View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.

uk brought to you by CORE

provided by Biblioteca Digital do IPB

Adding Molecules to Food, Pros and Cons – A Review on

Synthetic and Natural Food Additives

MÁRCIO CAROCHOa,b, MARIA FILOMENA BARREIROc, PATRICIA MORALESb,* and

ISABEL C.F.R. FERREIRAa,*
a
Mountain Research Center (CIMO) ESA, Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Campus de Santa Apolónia,
Apartado 1172, 5301-855, Bragança, Portugal
b
Department of Nutrition and Bromatology II, Faculty of Pharmacy, Complutense University of Madrid,
Pza Ramón y Cajal, s/n, E-28040 Madrid, Spain
c
 Laboratory of Separation and Reaction Engineering (LSRE), Associate Laboratory LSRE/LCM,
Polytechnic Institute of Bragança, Campus Santa Apolónia Apartado 1134, 5301-857 Bragança, Portugal

*Corresponding authors: [email protected] (Tel: (34)913941802); [email protected]

(Tel:(351)273303219 Fax: (351)273325405))

ABSTRACT

The pressing issue to feed the increasing world population has created a demand to

enhance food production, which has to be cheaper, but at the same time must meet high

quality standards. Taste, appearance, texture, and microbiological safety are required to

be preserved within a foodstuff for the longest period of time. Although considerable

improvements have been achieved in terms of food additives, some are still enveloped

in controversy. The lack of uniformity in worldwide laws regarding additives, along

with conflicting results of many studies help foster this controversy. In this report the

most important preservatives, nutritional additives, coloring, flavoring, texturizing, and

miscellaneous agents are analyzed in terms of safety and toxicity. Natural additives and

extracts, which are gaining interest due to changes in consumer habits are also evaluated

in terms of their benefits to health and combined effects. Technologies, like edible

coatings and films which have helped overcome some drawbacks of additives, but still

pose some disadvantages, are briefly addressed.

  1  
Future trends like nanoencapsulation and the development of “smart” additives and

packages, specific vaccines for intolerance to additives, use of fungi to produce

additives, and DNA recombinant technologies are summarized.

Keywords: Natural food additives; Antimicrobial; Antioxidant; Conservatives;

Colorants

HISTORIC BACKGROUND OF FOOD ADDITIVES

Since the dawn of man, our species searches for better ways to feed itself, by

developing more efficient methods of hunting, animal/vegetable domestication, food

preservation by physical methods, and finally, by adding molecules to food in order to

enhance flavors or to preserve it.

Back in the 1800’s food additives were intentionally used for food adulteration. This

practice was widespread due to the centralization of food processing, decline of

personal accountability, birth of analytical chemistry and inadequate governmental

regulation. The consequence of such uncontrolled tampering of food led to a serious

worldwide problem with concern about food quality rising gradually. In 1920, the

availability of effective methods for food analysis, together with regulatory pressures,

started to reduce the significance of this problem. In the middle of the 20th century,

processed food became an important part of human nutrition, and legal chemical

additives became increasingly prevalent in them, fostering tight regulation, which still

remains controversial due to the high number of studies concerning food additives that

produce conflicting results and different interpretations by governments (Fennema

1987).

  2  
Today, more than 2500 additives are intentionally added to food in order to keep certain

properties or to extend shelf-life, while many others were banned throughout the years,

some of them at a global level and others only in specific countries (Branen and others

2001). The definition of food additive has changed during time, being today defined as

“any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a

typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional

addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the

manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or

holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result (directly or

indirectly), in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the

characteristics of such foods. The term does not include contaminants or substances

added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities” (Codex Alimentarius).

This definition was proposed in 1995 by the joint panel, comprised by the Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and by the World Health

Organization (WHO) and being revised during all the subsequent years, with the last

revision in 2012. Today, the Codex Alimentarius gathers all the information regarding

standards, codes of practice and guidelines about food and its processing. Worldwide,

the 2 major regulators of food additives are the European Food Safety Authority

(EFSA) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of the United States of America.

FOOD ADDITIVES IN THE XXI CENTURY

Today, mankind depends on food additives; in fact, the industrialized world would not

have been possible without them. The citizens of industrialized societies are not often

involved in the cultivation, harvesting, and processing of the food they eat. Due to this

  3  
fact, processed food has to be transported across large distances to reach consumers. In

order to ensure that the food reaches its destination in good conditions, special

requirements are needed, mainly to prevent contamination and spoilage (Cheng and

others 2010; Lerner and Lerner 2011; Becerril and others 2013). These requirements

involve the correct packaging and environmental conditions, as well as the

incorporation of additives to preserve or enhance different parameters. Although

research concerning food additives (Patel and others 2010; Maqsood and others 2013),

their impact on health and behavior (Gultekin and others 2013; Martyn and others

2013), as well as the methods to detect them (González and others 1999; Ferreira and

others 2000; Frazier and others 2000; Watson 2002; Saad and others 2005; Isaac and

others 2006; Wang and others 2006; García-Jiménez and Capitán-Vallvey 2007;

Yoshioka and Ichihashi 2008; Cantarelli and others 2009; Chen and Ni 2009; Xiu-Qin

and others 2009; Merusi and others 2010; Yoshikawa and others 2011; Ohtsuki and

others 2012; Pundir and Rawal 2013) is growing exponentially, much speculation,

inconsistencies, controversy, and health risks still remain unclear and are object of

ample debate. Adding to this fact is the growing pressure to produce new and more

effective additives pushing the regulations to become tighter to detect adulterations and

excessive use of certain additives as fast as possible.

In 2001, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the United States of

America estimated that there were about 76 million cases of food-borne illnesses in the

US alone, each year, resulting in about 5000 deaths. The associated cost of food-borne

illnesses with specific strains of bacteria is estimated to be between 6.5 to 34.9 billion

dollars. For the same year, in England and Wales 100 000 cases were reported, and

authorities believe this number was not accurate, since many of the occurrences were

not reported (Cleveland and others 2001; Smith-Palmer and others 2001).

  4  
The FDA has been blamed by the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN) for creating

a very strict and unachievable draft guidance in order to approve new dietary

ingredients, comparing their approval to those of food additives, which are tested to a

higher threshold than the reasonable expectation of safety prescribed by the Congress

(Mister and Hathcock 2012). In 2011 the FDA’s exposure assessment approaches were

reviewed, and it was concluded that the agency should develop a science-based

framework to prioritize and reassess prior safety decisions, and conduct more extensive

postmarket monitoring while communicating and exchanging scientific information

with stakeholders (Alger and others 2013). The EFSA also gathered a scientific forum

in 2008 to join scientists around food safety issues in Europe. The authority revealed

that consumer confidence was growing since its foundation in 2002, a year in which it

was low due to the 1990’s food-related issues. In that forum, food additives were

considered desirable due to the function they carried out, but could, in some cases, have

negative effects on health (Bronzwaer 2008). Since 2010, both the European

Commission Regulation along with EFSA have started a program to re-evaluate all the

existing approved food additives. The first evaluation includes food colorants and

preservatives (including antimicrobials and antioxidants), which has to be concluded

before 2015. The second group to be evaluated, comprising texturizing agents

(including emulsifiers, stabilizers, and gelling agents) by 2018, and the last group,

sweeteners, to be revised until 2020 (Lodi and others 2011). This re-evaluation of food

additives brings an opportunity to pursue research towards the use of natural additives,

while clarifying doubts that still might persist in food producing companies, the

scientific community, among stakeholders, regulating bodies and consumers.

In the European Union (EU), all food additives, whether approved or not in the EU, are

labeled with the letter “E” (representing Europe) and a specific number. This

  5  
nomenclature was extended to the Codex Alimentarius Commission to easily identify

food additives worldwide. A huge effort was put in motion to gather knowledge towards

the creation of a single database of legal additives to be used within the EU, and in the

Regulation 1129, of 2011, all the approved additives as well as their Acceptable Daily

Intake (ADI) were listed (Council Regulation (EC) 1333/2008; Council Regulation

(EC) 1129/2011). In the USA, as from 1961, the FDA determined that all food

components were labeled as Generally Regarded as Safe (GRAS). This term is still in

use today, but for an additive to be considered in it, various toxicology assays must be

performed, and the list has seen changes throughout the years. The FDA, although quite

resistant to approve new food additives has an online database covering “Everything

Added to Food in the United States” (EAFUS) were all the compounds added to food,

including additives, are compiled, as well as the FDA Redbook with guides and

legislation for the food industry (Branen and others 2001; FDA EAFUS; FDA

Redbook)

The highest dose at which no adverse effects are observed in the most susceptible

animal species is identified as the No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL). This

parameter is used as the basis for setting the human safety standards for food additives.

NOAEL is measured in milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day. The

Acceptable Daily Intake, which was introduced by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert

Committee on Food Additives in 1961, postulating that it should measure the amount of

an additive in food that could be ingested orally on a daily basis over a lifetime without

an appreciable health risk. To calculate the ADI, NOAEL is corrected by two certainty

factors, one for extrapolating from animal to human, and another to account for inter-

individual variability in humans (Lu 1988; Branen and others 2001; Watson 2002).

Although widely used, certain problems and limitations of the NOAEL have been

  6  
pointed out by several authors (Leisenring and Ryan 1992; Dorato and Engelhardt

2005).

The ADI is the starting point to establish the maximum amount of a certain additive to

be included in each foodstuff, which can vary from a few milligrams to “quantum

satis”, and expressed as mg of additive per kg body weight (mg/kg bw). quantum satis

is a Latin word employed by the EFSA which determines that there is “no maximum

numerical level specified and substances shall be used in accordance with good

manufacturing practice, at a level not higher than necessary to achieve the intended

purpose and provided the consumer is not misled.” (Council Regulation (EC)

1333/2008).

In order to approve new additives or extend the usage of an approved one within the

EU, a series of procedures has to be carried out, divided into 4 parts. The first regards

the “Chemistry and specifications”, where the additive must be rigorously identified

according to its origin as a single substance, a simple or complex mixture, a polymer, a

derivative of botanical sources or a nanomaterial. The manufacturing process, the

methods of analysis in foods, and stability must also be clearly explained. The second

part, “Existing authorizations and evaluation”, refers to the extension of authorizations

of already approved additives and intends to gather previous data regarding it. The third

part “Proposed uses and exposure assessment” must estimate the dietary exposure based

on the proposed uses and use levels considering age groups and the population of all the

EU member states. Finally the “Toxicological Studies” encompass studies regarding the

additive’s effect on in vitro and in vivo scenarios. The latter includes

metabolism/toxicokinetics, acute subchronic and chronic toxicity, as well as

genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproduction, absorption, developmental toxicity,

immunotoxicity, and hypersensitivity/allergy in various animal models. Human trials

  7  
are only allowed after adequate data from animal and other related studies are deemed

safe, and always used to define adjustment factors between animals and humans. Other

specific studies may be required for certain cases (EFSA 2012b). The premarket testing

of additives may not be enough to conclude their safety towards humans, fostering

posterior studies, and if necessary, eventual banning, when their toxicity is proven.

Adding to this, is the controversy surrounding some additives that are approved in some

countries and restricted or banned in others and the public concern regarding the use of

animals for toxicological assays. These factors, among others, induce distrust in some

people towards additives, pressurizing companies to look for natural substitutes for

chemical additives, even though these natural compounds must logically be subjected to

the same treatment as chemical ones. Lack of knowledge in the population towards food

additives also affects their acceptance.

TYPES OF ADDITIVES

Within the EU, food additives are divided into 26 functional classes, depending on their

function in food: sweeteners, colorants, “preservatives”, antioxidants, carriers, acids,

acidity regulators, anti-caking agents, anti-foaming agents, bulking agents, emulsifiers,

emulsifying salts, firming agents, flavor enhancers, foaming agents, gelling agents,

glazing agents, humectants, modified starches, packaging gases, propellants, raising

agents, sequestrants, stabilizers, thickeners and flour treatment agents (Council

Regulation (EC) 1333/2008). The American approach of food additives narrows down

the number of classes and allows additives to be mentioned in two or more classes.

According to the FDA, there are more than 3000 food additives allowed in the USA,

which are distributed into 6 groups: Preservatives, nutritional additives, coloring agents,

  8  
flavoring agents, texturizing agents, and miscellaneous agents (Figure 1). The

preservatives group is divided into three subgroups, although some additives may serve

more than one function in foods: antimicrobials, antioxidants, and antibrowning agents.

Within the flavoring agents group, there are three sub-groups: the sweeteners, the

natural or synthetic flavors, and the flavor enhancers. The texturizing agents comprise

emulsifiers and stabilizers. Finally, the miscellaneous agents are composed of many

classes: chelating agents, enzymes, anti-foaming agents, surface finishing agents,

catalysts, solvents, lubricants, and propellants (Branen and others 2001). Despite the

various classes of additives and the different classifications used, they can be divided in

4 fundamental groups with regard to their origin and manufacture: natural additives

(obtained directly from animals or plants); similar to natural additives (produced

synthetically imitating natural ones); modified from natural (natural additives that are

then modified chemically); and finally artificial additives (synthetic compounds).

The authors recognize that it would be impossible to totally review the more than 3000

food additives, thus the review will be focused on the most important ones, either based

on their high consumption or due to the important functional properties they can provide

to foods in which they are incorporated. Only the most import additives per class are

described here.

Preservatives

This group is composed of antimicrobials, antioxidants, and antibrowning agents. The E

numbers of the preservatives range from E200 to E399.

Antimicrobials

The antimicrobials are added to food for 2 purposes, a) to control natural spoilage of

food (food control) and/or b) to avoid/control contamination by microorganisms,

  9  
including pathogenic ones (of food safety concern) (Tajkarimi and others 2010). The

main chemical antimicrobials used in food with quantum satis status are acetic acid

(E260), potassium acetate (E261), calcium acetate (E263), lactic acid (E270), carbon

dioxide (E209), and malic acid (E296). The antimicrobial additives with restricted uses

are benzoic acid and benzoates (E210-E219; ADI 5 mg/kg bw), sorbic acid, and

sorbates (E200-E209; ADI 25 mg/kg bw), propionic acid and propionates (E280-E289;

quantum satis), nitrites (potassium nitrite E249; ADI 0.07 mg/kg bw, sodium nitrite

E250; ADI 0.1 mg/kg bw), nitrates (sodium nitrate E251 and potassium nitrate E252;

both with ADI 3.7mg/kg bw), and parabens (E214-E219; ADI 10 mg/kg bw), which are

depicted in Table 1. Benzoic acid (E210), produced by oxidation of toluene, is a

widespread antimicrobial agent, employed against yeast, bacteria, and fungi. It acts

through membrane disruption and inhibition of metabolic reactions, stress, and

accumulation of toxic anions inside the microbial cell (Brul and Coote 1999). It may be

coupled to calcium, potassium, or sodium for different antimicrobial targets and effects.

