13,995
Views
112
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Reviews

Review of the regulation and safety assessment of food substances in various countries and jurisdictions

, , , , , , , & show all
Pages 1147-1220 | Received 28 Mar 2013, Accepted 09 Apr 2013, Published online: 20 Jun 2013

Abstract

This review compares the regulations, definitions and approval processes for substances intentionally added to or unintentionally present in human food in the following specific countries/jurisdictions: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States. This includes direct food additives, food ingredients, flavouring agents, food enzymes and/or processing aids, food contact materials, novel foods, and nanoscale materials for food applications. The regulatory authority of each target jurisdiction/country uses its own regulatory framework and although the definitions, regulations and approval processes may vary among all target countries, in general there are many similarities. In all cases, the main purpose of each authority is to establish a regulatory framework and maintain/enforce regulations to ensure that food consumed and sold within its respective countries is safe. There is a move towards harmonisation of food regulations, as illustrated by Australia and New Zealand and by Mercosur. The European Union has also established regulations, which are applicable for all member states, to establish a common authorisation procedure for direct food additives, flavourings and enzymes. Although the path for approval of different categories of food additives varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are many commonalities in terms of the data requirements and considerations for assessment of the safety of use of food additives, including the use of positive lists of approved substances, pre-market approval, and a separation between science and policy decisions. The principles applied are largely reflective of the early work by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) committees and JECFA assessments of the safety of food additives for human and animal foods.

Introduction

The purpose of this review is to present an overview and comparison of the regulation of substances added to foods in a number of different countries/jurisdictions, as well as the efforts of internationally recognised scientific and advisory bodies, such as the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) and the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) with respect to the safety assessment of these substances.

The specific countries/jurisdictions addressed are Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union (EU), Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and the United States (herein referred to as the “target countries”). The choice of jurisdictions to be included was based on a number of factors, and was intended to include both of well-established and emerging regulatory systems. The substances added to human food that are included in this review are direct food additives, common food ingredients such as sugar, food contact materials, flavouring agents, food enzymes, and/or processing aids. In addition, information pertaining to the development of regulations for nanomaterials falls under the scope of this review. Pesticide residues, drug residues or contaminants (e.g. lead) are not addressed in detail. A full list of included substances and their definitions according to each target country is provided. It should be noted that regulatory information for each country may be updated frequently and this report was written as an overview of the regulatory framework for each country. To the best of our knowledge, regulatory information is current as of June 2012. It is recognised that the definitions of terms used in this document may vary by organisation.

International scientific and advisory committees

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO) established the CAC jointly in 1962 to address safety and nutritional quality of foods, and develop international standards to promote trade (Codex Alimentarius Commission 2006). The CAC is an intergovernmental body composed of delegations from FAO and WHO member states that participate in developing food standards. The CAC develops standards on the basis of sound scientific evidence provided by independent FAO/WHO scientific committees. JECFA, established prior to the CAC in 1956, is the oldest and most active of these. Primary roles of the CAC include establishing international food standards for approved food additives providing maximum levels in foods, maximum limits for contaminants and toxins, maximum residue limits for pesticides and for veterinary drugs used in veterinary animals, and establishing hygiene and technological function practice codes (Codex Alimentarius Commission 2006). The collection of these standards, codes of practice, guidelines and recommendations, constitute what is known as the Codex Alimentarius, a substantial and useful reference. While the standards set by the CAC serve as guidelines to nations, the CAC has no regulatory authority and their standards are not enforceable unless they have been adopted into the regulatory framework for a nation or otherwise indicated (Codex 2011). For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) refers to the Codex Alimentarius Sanitary and Phytosanitary practice codes in the SPS Agreement for member country food safety purposes.

Expert scientific advice is provided to the CAC by JECFA. Independent scientific committee members are appointed as experts in their own right and not as representatives of their governments or employers. Initially developed by WHO and FAO to address the safety of food additives, JECFA also has extended its activities to evaluate the safety of contaminants and veterinary drug residues in food. Although the outcome of JECFA’s evaluations does not have any direct bearing on the regulatory approval of use of a food additive in any specific country, its evaluations are widely recognised and may affect an application for approval for a new food additive in a particular country.

The Joint FAO/WHO Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)

The initial steps of the Committee were to establish general principles regarding the technical purpose of food additives as well as principles for safe use for these substances. Regarding the matter of technical purpose the Committee noted that food additives could serve a valuable technical function in food: (1) to maintain the nutritional quality of food; (2) to enhance keeping quality or stability, with resulting reductions in food wastage; (3) to make food attractive to consumers; and (4) to provide essential aids to processing.

The Committee established the following situations in which food additives should not be used: (1) to deceive the consumer; (2) to result in substantial reduction of the nutritional value of food; (3) when the desired effect can be obtained by good manufacturing practices; or (4) to disguise the use of faulty processing or handling techniques.

With respect to safety evaluation of food additives the Committee again established sound key general principles. They were: (1) it is impossible to establish absolute proof of non-toxicity for all members of the human population; (2) critically designed animal studies can provide a reasonable basis for evaluating the safety of food additives; (3) the decision as to a safe level for a food additive should be based on knowledge of the minimum dietary level that produces no unfavourable response in test animals; (4) decisions on the use of food additives must be based on the considered judgment of properly qualified scientists that the intake of the additive will be below any level which could be harmful to consumers; (5) the fate of the additive during food processing and preparation should be considered because of the possible formation of toxic substances and interaction of the food additive with components of food or other food additives; and (6) consideration should be given to groups within the population who for medical reasons may be especially vulnerable to certain food additives. The Committee went on to recommend that when a food additive is proposed for use, considerations should be given:

  • to determine if there is a demonstrated benefit to consumers;

  • to limit the use of food additives in the diets of infants and young children;

  • to assess whether there are adequate data to derive specifications for identify and purity of the food additive; and

  • to limit the level of use of food additives to the minimum required to achieve the desired technical effect.

The Committee also noted that permitted lists of food additives should be drawn up because the use of prohibited lists could entail several years of exposure to potentially harmful food additives before sufficient evidence was accumulated to place it on the prohibited list. The use of permitted lists would eliminate this danger. The Committee also agreed with the principle that consumers should be made aware of the presence of food additives in their food and noted that label declaration is the most effective method of achieving this result. With respect to regulatory control at the national level, the Committee noted that methods must be available to measure food additives in foods and that enforcement of levels of use through appropriate food legislation provided a reliable way of governing the use of food additives.

JECFA also established principles and procedures for the testing of food additives to establish the safety of food additive use (JECFA 1958). The Committee noted that food additives may be consumed over a substantial proportion of lifetime and emphasised the need for studies in appropriate animal species that would reflect the conditions of human exposure. The Committee further noted that no single pattern of tests could adequately cover the testing requirements of substances of such diverse structure and function as food additives and therefore the Committee strongly emphasised that the establishment of a uniform set of experimental procedures that would be standardised and obligatory was undesirable. For this reason, which still holds true today, the Committee decided that it was only possible to formulate general recommendations on testing procedures.

The general principles regarding the testing of food additives were identified including: (1) the selection of animal species for testing indicating that background information on species/strain, natural disease rates, tumour incidence, and duration of life was essential for proper interpretation of experimental results; (2) the importance of animal housing, diets, control groups and statistical procedures for the design of studies, and their interpretation; (3) the importance of dose selection emphasising the need to magnify the dose in experimental animals to overcome statistical limitations of the test design and to provide a means of studying dose–response relationships; (4) the need for biochemical mechanistic investigations to detect subtle physiological changes and to assist in data interpretation; and (5) the need to examine the potential for food additives to induce carcinogenesis, stating that no proven carcinogen should be considered suitable for use as a food additive in any amount (JECFA 1958). The results of the toxicological evaluations are the basis for the allocation of an acceptable daily intake (ADI) or tolerable intake for contaminants the Committee considered unavoidable.

