding for the kanamycin resistance gene could remain in the final product. Should this gene propagate in microbiota due to the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product, this would be of concern. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of Rebaudioside D produced via this enzymatic bioconversion was not sufficiently demonstrated with the available data given that the absence of recombinant DNA was not shown.Entities:
Keywords: enzymatic bioconversion; rebaudioside D; steviol glycoside preparations; yeast K. phaffii
Year: 2022 PMID: 35600273 PMCID: PMC9109230 DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7291
Source DB: PubMed Journal: EFSA J ISSN: 1831-4732
Figure 1Chemical structure of Rebaudioside D
Specifications for ‘E 960c(i) Rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from stevia’ as set in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 and proposed amendment to the specifications (Documentation provided to EFSA n. 4)
| Existing specifications for E 960c(i) as set in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012 | Proposed amendment to the specifications | |
|---|---|---|
|
| Rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from Stevia | Rebaudioside M |
|
|
Rebaudioside M is a steviol glycoside composed predominantly of rebaudioside M with minor amounts of other steviol glycosides such as rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside I and stevioside. |
Rebaudioside M is a steviol glycoside composed predominantly of rebaudioside M with minor amounts of other steviol glycosides such as rebaudioside A, rebaudioside B, rebaudioside D, rebaudioside I and stevioside.
|
|
Rebaudioside M is obtained via enzymatic bioconversion of purified steviol glycoside leaf extracts (95% steviol glycosides) of the After removal of the enzymes by solid–liquid separation and heat treatment, the purification involves concentration of the rebaudioside M by resin adsorption, followed by recrystallisation of rebaudioside M resulting in a final product containing not less than 95% of rebaudioside M. Viable cells of the yeasts |
Rebaudioside M
After removal of the enzymes by solid–liquid separation and heat treatment, the purification involves concentration of the rebaudioside M | |
| Chemical name | Rebaudioside M: 13‐[(2‐O‐β‐ |
Rebaudioside M: 13‐[(2‐O‐β‐ |
Risk assessment for toxic elements
| Exposure to proposed additive (mg/kg bw per day) |
Based on the highest reported analytical data (Documentation provided to EFSA no. 1) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
MOE for As at 0.09 mg/kg | MOE for Pb at 0.16 mg/kg | % of the TWI for Cd at 0.01 mg/kg | % of the TWI for Hg at 0.01 mg/kg | |
| 4.3 | 222–5,926 | 208 | 0.04 | 0.03 |
|
| ||||
|
|
|
|
| |
| 40–1,067 | 67 | 1.1 | 0.26 | |
Estimated exposure expressed as steviol equivalents, using MPLs and the proposed extension of use (toddlers, 95th percentile). Data from EFSA ANS Panel scientific opinion on the safety of the extension of use of steviol glycosides (E 960) as a food additive (EFSA ANS Panel, 2015b).
Corresponding estimated exposure to the Reb D preparation after application of the steviol equivalency factor of 0.29 as proposed in the amendment of the specifications.
Reference points/health‐based guidance value for toxic elements present in (E 960c)
|
Impurity/constituent/ HBGV/RP (µg/kg bw) | Basis/Reference |
|---|---|
|
Lead (Pb)/ 0.5 (BMDL01) |
The reference point is based on a study demonstrating perturbation of intellectual development in children with the critical response size of 1 point reduction in IQ. The EFSA CONTAM Panel mentioned that a 1 point reduction in IQ is related to a 4.5% increase in the risk of failure to graduate from high school and that a 1 point reduction in IQ in children can be associated with a decrease of later productivity of about 2%. A risk cannot be excluded if the exposure exceeds the BMDL01 (MOE lower than 1).
|
|
Mercury (Hg)/ 4 (TWI) |
The HBGV was set using kidney weight changes in male rats as the pivotal effect. Based on the BMDL10 of 0.06 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as mercury, and an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for inter‐ and intra‐species differences, with conversion to a weekly basis and rounding to one significant figure, a TWI for inorganic mercury of 4 μg/kg bw per week, expressed as mercury was established. EFSA CONTAM Panel ( |
|
Cadmium (Cd)/ 2.5 (TWI) |
The derivation of the reference point is based on a meta‐analysis to evaluate the dose–response relationship between selected urinary cadmium and urinary beta‐2‐microglobulin as the biomarker of tubular damage recognised as the most useful biomarker in relation to tubular effects. A group‐based BMDL5 of 4 μg Cd/g creatinine for humans was derived. A chemical‐specific adjustment factor of 3.9 was applied to account for human variability in urinary cadmium within each dose‐subgroup in the analysis resulting in a reference point of 1.0 μg Cd per g creatinine. In order to remain below 1 μg Cd/g creatinine in urine in 95% of the population by age 50, the average daily dietary cadmium intake should not exceed 0.36 μg Cd/kg bw, corresponding to a weekly dietary intake of 2.5 μg Cd/kg bw.
|
|
Arsenic (As)/ 0.3‐8 (BMDL01) |
The reference point is based on a range of benchmark dose lower confidence limit (BMDL01) values between 0.3 and 8 µg/kg bw per day identified for cancers of the lung, skin and bladder, as well as skin lesions. In general, the MOE should be at least 10,000 if the reference point is based on carcinogenicity in animal studies. However, as the BMDL for As is derived from human studies, an interspecies extrapolation factor (i.e. 10) is not needed.
|
HBGV: health‐based guidance value; RP: reference point; BMDL01: benchmark dose (lower confidence limit); bw: body weight; TWI: Tolerable Weekly Intake; TDI: Tolerable Daily Intake; MOE: margin of exposure.