The main applications of sodium benzoate (E211) are soft drinks, fruit juices, sauces,

pickles, edible coatings, seafood products, toothpastes, lotions, creams, and some

pharmaceutical products (WHO 2000). This antimicrobial compound has been tested in

vitro, and was regarded as nontoxic, but some authors found toxicity in the Drosphila

SMART (somatic mutation recombination test) test, root tips of garlic (Allium sativum),

as well as a clastogenic, mutagenic, and cytotoxic effect in human peripheral blood

lymphocytes (Yilmaz and others 2008, 2009; Zengin and others 2011). In murine

models, sodium benzoate decreased the release of leptin, helping to contribute to

obesity, while also leading to malformation of zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae (Tsay and

others 2007; Ciardi and others 2012; Mangge and others 2013). Sodium benzoate has

also been reported to intercalate with bovine thymus DNA at concentrations as low as

  10  
4.5×10–5 mol L–1 (Zhang and Ma 2013a). Nair (2001) reviewed the risk of exposure of

benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid, and sodium benzoate and concluded that, although being

safe, in some studies regarding mice, malformations and toxicity effects were detected

and dermal complications were known to occur in humans. Furthermore, due to the

various applications of these compounds, the risk of inhalation could not be determined,

and remained as an important and urgent matter to be further studied. In a study

involving children (a group of 3-year-olds and another of 8/9-year- olds) exposed to

sodium benzoate, a global hyperactivity aggregate was reported when compared to the

control groups. Although pointing out interesting conclusions, this was not well

accepted because sodium benzoate was mixed with food colorants, being difficult to

determine which of the compounds was the responsible one for the hyperactivity or if a

synergistic effect exists (McCann and others 2007). The same hyperactivity behavior

was reported in a study involving college students who consumed sodium benzoate-rich

soft drinks, validating the need for further studies regarding this compound (Beezhold

and others 2012). In Portugal and Italy, surveys were carried out in order to discover if

soft drinks contained benzoic acid or benzene residues. The results pointed out that both

benzoic and sorbic acids were present above legal values in some cases, although not

exceeding the acceptable daily intakes. In the case of benzene, it was found in some

Italian soft drinks. Other surveys from Turkey analyzed both these antimicrobials in

various foods and revealed that, in certain cases, benzoic and sorbic acids were detected

in some samples above the maximum limit of the Turkish Food Codex (Lino and Pena

2010; Bonaccorsi and others 2012; Cakir and Cagri-Mehmetoglu 2013; Ulca and others

2013). Adams and others (2005) reported that the safety of benzyl derivatives in food

was supported by the higher intake of those compounds in traditional foods rather than

in the intentionally added flavorings. Benzyl alcohol and its derivatives (benzoic acid

  11  
and sodium benzoate, among others) belong to the aryl alkyl alcohols, which apart from

being food additives are also commonly used in fragrances, cosmetics, shampoos,

soaps, and other toiletries as well as in household cleaners and detergents. Scognamiglio

and others (2012) reviewed all the toxicological and dermatological research concerning

in vitro, animal models, and human dermatological assays regarding absorption of

benzyl alcohol, and referred to Besito and others (2012) for conclusions. These authors

reviewed the toxicological and dermatological aspects of aryl alkyl alcohols used in

fragrances, and determined that with all the data gathered, these compounds do not pose

safety concerns in the declared levels of exposure. Still, very little research focuses on

occupational exposure to these compounds, and future studies should take into

consideration the combined effects of occupational and non-occupational (cosmetics,

perfumes, shampoos) quantities absorbed by the skin (Schnuch and others 2011).

Although these reports seem unsettling, benzoates are necessary and the only way they

will be removed as additives is when a substitute with the same effect and no toxicity is

found. Without these compounds food spoilage and poisoning would have a much

higher incidence.

While benzoates are used with acidic foods, sorbates can be employed in foods with

higher pH values. Sorbic acid (E200), an organic natural compound, is the base

molecule of 3 important antimicrobials: potassium sorbate (E202), sodium sorbate

(E201), and calcium sorbate (E203). Among these molecules, sodium sorbate, although

being allowed in the USA, is banned in the EU. Some in vitro studies have related the

conjugated double bonds present in sorbic acid’s structure as being prone to

nucleophilic attack, turning it into a mutagenic compound. The interaction between

sorbic acid and various amines was tested by Ferrand and others (2000) for mutagenic

and genotoxic activities on HeLa cells and plasmid DNA, resulting in negative values,

  12  
while another study found sodium sorbate toxic towards human lymphocytes at 400 and

800 µg/mL (Mamur and others 2012). Sorbic acid forms mutagenic compounds when in

contact with nitrites, which are another kind of widely used antimicrobials (Binstok and

others 1998), while potassium sorbate is also genotoxic to human peripheral blood

lymphocytes at 1000 µg/mL (Mamur and others 2010), although these claims are

controversial (Mpountoukas and others 2008). Jung and others (1992) also described

sodium sorbate as being easily oxidizable, and therefore leading to the formation of 4,5-

oxohexenoate, which is mutagenic, while sorbic acid and its potassium sorbate are not.

Propionic or propanoic acid (E280) is a naturally occurring carboxylic acid that is used

in food, especially bakery products, to avoid mold and other fungal contamination.

There are not many studies regarding the toxicity of propionic acid or its salts, (sodium

propionate, E281), calcium propionate (E282), and potassium propionate (E283),

although it has been considered to suppress, in a dose-dependent manner, Th1-type

immune response in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells in vitro. Sodium

propionate has been stated as inducing abnormalities on the root tips of onion, while

calcium propionate has been related to irritability, restlessness, inattention, and sleep

disturbance in some children (Dengate and Ruben 2002; Türkoğlu 2008; Maier and

others 2010). Nitrates (E240-E259) and nitrites (E249, E250) in which sodium nitrate

(E251), potassium nitrate (E252), potassium nitrite, and sodium nitrite are the most

important compounds. They are used in the meat industry, namely for curing. While

nitrate was widely used in the past, nowadays it is restricted to specific slow meat

curing. On the other hand, nitrites are used for various applications in several types of

meat, namely for color formation, flavor enhancement, and antimicrobial activity.

Nowadays, nitrites are considered the only food additive that can inhibit the

development of the botulinum toxin, thus justifying their use in a benefit/risk scale in

  13  
the food industry. The EFSA allows its use at the minimum possible dosage. Apart from

being used as food preservatives, nitrites are also present in considerable quantities in

non-treated vegetables and fruits. These compounds are also known to take part in the

formation of nitrosamines (carcinogenic molecules resulting from the reaction of nitrites

with secondary amines) posing a threat to consumers (Sebranek and Bacus 2007;

Sindelar and Milkowski 2012). Nitrites are considered by some authors as being

carcinogenic, while others refute this possibility and consider plant nitrites important for

some physiological roles, such as supporting cardiovascular health and gastrointestinal

immune function (Hord and others 2009). Although evidence supports both theories, it

is widely accepted that the excess intake of nitrite is dangerous and has deleterious

effects on human health, by oxidation of oxyhemoglobin to ferrihemoglobin, leading to

methemoglobinemia (Cammack and others 1999). In order to counter these adverse

effects, much research is being carried out to find alternatives to nitrites (Chow and

Hong 2002; Chan 2011; Hord 2011). Paraben is a generic name for a group of food

additives, which are alkyl esters of p-hydroxybenzoic acid. These compounds are

widely used in food as antimicrobials, especially due to their absence of odor or and

taste (Tavares and others 2009). Its effectiveness increases as a function of the alkyl

group length. The most used compounds of this group are methyl paraben (E218; ADI

10 mg/kg bw), ethyl paraben (E214; ADI 10 mg/kg bw) and propyl paraben (E216; ADI

10 mg/kg bw). In the past, parabens were not considered mutagenic, but were known to

cause chromosomal aberrations and contact allergy (Darbre and others 2004; Tavares

and others 2009). Today, not without debate, they have been linked with reproductive

decrease in men by interacting with the mitochondrial function of testicular cells.

Epididymis sperm reserves and sperm concentration has also been reported to decrease

in a dose-dependent manner when males are exposed to parabens. Other authors have

  14  
reported that these compounds have no relation with the male reproductive system, and

are readily metabolized into p-hydroxybenzoic acid, inside the body, which is not a

toxic compound. Parabens have also been described as estrogenic disruptors and to be

related with breast cancer in women, although, to this date many, conflicting theories

exist (Oishi 2002; Harvey and Everett 2004; Meeker and others 2011; Aubert and others

2012). Castelain and Castelain (2012) concluded that methyl and ethyl parabens are safe

to be used and did not find evidence of related health problems, while pointing out that

propyl and butyl parabens should still undergo more studies in order to correctly assess

their toxicity and potential harm to human health.

Sulfites are a group of molecules (the most common are sulfur dioxide, sodium and

potassium bisulfite, and, sodium and potassium bisulfate) used in foods as

antimicrobials and antibrowning agents. Their antimicrobial effect is carried out by the

uptake of SH groups from sulfites into the microorganism’s cell where they react with

proteins, DNA, enzymes, while the antioxidant effect occurs by inhibiting both Maillard

reactions and the enzyme polyphenol oxidase. Sulfites can act freely or be combined

with organic acids, being used in wine making and in many other foodstuff that is prone

to microbiological decay. The negative effects of sulfites are related with the destruction

of vitamin B1 (thiamine) and to cause skin and respiratory sensitivities, such as

dermatitis, urticaria, angio-edema, abdominal pain, diarrhea, bronchoconstriction, and

fatal anaphylaxis (Rencüzoğullari and others 2001; Vally and others 2009; García-

Gavín and others 2012). These symptoms can become more prevalent due to the large

quantity of foodstuffs treated with sulfites, like canned goods, seafood, and dried fruits.

In the EU and USA, all products that contain sulfites must show this information on the

label. Many surveys have been carried out in various countries, with Belgium and New

Zealand reporting danger to individuals who consume high quantities of sulfited wine

  15  
(Cressey and Jones 2009; Vandevijvere and others 2010). In Turkey, some foodstuffs

intended for export displayed quantities of sulfites above the legal limit, while Korea

reported that the consumption of sulfites for individuals aged between 30 and 64 is

above that of the other age groups (Suh and others 2007; Ulca and others 2011). More

research should be carried out to determine the real effect of sulfites to human health,

especially when used as a food additive, since food is one of the main, but not the only,

source of exposure to these compounds.

Antioxidants

The antioxidants are another subgroup of the preservatives, essential to extend the shelf-

life of many foodstuffs. Antioxidants prevent the oxidation of molecules by donating a

hydrogen atom or an electron, becoming themselves reduced, in the radical form, but

contrary to other radicals, antioxidants when in radical form are stable and do not allow

further reactions to take place, therefore preserving the status quo of the system

(Carocho and Ferreira 2013a). Food antioxidants are used for extending shelf-life and

impeding decay while not adding taste or odors to food or modify appearance (Nanditha

and Prabhasankar 2009). Lipid peroxidation and rancidification are the most common

types of oxidation occurring in foodstuffs while they are stored. The most commonly

used antioxidants with quantum satis status are ascorbic acid (E300), sodium ascorbate

(E301), calcium ascorbate (E302), fatty acid esters of ascorbic acid (E304), tocopherols

(E306), α-tocopherol (E307), γ-tocopherol (E308), δ-tocopherol (E309), lecithins

(E322), sodium lactate (E325), potassium lactacte (E326), calcium lactate (E327), citric

acid (E330), sodium citrate (E331), potassium citrate (E 332), calcium citrate (E333),

tartaric acid (E334), sodium tartrate (E335), potassium tartrate (E336), sodium

potassium tartrate (E337), sodium malate (E350), potassium malate (E351), calcium

malate (E 352), calcium tartrate (E354) and triammonium citrate (E380). As shown in

  16  
Table 2, the most common chemical antioxidants added to food to inhibit lipid

peroxidation and rancidification are butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA, E320; ADI 0.5

mg/kg bw), butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT, E321; ADI 0.05 mg/kg bw), propyl galate,

(PG, E310; ADI 1.4 mg/kg bw), ethoxyquin (EQ, E324; ADI 0.005 mg/kg bw) and tert-

butylhydroquinone (TBHQ, E319; ADI 0.7 mg/kg bw). BHA has been used since the

70’s as an effective antioxidant in food with numerous studies describing its toxicity

against lab models. Whysner and Williams (1996a) described BHA’s toxicity as being

species-specific for murine models and safe for human consumption due to the lack of a

forestomach in the human species that is sensitive to this antioxidant. More murine

assays were carried out until 2011, when the EFSA reviewed the literature and

published a revised admissible daily intake (ADI) that was not likely to be exceeded by

the population. Still, much controversy arises from the consumption of BHA and studies

have to continue to bring more facts into the discussion (Jeong and others 2005; EFSA

2011; Ali and Suzuki 2012; Carocho and Ferreira 2013a; Vandghanooni and others

2013). BHT, due to its similarity with BHA has suffered the same fate, with many

studies pointing out its carcinogenity and deleterious effect on murine and human

health. The EFSA also reviewed the daily intake of BHT, placing it at 0.05 mg/kg bw,

which is low if compared with the one of BHA (0.5 mg/kg bw). Still, as with BHA,

some researchers continue to find deleterious effects with BHT, while others have

demonstrated its anticarcinogenic effects (McFarlane and others 1997; Williams and

others 1999; Botterweck and others 2000; Engin and others 2011; EFSA 2012a;

Carocho and Ferreira 2013a). Propyl gallate (PG) is used to prevent rancidity in meat

products, and due to its water solubility it can form complexes with iron salts and

darken some foodstuffs, and therefore is usually added with citric acid to inhibit this

phenomenon (Jacobi and others 1998; Branen and others 2001). PG can also act in

  17  
synergism with BHA and BHT, but not with TBHQ. PG is prepared by esterification of

gallic acid with propyl alcohol, and, since its discovery in 1948, and ever since, it has

had controversial and antagonistic effects, as reported by many authors. Some claim PG

as chemotherapeutic, nephroprotective, and cytotoxic to HeLa cells, among other

beneficial activities, while others point out its effect as a xenoestrogen, a contact

dermatitis precursor, mutagen inducer, and that its antioxidant potential can, under

certain conditions turn prooxidant (Tayama and Nakagawa 2001; Chen and others 2011;

Zurita and others 2007; Amadasi and others 2009; Han and Park 2009; Tian and others

2012). Ethyl gallate, octyl gallate, and dodecyl gallate are very similar to PG and

execute the same effect in food, although being less used and, therefore, less researched.

Ethoxyquin (EQ) (E324; ADI 0.005 mg/kg bw) is a quinolone-based antioxidant that is

not permitted to be added to human food, only used in domestic and farm animal feed.

This compound has been reported to induce dermatitis in animals and humans, as well

as being a promoter of certain types of cancer. Although there is no immediate danger

from EQ to humans, since it is not allowed in food, there is still a latent risk, which

derives from the excess present in the ingested animal tissue, thus further studies should

be carried out to regulate its indirect potential hazard (Błaszczyk and others 2003;

Rodríguez-Trabado and others 2007; Błaszczyk and others 2013; EFSA 2013a).

Antibrowning agents

Antibrowning agents are used as food additives to prevent food browning, which can

occur at any moment during handling, processing and storage. There are 2 types of

browning, enzymatic and nonenzymatic browning. In the former, the enzyme

polyphenol oxidase catalyzes the conversion of polyphenols to quinones with further

breakdown of these compounds, ultimately darkening the color of the food (Branen and

others 2001). Nonenzymatic browning occurs in sugar caramelization and in the

  18  
Maillard reaction between carbonyl and free amino groups, producing melanoidin

pigments in various foodstuffs (Branen and others 2001). Among the most used

antibrowning agents are sulfites, covered in the previous section. The alternatives to

sulfites are natural compounds, like ascorbic acid-based formations, such as erythorbic

acid (E315; 5 mg/kg bw); cysteine (E920; quantum satis), which is an aminoacid and

reacts with quinolone intermediates inhibiting further formation of compounds; some

phenolic acids, and finally 4-hexylresorcinol (E586; ADI not specified), an organic

compound which is only regulated in shrimp (Branen and others 2001; Oms-Oliu and

others 2010).

Nutritional additives

Although considered by some authors, nutritional additives should not be considered as

such, since they confer nutritional value to the food where they are incorporated, and,

should rather be considered as enrichments to foodstuffs. The consumption of these

enriching compounds has increased in recent years due to health concerns of the

population and its relation with nutrition. The functional and nutraceutical activities of

some nutrients have been gaining interest from both the scientific community and the

food industry, resulting in its incorporation in certain foodstuffs, adding value to them.

These nutritional enrichments are natural ones, and can be vitamins, amino acids, fibers,

fatty acids, and polyphenols, among others. The sources can vary depending on plant,

mushroom, animal, or even synthetic origin (Branen and others 2001).

Coloring agents

Coloring agents or food dyes are used to alter or confer colors to food, in order to

increase its attractiveness towards consumers. The only dye with quantum satis status is

calcium carbonate (E170), which confers a white color to food. Dyes have been used for

  19  
a long time in the food industry, but not without controversy and disagreement

regarding their health effects (Branen and others 2001; Msagati 2013). Some dyes, like

amaranth (E123; ADI 0.15 mg/kg bw), carmosine (E122; ADI 4 mg/kg bw) and others

are banned in some countries, but not in others; for instance, both these compounds are

banned in the USA and not in the EU, while fast green (FD&C Green No. 3) is

forbidden to be used within the EU and legally added to food in the USA. There are 5

groups of coloring agents: the azo compounds, the chinophthalon derivatives of

quinoline yellow, the triarylmethane group, xanthenes, and the indigo colorants

(Sarikaya and others 2012).