The Committee also discussed the pivotal issue relating to the extrapolation of animal studies to humans noting that in most instances a dosage level can be identified that causes no demonstrable effect in animals. It also noted that a margin of safety of 100 could be applied in extrapolating animal data to humans to account for species differences in susceptibility, numerical differences in population ranges between the test animals and the human population, the greater variety of complicating disease processes in the human population, and the possibility of synergistic action among food additives. The Committee noted that application of a 100-fold margin of safety would limit the use of some food additives yet was an adequate margin of safety for most substances proposed for use as food additives at the time.

Additionally, the Committee established specifications for the identity and purity of food additives. From the viewpoint of industry the specifications of the substance/compound helped define suitability for use in food. Items included in the specifications document were: title or name in common usage; synonyms; chemical name (IUPAC); empirical (organic compounds) or chemical formula (inorganic compounds); structural formula; molecular weight; definition (percentage of the stated substance that should be present origin of the material if necessary); description (appearance, taste, odour and other general properties); identification tests; and purity tests (tests for impurities and their nature).

In the early 1990s the CAC recognised the need to formalise the risk analysis process. A definition of risk analysis was developed, through a series of consultations, that embodies risk assessment, risk management and risk communication (CAC 2005). Scientific committees such as JECFA are responsible for risk assessment, which includes hazard identification, hazard characterisation, exposure assessment and risk characterisation. In response to formalisation of the risk assessment process, JECFA has increased its emphasis on exposure assessment, which includes predicted intake for substances new to the market or for which few relevant data exist and estimated intake of food additives and contaminants for which sufficient information exists for such an analysis. Within each jurisdiction, responsibility for each of the three components of risk analysis is often divided among different divisions of the regulatory agencies or to separate bodies. For example, in the EU, the Directorate General for Health and Consumers has risk management responsibility whereas the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) is an independent body with risk assessment and risk communication responsibilities. Further discussion of the process of risk analysis of components in foods, including risk management and risk communication, is outside the scope of this review.

When one looks back at this early work of the Committee, it is clear that JECFA has played a leading role in setting the worldwide agenda for how food additives, contaminants and adventitious substances in food should be evaluated. Although these deliberations occurred 50 years ago, the general principles and procedures elaborated by JECFA in early meetings have stood the test of time and are still used by the Committee at the present time. The credit for this lies with the early Committee members most of whom were outstanding research scientists and widely recognised experts in their discipline. The early work of JECFA also brought harmonisation of the approach to safety assessment of food additives on a worldwide basis. This resulted in a tremendous advantage to national governments that looked to JECFA for guidance and continue to do so. There can be no doubt that JECFA is the preeminent body dealing with food safety issues internationally.

The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS)

The International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) is a joint venture of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), the International Labour Organisation (ILO), and the WHO. The main objective of the IPCS is to carry out and disseminate evaluations of the effects of chemicals on human health and the quality of the environment. In 1987, in response to numerous recommendations by JECFA, the IPCS convened a Task Force to review current knowledge and advances in toxicological science, and to develop criteria for testing and evaluation of the safety of food additives and contaminants. Thus, in 1987, the Environmental Health Criteria 70 (EHC70) was published, entitled Principles for the Safety Assessment of Food Additives and Contaminants in Food. This document was subsequently updated by the IPCS in 2009, with the publication of EHC240, entitled Principles and Methods for the Risk Assessment of Chemicals in Food (WHO 2009).

These guidelines provide a comprehensive current review of the key issues considered by JECFA during their risk assessments of food chemicals. Topics addressed include the risk assessment paradigm, chemical characterisation and specifications for food chemicals, toxicological studies used for hazard identification and characterisation, dose–response assessments, derivation of health-based guidance values such as ADI, assessment of dietary exposure to chemicals in food, risk characterisation, determination of maximum residue limits for pesticides and veterinary drugs, and approaches for assessment of specific groups of substances such as flavours and novel foods.

Regulations in different jurisdictions

To obtain an understanding of the global regulation of substances intentionally added to food, the regulatory systems and laws pertaining to their safety were reviewed and tabulated for ease of presentation and comparison. The countries that were chosen included: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and United States. These countries include both those with well-established regulatory systems (i.e. Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the EU and US) and several that are currently in the process of changing and/or modernising their food regulatory systems (i.e. Argentina, Brazil, China and Mexico). Although it is acknowledged that there are many other jurisdictions that were worthy of inclusion in this review, limited resources required selection of those for which we had expertise in, and English versions or translations of regulations.

For each target country, the following information was sought and is summarised in table format (Tables ):

  • A brief historical overview of the main regulatory body/scientific advisory body and highlight roles and responsibilities concerning the regulation of chemicals added to food.

  • A discussion of the regulatory framework.

  • Pertinent regulations.

  • Submission requirements/process for the approval of new food substances.

  • Any pending or recent changes and the reason for the changes.

Table 1. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Argentina.

Table 2. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Australia/New Zealand.

Table 3. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Brazil.

Table 4. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Canada.

Table 5. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in China.

Table 6. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in the European Union.

Table 7. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Japan.

Table 8. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in Mexico.

Table 9. Regulatory framework of chemicals added to food in the USA.

Comparison of the regulatory systems and regulations for food substances in the different jurisdictions

Overview

In general, each of the target countries has a regulatory system in place for the scientific evaluation and approval of food additives, food ingredients, and food contact substances; however, several are undergoing change, refinement and working towards harmonisation with other countries. The EU has recently adopted new regulations, which establish a common authorisation procedure for food additives and, for the first time, food enzymes and flavouring agents. Prior to the implementation of these new regulations, food enzymes and flavourings were regulated at the national level for each member state.

Similar to the EU, other regional bodies representing multiple nations have been established and are working to harmonise food standards for member countries. Australia and New Zealand have harmonised their food standards, which are maintained by Food Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ). Thus, Australia and New Zealand (NZ) have joint labelling and compositional standards under the Australia NZ Food Standard Code; however, there are separate standards that are not part of the joint food standards setting system, covering food safety, agricultural compounds and veterinary medicines, and primary food production and processing. These are covered in the Code but apply to Australia only. Equivalent NZ standards are developed and administered by the NZ Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) (formerly MAF). MPI is responsible for implementation and enforcement of food standards and requirements for exported foods. Furthermore, in NZ there is a standard for supplemented foods allowing foods to be modified in a way that is beyond what is permitted under the Food Standards Code. The Supplemented Food Standard was introduced in March 2010 to regulate food type products previously sold under the NZ Dietary Supplements Regulations. However, supplemented foods must comply with most sections of the Code including the food additive requirements.

In South America, the South American Common Market, known as Mercosur, represents Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Venezuela. While these nations do have their own regulatory systems in place, many of their food standards are gradually being replaced by official Mercosur standards as they are developed.

Regulatory authorities

Table outlines the regulatory authorities and the Advisory Scientific Body/Regulatory Enforcement Agency for each of the target countries. Labelling and compositional standards for both Australia and New Zealand are developed by FSANZ; thus, these regulations discussed within this report will be identical for both countries. The EU regulations apply verbatim in all member states.

Table 10. Authoritative bodies among the target countries.

Participation in international organisations

All the target countries (Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, the EU and US) are members of the WTO and CAC. In addition, Argentina and Brazil follow Mercosur standards. Mercosur was established in 1991 and encompasses Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay and, as of 2006, Venezuela. Mercosur standards are influenced by the EU, CAC and USFDA. For further details, see the individual summary Tables . A summary of the target countries and their participation in international organisations is presented in Table .