Azo compounds

Regarding the azo group, it has many different colors, and all of them display the

functional group R-N=N-R', in which R and R' can be either aryl or alkyl (Stolz 2001;

Chudgar and Oakes 2003). Among them, some of the most used are tartrazine, known in

the USA as FD&C Yellow No.5 (E102; ADI 7.5 mg/kg bw), sunset yellow, known in

the USA as FD&C Yellow No. 6 (E110; ADI 2.5 mg/kg bw), allura red, known in the

USA as FD&C Red No. 40 (E129: ADI 7 mg/kg bw), amaranth (E123; ADI 0.15 mg/kg

bw), and carmosine (E122; ADI 4 mg/kg bw) (Fennema 1996). These compounds are

described in Table 3. The azo compounds, with the N=N functional group and aromatic

rings linked to them are reductively cleaved into aromatic amines, with some of these

aromatic amines being toxic, mutagenic, and carcinogenic (Chung 2000; Zhang and Ma

2013b). Tartrazine is probably one of the most controversial colorants, with some

studies classifying it as a DNA binder, toxic to human lymphocytes (4 mM), a

contributor to primary biliary cirrhosis, lipid peroxidation promoter by production of

malondialdehyde, and reducer of superoxide dismutase and glutathione peroxidase in

mice (500 mg/kg) (Amin and others 2010; Mpountoukas and others 2010; Gao and

  20  
others 2011; Axon and others 2012). Other studies regard tartrazine as safe to be

consumed in the admissible daily intake, posing no harmful effect in murine models and

in humans (Tanaka 2006; Moutinho and others 2007; Tanaka and others 2008; Poul and

others 2009). Another widely used azo dye is sunset yellow, which is produced from

aromatic compounds derived from petroleum hydrocarbons. This compound, as

tartrazine, has been related to genotoxicity in murine models with memory and learning

deficits on the offspring as well as immunomodulatory and xeno-estrogenic effects

(Axon and others 2012; Sayed and others 2012; Ceyhan and others 2013; Yadav and

others 2013). Petroleum-derived allura red has been subject to many toxicologic

studies. Some authors consider it as an impeding factor of memory and learning in

infant rats, inducing also damage to rodent colons (10 mg/kg) (Tsuda and others 2001;

Shimada and others 2010; Ceyhan and others 2013). The EU has reviewed its opinion

on allura red twice, concluding in the second statement that there is a possibility that it

can be genotoxic, nevertheless some existing studies point otherwise (Abramsson-

Zetterberg and Ilbäck 2013). Amaranth, another dye derived from petroleum, has been

extensively investigated in the past and was banned in the USA for being allegedly

carcinogenic. It is approved in the EU and some other countries. Recent studies, using

comet assay, have described it as inducing damage in the colon of rats (10 to 100

mg/kg). Moreover, using a somatic mutation and recombination test, amaranth proved

to induce genotoxicity to human lymphocytes (8 mM) (Sasaki and others 2002;

Mpountoukas and others 2010; Sarikaya and others 2012), while others have found no

evidence of these effects in murine models (Poul and others 2009). Carmoisine, another

widely used dye which is forbidden in the USA has also been reported as being

responsible for biochemical markers alteration in murine vital organs, modification of

the secondary structure of serum proteins (human serum albumin and bovine serum

  21  
albumin), as well as promoting conformation changes in DNA of bovine models (Amin

and others 2010; Arvin and others 2013; Datta and others 2013).

Chinophthalon derivatives

Quinoline yellow (E104; ADI 10 mg/kg bw) is a quinophthalone synthetic dye

chemically prepared by mixing sodium disulfonates, monosulfonates, and trisulfonates.

This compound has been reported to cause urticaria, asthma, rashes, and hyperactivity.

It also alters the conformation of bovine serum albumin. A case of quinoline yellow-

derived skin eruption was documented in 2013 (Branen and others 2001; Macioszek and

Kononowicz 2004; Shahabadi and others 2012; Leleu and others 2013).

Triarylmethane group

The triarylmethane group relies on triphenylmethane backbones to produce different

compounds like brilliant blue, known in the USA as FD&C Blue No. 1 (E133; ADI 12.5

mg/kg bw), fast green (E143; ADI 12.5 mg/kg bw), patent blue (E131; ADI 1 mg/kg

bw), and brilliant black (E151; 1 mg/kg bw) among others (Table 4). Of these, brilliant

blue and patent blue are the most common additives, although patent blue is banned in

the USA, and no permission was sought for brilliant black, while fast green is banned in

the EU. These colorants are not readily absorbed by our bodies, in fact, 95% of them are

present in feces, and there are no reports of deaths due to human improper absorption

(Gaur and others 2003). Reports on changes in mitochondrial respiration have been

described (Reyes and others 1993), as well as somatic mutation in Drosophila

melanogaster wing spot test (25 mg/mL of patent blue, 12.5 mg/mL amaranth)

(Sarikaya and others 2012; Tanaka and others 2012). Some authors consider that the

consumption of lollipops with brilliant and patent blue colorants by children is

  22  
dangerous due to their absorption through the lingual mucosa (Lucová and others 2013),

and with negative effects on children who are the greatest consumers of these products.

Xanthenes group

The xanthenes group is comprised of erythrosine, known in the USA as FD&C Red No.

3, (E127; ADI 0.1 mg/kg bw), fluoresceine, eosines, and rhodamines. Erythrosine is

allowed in both the USA and EU, while fluorescine is banned in the EU. This dye is a

poly-iodinated compound that has been related to alteration in childhood behavior and

thyroid function due to high iodine content (Chequer and others 2012; Lakshmi and

Buchwald 2013). Other studies pointed out that this compound could induce toxicity to

mice testicles (689 mg/kg) and alter behavior patterns in these models. Recently it has

also been found to alter DNA structures, to display toxicity on human lymphocytes,

HepG2 (50 µg/mL) and to promiscuously inhibit protein-protein binding (Aziz and

others 1997; Tanaka 2001; Mpountoukas and others 2010;).

Indigo colorants

The indigo colorants derive from the indigo dye, known as FD&C Blue No. 2 in the

USA, which was initially extracted from the shrub Indigofera tinctoria. Today they are

chemically produced, and adverse reactions rarely occur in the typical quantities added

to food.

Food colorants have been subject of many extensive studies. One of the most

controversial was “The Southampton Study”, in which a cocktail of food colorings was

given to a group of children in their meal, with posterior comparison of the behaviour

patterns to a placebo group. The researchers found evidence of attention deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) for the group consuming the colorants. This study was

highly contested by both the advisory body of the United Kingdom’s Food Safety

  23  
Authority (FSA) and the EFSA, but the public advocacy groups and the media

promoted a voluntary ban on the implicated colors. A couple of years later, a follow-up

study concerning food additives in Irish children pointed out that, comparatively to the

Southampton study, children would never be exposed to such high doses of additives,

helping their readmission. In 2008, the EU published regulation 1333 pointing out that

some additives should clearly state possible negative effects on concentration activity of

children (Council Regulation (EC) 1333/2008).

The conflicting results for virtually all the food colorants are quite preoccupying and

should motivate the competent institutions to proceed with regulation, in order to

dissipate consumer doubts. Although many studies have been published regarding

colorants, very few considered interactions among colorants and their dangerous effects

on health. Two studies have pointed out the deleterious synergistic effects of colorants

in neuronal cell lines in vitro (Lau and others 2006; Park and others 2009). Although

subject of much controversy, colorants play an important role in the food industry, and

the pressure for natural ones has been increasing. There are some alternatives with good

results that are slowly approved in both the USA and EU. Carotenoids, anthocyanins,

annatto, and paprika are examples of natural colorants that can substitute their synthetic

counterparts. The main drawbacks of these natural compounds are instability due to pH

and temperature, loss of color by oxidation, the need for higher quantities in comparison

to chemical ones and the higher cost of manufacture (Hendry and Houghton 1996;

Downham and Collins 1999; Calvo and Salvador 2000; Delgado-Vargas and others

2000; Giusti and Wrolstad 2002; Scotter 2009; Msagati 2013). Although colorants are

better regulated and safer, further research is still needed to mitigate the faults in

colorants, either by improving the safety of approved ones or by discovering new.

Flavoring agents

  24  
The flavoring agents are additives used to alter the taste of food either by enhancing it,

sweetening, or completely changing the final taste of the produced foodstuff. The

flavoring agents group is divided into 3 subgroups, the sweeteners, the natural and

synthetic flavors, and the flavor enhancers.

Sweeteners

The sweeteners are a group of compounds that confer sweetness to food. These can be

nutritional sweeteners like sucrose, fructose (high-fructose corn syrup) and glucose or

artificial non nutritive sweeteners. There are no sweeteners with a quantum satis level.

The most widespread non nutritive sweeteners are saccharin (E954; ADI 2.5 mg/kg

bw), cyclamates (E952; ADI 350 mg/kg bw), aspartame (E951; ADI 50 mg/kg bw),

acesulfame K (E950; ADI 15 mg/kg bw), and sucralose (E955; ADI 15 mg/kg bw), as

depicted in Table 5 (Branen and others 2001). Saccharin is the oldest low-calorie

sweetener, discovered in 1878, being 300 times sweeter than sugar. In the past,

saccharin was thought to be related to human bladder cancer, but after intense research

this idea was abandoned, with only a specific species (mouse) tumorigenicity

prevailing, with the results being corroborated in 2002 (Whysner and Williams 1996b;

Dybing 2002). Saccharin’s main objective, like all non-caloric sweeteners, is to confer

sweetness to food without adding calories, making them edible by children, diabetic

patients, and people who want to reduce calorie intake. Despite this noble objective,

various studies have related saccharin with an increase in weight gain of mice

consuming saccharin when compared to groups fed with sucrose (Swithers and others

2010; Feijó and others 2013). Cohen-Addad and others (1986) pointed out the capacity

of saccharin to cross the human placenta, and hypothesized that the presence of this

compound, both in utero and ex utero, could increase the incidence of neoplasms.

Although the carcinogenicity effects of this compound have been ruled out, it is still

  25  
advisable to continue studying different types of activities of saccharin in the human

body taking advantage of the new technologies that can help to uncover potential new

dangerous interactions (Bandyopadhyay and others 2008).

Cyclamate is another low-calorie sweetener, it was discovered in 1937 and was joined

with saccharin in a 10:1 blend to remove its unpleasant metallic aftertaste. In the USA,

cyclamates are not allowed in food. After its discovery, cyclamate was related to

bladder cancer in mice, which was later ruled out after many studies with different

animals (Takayama and others 2000). Today, some studies have described retardation of

fetal development and hypertrophy in the exocrine pancreas of rat fetuses when exposed

to cyclamate (Martins and others 2010). Cyclamate is differently metabolized in

humans. Some individuals are able to convert cyclamate to cyclohexylamine, which is

known to have some carcinogenic effects; nevertheless others simply do not metabolize

it (Renwick and others 2004). This difference in metabolization and the fact that

cyclohexylamine has been proven to induce testicular atrophy in rats are the main

concern among scientists.

Aspartame, discovered in 1965, is another widespread low-calorie sweetener. It is

composed of phenylalanine and aspartic acid linked to methanol. Extensive studies have

been carried out regarding aspartame, and while some vouch for its safety others find

troubling conclusions (Ashok and others 2013; EFSA 2013b; Rycerz and Jaworsaka-

Adamu 2013). In a brief communication after the first conference on aspartame,

Renwick and Nordmann (2007) pointed out that the risk assessment gave an unbalanced

impression to regulators and consumers, and that future quantitative risk-benefit

analyses should be able to provide more comprehensive advice. After this, other studies

have shown that long-term consumption of aspartame may lead to hepatocellular injury

and alterations in liver antioxidant status while also altering behavior in rats (Abhilash

  26  
and others 2011; Ashok and others 2013), although not without intense debate.

Aspartame present in stored food can, at high temperatures and pH above 6, break down

into its metabolite, deketopiperazine, which is a major carcinogen to the central nervous

system and is being actively investigated (Rycerz and Jaworsaka-Adamu 2013).

Acesulfame K, or acesulfame potassium was discovered in 1967. It is not metabolized

by the human body, therefore does not contribute to potassium uptake. Mukherjee and

Chakrabart (1997) described this compound first as being genotoxic in rats, but later,

after repeating some assays, refuted the previous conclusions and considered

acesulfame K as safe, although some authors pointed out that a long-term study should

be carried out (Karstadt 2006; Soffritti 2006). Sucralose is an artificial sweetener very

similar to sucrose, in fact, only 3 OH groups are substituted by Cl atoms. Discovered in

1976, after several years of research, it was approved for consumption with no adverse

effects reported in the various animal model studies performed, even at long-term

exposure, seen as though the human body does not recognize sucralose as a sugar and

therefore does not metabolize it (Baird and others 2000; Roberts and others 2000; Sims

and others 2000). In 2008, a study carried out with rats fed with sucralose pointed out

various adverse effects, including reduction in beneficial fecal microflora, increased

fecal pH, and enhanced expression levels of P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P450

(Abou-Donia and others 2000), although this study was highly contested by an expert

panel (Brusick and others 2009). Recent research has corroborated the previous findings

of non toxicity or carcinogenicity (Brusick and others 2010; Viberg and Fredriksson

2011). The sub-group of sweeteners offers many conflicting results and different points

of view, but have led to several research articles assuring the safety of some artificial

sweeteners and pointing out others still demanding further research (Weihrauch and

Diehl 2004; Kroger and others 2006; Brown and others 2010; Swithers and others 2010;

  27  
Tandel 2011; Shankar and others 2013). In the meantime, natural sweeteners have

become increasingly prevalent in modern diets, for their reduced caloric contribution.

Among them, sucrose, fructose (high-fructose corn syrup), thaumatin, and stevia are

some of the most important. In the EU, sucrose and fructose are not considered as food

additives, rather as ingredients, due to the definition of food additives within the union

“Food additives are substances that are not normally consumed as food itself but are

added to food intentionally for a technological purpose described in this Regulation,

such as the preservation of food” (EFSA 2008). In the USA, these sugars are approved,

and added as additives to food “Food additives includes all substances not exempted by

section 201(s) of the act, the intended use of which results or may reasonably be

expected to result, directly or indirectly, either in their becoming a component of food

or otherwise affecting the characteristics of food” (CFR 2003; Bray and others 2004;

Anton and others 2010). Thaumatin is a polypeptide extracted from the

Thaumatococcus danielli plant, and first isolated in 1972. It is about 3000 times sweeter

than sucrose and consists of two protein components, thaumatin I and thaumatin II. It is

defined as GRAS in the USA, has an E number of 957 and a “not specified” ADI.

Thaumatin is used as a sweetener, but is also applied as a flavor enhancer, and due to

being a protein, it is rapidly digested. This compound has been studied and no reports of

allergic reactions, mutagenic or teratogenic effects or toxic towards rats, dogs and

humans were reported (Gibbs and others 1996; Branen and others 2001; Watson 2002).

Stevia is a natural sweetener, extracted from the plant Stevia rebaudiana, a shrub

endemic to North and South America. Stevia is 300 times sweeter than sucrose, and is

composed of 8 sweet diterpene glucosides (stevioside, steviolbioside, rebaudiosides (A,

B, C, D, E) and, dulcoside A. In the USA, stevia is a GRAS sweetener and is used in

beverages, deserts, and sauces, among others. In the EU stevia is known as steviol

  28  
glucosides, and uses the identifier E960. Stevia has tested negative for carcinogenic and

genotoxic tests, as well and not having negative effects for reproductive and

developmental studies (Koyama and others 2003; Kroger and others 2006; Carakostas

and others 2008; EFSA 2010a; Lemus-Mondaca and others 2012).

Natural and synthetic flavors

Natural and synthetic flavors are mixtures of several chemicals used to substitute the

flavor of foods. In most cases, these mixtures mimic the flavor of natural ones. Some

additives of this group also carry out other functions in food, like antimicrobial activity,

gelling properties, and others. There are more than 1700 natural and synthetic

compounds available to flavor foods. Within this large number, acidulants play an

important role by reducing the overall pH of the food. Most of these acidulants are

organic acids, some of them do not present uses restriction (quantum satis) like acetic

(E260), lactic (E270), malic (E296), citric (E330), propionic (E280), succinic (E363;

ADI not specified), while others present maximum amounts permitted with ADI

established, as fumaric (E297; ADI 6 mg/kg bw), tartaric (E334; ADI 30 mg/kg bw),

and adipic (E355; ADI 5 mg/kg bw) acids (Branen and others 2001).

Flavor enhancers

Flavor enhancers are used to magnify, supplement, or enhance food flavor, but don’t

contribute with their own flavor. The most used flavor enhancers are glutamic acid

(E620; ADI not specified), monosodium glutamate or MSG (E621; ADI not specified),

disodium inosinate (E631; ADI not specified), and disodium guanylate (E627; ADI not

specified). Monosodium glutamate is a salt of glutamic acid, a naturally occurring

aminoacid. It is used in food to enhance its natural flavor and to produce the umami

flavor (pleasant savory taste), either alone or in synergy with disodium inosinate or

  29  
disodium guanylate. Glutamic acid is a known excitotoxin (molecules that can impair or

destroy nerve cells by excessive stimulation), therefore it was involved in a long-term

controversy. After this effect was proven in murine models, scientists extrapolated to

primates and considered that these were not affected by it. Others considered that

humans were affected by them, especially at a young age, and that, even though

glutamic acid alone could not induce damage, the overall daily consumption of all

possible excitotoxins should be taken into consideration (Olney 1990, 1994). In 2000 a

review of previous safety evaluations by the FAO, WHO, and the Scientific Committee

for Food towards monosodium glutamate was published. It concluded that, despite a

part of the population being sensible to it, monosodium glutamate could be consumed

without any concern (Walker and Lupien 2000). Recently, other effects on murine

models and on humans have been attributed to monosodium glutamate, namely,

induction of lipid peroxidation, impairment of synaptic plasticity of mice neurons,

deleterious effects of murine oocytes, and increase in the overweight development of

Chinese adults (Sanabria and others 2002; Eweka and Om’Iniabohs 2011; He and others

2011; Singh and Ahluwalia 2012), while other scientists found no correlation between

monosodium glutamate and Chinese population obesity and that supplementation of

food of postweaning pigs is safe and improves growth performance (Shi and others

2010; Rezaei and others 2013). Disodium inosinate and disodium guanylate are used in

fewer foodstuffs and therefore are less researched, although some claims exist against

their use in children’s food.

Texturizing agents

Texturizing agents are chemicals added to food in order to modify the overall texture or

mouthfeel of foodstuffs. The 2 main groups within the texturizing agents are emulsifiers

and stabilizers.

  30  
Emulsifiers

The primary role of emulsifiers is to maintain emulsions (mixtures of two immiscible

liquids) in good dispersion. By presenting a balance between hydrophobic and

hydrophilic groups, they surround the oil and other immiscible substances present in the

foodstuff avoiding their “clumping”. Emulsifiers with quantum satis status are: lecithins

(E322), calcium tartrate (E354), alginic acid (E400), sodium, potassium, ammonium,

and calcium alginates (E401-404), agar (E406), carrageenan (E407), processed euchema

seaweed (E407a), locust bean gum (E410), guar gum (E412), tragacanth (E413), gum

arabic (E414), xantham gum (E415), tara gum (E417), gellan gum (E418), glycerol

(E422), konjac (E425), pectins (E440), celluloses (E461- 466 and 469), sodium,

potassium, calcium, magnesium, mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E470a, 470b),

acetic, lactic, citric, tartaric acid esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E472a -

472d), mono- and diacetyl tartaric acid esters, and mixed mixed acetic and tartaric acid

esters of mono- and diglycerides of fatty acids (E472e, E472f) (Branen and others 2001;

Council Regulation (EC) 1129/2011, Rohman and others 2013). Lecithins are naturally

occurring phospholipids that have excellent emulsifying capacities, cholesterol-

lowering properties, and no reported toxicity (Iwata and others 1993; Wilson and others

1998). Sorbitan, also known as polysorbate, consists of compounds containing

polyoxyethylene ethers of mixed partial oleic acid esters of sorbitol anhydrides and

related compounds. Sorbitan is efficient as an emulsifying agent in food, although there

are some reports of neuron and cytotoxicity in some types of cells (10µg/mL) and

increased susceptibility to oxidative stress in murine models among other aspects

(Tatsuishi and others 2005; Ema and others 2008; Eskandani and others 2013).

Carboxymethyl cellulose is a cellulose derivative with carboxymethyl groups bound to

some of the glucopyranose monomer hydroxyls, frequently used in various foodstuffs.

  31  
No records of toxicity have been found for this emulsifier. Polyglycerol esters are also

used for their emulsifying properties, with, polyglycerol polyricinoleate one of the most

widespread. Various assays were conducted with this compound in murine and human

models, and no toxicity or carcinogenicity was detected (Smith and others 1998; Wilson

and Smith 1998). Propylene glycol is another emulsifier produced from the reaction of

propylene oxide with an alcohol of choice in the presence of a catalyst. Propylene

glycol is used as a food emulsifier, but also employed in the cosmetic and

pharmaceutical industries. Despite some controversial claims regarding toxicity in the

70’s and 80’s, this compound can be consumed without concern (Thomas and others

2004; Spencer 2005; Werley and others 2011).

Stabilizers

Stabilizers and emulsifiers are often the same compound displaying both effects,

although one of them is carried out more effectively. Quantum satis stabilizers are

alginic acid (E400), sodium, potassium, ammonium, and calcium alginates (E401-404),

carrageenan (E407), locust bean gum (E410), guar gum (E412), tragacanth (E413), gum

arabic (E414), xantham gum (E415), gellan gum (E418), pectin (E440), invertase

(E1103), polydextrose (E1200), oxidized starch (E1404) and monostarch phosphate

(E1410). Some of the most used stabilizers are listed on Table 6. These compounds are

added to confer and maintain the desired food texture, as well as to prevent evaporation

and deterioration of volatile flavor oils. Pectin is a naturally occurring

heteropolysaccharide contained in plant cell walls. This compound has demonstrated

excellent stabilizing properties in foodstuffs and no reported toxicity has been found

(Akhtar and others 2002; Leroux 2003). Alginates (potassium, sodium, and calcium)

derive from alginic acid, and have gained much interest in recent decades for their

natural origin in brown seaweeds or algae and no reported cases of toxicity. Alginates

  32  
are hydrophilic colloidal carbohydrates that are used in the food industry due to their

unique colloidal properties, which include thickening, stabilizing, suspending, gel

producing, and emulsion stabilizing. In recent years, alginates have been used for

microencapsulation and production of biofilms (Bouyer and others 2012). Carrageenans

are a family of polysaccharides which are also extracted form seaweeds (kelp) and

widely used in the food industry as a thickener, stabilizer, and texturizer. Up to 2001,

very few reports on their toxicity existed until Tobacman (2001) described carrageenan

as posing a carcinogenic risk to humans after detecting tumors in colons of animal

models. Immediately after this study many others disproved the carcinogenicity of

carrageenan, concluding that the carrageenan added to food is not carcinogenic,

suggesting a confusion between carrageenan and poligeenan (degraded carrageenan)

which is not used in the food industry (Weiner and others 2007). Recently, other studies

have described carrageenan as altering sulfatase activity in cells, therefore changing

vital cell processes (Yang and others 2012).

Miscellaneous agents

Miscellaneous agents are additives that are added to certain foodstuffs for a specific

outcome and that are not included in the other described additive groups. Examples of

miscellaneous additives are chelating agents, enzymes, antifoaming agents, surface

finishing agents, catalysts, solvents, lubricants, and propellants (Branen and others

2001).

MOVING THE ADDITIVES TO THE EXTERIOR. EDIBLE COATINGS AND

FILMS.

  33  
Since the early 90’s edible coatings and films containing antimicrobials, antioxidants

and other bioactive compounds have been researched and used to extend shelf life of

food and avoid spoilage. This technology is usually applied in minimally processed

food, vegetables, fruit and meat, but also to other matrices like medication pills, sweets

and even french fries. The advantages of this technology and the recent developments in

food processing along with the demand for less additives in food has helped this area of

research to develop. The main difference between coatings and films is that the latter

are used as covers, wraps or separation layers, while the coatings are considered part of

the final product, and are designed to protect or enhance it. The main benefits of edible

coatings and films are the extension of the shelf life of the foodstuff, the addition of

beneficial compounds like vitamins and antioxidants in the films, the environmental

friendliness of the materials used, and the potential enhancement of the food taste. In

terms of disadvantages, the main issues with this technology are related to the uneven

thickness of the films which can lead to irregular dispersion of the active constituents.

This can also occur if the food is not spatially uniform, which can lead to unprotected

spots, leaving the foodstuff prone to contamination or decay. In terms of their

components, edible films are divided into 3 categories: hydrocolloids (containing

proteins, polysaccharides or alginates), lipids (containing fatty acids, acylglycerols or

waxes) and finally composites, which contains compounds from both categories

(Guilbert and others 1996; Debeaufort and others 1998; Lin and Zhao 2007; Bourtoom

2008; Skurtys and others 2010; Han 2013). There are some commercially available

coatings, like chitosan, calcium pectinate, calcium ascorbate, wheat gluten, calcium

acetate, sucrose esters and corn protein which are already added to foodstuffs (Dutta and

others 2009; Embuscado and Huber 2009; Elsabee and Abdou 2013). One of the most

researched compounds for edible films is chitosan, due to its combined antibacterial and

  34  
antifungal effects, although it does have some limitations in terms of mechanical

properties and vapor permeability. Pectins have also displayed interesting results

(Espitia and others 2014). Other individual compounds extracted from plants, like

carvacrol and methyl cinnamate have been tested in edible films, along with natural

extracts of fruits and vegetables (lemon, orange, oregano, thyme, among others) with

satisfactory results (Ponce and others 2008; Iturriaga and others 2012; Peretto and

others 2014).

In order to overcome the limitations of this technology, future research should focus on

tailor-made coatings and films, which are specific for the foodstuff rather than find the

ideal compound or compounds for different foodstuffs (Valencia-Chamorro and others

2011).

NATURAL ADDITIVES. THE FUTURE OR THE SOURCE OF MORE

CONTROVERSY?

The era of natural food additives has started, some consumers deliberately choose

minimally processed foods over processed ones, and when they have to choose

processed food they will generally select one with fewer additives and/or containing

natural additives. Although the natural additives do not always represent a benefit

compared to chemical ones, in most cases they are believed to be healthier, can carry

out various functions in the food, and confer added value (bioactivity, nutraceutical).

Natural additives are compounds, groups of compounds, or essential oils from plants

that are already used empirically by the population for taste purposes. Fungi, seaweeds,

and algae are also interesting sources of natural additives. These natural compounds

have been around for some time, but in recent years they have gained more interest from

  35  
the food industry for direct application or in synergy with other natural or chemical

additives. Among the many effects, the most studied natural additive activities are their

antimicrobial and antioxidant powers (Rasooli 2007; Tiwari and others 2009; Brewer

2011; Pillai and Ramaswamy 2012).

Natural antimicrobials

Natural antimicrobials that can be added to food are mainly terpenes, peptides,

polysaccharides, and phenolic compounds, among others with less expression.

Examples of terpenes and their relatives include carvacrol, thymol, and menthol.

Carvacrol is a monoterpenoid phenol, present in large quantities in oregano with great

antimicrobial (Escherichia coli, Bacillus cereus, and Staphylococcus) and antifungal

activities, even at low concentrations (Ultee and Smid 2001; Ultee and others, 2002;

Nostro and others, 2006; Xu and others, 2008). Carvacrol can act in synergy with

cinnamaldehyde and nisin potentiating its effects. This compound has also been

described as antimutagenic in the Ames Salmonella/microsomal test (0.5 µL/plate)

(Ipek and others 2005). Finally, positive results were obtained from the

microencapsulation of carvacrol, allowing a slower spreading of its antimicrobial

activity, therefore potentiating its use (Periago and Moezelaar 2001;; Liolios and others

2009; Guarda and others 2011; Ye and others 2013). Thymol is an isomer of carvacrol

and it displays the same antibacterial and fungicidal activity (Ahmad and others 2009;

Anderson and others 2009). Eugenol, a polyphenol used in various food and

pharmacological applications is effective against the carcinogenic aflatoxin B1 (300

ppm) produced by Aspergillus flavus, as well as an inhibitor of other species of

Aspergillus in vitro (150 ppm) (Pillai and Ramaswamy 2011; Komala and others 2012).

Natural polysaccharides that are already used as food additives have positive effects on

health with no reported toxicity. Chitosan and its derivatives, chitooligosaccharides,

  36  
extracted from the shells of crustaceans, are used in the food and pharmaceutical

industries for their beneficial effects, namely hypocholesterolemic, antimicrobial,

immunity enhancing, antitumor, anticancer, anti-inflammatory, calcium-absorbing

improvement, and antioxidant power among others (Xia and others 2011). It is used as a

food additive, but it also takes part in the manufacture of antimicrobial biofilms and can

be used combined with other molecules, like xylan and glucose (Kanatt and others

2008; Dutta and others 2009; Kong and others 2010; Li and others 2011). Nisin, a

peptide comprised of 34 amino acids has long been used in the food industry due to its

excellent antibacterial properties, namely against Clostridium perfringens, Clostridium

sporogenes and others (Jamura and others 2005; He and Chen 2006; Udompijitkul and

others 2012). It has been used with good results in meat, Galotyri cheese, and other

foodstuffs. This natural compound has also reported toxicological effects on mice and

has been described as arresting the progression of squamous cell carcinoma in human

cell lines (Joo and others 2012). The synergic effects of nisin, as well as its

encapsulation viability, have been investigated with apparent success (Hagiwara and

others 2010; Malheiros and others 2012; Boualem and others 2013; Kallinteri and

others 2013). Many other types of naturally occurring molecules are effective against

food microbial contaminants, namely peptides, which are also known as bacteriocins.

Bacteriocins should not be confused with antibiotics, their use is strictly for food, while

antibiotics are for clinical/medical use. These molecules have no reported toxicity or

secondary effects, unlike antibiotics (Cleveland and others 2001).

Natural antioxidants

Antioxidants present in plants, algae, and mushrooms are excellent natural additives to

be added to foodstuffs for their ion or hydrogen donating, metal chelating, and chain

breaking capabilities. Among others, the most antioxidant natural molecules are

  37  
vitamins, polyphenols, and carotenoids. These groups of molecules, although being

antioxidants can also exhibit additional properties (Ferreira and others 2009; Shahidi

and Zhong 2010; Brewer 2011; Carocho and Ferreira 2013a).

The main vitamins with antioxidant potential already in use as food additives are

vitamin C (ascorbic acid) and vitamin E (tocopherols). Vitamin C is an essential vitamin

for humans that can only be acquired through diet (Davey and others 2000). This

molecule is an effective scavenger of the superoxide radical anion, hydrogen peroxide,

hydroxyl radical, singlet oxygen, and reactive nitrogen oxide, avoiding oxidative stress

in the human body. In the food industry, ascorbic acid is one of the most used

antioxidants, being used in the meat, beverage, fish, and bread industries, among others.

By absorbing oxygen in the food, and oxidizing itself to dehydroascorbic acid, the

available oxygen is reduced, therefore preserving the food. Apart from this antioxidant

mechanism, ascorbic acid also acts as an antibrowning agent by reconverting quinones

back to the phenolic form and avoiding flavor deterioration in beverages (Davey and

others 2000; Carocho and Ferreira 2013a). Vitamin E is composed of 4 isoforms (α-

tocopherol, β-tocopherol, γ-tocopherol and δ-tocopherol) and 4 tocotrienols (α -

tocotrienol, β -tocotrienol, γ –tocotrienol, and δ-tocotrienol) (Hussain and others 2013).