Table 11. Participation of target countries in international organisations.

Direct food additives

Food additives are defined and regulated among Argentina, Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Mexico and the US. Although, the precise definition of a food additive differs among the target countries, in general a food additive is defined as a substance added to foods intentionally and to achieve a technological function in the final product. In each of these countries a permitted list of food additives is published and available to the public. The permitted list contains food additives, which are deemed safe for human consumption under the specified conditions of use. In all target countries except the US, if a food additive is not on the permitted list or its use is not permitted in a particular food and an applicant wants to use the food additive, the applicant must submit an application to approve its use in the respective country, following the conditions and requirements laid out by the respective authoritative body.

In Argentina and Brazil, food additives are regulated under Mercosur standards (GMC 11/06, 34/10 and 35/10). For new food additives, applicants must submit to the Comisión Nacional de Alimentos (CONAL) or Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (ANVISA) (for Argentina and Brazil, respectively), which will subsequently forward the application to Mercosur’s Sub Work Group #3. In Canada, all new food additives or changes to the permitted uses of already approved food additives under Division 16 of the Food and Drug Regulations must undergo a pre-market assessment focused on safety. Similarly, in Japan and China a safety assessment was conducted on all currently permitted food additives. In all the target countries, a pre-market application is generally required for new food additives and for changes pertaining to an existing permitted food additive (such as changing the maximum permitted level, revision of a standard of use, etc.).

In the EU, on 16 December 2008, new regulations were adopted, which include food additives (1333/2008/EC), food enzymes (1332/2008/EC), and flavourings and food ingredients with flavouring properties (1334/2008/EC). The regulation on food additives applies to food additives used for a technological purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packaging, transport or storage of food, excluding those substances used as processing aids. Under the regulation, food additives shall be subject to safety evaluation by the EFSA and approval via a Community list. The inclusion of a food additive in the Community list is considered by the Commission on the basis of the opinion on its safety from EFSA and a demonstrated case of need. The Commission takes into account other general criteria such as technological need and consumer aspects when considering whether to include the food additive in the Community list. For every food additive included in the positive list, specifications, including the criteria on purity and the origin of the food additive, shall be laid down. In order to increase consistency in common areas of the procedural aspects of food additives’ approval, guidelines for evaluation by EFSA and decision-making by the Commission, are provided in Regulation (EC) No. 1331/2008 (adopted 16 December 2010) which establishes a common authorisation procedure for food additives, food enzymes and food flavourings. In June 2012, new guidance for the submission of food additive applications was published outlining a tiered approach, in which the extent of toxicological testing is determined by the results of initial testing, with key issues and triggers described that can result in additional required testing (EFSA Panel 2012).

In the US, substances to be added to food are subject to a premarket approval requirement unless they are exempt as outlined below. Rulis and Levitt (Citation2009) provide an excellent detailed description of the food additive approval process in the US. The 1958 Food Additive Amendments of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) required demonstration of the safety of food additives, but also included two clauses to exempt food additives currently in use from safety assessments by making them “grandfathered” ingredients. This included food additives that had been previously sanctioned for use in foods, and food additives that were “generally recognised as safe” (GRAS) for use as food. These ingredients became known as GRAS substances and were permitted to remain on the market, although in later years subsequent reviews of the safety of many of the grandfathered GRAS substances were undertaken and the USFDA affirmed their GRAS status. In 1997, the USFDA issued a proposed rule to eliminate the GRAS affirmation petition process and replace it with a voluntary notification procedure. Thus, the USFDA no longer accepts GRAS affirmation petitions. Additional details on the history of GRAS is available on the USFDA website.

As a result of these amendments to the FFDCA, a food additive pre-market approval is not required for a new food additive or use if the use is GRAS. The use of the substance can be determined to be GRAS by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate its safety, and having been adequately shown through scientific procedures (or in the case of a substance used in food prior to 1 January 1958, through either scientific procedures or experience based on common use in food) to be safe under the conditions of intended use. The requirement for “general recognition” of safety is often satisfied through publication of the pivotal safety data in the peer-reviewed literature, and cited in the GRAS dossier or notification submission. A list of GRAS substance notifications reviewed by the USFDA and the agency response can be found in an online database maintained by the agency. In general, the USFDA’s response is one of the following: (1) the USFDA has no questions about the notifier’s conclusion of GRAS status; (2) the notice does not provide a basis for a conclusion of GRAS status; or (3) at the notifier’s request, the USFDA ceased to evaluate the notice.

Several important points about GRAS substances should be noted. Firstly, the GRAS status of a compound is based on the intended use(s) and levels of use documented in the determination dossier, which will determine the anticipated exposure and thus safety. Thus, it is the specific use, and not the substance in general, that is determined to be GRAS. Other uses of that substance in foods are not GRAS. Secondly, as USFDA notification of the GRAS determination is voluntary, there is no publicly available list of the uses of substances that have been “self-determined” to be GRAS and thus no opportunity for public scrutiny of safety decisions. A recent review by Neltner et al. (Citation2011) provides further discussion of the US food additive regulatory programme. For a summary of the regulations pertaining to direct food additives, see Table .

Table 12. Comparison of the regulations on direct food additives among the target countries.

Novel foods

Novel foods (which usually encompass novel food ingredients) are generally foods or ingredients without a history of human consumption. Novel foods are specifically defined and regulated among Australia/New Zealand, Brazil, Canada, China and the EU. Although among these countries the definition of a novel food may differ (see definitions in Table ), all novel foods marketed for sale in these countries require premarket approval or notification to their respective authoritative bodies. The safety assessment for novel foods that are whole foods cannot be conducted in the same manner as is used for individual ingredients. Whole foods are complex mixtures, often with considerable variation in composition depending on growing conditions. As they contribute calories, nutrients and bulk to the diet, they cannot be tested at high levels without altering the nutritional composition of the animal diet, and thus is not possible to achieve the same safety margins between animal dose levels and projected human intakes. Critical components include evaluation of the nutritional composition, presence of known toxins or anti-nutrients, and allergenicity of proteins as well as assessment of the potential nutritional impact of introducing the novel food into the human diet.

Table 13. A comparison of the regulations on novel foods among the target countries.

The majority of these target countries regulate novel foods and novel food ingredients based on a risk or safety assessment model to ensure safety following human consumption as outlined within the applicable regulations. In Argentina, Japan and Mexico, novel foods are neither defined nor regulated. In the US, novel foods are not defined but are regulated as direct food additives or food contact substances depending on their use (see “Direct food additives” above or “Food contact substances” below). For a summary of the regulations pertaining to novel foods, see Table .

Food contact substances

Food contact substances are generally any materials or articles intended to come into contact with food, including food containers, packaging, processing, etc. The basic safety principle of food contact materials is that they should generally be inert and not result in addition of compounds to the foods. Thus, the potential for migration of components of food contact materials into foods, and the assessment of exposure and toxicity of any migration is the basis for the safety determinations. In Argentina and Brazil, food contact substances are defined and regulated as food additives as per Mercosur standard GMC 32/07. In Canada and Japan, food contact substances are regulated separately from food additives and approval for use of food contact substances is not required (i.e. only voluntary submission of the food contact substance to the authoritative body).

In Australia/New Zealand, food contact substances are defined as any materials in contact with food and provided that such articles or materials, if taken into the mouth, are not capable of being swallowed or of obstructing any alimentary or respiratory passage and are not otherwise likely to cause bodily harm, distress or discomfort. Plastic materials for food contact use may voluntarily comply with the Australian Standard AS 2070-1999, a positive list of food contact substances. Discussions are in progress to include food packaging in the Food Standard Code, which would require compliance with US or EU regulations. At present, applications for food packaging materials are generally unnecessary provided there is approval in the US or the EU.