This vitamin exerts its activity especially against lipid peroxidation and rancidification

by donating its phenolic hydrogen to the peroxyl radicals forming tocopheroxyl radicals

that, despite also being radicals, are unreactive and unable to continue the oxidative

chain reaction. Both these vitamins can work in synergism with the regeneration of

vitamin E through vitamin C from the tocopheroxyl radical to an intermediate,

reinstating once again its antioxidant potential. This is why they are usually employed

together to extend shelf-life of foodstuffs (Carocho and Ferreira 2013a; Hussain and

others 2013). Polyphenols, secondary metabolites, of plants are also excellent

  38  
antioxidants. Among their various effects (antimicrobial, antimutagenic, anticancer,

antitumor, anti-inflammatory), they also scavenge radicals, chelate metals, quench

oxygen atoms, and can act as ion or hydrogen donors. The 8000 described polyphenols

are divided into 8 groups: hydroxybenzoic acids, hydroxycinnamic acids, coumarins,

lignans, chalcones, flavonoids, lignins and xanthones. Some polyphenols exhibit good

antioxidant activity as pure compounds incorporated in foodstuffs, while others depend

on synergism to carry out the protective effects. This is a drawback and at the same time

an opportunity for the industry. For one, there is an imposing demand to get to the

compound that exerts the effect, but at the same time synergisms can be research

opportunities, which could be beneficial for the food industry (Carocho and Ferreira

2013a; Carocho and Ferreira 2013b). Polyphenols have been used as antioxidants in the

fish and meat industries by dipping carcasses into polyphenolic extracts, allowing

oxidation and bacterial contamination to be delayed (Fan and others 2008; Kumudavally

and others 2008; Maqsood and others 2013). Other approaches have been tested with

success, by incorporating natural extracts rich in polyphenols or pure compounds into

food, and therefore avoiding rancidity, spoilage, and bacterial colony formation for a

longer period of time when compared to the controls (Yao and others 2004; Serra and

others 2008; Day and others 2009; Bansal and others 2013).

Carotenoids

Another important group of compounds are the carotenoids, defined as the pigments of

nature. They occur in many colors, from red to yellow, and derive from the secondary

metabolism in plants, bacteria, fungi, and algae. Some of the most important

carotenoids are α–carotene, β-carotene, and lycopene. The carotenoids have been used

in the past, are still used presently as food colorants, and are approved for those

purposes (Hendry and Houghton 1996; Nguyen and Schwartz 1998; Watson 2002; Nelis

  39  
and Leenheer 2008). Recently, their antioxidant activity has been regarded as an added

value when they are incorporated in food, and adding to the fact that they do not pose a

toxicological threat, it makes them excellent natural food additives. β-Carotene, the

precursor of vitamin A, has successfully been added to different foods, especially

functional and nutraceutic beverages, and its usage for this purpose is estimated to

increase in the future. Lycopene, one of the major constituents of tomatoes, has been

successfully added to minced meat, increasing its storage stability, adding a natural

taste, improving the color, and indicating health benefits (Østerlie and Lerfall 2005).

Taking into account that there are more than 600 different carotenoids known, there is a

high probability that many of them can display beneficial health effects (Branen and

others 2001; Lerner and Lerner 2011).

Essential oils

Essential oils are hydrophobic liquids obtained by hydrodistillation or Likens-Nickerson

extraction of plant parts containing terpenes and phenolic compounds. The health

benefits of these oils are well-documented since the time their activities were first

discovered. Essential oils are antioxidants, fungicidal, and bactericidal against Listeria,

Staphylococcus, and other genera, improve the shelf-life of perishable foods, and delay

spoilage. For some applications their effects are potentiated by synergisms established

with bacteriocins or even food constituents. The only downside of essential oils is their

potential toxicity to humans, even at low concentrations, and despite the extensive

research on them, further and more meticulous assays should be carried out to determine

the real effects of these oils in the human body and to determine an ADI (Smith-Palmer

and others 2001; Holley and Patel 2005; Rasooli 2007; Sacchetti and others 2005;

Kanatt and others 2008; Kumar and others 2008; Gutierrez and others 2009; Nguefack

  40  
and others 2009; Tajkarimi and others 2010; Lv and others 2011; Tyagi and Malic

2011; Turgis and others 2012).

Although the natural additives are beneficial as antimicrobials and antioxidants, some of

them have drawbacks; in some cases the amount needed for inhibition of certain

contaminants is higher than the amount needed when using synthetic chemical

compounds. On the other hand, certain natural additives can add flavor to food, which

can be a disadvantage for some of the effective chemical antimicrobials. Furthermore,

some polyphenols can interact with proteins, carbohydrates, minerals, and vitamins,

which might not prove to be beneficial or not exert the desired functions in foods. This

needs further research (Lule and Xia 2005; Rasooli 2007).

PROBLEMS, OPORTUNITIES AND FUTURE PERSPECTIVES

It is estimated that the world’s population will reach 8 billion by 2025. This increase

represents a challenge for the whole planet. Larger amounts of food must be produced

to feed the increasing population, especially in underdeveloped countries. Technology

improves all of the food processing stages, in particular the technologies contributing to

food preservation, such as mild-heat-processing, modified atmosphere packaging,

vacuum packaging, and refrigeration. New technologies like pulsed-light, high pressure,

pulsed-electric, and magnetic fields, high-pressure processing, ionizing radiation, and

ultraviolet radiation are actively being investigated in order to overcome their specific

limitations and costs. Although these technologies are effective in reducing the number

of additives in food, these molecules cannot be completely removed in the high-

demanding worldwide food market. Therefore, it is imperative to find viable solutions

for the future food concern (Lado and Yousef 2002; Tajkarimi and others 2010).

  41  
In the 21st century, where information has no boundaries and can reach a high number

of people in seconds, and with the literacy of citizens rising, the demand for

clarification regarding food additives has grown considerably. In an inverse proportion,

the trust in food safety agencies has declined, and citizens around the world are worried

about the food they consume. Various surveys indicate that some consumers are

alarmed about food additives and do not feel well informed regarding their role in food.

The population does not know the difference between some groups of additives and is

prone to be misled by marketing efforts that request “clean labels”, which are labels that

do not display names of compounds that resemble chemical or synthetic ones. Another

troubling fact is the consumption of highly transformed food that is growing

considerably due to the exodus of populations from the countryside to large cities and a

way of life away from self-sufficiency. Home-preparation of food is now substituted by

the “ready to consume” meal that just needs to be heated. The high consumption of this

type of food imposes 2 important reflections. For one, the need for better, safer, and

multipurpose additives (rather than adding various different ones to the same foodstuff)

and, on the other hand, the need to educate the population to on the composition of

natural and highly processed foods, as well as balanced and unbalanced diets and the

necessity of additives. So far, only the schooled fraction of the population of developed

countries has become aware of these issues. Some advocates even plead for a shift to a

reduced consumption of highly processed foods (Shim and others 2010; Varela and

Fiszman 2013).

The concern about misinformation regarding food additives is also fueled by the blurred

separation between natural and synthetic additives. Today, additives are usually added

to repair damage to food during its harvesting, storage, and processing, by correcting

the final foods’ colors, texture, moisture, flavors. The actual truth is that, in the global

  42  
food market, of 30 billion dollars, 40% of all additives are used to keep the taste of the

food products, 30% employed for texture, 5% for food appearance, 20% for aiding the

processing phase, and 5% is added to fight bacterial spoilage and rapid deterioration.

The core studies regarding food additive safety in the USA have been unaltered for 40

years, it is now time to review these protocols and prepare new ones, incorporating new

technologies, new knowledge, and leaving space for wider, transversal, and undoubted

debates within the scientific community and by stakeholders. The EU in its review of

food additives until 2020, is taking these premises into account to gather a transversal

understanding of both the scientific community and legislators. Although difficult, a

unique European law regarding food additives could be the best solution to bring

confidence to the legislating bodies as well as safety to the food that is consumed by the

more than 500 million people living within the EU. This mission is quite challenging

due to the difficulty to obtain concrete, sound, and irrefutable results regarding human

exposure to additives when taking into account the different diets, lifestyles, ages, and

genetic predispositions of citizens (Bateman and others 2004; Connolly and others

2010; Mepham 2011; Lofstedt 2013).

The future of food additives is of grave importance for mankind, it is related to the well-

being of the entire human population. Food additives will definitely change throughout

the next decades, either tending to natural extracts that need to be thoroughly studied for

interactions or to the synthetic chemical ones that will continue to scare the consumers.

Future technologies regarding food additives have been studied and aim to reduce

impact on health, manufacture costs, and controversy, having also the minimum effect

on the final appearance of food. Nanotechnology, which is already widely used for

different purposes is also being applied to food and to packaging, encapsulating the

additives, allowing for controlled release, increase in stability, and reduction of impact

  43  
in the final product. In a near future, it is expected that these nanostructures, present

within the food or in the package, detect decay or contamination, and only then start the

release of specific antioxidants or antimicrobials (Appendini and Hotchkiss 2002;

Duncan 2011; Cushen and others 2012; Coles and Frewer 2013; Sung and others 2013).

Filamentous fungi are already used to produce several natural compounds with color.

These could be used as food colorants, substituting their chemical counterparts. This

technology will be used in the near future for the other classes of food additives, taking

advantage of the extraordinary capacity of fungi and bacteria to produce specific

compounds (Dufossé and others 2014). Genetic biomarkers are being studied in order to

early detect potential allergic reactions to food additives, and vaccines are being

developed to be administered to additive susceptible individuals, allowing potential

allergens to be added to food or added in a higher concentration (Watson 2002). Among

all the technologies used for food additives, recombinant DNA will be the one with the

greatest effect. It is already used in bioprocessing to develop additives and could even

reduce the need for common additives. Some plants, produced through recombinant

DNA displayed extended shelf-life and a higher nutritional value (Branen and other

2001).

The reception of these new technologies will also depend on how research is conducted

in these fields and also how governing bodies legislate towards them, leading to their

increasing use or eventual demise. These agencies should harmonize legislation and

publish unique and easily accessible guidelines that should be applied worldwide. These

guidelines should be approved by the scientific community which can provide important

information and input, but also by food companies for economic feasibility. In a future

where consumers will be highly aware of the ingredients of their food, legislation that is

well prepared, well reviewed, intended to provide minimum risk, and have worldwide

  44  
applicability, will reduce doubt and, distrust, and hopefully keep the market operating

efficiently for a better future.

CONCLUSIONS

Food additives have changed since they were invented and widely used over the past

century. Today, food additives ensure that food can be delivered around the world

without losses in an ever-growing competitive market. Their role is becoming more and

more important with the increase in consumption of highly processed foods due to

changing lifestyles of modern world citizens. Despite the visible improvements in

legislation and the production of safer additives, many issues still remain unsolved,

leading to increasing controversy and constant demand for better ones. The most

obvious cases include the prohibition of some additives in EU, which are used in the

USA, and others that are banned in the USA and added to food in the EU. Although

technologies will continue to develop and reduce the need for additives, while they are

still necessary, taking into consideration the habits of consumers, it is expectable that

natural additives will gain even more notoriety when compared to chemical ones. This

could be due to their various beneficial effects on health, along with antimicrobial,

antioxidant and other effects. The great number of compounds in nature that still remain

unknown, the power of natural extracts and the synergisms with other compounds

represent unlimited sources of new compounds with new possibilities. Today, natural

additives don’t answer all the doubts and issues, being unwise to use them as an

immediate alternative to chemical additives due to the impact on economies and health.

Careful studies regarding natural additives must be carried out to not make them a

source of even more controversy. What should occur is a soft transition into the natural

  45  
additives with a simultaneous reduction of additives altogether, relying on new

technologies to carry out the same effects. There is no timeframe for this to happen, but

it will surely take place, and there are 4 forces that will be legislators, scientists,

commercial enterprises, and ultimately, consumers.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors are grateful to Proder nº 46577 PlantLact for financial support of this work,

to Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT, Portugal) and COMPETE/QREN/EU

for CIMO strategic project PEst-OE/AGR/UI0690/2011 and LSRE strategic project

PEst-C/EQB/LA0020/2011. The authors also state that they do not have any conflicts of

interest.

REFERENCES

Abhilash M, Paul MVS, Varghese MV, Nair RH. 2011. Effect of long-term intake of

aspartame on antioxidant defense status in liver. Food Chem Toxicol 49:1203-7.

Abou-Donia MB, El-Masry EM, Abdel-Rahman AA, McLendon, R, Shiffman S. 2008.

Splenda alters gut microflora and increases intestinal P-glycoprotein and

cytochrome P-450 in male rats. J Toxicol Environ Health A 71:1415-29.

Abramsson-Zetterberg L, Ilbäck N. 2013. The synthetic food colouring agent allura red

AC (E129) is not genotoxic in a flow cytometry-based micronucleus assay in vivo.

Food Chem Toxicol 59:86-9.

Adams TB, Cohen SM, Doull J, Feron VJ, Goodman JI, Marnett LJ, Munro IC,

Portoghese PS, Smith RL, Waddell WJ, Wagner BM. 2005. The FEMA GRAS

  46  
 assessment of benzyl derivatives used as flavor ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol

43:1207-40.

Ahmad A, Khan A, Akhtar F, Yousuf S, Xess I, Khan LA, Manzoor N. 2011.

Fungicidal activity of thymol and carvacrol by disrupting ergosterol biosynthesis

and membrane integrity against Candida. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis 30:41-

50.

Akhtar M, Dickinson E, Mazoyer J, Langendorff V. 2002. Emulsion stabilizing

properties of depolymerisation pectin. Food Hydrocolloids 16:249-56.

Alger HM, Maffini MV, Kulkarni NR, Bongard ED, Nelter T. 2013. Perspectives on

how FDA assesses exposure to food additives when evaluating their safety:

Workshop proceedings. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Safety 12:90-119.

Ali RAM, Suzuki T. 2012. Detection of genotoxicity of phenolic antioxidants, butylated

hydroxyanisole and tert-butylhydroquinone in multiple mouse organs by the

alkaline comet assay. J Am Sci 8:722-27.

Amadasi A, Mozzarelli A, Meda C, Maggi A, Cozzini P. 2009. Identification of

xenoestrogens in food additives by an integrated in silico and in vitro approach.

Chem Res Toxicol 22:52-63.

Amin KA, Hameid II H A, Elsttar AHA. 2010. Effect of food azo dyes tartrazine and

carmoisine on biochemical parameters related to renal, hepatic function and

oxidative stress biomarkers in young male rats. Food Chem Toxicol 48:2994-99.

Anderson RC, Krueger NA, Byrd JA, Harvey RB, Callaway TR, Edrington T, Nisbet

DJ 2009. Effects of thymol and diphenyliodonium chloride against

Campylobacter spp. during pure and mixed culture in vitro. J Appl Microbiol

107:1258-68.

  47  
Anton SD, Martin CK, Han H, Coulon S, Cefalu WT, Geiselman P, Williamson DA.

Effects of stevia, aspartame, and sucrose on food intake satiety and postprandial

glucose and insulin levels. Appetite 55:37-43.

Appendini P, Hotchkiss JH. 2002. Review of antimicrobial food packaging. Innov Food

Sci Emerging Tec 3:113-26.

Arvin M, Dehghan G, Hosseinpourfeizi MA, Moosavi-Movagedi AA. 2013.

Spectroscopic and electrochemical studies on the interaction of carmoisine food

additive with native calf thymus DNA. Spectrocsc Lett 46:250-6.

Ashok I, Sheeladevi R, Wankhar D. 2013. Effect of long-term aspartame (artificial

sweetener) on anxiety, locomotor activity and emotionality behaviour in Wistar

albino rats. Biomed Prev Nutr DOI: 10.1016/j.bionut.2013.04.002 (accessed

October 2013).

Aubert N, Ameller T, Legrand J. 2012. Systemic exposure to parabens:

Pharmacokinetics, tissue distribution, excretion balance and plasma metabolites of

[14C]-methyl-, propyl- and butylparaben in rats after oral, topical or subcutaneous

administration. Food Chem Toxicol 50:445-54.

Axon A, May FEB, Gaughan LE, Williams FM, Blain PG. Wright MC. 2012.

Tartrazine and sunset yellow are xenoestrogens in a new screening assay to

identify modulators of human oestrogen receptor transcriptional activity. Toxicol

298:40-51.

Aziz AHA, Shouman SA, Attia AS, Saad SF. 1997. A study on the reproductive toxicity

of erythrosine in male mice. Pharmacol Res 35:457-62.

Baird IM, Shephard NW, Merritt RJ, Hildick-Smith G. 2000. Repeated dose study of

sucralose tolerance in human subjects. Food Chem Toxicol 38:123-9.

  48  
Bandyopadhyay A, Ghoshal S, Mukherjee A. 2008. Genotoxicity testing of low-calorie

sweeteners: aspartame, acesulfame-K, and saccharin. Drug Chem Toxicol 31:447-

57.

Bansal S, Choudhary S, Sharma M, Kumar SS, Lohan S, Bhardwaj V, Syan N, Jyoti S.

2013. Tea: A native source of antimicrobial agents. Food Res Int 53:568-84.

Bateman B, Warner JO, Hutchinson E, Dean T, Rowlandson P, Gant C, Frundy J,

Fitzgerald C, Stevenson J. 2004. The effects of a double-blind, placebo-

controlled, artificial food colourings and benzoate preservative challenge on

hyperactivity in a general population sample of preschool children. Arch Dis

Child 89:506-11.

Becerril R, Manso S, Nerin C, Gómez-Lus R. 2013. Antimicrobial activity of Lauroyl

arginate ethyl (LAE), against selected food-borne bacteria. Food Control 32:404-

8.

Beezhold BL, Johnston CS, Nochta, KA. 2012. Sodium benzoate–rich beverage

consumption is associated with increase reporting of ADHD symptoms in college

students: A pilot investigation. J Attention Disor DOI:

10.1177/1087054712443156 (accessed October 2013).

Belsito D, Bickers D, Bruze M, Calow P, Dagli ML, Fryer AD, Greim H, Miyachi Y,

Sipes IG. 2012. A toxicological and dermatological assessment of aryl alkyl

alcohols when used as fragrance ingredients. Food Chem Toxicol 50:552-99.

Binstok G, Campos C, Varela O, Gerschenson LN. 1998. Sorbate-nitrite reactions in

meat products. Food Res Int 31:581-5.

Błaszczyk A, Augustyniak A, Skolimowski J. 2013. Ethoxyquin: An antioxidant used in

animal feed. Int J Food Sci 2013:1-12.

  49  
Błaszczyk A, Osiecka R, Skolimowski J. 2003. Induction of chromosome aberrations in

cultured human lymphocytes treated with ethoxyquin. Mutat Res 542:117-28.

Bonaccorsi G, Perico A, Colzi A, Bavazzano P, Giusto MD, Lamberti I, Martino G,

Lorini C. 2012. Benzene in soft drinks: A study in Florence (Italy). Ig Sanita

Pubbl 68:523-32.

Botterweck AAM, Verhagen H, Goldbohm RA, Kleinjans J, Brandt PA. 2000. Intake of

butylated hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene and stomach cancer risk:

Results from analyses in the Netherlands cohort study. Food Chem Toxicol

38:599-605.

Boualem K, Subirade M, Desjardins Y, Saucier L. 2013. Development of an

encapsulation system for the protection and controlled release of antimicrobial

nisin at meat cooking temperature. J Food Res 2:36-45.

Bourtoom T. 2008. Edible films and coatings: Characteristics and properties. Int Food

Res J 15:237-248.

Bouyer E, Mekhloufi G, Rosilio V, Grossiord J, Agnely F. 2012. Proteins,

polysaccharides, and their complexes used as stabilizers for emulsions:

Alternatives to synthetic surfactants in the pharmaceutical field? Int J Pharm

436:359-78.

Branen AL, Davidson PM, Salminen S, Thorngate J. 2001. Food additives. Taylor &

Francis. New York.

Bray GA, Nielsen SJ, Popkin BM. 2004. Consumption of high-fructose corn syrup in

beverages may play a role in the epidemic of obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 79:537-43.

Brewer MS. 2011. Natural antioxidants: Sources, compounds, mechanisms of action,

and potential applications. Comp Rev Food Sci Food Safety 10:221-47.

  50  
Brown RJ, Banate MA, Rother KI. 2010. Artificial sweeteners: A systematic review of

metabolic effects in youth. Int J Pediatr Obes 5:305-12.

Bronzwaer S. 2008. EFSA scientific forum “from safe food to healthy diets”. EU risk

assessment–Past, present and future. Trends Food Sci Technol 19:S2-S8.

Brul S, Coote P. 1999. Preservative agents in foods: Mode of action and microbial

resistance mechanisms. Int J Food Microbiol 50:1-17.

Brusick D, Borzelleca JF, Gallo M, Williams G, Killie J, Hayes AW, Pi-Sunyer FX,

Williams C, Burks W. 2009. Expert panel report on a study of Splenda in male

rats. Regul Toxicol Pharma 55:6-12.

Brusick D, Grotz VL, Slesinski R, Kruger, CL, Hayes AW. 2010. The absence of

genotoxicity of sucralose. Food Chem Toxicol 48:3067-72.

Cakir R, Cagri-Mehmetoglu. 2013. Sorbic and benzoic acid in non-preservative-added

food products in Turkey. Food Addit Contam 6:47-54.

Calvo C, Salvador A. 2000. Use of natural colorants in food gels. Influence of

composition of gels on their colour and study of their stability during storage.

Food Hydrocolloid 14:439-43.

Cammack R, Joannou CL, Cui X, Martinez CT, Maraj SR, Hughes MN. 1999. Nitrite

and nitrosyl compounds on food preservation. Biochim Biophys Acta 1411:475-

88.

Cantarelli MA, Pellerano RG, Marchevsky EJ, Camiña JM 2009. Simultaneous

determination of aspartame and acesulfame-K by molecular absorption

spectrophotometry using multivariate calibration and validation by high-

performance liquid chromatography. Food Chem 115:1128-32.

  51  
Carakostas MC, Curry LL, Boileau AC, Brusick DJ. 2008. Overview: The history,

technical function and safety of rebaudioside A, a naturally occurring steviol

glycoside, for use in food and beverages. Food Chem Toxicol 46:S1-S10.

Carocho M, Ferreira ICFR 2013a. A review on antioxidants, prooxidants and related

controversy: Natural and synthetic compounds, screening and analysis

methodologies and future perspectives. Food Chem Toxicol 51:15-25.

Carocho M, Ferreira ICFR 2013b. The role of phenolics compounds in the fight against

cancer – A review. Anticancer Agents Med Chem 13:1236-58.

Castelain F, Castelain M. 2012. Parabens: a real hazard or a scare story? Eur J Dermatol

22:723-27.

Ceyhan BM, Gultekin F, Doguc DK, Kulac E. 2013. Effects of maternally exposed

coloring food additives in receptor expressions related to learning and memory

rats. Food Chem Toxicol 56:145-8.

Chan TYK. 2011. Vegetable-borne nitrate and nitrite and the risk of

methaemoglobinaemia. Toxicol Lett 200:107-8.

Chequer FMD, Venâncio VP, Bianchi MLP, Antunes LMG. 2012. Genotoxic and

mutagenic effects of erythrosine B, a xanthene food dye, on HepG2 cells. Food

Chem Toxicol 50:3447-51.

CFR, Code of Federal Regulations. Title 21, Food and Drugs. Volume 3. Available

from: http://www.extension.iastate.edu/foodsafety/downloads/21cfr170-3.pdf.

Chen YQ, Ni YN. 2009. Simultaneous spectrophotometric determination of four

preservatives in foodstuffs by multivariate calibration and artificial neural

networks. Chinese Chem Lett 20:615-9.

  52  
Chen C, Lin W, Kuo C, Lu F. 2011. Role of redox signalling regulation in the propyl

gallate-induced apoptosis of human leukemia cells. Food Chem Toxicol 49:494-

501.

Cheng H, Friis A, Leth T. 2010. Partition of selected food preservatives in fish oil–

water systems. Food Chem 122:60-4.

Chow CK, Hong CB. 2002. Dietary vitamin E and selenium and toxicity of nitrite and

nitrate. Toxicol 180:195-207.

Chudgar, RJ, Oakes J. 2003. Dyes, azo. Kirk-Othmer encyclopedia of chemical

technology. John Wiley & Sons, West Sussex, UK.

Chung K. 2000. Mutagenicity and carcinogenicity of aromatic amines metabolically

produced from azo dyes. Environ Carcino Ecotox Revs C 18:51-74.

Ciardi C, Jenny M, Tschoner A, Ueberall F, Patsch J, Pedrini M, Ebenbichler C, Fuchs

D. 2012. Food additives such as sodium sulphite, sodium benzoate and curcumin

inhibit leptin release in lipopolysaccharide-treated murine adipocytes in vitro. Brit

J Nutr 107:826-33.

Cleveland J, Montville TJ, Nes IF, Chikindas ML. 2001. Bacteriocins: Safe, natural

antimicrobials for food preservation. Int J Food Microbiol 71:1-20.

Codex Alimentarius. Accessed August 2013. Available from:

www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/docs/CXS_192e.pdf.

Cohen-Addad N, Chatterjee M, Bekersky I, Blumenthal HP. 1986. In utero-exposure to

saccharin: A threat? Cancer Lett 32:151-4.

Coles D, Frewer LJ. 2013. Nanotechnology applied to European food production-A

review of ethical and regulatory issues. Trend Food Sci Tec 34:32-43.

  53  
Connolly A, Hearty Á, Nugent A, McKevitt A, Boylan E, Flynn A, Gibney MJ. 2010.

Pattern of intake of food additives associated with hyperactivity in Irish children

and teenagers. Food Addit Contam A 27:447-56.

Council Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 of 16 December 2008 on food additives. 2008. OJ

L354/16.

Council Regulation (EC) 1129/2011 of 11 November 2011 on amending Annex II to

Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council by

establishing a Union list of food additives.

Cressey P, Jones S. 2009. Levels of preservatives (sulphite, sorbate and benzoate) in

New Zealand food and estimated dietary exposure. Food Addit Contam 26:604-

13.

Cushen M, Kerry J, Morris M, Cruz-Romero M, Cummins E. 2012. Nanotechnologies

in the food industry–Recent developments, risks and regulation. Trend Food Sci

Tec 24:30-46.

Darbre PD, Aljarrah A, Miller WR, Coldham NG, Sauer MJ, Pope GS. 2004.

Concentrations of parabens in human breast tumours. J Appl Toxicol 24:5-13.

Datta S, Mahapatra N, Halder M. 2013. pH-insensitive electrostatic interaction of

carmoisine with two serum proteins: A possible caution on its uses in food and

pharmaceutical industry. J Photoch Photobio B 124:50-62.

Davey MW, Montagu MV, Inzé D, Sanmartin M, Kanellis A, Smirnoff N, Benzie IJJ,

Strain JJ, Favell D, Fletcher J. 2000. Plant L-ascorbic acid: Chemistry, function,

metabolism, bioavailability and effects of processing. J Sci Food Agric 80:825-60.

Day L, Seymour RB, Pitts KF, Konczak I, Lundin L. 2009. Incorporation of functional

ingredients into foods. Trends Food Sci Tech 20:388-95.

  54  
Debeaufort F, Quezada-Gallo J, Voilley A. 1998. Edible films and coatings:

Tomorrow’s packagings: A review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 38:299-313.

Delgado-Vargas F, Jiménez AR, Paredes-López O. 2000. Natural pigments:

Carotenoids, anthocyanins, and betalains - characteristics, biosynthesis,

processing, and stability. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 40:173-289.

Dengate S, Ruben A. 2002. Controlled trial of cumulative behavioural effects of a

common bread preservative. J Paediatr Child Health 38:373-6.

Dorato MA, Engelhardt JA. 2005. The no-observable-adverse-effect level in drug safety

evaluations: Use, issues, and definition(s). Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 42:265-74.

Downham A, Collins P. 2000. Colouring our foods in the last and next millennium. Int J

Food Sci Technol 35:5-22.

Dufossé L, Fouillaud M, Caro Y, Mapari SAS, Sutthiwong N. 2014. Filamentous fungi

are large-scale producers of pigments and colorants for the food industry. Curr

Opin Biotechnol 26:56-61.

Duncan TV. 2011. Applications of nanotechnology in food packaging and food safety:

Barrier materials, antimicrobials and sensors. J Colloid Interf Sci 363:1-24.

Dutta PK, Tripathi S, Mehrotra GK, Dutta J. 2009. Perspectives for chitosan based

antimicrobial films in food applications. Food Chem 114:1173-82.

Dybing E. 2002. Development and implementation of the IPCS conceptual framework

for evaluating mode of action of chemical carcinogens. Toxicol 181:121-5.

EAFUS, Food and Drug Administration, Everything Added to Food in the United

States. Accessed September 2013. Available from:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnnavigation.cfm?rpt=eafuslisting.

EFSA 2000. Re-evaluation of acesulfame K with reference to the previous SCF opinion

of 1991. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/out52_en.pdf.

  55  
EFSA 2004. Opinion of the scientific panel on food additives, flavourings, processing

aids and materials in contact with food on a request for the commission related to

tertiary-Butylhydroquinone (TBHQ) Available from:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/84.pdf.

EFSA 2008. Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 of the European Parliament and of the

council of 16 December 2008 on food additives. Available from: http://eur-

lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:354:0016:0033:en:PDF.

EFSA 2010a. Scientific Opinion on the safety of steviol glycosides for the proposed

uses as food additive. EFSA J 8(4);1537. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1537.

Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1537.pdf.

EFSA 2010b. Scientific opinion on the re-evaluation of Green S (E142) as a food

additive. EFSA J 8(11);1851. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1851. Available from:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1851.pdf

EFSA 2011. Panel on food additives and nutrient sources added to food (ANS);

Scientific opinion on the reevaluation of butylated hydroxyanisole–BHA (E 320)

as a food additive. EFSA J 9(10);2392. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2392. Available

from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2392.pdf.

EFSA 2012a. Panel on food additives and nutrient sources added to food (ANS);

Scientific opinion on the reevaluation of butylated hydroxytoluene BHT (E 321)

as a food additive. EFSA J 10(3);2588. DOI: 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2588. Available

from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2588.pdf.

EFSA 2012b. Panel on food additives and nutrient sources added to food (ANS);

Guidance for submission for food additive evaluations. EFSA J 2012; 10(7);2760.

Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/efsajournal.  

  56  
EFSA 2013a, Reasoned opinion on the review of the existing maximum residue levels

(MRLs) for ethoxyquin according to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No

396/20051; EFSA J 2013; 11(5);3231. Available from:

http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/3231.pdf

EFSA 2013b, Press release. Aspartame: EFSA consults on its first full risk assessment.

Available from: http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/130108.htm.

Elsabee MZ, Abdou ES. Chitosan based edible films and coatings: A review. Mater Sci

Eng C 33:1819-41.

Ema M, Hara H, Matsumoto M, Hirata-Koizumi M, Hirose A, Kamata E. 2008.

Evaluation of developmental neurotoxicity of polysorbate 80 in rats. Reprod

Toxicol 25:89-99.

Engin AB, Bukan N, Kurukahvecioglu O, Memis L, Engin A. 2011. Effect of butylated

hydroxytoluene (E321) pretreatment versus L-arginine on liver injury after sub-

lethal dose of endotoxin administration. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol 32:457-64.

Embuscado ME, Huber KC. 2009. Edible films and coatings for food applications.

Springer New York, USA.

Eskandani, M, Hamishehkar H, Dolatabadi JEN. 2013. Cyto-genotoxicity study of

polyoxyethylene (20) sorbitan monolaurate (Tween 20). DNA Cell Biol 32:498-

503.

Espitia PJP, Du W, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Soares NFF, McHugh TH. 2014. Edible films

for pectin: Physical-mechanical and antimicrobial properties – A review. Food

Hydrocolloid 35:287-96.

Eweka AO, Om’Iniabohs FAE. 2011. Histological studies of the effects of monosodium

glutamate on the ovaries of adult Wistar rats. Ann Medical Health Sci Res 1:37-

44.

  57  
Fan W, Chi Y, Zhang S. 2008. The use of tea polyphenol dip to extend the shelf life of

silver carp (Hypophthalmicthys molitrix) during storage in ice. Food Chem

108:148-53.

FDA Redbook, Food and Drug Administration. Accessed September 2013. Available

from:

http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInf

ormation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackaging/ucm2006826.htm.

Feijó FM, Ballard CR, Foletto KC, Batista BAM, Neves AM, Ribeiro MFM, Bertoluci

MC. 2013. Sacharin and aspartame, compared with sucrose, induce greater weight

gain in adult Wistar rats, at similar total caloric intake levels. Appetite 60:203-7.

Fennema OR. 1987. Food additives - an unending controversy. Am J Clin Nutr 46:201-

3.

Fennema OR. 1996. Food chemistry (Third edition). Marcel Dekker, New York.

Ferrand C, Marc F, Fritsch P, Cassand P, Blanquat GS. 2000. Mutagenicity and

genotoxicity of sorbic acid-amine reaction products. Toxicol In Vitro 14:423-8.

Ferreira ICFR, Barros L, Abreu RM. 2009. Antioxidants in wild mushrooms. Curr Med

Chem 16:1543-60.