In contrast, pre-market notification or approval is required for use of food contact substances in China and the EU to confirm safety. In China, food contact substances are defined as materials in contact with the food, which include the food containers, packaging materials and anything in contact with the food in the course of manufacture, transport, sale and service. The EU has a more extensive definition for food contact substances (i.e. substances used to create all materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs, including packaging materials but also cutlery, dishes, processing machines, containers, etc.). The term also includes materials and articles that are in contact with water intended for human consumption.

In Mexico, food contact substances are not defined and no specific regulations are available pertaining to their use. The Regulation for the Sanitary Control of Products and Services establishes that packaging materials that contain substances that can migrate to the finished product, without endangering the health of consumers will be considered indirect additives. The classification of packaging materials and the physical, chemical and toxicological characteristic of each type of material will be established in specific norms. In general, the substances that are used to line packages used for foods, non-alcoholic beverages, alcoholic beverages, and health and beauty products will have to: remain perfectly adhered to the surface that is covered and do not crack, flake or become in any way a component of the food; be insoluble or inert in the food matrix, not be toxic; remain totally exempt of the volatile compounds that are used for their dilution and application; be free of heavy metals; avoid metal corrosion and not alter the pH of the product. Most major customers will require legal confirmation that a specific compound is allowed for use and should seek technical consultation. For certain products, a voluntary standard (Mexican Norm – NMX) may be available.

In the US, food contact substances are specifically defined and are also known as indirect additives. They include substances that are not intended to be added directly to food or to have a technical effect, but which may reasonably be expected to become a component of food. These include substances used in packaging, transporting or the production of food.

Premarket approval is required for all food contact substance uses, unless exempted. A substance used in a food contact article may be exempted if the use in question has been shown to meet the requirements for a Threshold of Regulation exemption. The Threshold of Regulation is an application of the concept of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). The TTC will be discussed in greater detail in the section on flavouring agents.

In 1995, the USFDA established a “threshold of regulation” of 0.5 ppb (equivalent to 1.5 μg/person/day) for indirect food additives that are not known to be carcinogens and do not contain structural alerts indicative of carcinogenicity (FDA 1995). A list the exemptions that have been issued under 21 CFR 170.39 Threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles, is published on the USFDA website. Food contact substances uses that have been determined to be GRAS as also exempt from premarket approval. Similar to food additives, USFDA notification of the GRAS determination of the use of the food contact substances is voluntary.

In 1997, a food contact notification (FCN) process was established to allows for faster review of food contact substance uses that are not exempt from premarket approval. Unlike food additive regulations and threshold of regulation exemptions, approvals under the FCN process are proprietary and effective only for the manufacturer and substance identified in the notification.

An online inventory of effective premarket notifications for food contact substances that have been demonstrated to be safe for their intended use is maintained by the USFDA.

For a summary of the regulations pertaining to food contact substances, see Table .

Table 14. Comparison of the regulations on food contact substances among the target countries.

Flavouring agents

Flavouring agents are substances or mixtures of substances intended for use in flavouring, intensifying or enhancing the aroma or taste of a food. Due to the very large number of flavouring agents and their use at very low levels in foods, regulations pertaining to this category represent a unique approach in many cases. Many flavouring agents have been approved based on long history of safe use (i.e. grandfathered) or through use of the TTC approach. The history, assumptions and databases used to develop the TTC were recently reviewed and evaluated by the EFSA Scientific Committee (Citation2012) for consideration of potential application of the TTC to the safety assessment of other categories substances of present in foods and feed. In brief, the TTC is based on the concept that reasonable assurance of safety can be given, even in the absence of chemical-specific toxicity data, providing that the intake is sufficiently low, i.e. that an exposure level or threshold can be defined below which there is no significant risk to human health. The TTC requires that the chemical structure of the compound is known, and there is adequate information on the likely human exposure. Human threshold values or TTC values have been determined for structural classes of compounds using probabilistic approaches based on databases of toxicological testing for both cancer and non-cancer endpoints on a wide variety of chemical structures (EFSA Citation2012).

Flavouring agents, similar to food contact substances, do not require pre-market notification prior to use in Canada or the US. In the US, flavouring agents can be approved by the USFDA through a petition or though the GRAS determination process. The Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association (FEMA) expert panel has served as the primary body for the safety evaluation of food flavourings since 1959, through GRAS assessment of flavouring substances, which often utilises the TTC approach. The panel safety decisions are provided to the USFDA and are published in the peer-reviewed literature (Smith et al. Citation2011) as well as on the FEMA webpage. As discussed below, the conclusions of the FEMA Expert Panel are often used as the basis for the acceptance of flavouring substances as safe food ingredients in many countries around the world.

In Australia/New Zealand, China, the EU, Japan and Mexico flavouring substances fall under the regulations for food additives. The permitted list of food additives generally includes specific flavouring substances. For a new flavouring substance (substance not listed on the permitted list of food additives for use), the approval process follows the same process as a food additive (see “Direct food additives” above). In Australia/New Zealand, FSANZ does not require a risk assessment to be done if the flavours are already listed in various publications such as the GRAS list published by the FEMA (Smith et al. 2011).

Recently in the EU, a new regulation was issued for flavouring substances under Regulation (EC) No. 1334/2008 and a new authorisation procedure under Regulation (EC) No. 1331/2008 was adopted (as discussed above in “Direct food additives”). EFSA and the JECFA also, when possible and feasible, apply the TTC approach for assessment of flavour substance.

In Argentina and Brazil, flavouring agents are regulated under Mercosur standards GMC 10/06. For new flavouring agents, applicants must submit to CONAL or ANVISA (for Argentina and Brazil, respectively), who will forward the application to Mercosur’s Sub Work Group #3. For a summary of the regulations pertaining to flavouring agents, see Table .

Table 15. Comparison of the regulations on flavouring agents among the target countries.

Enzymes

In general, enzymes are substances or products extracted from animals, plants or microbes that act by either promoting a desirable chemical reaction or are used in processing. The definition of an enzyme according to each target country is presented in Table . In Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Mexico and the US enzymes are regulated as food additives. Likewise, the approval process for new enzymes also follows the same approval process for direct food additives (see “Direct food additives” above). However, depending on the context of use, Canada may consider enzymes to be processing aids. In Australia/New Zealand, enzymes as such are not specifically defined in the Food Standards Code; however, specified enzymes are permitted for use as processing aids (see “Processing aids” below). Recently in the EU, a new regulation was issued for enzymes under Regulation (EC) No. 1332/2008 and a new authorisation procedure under Regulation (EC) No. 1331/2008 was adopted (as discussed above). In Argentina and Brazil, enzyme regulations are not harmonised in Mercosur; thus, enzyme regulations are regulated differently for these two countries. In Argentina, enzymes are regulated under the CAA, Chapter XVI (Articles 1261, 1262 and 1263). The approval processes for new enzymes require an application submitted to CONAL. In Brazil, enzymes are regulated under Resolution No. 26 and the use of new enzymes requires an application submitted to ANVISA.

Table 16. Comparison of the regulations on enzymes among the target countries.

Table 17. Comparison of the regulations on processing aids among the target countries.

JECFA (2001) has also provided specific comments for consideration of the safety assessment of enzymes derived from recombinant sources. These include: (1) characterisation of genetic materials introduced into the organism producing the enzyme to demonstrate that no unexpected genetic materials are introduced into the host; (2) consideration of potential of proteins from the microorganism leading to antibiotic resistance; and (3) evaluation of the allergenic potential of the gene products.

For a summary of the regulations pertaining to enzymes, see Table .