Ferreira IMPLVO, Mendes E, Brito P, Ferreira MA. 2000. Simultaneous determination

of benzoic and sorbic acids in quince jam by HPLC. Food Res Int 33:113-7.

Frazier RA, Inns EL, Dossi N, Ames JM, Nursten HE. 2000. Development of a

capillary electrophoresis method for the simultaneous analysis of artificial

sweeteners, preservatives and colours in soft drinks. J Chromatogr A 876:213-20.

Gao Y, Li C, Shen J, Yin H, An X, Jin H. 2011. Effect of food azo dye tartrazine on

learning and memory functions in mice and rats, and the possible mechanisms

involved. J Food Sci 76:125-29.

  58  
García-Gavín J, Parente J, Goossens A. 2012. Allergic contact dermatitis caused by

sodium metabisulfite: A challenging allergen. A case series and literature review.

Contact Dermatitis 67:260-9.

García-Jiménez MC, Capitán-Vallvey LF. 2007. Simultaneous determination of

antioxidants, preservatives and sweetener additives in food and cosmetics by

flow- injection analysis coupled to a monolithic column. Anal Chim Acta

594:226-33.

Gaur S, Sorg T, Shukla V. 2003. Systemic absorption of FD&C blue dye associated

with patient mortality. Postgrad Med J 79:602-3.

Gibbs BF, Alli I, Mulligan C. 1996. Sweet and taste-modifying poteins: A review. Nutr

Res 16:1619-30.

Giusti MM, Wrolstad RE. 2003. Acylated anthocyanins from edible sources and their

applications in food systems. Biochem Eng J 14:217-225.

González M, Gallego M, Valcárel M. 1999. Gas chromatographic flow method for the

preconcentration and simultaneous determination of antioxidant and preservative

additives in fatty foods. J Chromatogr A 848:529-36.

Guarda A, Rubilar JF, Miltz J, Galotto MJ. 2011. The antimicrobial activity of

microencapsulated thymol and carvacrol. Int J Food Microbiol 146:144-50.

Guilbert S, Gontard N, Gorris LGM. 1996. Prolongation of the shelf-life of perishable

food products using biodegradable films and coatings. LWT Food Sci Technol

29:10-7.

Gultekin F, Doguc, DK, Husamettin V, Taysi E. 2013. The effects of food and food

additives on behaviors. Int J Health Nutr 4:21-32.

  59  
Gutierrez J, Barry-Ryan C, Bourke, P. 2009. Antimicrobial activity of plant essential

oils using food model media: Efficacy, synergistic potential and interactions with

food components. Food Microbiol 26:142-50.

Ha MS, Ha SD, Choi SH, Bae DH. 2013. Exposure assessment of synthetic colours

approved in Korea. Food Addit Contam A 30:643-53.

Han J. 2013. Innovations in food packaging, 2nd Edition. Academic Press, Elsevier,

London, UK.

Han YH, Park WH. 2009. Propyl gallate inhibits the growth of HeLa cells via regulating

intracellular GSH level. Food Chem Toxicol 47:2531-8.

Hagiwara A, Imai N, Nakashima H, Toda Y, Kawabe M, Furukawa F, Delves-

Broughton J, Yasuhara K, Hayashi S. 2010. A 90-day toxicity of nisin A, an anti-

microbial peptide derived from Lactococcus lactis subsp. lactis, in F344 rats.

Food Chem Toxicol 48:2421-8.

Harvey PW, Everett, DJ. 2004. Significance of the detection of esters of p-

hydroxybenzoic acid (parabens) in human breast tumours. J Appl Toxicol 24:1-4.

He L, Chen W. 2006. Synergistic activity of nisin with cell-free supernatant of Bacillus

licheniformis ZJU12 against food-borne bacteria. Food Res Int 39:905-9.

He K, Du S, Xun P, Sharma S, Wang H, Zhai F, Popkin B. 2011. Consumption of

monosodium glutamate on relation to incidence of overweight in Chinese adults:

China Health and Nutrition Survey (CHNS). Am J Clin Nutr 93: 1328-36.

Hendry GAF, Houghton JD, 1996. Natural food colorants. Second edition. Blackie &

Professional, London UK.

Holley R, Patel D. 2005. Improvement in shelf-life and safety of perishable foods by

plant essential oils and smoke antimicrobials. Food Microbiol 22:273-92.

  60  
Hord NG, Tang Y, Bryan NS. 2009. Food sources of nitrates and nitrites: The

physiologic context for potential health benefits. Am J Clin Nutr 90:1-10.

Hord NG. 2011. Dietary nitrates, nitrites, and cardiovascular disease. Curr Atheroscler

Rep 13:484-92.

Hussain N, Irshad F, Jabeen Z, Shamsi IH, Li Z, Jiang L. 2013. Biosynthesis, structural,

and functional attributes of tocopherol in plants; Past, present, and future

perspectives. J Agri Food Chem 61:6137-49.

Ipek E, Zeytinoglu H, Okay S, Tuylu BA, Kurkcuoglu M, Baser KHC. 2005.

Genotoxicity and antigenotoxicity of Origanum oil and carvacrol evaluated by the

Ames Salmonella/microsomal test. Food Chem 93:551-6.

Isaac A, Livingstone C, Wain AJ, Compton RG, Davis J. 2006. Electroanalytical

methods for the determination of sulfite in food and beverages. Trend Anal Chem

25:589-98.

Iturriaga L, Olabarrieta I, Marañón IM. 2012. Antimicrobial assays of natural extracts

and their inhibitory effect against Listeria innocua and fish spoilage bacteria, after

incorporation into biopolymer edible films. Int J Food Microbiol 158:58-64.

Iwata T, Kimura Y, Tsutsumi K, Furukawa Y, Kimura S. 1993. The effect of various

phospholipids on plasma lipoproteins and liver lipids in hypercholesterolemic rats.

J Nutr Sci Vitaminol 39:63-71.

Jacobi H, Eicke B, Wittie I. 1998. Strand break induction and enhanced cytotoxicity of

propyl gallate in the presence of copper (II). Free Rad Biol Med 24:972-8.

Jamuna M, Babusha ST, Jeevaratnam K. 2005. Inhibitory efficacy of nisin and

bacteriocins from Lactobacillus isolates against food spoilage and pathogenic

oranisms in model and food systems. Food Microbiol 22:449-54.

  61  
Jeong S, Kim B, Kang H, Ku H, Cho J. 2005. Efects of butylated hydroxyanisole on the

development and functions of reproductive system in rats. Toxicol 208:49-62.

Joo NE, Ritchie K, Kamarajan P, Miao D, Kapila Y. 2012. Nisin, an apoptogenic

bacteriocin and food preservative, attenuates HNSCC tumorigenesis via CHAC1.

Cancer Medicine 1:295-305.

Jung R, Cojocel C, Müller W, Böttger D, Lück E. 1992. Evaluation of the genotoxic

potential of sorbic acid and potassium sorbate. Food Chem Toxicol 30:1-7.

Kallinteri LD, Kostoula OK, Savvaidis IN. 2013. Efficacy of nisin and/or natamycin to

improve the shelf-life of Galotyri cheese. Food Microbiol 36:176-81.

Kanatt SR, Chander R, Sharma A. 2008. Chitosan glucose complex – A novel food

preservative. Food Chem 106:521-8.

Karstadt ML. 2006. Testing needed for acesulfame potassium, artificial sweetener.

Environ Health Persp 114:516.

Komala VV, Ratnavathi C, Vijay, BS, Das IK. 2012. Inhibition of aflatoxin B1

production by an antifungal component, eugenol in stored sorghum grains. Food

Control 23:139-46.

Kong M, Chen XG, Xing, Park HJ. 2010. Antimicrobial properties of chitosan and

mode of action: A state of the art review. Int J Food Microbiol 144:51-63.

Koyama E, Kitazawa K, Ohori Y, Izawa O, Kakegawa K, Fujino A, Ui M. 2003. In

vitro metabolism of the glucosidic sweeteners, stevia mixture and enzymatically

modified stevia in human intestinal flora. Food Chem Toxicol 41:359-74.

Kroger M, Meister K, Kava R. 2006. Low-calorie sweeteners and other sugar

substitutes: A review of the safety issues. Compr Rev Food Sci Food Safety 5:35-

47.

  62  
Kumar A, Shukla R, Singh P, Prasad CS, Dubey NK. 2008. Assessment of Thymus

vulgaris L. essential oil as safe botanical preservative against post-harvest fungal

infestation of food commodities. Innov Food Sci Emerg Technol 9:575-80.

Kumudavally KV, Phanindrakumar HS, Tabassum A, Radhakrishna K, Bawa AS. 2008.

Green tea–A potential preservative for extending the shelf life of fresh mutton at

ambient temperature (25 ± 2 oC). Food Chem 107:426-33.

Lado B H, Yousef AE, 2002. Alternative food-preservation technologies: efficacy and

mechanisms. Microbes Infect 4:433-40.

Lakshmi G, Buchwald P. 2013. The promiscuous protein binding ability of erythrosine

B studied by metachromasy (metachromasia). J Mol Recognit 26:181-9.

Lau K, McLean WG, Williams DP, Howard CV. 2006. Synergistic interactions between

commonly used food additives in a developmental neurotoxicity test. Toxicol Sci

90:178-87.

Leisenring W, Ryan L. 1992. Statistical properties of the NOAEL. Regul Toxicol

Pharmacol 15: 161-171.

Leleu C, Bouitrop C, Bel B, Jeudy G, Vabres P, Collet E. 2013. Quinoline yellow dye-

induced fixed food-and-drug eruption. Contact Dermatitis 68:181-92.

Lemus-Mondaca R, Vega-Gálvez A, Zura-Bravo L, Ah-Hen K. 2012. Stevia

rebaudiana Bertoni, source of a high-potency natural sweetener: A

comprehensive review on the biochemical, nutritional and functional aspects.

Food Chem 132:1121-32.

Lerner BW, Lerner KL. 2011. Food: In context. Cengage Learning, Farmington Hills,

Michigan.

Leroux J, Langendorff V, Schick G, Vaishnav V, Mazoyer J. 2003. Emulsion stabilizing

properties of pectin. Food Hydrocolloids 17:455-462.

  63  
Li X, Shi X, Wang M, Du Y. 2011. Xylan chitosan conjugate – A potential food

preservative. Food Chem 126:520-5.

Lin D, Zhao Y. 2007. Innovations in the development and application of edible coatings

for fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables. Comp Rev Food Sci

Food 6:60-75.

Lino CM, Pena A. 2010. Occurrence of caffeine, saccharin, benzoic acid and sorbic acid

in soft drinks and nectars in Portugal and subsequent exposure assessment. Food

Chem 121:503-8.

Liolios CC, Gortzi O, Lalas S, Tsaknis J, Chinou I. 2009. Liposomal incorporation of

carvacrol and thymol isolated from the essential oil of Origanum dictamnus L.

and in vitro antimicrobial activity. Food Chem 112:77-83.

Lodi F, Gartlon J, Kenigswald GK. 2011. The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA)

re-evaluation of EU approved food additives. Toxicol Lett 205:S242-3.

Lofstedt R. 2013. Communicating food risks in an era of growing public distrust: Three

case studies. Risk Anal 33:192-202.

Lu FC. 1988. Acceptable daily intake: Inception, evolution, and application. Regul

Toxicol Parmacol 8:45-60.

Lucová M, Hojerová J, Pažoureková S, Klimová Z. 2013. Absorption of

triphenylmethane dyes Brilliant Blue and Patent Blue through intact skin, shaven

skin and lingual mucosa from daily life products. Food Chem Toxicol 52:19-27.

Lule SU, Xia W. 2005. Food phenolics, pros and cons: A review. Food Rev Int 21:367-

88.

Lv F, Liang H, Yuan Q, Li C. 2011. In vitro antimicrobial effects and mechanism of

action of selected plant essential oil combinations against four food-related

microorganisms. Food Res Int 44:3057-64.

  64  
Macioszek VK, Kononowicz AK. 2004. The evaluation of the genotoxicity of two

commonly used food colors: Quinoline yellow (E104) and brilliant black BN

(E151). Cell Mol Biol Lett 9:107-22.

Maier E, Kurz K, Jenny M, Schennach H, Ueberall F, Fuchs D. 2010. Food

preservatives sodium benzoate and propionic acid and colorant curcumin suppress

Th1-type immune response in vitro. Food Chem Toxicol 48:1950-6.

Malheiros PS, Sant’Anna V, Barbosa MS, Brandelli A, Franco BDGM. 2012. Effect of

liposome-encapsulated nisin and bateriosin-like substance P34 on Listeria

monocytogenes growth in Minas frescal cheese. Int J Food Microbiol 156:272-7.

Mamur S, Yüzbaşioğlu D, Ünal F, Yilmaz S. 2010. Does potassium sorbate induce

genotoxic or mutagenic effects in lymphocytes? Toxicol In Vitro 24:790-4.

Mamur S, Yüzbaşioğlu D, Ünal F, Aksoy H. 2012. Genotoxicity of food preservative

sodium sorbate in lymphocytes in vitro. Cytotechnology 64:553-62.

Mangge H, Summers K, Almer G, Prassl R, Weghuber D, Schnedl W, Fuchs D. 2013.

Antioxidant food supplements and obesity-related inflammation. Curr Med Chem

20:2330-7.

Maqsood S, Benjakul S, Shahidi F. 2013. Emerging role of phenolic compounds as

natural additives in fish and fish products. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 53:162-79.

Martins AT, Santos FS, Scannavino FLF, Pires JR, Zuza EP, Junior JAP, Azoubel R,

Mateo, MAS, Lopes RA. 2010. Effect of sodium cyclamate on the rat fetal

exocrine pancreas: A karyometric and stereological study. Int J Morphol 28:899-

904.

Martyn DM, McNulty BA, Nugent AP, Gibney MJ. 2013. Food additives and preschool

children. Proc Nutr Soc 72:109-16.

  65  
May LT, Briddon SJ, Hill SJ. 2010. Antagonist selective modulation of adenosine A1

and A3 receptor pharmacology by the food dye brilliant black BN: Evidence for

allosteric interactions. Mol Pharmacol 77:678-86.

McCann D, Barrett A, Cooper A, Crumpler D, Dalen L, Grimshaw K, Kitchin E, Lok

K, Porteous L, Prince E, Sonuga-Barke E, Stevenson J. 2007. Food additives and

hyperactive behaviour in 3-yar-old and 8/9-year-old children in the community: A

randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 370:1560-7.

McFarlane M, Price SC, Cottrell S, Grasso P, Bremmer JN, Bomhard EM, Hinton RH

1997. Hepatic and associated response of rats to pregnancy, lactation and

simultaneous treatment with butylated hydroxytoluene. Food Chem Toxicol

35:753-61.

Meeker JD, Yang T, Ye X, Calafat AM, Hauser R. 2011. Urinary concentrations of

parabens and serum hormone levels, semen quality parameters and sperm DNA

damage. Environ Health Persp 119:252-7.

Mepham B. 2011. Food additives: an ethical evaluation. Brit Med Bull 99:7-23.

Merusi C, Corradini C, Cavazza A, Borromei C, Salvadeo P. 2010. Determination of

nitrates, nitrites and oxalates in food products by capillary electrophoresis with

pH-dependent electro-osmotic flow reversal. Food Chem 120:615-20.

Mister S, Hathcock J. 2012. Under the law, FDA must grant different standards for new

dietary ingredients and food additives. Regul Toxicol Pharm 62:456-8.

Moutinho ILD, Bertges LC, Assis RVC. 2007. Prolonged use of the food dye tartrazine

(FD&C yellow no5) and its effects on the gastric mucosa of Wistar rats. Braz J

Biol 47:141-5.

  66  
Mpountoukas P, Vantarakis A, Sivridis E, Lialiaris T. 2008. Cytogenetic study in

cultured human lymphocytes treated with three commonly used preservatives.

Food Chem Toxicol 46:2390-3.

Mpountoukas P, Pantazaki A, Kostareli E, Christodoulou P, Kareli D, Poliliou S,

Mourelatos C, Lambropoulou V, Lialiaris T. 2010. Cytogenetic evaluation and

DNA interaction studies of the food colorants amaranth, erythrosine and

tartrazine. Food Chem Toxicol 48:2934-44.