Processing aids

The definition of processing aid varies across the target countries; however, in general, processing aids are substances not consumed as food ingredients by themselves and are used intentionally in processing or in the production of raw materials, ingredients or foods to achieve a technological purpose. As illustrated in Codex inventory of processing aids, with the exception of enzymes and solvents, most processing aids have not been evaluated by JECFA. Furthermore, this inventory is not considered to be complete. Development of a comprehensive Codex database of processing aids is under discussion.

In Canada, similar to flavouring agents and food contact substances, processing aids are permitted for use without pre-market notification providing they meet the specific criteria for the definition of a processing aid (i.e. results in no or negligible residues in the food). If they do not meet these criteria, the processing aid is considered to be a food additive and the approval process for direct food additives would be applicable. Similarly in the EU, no regulations pertain to processing aids specifically; however, if a processing aid does not meet the criteria for the definition of a processing aid, it is classified as a food additive, and Regulation (EC) No. 1333/2008 (regulation for food additives) would be applicable. Processing aids are regulated as food additives for the following countries: China, Japan and Mexico; therefore, all regulations pertaining to direct food additives are applicable (see “Direct food additives” above). In Mexico, publication in 2012 of the new updated food additive positive lists processing aids separate from food additives. In Argentina and Brazil, processing aids are not harmonised in Mercosur. The only harmonised regulation is 84/93, which establishes the definitions of the functions of processing aids. In Argentina, certain processing aids are listed under Chapter XVI of the CAA; however, this list is not comprehensive. In Australia/New Zealand, processing aids are regulated under Food Standard 1.3.3, a general standard for processing aids. New processing aids or existing processing aids with new food uses require an application to modify the Standard Food Code. It should be noted that processing aids are regulated into a specific horizontal standard (i.e. across the whole food supply) in Australia, unlike the systems used by other countries, as well as for standards promulgated by the CAC. In the US, processing aids would be known as “secondary direct food additives” and regulated as direct food additives. In some cases, they may also be regulated as food contact substances (see “Direct food additives” and “Food contact substances” above).

For a summary of the regulations pertaining to processing aids, see Table .

Nanoscale materials

The regulation of products of nanotechnology is a dynamic and evolving activity, due largely to the wide spectrum of nanomaterials, nano-enabled products, and applications that are being developed and the uncertainties that are associated with defining, characterising, and appropriately testing them for efficacy and safety (PEN 2011). Nanotechnology is a term that has been defined in a few countries (Australia/New Zealand, Canada, China and the EU), but not all. In Canada, nanotechnology is described as the application of nanoscience to develop new materials and products, and involves the manipulation of matter at the nanometre scale. The development of the definition of nanomaterials has begun in several countries, including Canada, the EU and the US. For example, the European Commission (EC) proposed definition was “a material that consists of particles with one or more external dimensions in the size range 1–100 nm for more than 1% of their number”; and/or “has internal or surface structures in one or more dimensions in the size range 1 nm–100 nm”; and/or “has a specific surface area by volume greater than 60 m2 cm−3, excluding materials consisting of particles with a size lower than 1 nm”.

The development of engineered nanomaterials with new beneficial properties has potential food applications including improved nutrient and bioactive delivery systems, improved texture and flavour encapsulation; improved microbiological control, food processing, packaging, and package biodegradability; and highly sensitive biosensors for detecting pathogens, allergens, contaminants and degradants (reviewed in Chaudhry et al. Citation2008; Augustin & Sanguansri Citation2009; Magnuson et al. Citation2011). The regulation of use of engineered nanomaterials in food and feed production represents many new challenges. However, it should be noted that nanomaterials and nanostructures also occur naturally in all plant and animal products that are consumed as food. Examples of naturally occurring nanomaterials include DNA molecules and proteins such as casein micelles and whey proteins. Examples of nanostructures include the muscle structure of meats and fish, and pectin nanostructure in fruits.

The challenges regarding safety assessment of engineered nanomaterials that may be present in foods were discussed in a FAO/WHO Expert meeting on the application of nanotechnologies in the food and agriculture sectors (FAO/WHO 2010). As numerous studies have demonstrated that the biological properties of materials can change substantially when reduced to the nano-size range, the toxicological properties of nanomaterials cannot be assumed to be the same as their non-nano counterparts. A critical review of the published literature on the toxicity of nanomaterials with potential use or occurrence in food, food-related materials or dietary supplements demonstrated that there are very few published studies with adequate characterisation and repeated-dose exposures, which are necessary to assess safety of food-related exposures (Card et al. Citation2011). Thus, considerable additional research is needed to understand the potential effects of oral exposure to engineered nanomaterials. The FAO/WHO Expert meeting report also discussed gaps in knowledge and a need for sharing of existing data on the characterisation, toxicological and exposure data as well as appropriate methodologies to facilitate risk assessment (FAO/WHO 2010).

Currently, none of the listed “target countries” has established specific regulations on nanoscale materials for food-related uses; however, several have issued comments or opinions which are briefly discussed below. Many of the countries are involved in international organisations working toward developing approaches to risk assessment of nanomaterials. For further details, see the summary tables (Tables ) for each target country.

Australia and New Zealand

In Australia and New Zealand, any new substances intended to be added to food that are manufactured using nanotechnologies that may present safety concerns will have to undergo a comprehensive scientific safety assessment under the appropriate standard (e.g. as a novel food or food additive) before they can be legally sold in those countries. FSANZ has developed a factsheet for nanotechnology and foods, outlining the presence of naturally occurring nanomaterials in foods and the environment (FSANZ 2011b).

Canada

Health Canada is using existing legislative and regulatory frameworks to regulate applications of nanotechnology but recognises that new approaches may be necessary in future to keep pace with the advances in this area, particularly given that there currently is inadequate information on risks associated with nanomaterials (Health Canada 2010). Various acts (and regulations contained therein) are envisioned by Health Canada to be relevant to nanomaterials, including the Food and Drugs Act, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1999, the Hazardous Products Act, and the Pest Control Products Act.

Health Canada has indicated that in order to identify and assess potential risks and benefits (where applicable) of nanomaterials, the following types of information may be required to be submitted for review:

  • Intended use of the nanomaterial, including any end product in which it will be used.

  • Characterisation of the nanomaterial, including manufacturing methods, identity and purity.

  • Physicochemical properties and toxicological, eco-toxicological, metabolism and environmental fate data that may be both generic and specific to the nanomaterial if applicable.

  • Risk assessment and risk management strategies, if considered or implemented.

Health Canada has noted that future guidance specific to different programme areas and legislative and regulatory authorities will be developed in a manner that promotes a consistent set of approaches (Health Canada 2010).

European Union

Although there are no specific provisions in the EU legislation on nanoscale materials, existing legislation covers in principle the potential health, safety and environmental risks in relation to nanomaterials. A close examination of the definition for food additives already incorporates nanoscale materials (i.e. food additives that are prepared through nanotechnology would be considered under novel foods). In Article 12 of 1333/2008/EC:

when a food additive is already included in a Community list and there is a significant change in its production methods or in the starting materials used, or there is a change in particle size, for example through nanotechnology, the food additive prepared by those new methods or materials shall be considered as a different additive and a new entry in the Community lists or a change in the specifications shall be required before it can be placed on the market.

EFSA has published guidance for assessing the risks of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in food and feed (EFSA Citation2011). It stressed the importance of adequate physicochemical characterisation of the forms of engineered nanomaterials in food/feed products and under testing conditions. The physicochemical parameters that should be characterised regardless of the route of exposure include agglomeration and/or aggregation, chemical composition, crystal structure/crystallinity, particle size/size distribution, purity, shape, surface area, surface charge, and surface chemistry including composition and reactivity. The following characteristics are considered to be indicators of increased probability of toxicity: a high level of reactivity (e.g. catalytic, chemical); complex morphology (e.g. long fibre, crystal); interaction with biomolecules (e.g. proteins, DNA); complex transformations (e.g. loss of coating); the presence of antimicrobial activity; and evidence of persistence and/or bioaccumulation (EFSA 2011).

United States of America

The USFDA issued draft guidance in April 2012 regarding nanotechnology. At this time, there is no formal definition for “nanotechnology” or “nanoscale”, however the USFDA indicated that, “In the absence of a formal definition, when considering whether a USFDA-regulated product contains nanomaterials or otherwise involves the application of nanotechnology, the USFDA will ask: (1) whether an engineered material or end product has at least one dimension in the nanoscale range (approximately 1–100 nm); or (2) whether an engineered material or end product exhibits properties or phenomena, including physical or chemical properties or biological effects, that are attributable to its dimension(s), even if these dimensions fall outside the nanoscale range, up to 1 μm”. New substances, whether direct food additives or food contact substances, cannot be GRAS per this draft guidance. Manufacturers seeking approval for a nano-engineered substance must submit a food additive petition or a food contact substance notification.

No specific documents on the regulation of nanomaterials for food-related uses were found for Argentina, Brazil, China, Japan and Mexico, although work is in progress. Argentina, Brazil, China and Japan have established or are participating in various groups for the development of nanotechnology standards in the areas of health, safety and environment. A summary of the developing approaches to risk assessment of nanomaterials among the target countries is listed in Table .

Table 18. Summary of the developing approaches to risk assessment of nanomaterials among the target countries.

Conclusions

JECFA, whose genesis occurred at the FAO/WHO Conference on Food Additives in 1955, continues to be of fundamental importance to the activities of the CAC and especially to the Codex Committee on Food Additives and the Codex Committee on Contaminants in Foods. While the outcome of JECFA’s evaluations does not have any direct bearing on the regulatory approval of a food additive in any specific country, JECFA’s scientific evaluations and reassessments are widely recognised and may affect an application for approval for a new food additive in a particular country. Similar to JECFA, the CAC has no regulatory authority and its standards are not enforceable unless they have been adopted into the regulatory framework for a nation; however, its standards for food additives continue to serve as guidelines to many nations.

In addition to their guiding international influence, the early work of JECFA and CAC and the principles outlined by those committees laid the foundation for how substances added to food are regulated in many individual countries today, including the countries examined: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the EU, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, and the US. The regulatory authority for each target jurisdiction/country utilises its own regulatory framework and although the definitions, regulations and approval processes may vary among all target countries, in general there are many similarities across all target countries. In all cases, the main purpose of each regulatory authority is to establish a framework and maintain/enforce regulations to ensure the safety of food consumed and sold within its respective countries. Although the path for approval of different categories of food additives varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, there are many commonalities in terms of the data requirements and considerations for assessment of the safety of use of substances added to food, including the use of positive lists of approved substances, pre-market approval, and a separation between science and policy decisions. There is also a move toward harmonisation of food regulations, as illustrated by Australia and New Zealand, by Mercosur and by the EU. International collaboration is occurring to address the challenge of developing regulatory guidance and safety assessment for use of nanomaterials in foods. Harmonisation of global food regulations is envisioned to promote use of all available foods through free trade, to support farmers, and to reduce hunger and poverty globally.

Acknowledgements

Dr Ian Munro was instrumental in the development of this review, and wrote the description of the history and accomplishments of JECFA. Sadly, he passed away before this work was completed. He is greatly missed. This work was supported by funding from The Pew Charitable Trusts. The authors gratefully acknowledge the following individuals for reviewing the manuscript and providing comments during the preparation of this review: Thomas G. Neltner and Neesha R. Kulkarni with The Pew Charitable Trusts; the International Food Additives Council; Dr Jordi Serratosa and Dr Alexandre Feigenbaum with the European Food Safety Authority; Annette Schaefer and Sirkku Heinimaa with the European Commission; Josée Bouchard, Luc Bourbonnière, Mark Perry and Anastase Rulibikiye with Health Canada; Mr John van den Beuken with New Zealand Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI); Dr Paul Brent with FSANZ; Dr Inocencio Higuera, Centro de Investigation Científica de Yucatán; and Dr Tomás González Estrada, Consejo de Ciencia y Tecnologia del Estrado de Yucatán.

References

  • [ANMAT] Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (The National Administration of Drugs, Foods, and Medical Technology). 1992. VISTO el Decreto N- 1269/92 y el expediente Nº 2020–16.628/92-1 del registro de la Secretaria de Salud del Ministerio de Salud y Accion Social, y [History]. Buenos Aires: República Argentina. Available from: http://www.anmat.gov.ar/webanmat/Legislacion/NormasGenerales/Decreto_1490-1992.pdf
  • [ANMAT] Administración Nacional de Medicamentos, Alimentos y Tecnología Médica (The National Administration of Drugs, Foods, and Medical Technology). 2010. [Internet]. Buenos Aires: República Argentina. Available from: http://www.anmat.gov.ar/alimentos/normativas_alimentos_caa.asp
  • [ANVISA] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (National Health Surveillance Agency). 2003. Legislation, Food [Internet]. Brasilia: Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Available from: http://portal.anvisa.gov.br/wps/portal/anvisa-ingles [English, copyright 2003].
  • [ANVISA] Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária (National Health Surveillance Agency). 2009. Alimentos [Internet]. Brasilia: Agência Nacional de Vigilância Sanitária. Available from: http://www.anvisa.gov.br/alimentos/programa/index.htm [© 2005–2009].
  • Augustin MA, Sanguansri P. 2009. Nanostructured materials in the food industry. Adv Food Nutr Res. 58:183–213.
  • [CFIA] Canadian Food Inspection Agency. 2011. [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Bureau of Food Safety and Consumer Protection, Fair Labelling Practices Program. Available from: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/toce.shtml.
  • Card JW, Jonaitis TS, Tafazoli S, Magnuson BA. 2011. An appraisal of the published literature on the safety and toxicity of food-related nanomaterials. Crit Rev Toxicol 41:22–51.
  • Chaudhry Q, Scotter M, Blackburn J, Ross B, Boxall A, Castle L, Aitken R, Watkins R. 2008. Applications and implications of nanotechnologies for the food sec- tor. Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess. 25:241–258.
  • Codex. 2011. Current official standards [Internet]. Rome (Italy): Codex Alimentarius Commission. Available from: http://www.codexalimentarius.net/web/standard_list.jsp
  • Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2005. Procedural manual [Internet]. 15th ed. Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations; [cited 2010 Dec 22]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/a0247e/a0247e00.HTM.
  • Codex Alimentarius Commission. 2006. Understanding the Codex Alimentarius. 3rd ed. [Internet]. Rome (Italy): Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO), Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme; [cited 2011 Jun 1]. Available from: ftp://ftp.fao.org/codex/Publications/understanding/Understanding_EN.pdf
  • COFEPRIS. 2010. [Internet]. Comisión Federal Para La Protección Contra Riesgos Sanitarios, México – Algunos Derechos Reservados. Available from: http://www.cofepris.gob.mx/ [© 2010 – Políticas De Privacidad].
  • Commonwealth of Australia. 2007. Food Standards Australia New Zealand Act 1991. [Internet]. Canberra (Australia): Commonwealth of Australia, Attorney-General’s Department; [cited 2011 Mar 10]. Available from: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/C2007C00477
  • [CONAL] La Comisión Nacional de Alimentos (National Committee of Food). 1999. Sistema Nacional de Control de Alimentos Decreto 815/99 [National System of Food Control, Created by Presidential Decree 815/99]. [Internet]. Buenos Aires: República Argentina. Available from: http://www.conal.gov.ar/Documentos/Decreto_815/815-99.htm.
  • [CONAL] La Comisión Nacional de Alimentos (National Committee of Food). 2011. Reglamento go to Guia. [Internet]. Buenos Aires: República Argentina. Available from: www.conal.gov.ar
  • Department of Justice Canada. 2011. Food and Drug Regulations (C.R.C., c. 870). [Consolidation; Regulation current to February 26, 2011]. [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Department of Justice Canada; [cited 2011 Feb 25]. Available from: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/PDF/Regulation/C/C.R.C.,_c._870.pdf
  • EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS). 2012. Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations. EFSA J. 10:2760. [60 pp.]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2760. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
  • EFSA Scientific Committee. 2011. Guidance on the risk assessment of the application of nanoscience and nanotechnologies in the food and feed chain. EFSA J. 9:2140 [36 pp]. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
  • EFSA Scientific Committee. 2012. Scientific opinion on exploring options for providing advice about possible human health risks based on the concept of Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC). EFSA J. 10:2750. [103 pp]. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2750; [cited 2012 Jul 30]. Available from: www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal
  • [EC] European Commission. 2009. Introduction to nanotechnologies. [Internet]. Brussels (Belgium): European Commission; [cited 2011 Mar 1]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/nanotechnology/index_en.html
  • [EC] European Commission. 2011. Food Safety Site. [Internet]. Brussels (Belgium): European Commission (EC), DG Health and Consumer Protection; [cited 2011 Mar 1]. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/index_en.htm
  • [EFSA] European Food Safety Authority. 2009. Guidance of EFSA prepared by the Scientific Panel of Food Contact Material, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids on the Submission of a Dossier on Food Enzymes (Question No EFSA-Q-2007-080, adopted on 12 August 2009 by European Food Safety Authority). EFSA J. 1305:1–26. [Internet]; [cited 2011 Mar 1]. Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/1305.htm
  • Europa. 2007a. Treaty establishing the European Economic Community, EEC treaty – original text (non-consolidated version). [Internet]. Brussels (Belgium): Europa, Gateway to the European Union; [cited 2010 Oct 26]. Available from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.htm.
  • Europa. 2007b. Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom). [Internet]. Brussels (Belgium): Europa, Gateway to the European Union; [cited 2007 Oct 19]. Available from: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_euratom_en.htm.
  • [FAO/WHO] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations/World Health Organization. 2010. FAO/WHO Expert Meeting on the Application of Nanotechnologies in the Food and Agriculture Sectors: Potential Food Safety Implications: Meeting Report. Rome. 130 pp.
  • [FDA] Food and Drug Administration. 1995. Food additives: Threshold of regulation for substances used in food-contact articles. Final rule [21 CFR Parts 5, 25, 170, 171, and 174, Docket Nos. 77P-0122 and 92N-0181]. Fed Regist (US). [Internet]. [cited]. 60:36582–36596; [cited 2013 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1995-07-17/pdf/95-17435.pdf
  • Food and Drug Administration. 2012. Draft Guidance for Industry: Assessing the effects of significant manufacturing process changes, including emerging technologies, on the safety and regulatory status of food ingredients and food contact substances, including food ingredients that are color additives [Internet]; [cited 2012 Apr 25]. Available from: http://www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?objectId=0900006480ffaf8f&disposition =inline&contentType=html
  • Food Safety Commission. 2006. The food safety basic law (tentative translation) [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Food Safety Commission Secretariat. Available from: http://www.fsc.go.jp/sonota/fsb_law1807.pdf [Law No. 48, May 23, 2003, Last amendment : No. 50, Jun 2, 2006].
  • [FSANZ] Foods Standards Australia New Zealand. 2011a. Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code [Internet].Canberra (Australia): Foods Standards Australia New Zealand. Available from: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/foodstandards/foodstandardscode.cfm [Last amended: 10 February 2011].
  • [FSANZ] Foods Standards Australia New Zealand. 2011b. Nanotechnology and food. [Internet]. Canberra (Australia): Foods Standards Australia New Zealand; [cited 2011 Mar 9]. Available from: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/consumerinformation/nanotechnologyandfoo4542.cfm
  • [FSANZ] Foods Standards Australia New Zealand. 2011c. [Internet]. Canberra (Australia): Foods Standards Australia New Zealand (FSANZ); [cited 2011 Feb 25]. Available from: http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/
  • Government of Japan. 2002. EU list of additives for approval in Japan. (Annex). [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Government of Japan, Cabinet Office; [cited 2002 Oct 21]. Available from: http://www8.cao.go.jp/kisei/giji/02/009/2-1-6e.pdf
  • Health Canada. 2009a. Canada’s strategic framework for participation in the joint FAO/WHO food standards program. [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; [cited 2009 Feb 26]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/intactivit/codex/activit/strateg-codex-2008-2012-eng.php
  • Health Canada. 2009b. Nanotechnology at Health Canada. [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; [cited 2011 Oct 28]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/nano-eng.php
  • Health Canada. 2010. Interim policy statement on Health Canada’s working definition for nanomaterials. [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; [cited 2011 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/consult/_2010/nanomater/draft-ebauche-eng.php
  • Health Canada. 2011. Food and nutrition [Internet]. Ottawa (ON): Health Canada; [cited 2011 Feb 22]. Available from: http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/index-eng.php
  • JECFA. 1958. Procedures for the testing of intentional food additives to establish their safety for use. Second Report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), June 17–24, 1957, Geneva, Switz. (WHO Technical Report Series, no. 144) [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): World Health Organization (WHO). Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/trs/WHO_TRS_144.pdf
  • JECFA. 2001. General specifications and considerations for enzyme preparations used in food processing [Internet]; [cited 2013 Mar 3]. Available from: http://www.fao.org/ag/agn/jecfa-additives/docs/enzymes_en.htm
  • JETRO. 2006. Food sanitation law in Japan [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Japan External Trade Organization (JETRO); [cited 2011 Mar 15]. Available from: http://www.foodluh.org/en/pdf/Food%20Sanitation%20Law%20in%20Japan.pdf
  • Locascio LE, Reipa V, Zook JM, Pleus RC. 2011. Toxicity: emerging standards and efforts to support standards development (Chapter 8). In: Murashov V, Howard J, editors. Nanotechnology Standards. (Nanostructure Science and Technology). New York (NY): Springer Science + Business Media, LLC; p. 179–208.
  • Magnuson BA, Jonaitis TS, Card JW. 2011. A brief review of the occurrence, use, and safety of food-related nanomaterials. J Food Sci. 76:R126–R133.
  • Mercosur. 2006. List of permitted food additives available. In: Mercosur/Gmc/Res. Nº 11/06: Reglamento Tècnico Mercosur Sobre “Lista General Armonizada de Aditivos Alimentarios y Sus Clases Funcionales”. Montevideo/República Oriental del Uruguay: Mercosur [An economic and political agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay] [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mercosur.int/msweb/Normas/normas_web/Resoluciones/ES/GMC_2006_RES-011_ES_RTM-Aditivos%20Alimentarios.pdf
  • Mercosur. 2007. Food contact substances. In: Mercosur/GMC/Res. Nº 34/07 Reglamento Técnico Mercosur Sobre la Exclusión de Uso de Aditivos Alimentarios [GMC 34/07 – List of Food Additives not Permitted for Use]. Puntofocal, Ministerio de Economia y Finanzas Publicas – Secretaria de Comercio Interior. Montevideo/República Oriental del Uruguay: Mercosur [An economic and political agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay]. Available from: http://www.puntofocal.gov.ar/doc/r_gmc_34-07.pdf
  • Mercosur. 2010. TEMA [Topic: list of food]. Puntofocal, Ministerio de Economia y Finanzas Publicas – Secretaria de Comercio Interior. Montevideo/República Oriental del Uruguay: Mercosur [An economic and political agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay] [Internet]. Available from: http://www.puntofocal.gov.ar/mercosur_sgt_alimentos.htm
  • Mercosur. 2011. [Página Brasileira do Mercosul]. Braslia: Mercosul [An economic and political agreement between Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay] [Internet]. Available from: http://www.mercosul.gov.br/
  • [MHLW] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan. 2000. Japan’s specifications and standards for food additives. 7th ed. [Internet] Tokyo (Japan): Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan and Translated by Japan Food Chemical Research Foundation; [cited 2006 Nov 30]. Available from: http://www.ffcr.or.jp/zaidan/FFCRHOME.nsf/pages/spec.stand.fa
  • [MHLW] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan. 2011a. [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan; [cited 2011 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/index.html
  • [MHLW] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan. 2011b. Food Safety Information [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan; [cited 2011 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/foodsafety/administration/index.html#02
  • [MHLW] Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan. 2011c. Food additives [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, Japan; [cited 2011 Mar 16]. Available from: http://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/topics/foodsafety/foodadditives/index.html.
  • Ministério da Saude. 2011. [Internet]. Braslia, Brazil: Ministério da Saude (Ministry of Health). Available from: http://portal.saude.gov.br/portal/saude/default.cfm
  • Ministerio de Salud. 2011. [Internet]. Ministerio de Salud (Ministry of Health). Buenos Aires: República Argentina. Available from: http://www.msal.gov.ar/
  • Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. 2010. [Internet – Chinese]. Beijing (China): Ministry of Health of the People’s Republic of China. Available from: http://www.moh.gov.cn/publicfiles//business/htmlfiles/wsb/index.htm
  • Ministry of Justice. 2009. Food Sanitation Act (Law number: Act No. 233 of 1947, Amendment: Act No. 53 of 2006) [Internet]. Tokyo (Japan): Ministry of Justice. Available from: http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=12&vm=04&re= 02 [Translation date: April 1, 2009].
  • [NCNST] National Center for Nanoscience and Technology. 2010. [English Version of http://www.nanoctr.cas.cn/ Internet]. Beijing: National Center for Nanoscience and Technology. Available from: http://english.nanoctr.cas.cn/ [Copyright @2005–2008].
  • Neltner TG, Kulkarni NR, Alger HM, Maffini MV, Bongard ED, Fortin ND, Olson ED. 2011. Navigating the U.S. Food Additive Regulatory Program. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf. 10: 342–368.
  • [OAG] Office of the Auditor General of Canada. 1998. Chapter 12—Creation of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency: main points. In: 1998 September Report of the Auditor General of Canada [Internet]; [cited 1988 Sep 1]. Available from: http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_199809 _12_e_9318.html#mp
  • [PEN] Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies. 2011. Consumer products [Internet]. Washington (DC): Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies; [cited 2011 Mar 21]. Available from: http://www.nanotechproject.org/inventories/consumer/
  • Roberts A, Rogerson R. 2008. Chinese approach on regulating food additives, novel foods, functional foods and dietary supplements (Chapter 19). In: Bagchi D, editor. Nutraceutical and functional food regulations in the United States and around the world. (Food Science and Technology International Series). New York (NY): Elsevier; p. 291–303.
  • Rulis AM, Levitt JA. 2009. FDA’s food ingredient approval process safety assurance based on scientific assessment, Washington, DC. Regul Toxicol Pharm. 53: 20–31.
  • Secretaría de Salud México. 1999. Acuerdo por el que se determinan las sustancias permitidas como aditivos y coadyuvantes [Agreement defines the permitted substances as additives and processing aids] [Internet]. Cuauhtémoc (México): Secretaría de Salud México/National Law Center for Inter-American Free Trade. [cited 1999 Dec 15]. Available from: http://natlaw.com/interam/ar/md/ac/acarmd9.htm
  • Smith RL, Waddell WJ, Cohen SM, Fukushima S, Gooderham NJ, Hecht SS, Marnett LJ, Portoghese PS, Rietjens IMCM, Adams TB, et al. 2011. GRAS Flavoring Substances 25: The 25th publication by the Expert Panel of the Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Association provides an update on recent progress in the consideration of flavoring ingredients generally recognized as safe under the Food Additive Amendment. Food Technol. 65:44–75. Available from: http://www.femaflavor.org/publications/gras
  • Stamm H, Gibson N, Anklam E. 2012. Detection of nanomaterials in food and consumer products: Bridging the gap from legislation to enforcement. Food Addit Contam Part A. 29:1175–1182.
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006a. Mexico: FAIRS product specific. Mexico publishes the list of authorized additives for food and beverages. (GAIN Report No. MX6058) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2006 July 21]. Available from: http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200607/146208414.pdf.
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006b. Mexico: FAIRS product specific. Mexico publishes the list of authorized additives for food and beverages- purified substances, enzymes & synthetic flavors. (GAIN Report No. MX6070) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2006 Sep 7]. Available from: http://www.fas.usda.gov/GainFiles/200609/146218899.pdf.
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2007. China, Peoples Republic of FAIRS Product Specific Administrative Measures on Novel Foods (revised version) 2006. (GAIN Report No. 7020) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2007 Mar 7]. Available from: http://www.fas.usda.gov/gainfiles/200704/146280956.pdf
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2008. China, Peoples Republic of FAIRS Subject Report China Publishes Food Additive Compendium (GAIN Report No. CH8018) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2008 Mar 20]. Available from: http://www.fas.usda.gov/GainFiles/200803/146294056.pdf
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2009. Mexico: Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and Standards – Narrative (FAIRS Country Report). (GAIN Report No. MX9325) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2009 Aug 17]. Available from: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Food%20and%20Agricultural%20Import%20Regulations%20and%20Standards%20-%20Narrative_Mexic o_Mexico_8-20-2009.pdf
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010a. Argentina: Food and Agricultural Import Regulations and Standards – Narrative. FAIRS Country Report. (GAIN Report) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Services, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2010 Aug 11]. Available from: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Food%2 0and%20Agricultural%20Import%20Regulations%20and%20Standards%20-%20Narrative_Bue nos%20Aires_Argentina_10 -28-2010.pdf
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010b. China – Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing Food Additive Registration Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report. (GAIN Report No. – N/A) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2010 May 12]. Available from: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Food%20Additive%20Registration_Beijing_China%20-%20Peoples%20Republic%20of_5-12-2010.pdf
  • [USDA] U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010c. Japan Announces Withdrawal of 80 Food Additives. (GAIN Report No. JA0024) [Internet]. Washington (DC): U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Foreign Agricultural Service, Global Agricultural Information Network (GAIN); [cited 2010 Aug 13]. Available from: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent%20GAIN%20Publications/Withdrawal%20of%2080%20‘no%20longer%20distributed‘%20Existing%20Fo od%20Additives_Tokyo_Japan_8-13-2010.pdf.
  • WHO. 2009. EHC 240. Principles and methods for the risk assessment of chemicals in food. ISBN 978 92 4 157240 8 [Internet]. Available from: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/chem/principles/en/index1.html
  • [WTO] World Trade Organization. 2010. Notification: Withdrawal of 80 Food Additives, Which are no Longer Distributed in Japan, from the List of the Existing Food Additives [Internet]. Geneva (Switzerland): World Trade Organization; [Submitted for comment: 2010 May 18]. Available from: http://members.wto.org/crnattachments/2010/sps/JPN/10_2581_00_e.pdf