Msagati TAM. 2013. The chemistry of food additives and preservatives. John Wiley &

Sons, West Sussex, UK.

Mukherjee A, Chakrabarti J. 1997. In vivo cytogenetic studies in mice exposed to

acesulfame-K - a non-nutritive sweetener. Food Chem Toxicol 35:1177-9.

Nair B. 2001. Final report on the safety assessment of benzyl alcohol, benzoic acid and

sodium benzoate. Int J Toxicol 20:23-50.

Nanditha B, Prabhasankar P. 2009. Antioxidants in bakery products: A review. Crit Rev

Food Sci Nutr 49:1-27.

Nelis HJ, Leenheer AP. 2008. Microbial sources of carotenoid pigments used in foods

and feeds. J Appl Bacteriol 70:181-91.

Nguefack J, Dongmo JBL, Dakole, CD, Leth V, Vismer HF, Torp J, Guemdjom EFN,

Mbeffo M, Tamgue O, Fotio D, Zollo PHA, Nkengfack AE. 2009. Food

preservative potential of essential oils and fractions from Cymbopogon citratus,

Ocimum gratissimim and Thymus vulgaris against mycotoxigenic fungi. Int J

Food Microbiol 131:151-6.

Nguyen ML, Schwartz SJ. 1998. Lycopene stability during food processing. Exp Biol

Med 218:101-5.

  67  
Nostro A, Blanco AR, Cannatelli MA, Enea V, Flamini G, Morelli I, Roccaro AS,

Alonzo V. 2006. Susceptibility of methicillin-resistant staphylococci to oregano

essential oil, carvacrol and thymol. Microbiol Lett 230:191-5.

Ohtsuki T, Sato K, Sugimoto N, Akiyama H, Kawamura Y. 2012. Absolute quantitative

analysis for sorbic acid in processed foods using proton nuclear magnetic

resonance spectroscopy. Anal Chim Acta 734: 54-61.

Oishi S. 2002. Effects of propyl paraben on the male reproductive system. Food Chem

Toxicol 40:1807-13.

Olney JW. 1990. Excitotoxin-mediated neuron death in youth and old age. Prog Brain

Res 86:37-51.

Olney JW. 1994. Excitotoxins in foods. Neurotoxicol 15:535-44.

Oms-Oliu G, Rojas-Graü MA, González LA, Varela P, Soliva-Fortuny R, Hernando

MIH, Munuera IP, Fiszman S, Martín-Belloso O. 2010. Recent approaches using

chemical treatments to preserve quality of fresh-cut fruit: A review. Postharvest

Biol Tec 57:139-48.

Østerlie M, Lerfall J. 2005. Lycopene from tomato products added to minced meat:

Effect on storage quality and colour. Food Res Int 38:925-9.

Park M, Park HR, Kim SJ, Kim M, Kong KH, Kim HS, Gong EJ, Kim ME, Kim HS,

Lee BM, Lee J. 2009. Risk assessment for the combinatorial effects of food color

additives: Neural progenitor cells and hippocampal neurogenesis. J Toxicol

Environ Health A 72:21-2.

Patel AK, Michaud P, Singhania RR, Soccol CR, Pandey A. 2010. Polysacharides from

probiotics: New developments as food additives. Food Technol Biotechnol

48:451-63.

  68  
Peretto G, Du W, Avena-Bustillos RJ, Sarreal SBL, Hua SST, Sambo P, McHugh TH.

2014. Increasing strawberry shelf-life with carvacrol and methyl cinnamate

antimicrobial vapors released from edible films. Postharvest Biol Tec 89:11-8.

Periago PM, Moezelaar R. 2001. Combined effect of nisin and carvacrol at different pH

and temperature levels on the viability of different strains of Bacillus cereus. Int J

Food Microbiol 68:141-8.

Pillai P, Ramaswamy K. 2012. Effect of naturally occurring antimicrobials and

chemical preservatives on the growth of Aspergillus parasiticus. J Food Sci

Technol 49:228-33.

Ponce AG, Roura SI, Valle CE, Moreira MR. 2008. Antimicrobial and antioxidant

activities of edible coatings enriched with natural plant extracts: In vitro and in

vivo studies. Postharvest Biol Tec 49:294-300.

Poul M, Jarry G, Elhkim MO, Poul J. 2009. Lack of genotoxicity effect of food dyes

amaranth, sunset yellow and tartrazine and their metabolites in the gut

micronucleus assay in mice. Food Chem Toxicol 47:443-8.

Pundir CS, Rawal R. 2013. Determination of sulfite with emphasis on biosensing

methods: a review. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:3049-62.

Rannug U, Bramstedt H, Nilsson U. 1992. The presence of genotoxic and bioactive

components in indigo dyed fabrics – a possible health risk? Mutat Res Lett

282:219-25.

Rasooli I. 2007. Food preservation – A biopreservative approach. Food 1:111-36.

Rencüzoğullari E, Íla HB, Kayraldiz A, Topaktaş M. 2001. Chromosome aberrations

and sister chromatid exchanges in cultured human lymphocytes treated with

sodium metabisulfite, a food preservative. Mutat Res 490:107-12.

  69  
Renwick AG, Nordmann H. 2007. First European conference on aspartame: Putting

safety and benefits into perspective. Synopsis of presentations and conclusions.

Food Chem Toxicol 45:1308-13.

Renwick AG, Thompson JP. O’Shaughnessy M, Walter EJ. 2004. The metabolism of

cyclamate to cyclohexylamine in humans during long-term administration.

Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 196:367-80.

Reyes FGR, Valim MFCFA, Vercesi AE. 1993. Effect of organic synthetic food colours

on mitochondrial respiration. Food Addit Contam 13:5-11.

Rezaei R, Knabe DA, Tekwe CD, Dahanayaka S, Ficken MD, Fielder SE, Eide SJ,

Lovering SL, Wu G. 2013. Dietary supplementation with monosodium glutamate

is a safe and improves growth performance in postweaning pigs. Amino Acids

44:911-23.

Roberts A, Renwick AG, Sims J, Snodin DJ. 2000. Sucralose metabolism and

pharmacokinetics in man. Food Chem Toxicol 38:31-41.

Rodríguez-Trabado A, Miró J, Balagué I, Guspi R. 2007. Hypersensitivity to the

antioxidant ethoxyquin. Actas Dermosifiliogr 98:580.

Rohman A, Man YC, Noviana E. 2013. Analysis of emulsifier in food using

chromatographic techniques. J Food Pharm Technol 1:54-9.

Rycerz K, Jaworska-Adamu JE. 2013. Effects of aspartame metabolites on astrocytes

and neurons. Folia Neuropathol 51:10-7.

Saad B, Bari MF, Saleh MI, Ahmad K, Talib MKM. 2005. Simultaneous determination

of preservatives (benzoic acid, sorbic acid, methylparaben and propylparaben) in

foodstuffs using high-performance liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A

1073:393-7.

  70  
Sacchetti G, Maietti S, Muzzoli M, Seaglianti M, Manfredini S, Radice M, Bruni R.

2005. Comprative evaluation of 11 essential oils of diferente origin as functional

antioxidants, antiradicals and antimicrobials in foods. Food Chem 91:621-32.

Sanabria ERG, Pereira MFS, Dolnikoff MS, Andrade IS, Ferreira AT, Cavalheiro EA,

Fernandes MJS. 2002. Deficit in hippocampal long-term potentiation in

monosodium glutamate-treated rats. Brain Res Bull 59:47-51.

Sarikaya R, Selvi M, Erkoç F. 2012. Evaluation of portential geotoxicity of five food

dyes using the somatic mutation and recombination test. Chemosphere 88:974-9.

Sasaki YF, Kawaguchi S, Kamaya A, Ohshita M, Kabasawa K, Iwama K, Taniguchi K,

Tsuda S. 2002. The comet assay with 8 mouse: organs: results with 39 currently

used food additives. Mutat Res 519:103-19.

Sayed HM, Fouad D, Ataya FS, Hassan NHA, Fahmy MA. 2012. The modifying effect

of selenium and vitamins A, C and E on the genotoxicity induced by sunset

yellow in male mice. Mutat Res Genetic Toxicol Environ Muta 744:145-53.

Schnuch A, Lessmann H, Geier J, Uter W. 2011. Contact allergy to preservatives.

Analysis of IVDK data 1996-2009. Brit J Dermatol 164:1316-25.

Scognamiglio J, Jones L, Vitale D, Letizia CS, Api AM. 2012. Fragrance material

review on benzyl alcohol. Food Chem Toxicol 50:5140-60.

Scotter M. 2009. The chemistry and analysis of annatto food colouring: a review. Food

Addit Contam A 26:1123-45.

Sebranek JG, Bacus JN. 2007. Meat products without direct addition of nitrate or nitrite:

What are the issues? Meat Sci 77:136-47.

Serra AT, Matias AA, Nunes AVM, Leitão MC, Brito D, Bronze R, Silva S, Pires A,

Crespo MT, Romão MVS, Duarte CM 2008. In vitro evaluation of olive- and

  71  
 grape-based natural extracts as potential preservatives for food. Innov Food Sci

Emerg Technol 9:311-9.

Shahabadi N, Maghsudi M, Rouhani S. 2012. Study on the interaction of food colourant

quinoline yellow with bovine serum albumin by spectroscopic techniques. Food

Chem 135:1836-41.

Shahidi F, Zhong T. 2010. Novel antioxidants in food quality preservation and health

promotion. Eur J Lipid Sci Technol 112:930-40.

Shankar P, Ahuja S, Sriram K. 2013. Non-nutritive sweeteners: Reviews and update.

Nutrition 29:1293-9.

Shi Z, Luscombe-Marsh ND, Wittert GA, Tuan B, Dai Y, Pan X, Taylor AW. 2010.

Monosodium glutamate is not associated with obesity or a greater prevalence of

weight gain over 5 years: Findings from the Jiangsu Nutrition Study of Chinese

adults. Brit J Nutr 104:457-63.

Shim S, Seo SH, Lee Y, Moon G, Kim M, Park J. 2011. Consumers’ knowledge and

safety perceptions of food additives: Evaluation on the effectiveness of

transmitting information on preservatives. Food Control 22:1054-80.

Shimada C, Kano K, Sasaki YF, Sato I, Tsuda S. 2010. Differential colon DNA damage

induced by azo food additives between rats and mice. J Toxicol Sci 35: 547-54.

Sims J, Roberts A, Daniel JW, Renwick AG. 2000. The metabolic fate of sucralose in

rats. Food Chem Toxicol 38:115-21.

Sindelar JJ, Milkowski AL. 2012. Human safety controversies surrounding nitrate and

nitrite in the diet. Nitric Oxide 26:259-66.

Singh K, Ahluwalia P. 2012. Effect of monosodium glutamate on lipid peroxidation and

certain antioxidant enzymes in cardiac tissue of alcoholic adult male mice. J

Cardiovasc Dis Res 3:12-8.

  72  
Skurtys O, Acevedo C, Pedreschi F, Enrione J, Osorio F, Aguilera JM. Food

hydrocolloid edible films and coatings. Nova Science Publishers, New York,

USA.

Smith MR, Wilson R, Hepburn PA. 1998. Assessment of the carcinogenic potential of

polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR) in rats and mice. Food Chem Toxicol

36:747-54.

Smith-Palmer A, Stewart J, Fyfe L. 2001. The potential application of plant essential

oils as natural food preservatives in soft cheese. Food Microbiol 18:463-70.

Soffritti M. 2006. Acesulfame potassium: Soffritti responds. Environ Health Persp

114:516-7.

Spencer PJ. 2005. New toxicity data for the propylene glycol ethers–a commitment to

public health and safety. Toxicol Lett 156:181-8.

Stolz A. 2001. Basic and applied aspects in the microbial degradation of azo dyes. Appl

Microbiol Biotechnol 56:69-80.

Suh H, Cho Y, Chung M, Kim B. 2007. Preliminary data on sulphite intake from the

Korean diet. J Food Comp Anal 20:212-9.

Sung S, Sin LT, Tee T, Bee S, Rahmat AR, Rahman WAWA, Tan A, Vikhraman M.

2013. Antimicrobial agents for food packaging applications. Trends Food Sci Tec

33:110-123.

Swithers SE, Martin AA, Davidson TL. 2010. High-intensity sweeteners and energy

balance. Physiol Behav 100:55-62.

Tajkarimi MM, Ibrahim SA, Cliver DO. 2010. Antimicrobial herb and spice compounds

in food. Food Control 21:1199-218.

  73  
Takayama S, Renwick AG, Johansson SL, Thorgeirsson UP, Tsutsumi M, Dalgard DW,

Sieber SM. 2000. Long-term toxicity and carcinogenicity study of cyclamate in

nonhuman primates. Toxicol Sci 53:33-9.

Tanaka T. 2001. Reproductive and neurobehavioral toxicity study of erythrosine

administered to mice in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 39:447-54.

Tanaka T. 2006. Reproductive and neurobehavioural toxicity study of tartrazine

administered to mice in the diet. Food Chem Toxicol 44:179-87.

Tanaka T, Takahashi O, Inomata A, Ogata A, Nakae D. 2012. Reproductive and

neurobehavioral effects of brilliant blue FCF in mice. Birth Defects Res Part B

95:395-409.

Tanaka T, Takahashi O, Oishi S, Ogata A. 2008. Effects of tartrazine on exploratory

behaviour in a three-generation toxicity study in mice. Reprod Toxicol 26:156-63.

Tandel K.R. 2011. Sugar substitutes: Health controversy over perceived benefits. J

Pharmacol Pharmacother 2:236-43.

Tatsuishi T, Oyama Y, Iwase K, Yamaguchi J, Kobayashi M, Nishimura Y, Hirama S.

2005. Polysorbate 80 increases the susceptibility to oxidative stress in rat

thymoytes. Toxicol 207:7-14.

Tavares RS, Martins FC, Oliveira PJ, Ramalho-Santos J, Peixoto FP. 2009. Parabens in

male infertility–Is there a mitochondrial connection? Reprod Toxicol 27:1-7.

Tayama S, Nakagawa Y. 2001. Cytogenetic effects of propyl gallate in CHO-K1 cells.

Mutat Res 498:117-27.

Thomas JA, DeSesso JM, Fowler BA, Ginsberg GL, Hansen D, Hines CJ, Hines R,

Portier K, Rozman K. 2004. NTP-CERHR Expert Panel report on the

reproductive and developmental toxicity of propylene glycol. Reprod Toxicol

18:533-79.

  74  
Tian S, Tang J, Liu H, Wang L, Shen J, Li J, Gan Y. 2012. Propyl gallate plays a

nephroprotective role in early stage of diabetic nephropathy associated with

suppression of glomerular endothelial cell proliferation and angiogenesis. J

Diabetes Res 2012:1-8.

Tiwari BK, Valdramidis VP, O’Donnell CP, Muthukumarappan K, Bourke P, Cullen,

PJ. 2009. Application of natural antimicrobials to food preservation. J Agric Food

Chem 57:5987-6000.

Tobacman JK. 2001. Review of harmful gastrointestinal effects of carrageenan in

animal experiments. Environ Health Persp 109:983-94.

Tsay H, Wang Y, Chen W, Huang M, Chen Y. 2007. Treatment with sodium benzoate

leads to malformation of zebrafish larvae. Neurotoxicol Teratol 29:562-9.

Tsuda S, Murakami M, Matsusaka N, Kano K, Taniguchi K, Sasaki YF. 2001. DNA

damage induced by red food dyes orally administered to pregnant male mice.

Toxicol Sci 61:92-9.

Turgis M, Vu KD, Dupont C, Lacroix M. 2012. Combined antimicrobial effect of

essential oils and bacteriocins against foodborne pathogens and food spoilage

bacteria. Food Res Int 48:696-702.

Türkoğlu S. 2008. Evaluation of genotoxic effects of sodium propionate and potassium

propionate on the root meristem cells of Allium cepa. Food Chem Toxicol

46:2035-41.

Tyagi AK, Malik A. 2011. Antimicrobial potential and chemical composition of Mentha

piperita oil in liquid and vapour phase against food spoiling microorganisms.

Food Control 22:1707-17.

  75  
Udompijitkul P, Paredes-Sabja D, Sarker MR. 2012. Inhibitory effects of nisin against

Clostridium perfringens food poisoning and nonfood-borne isolates. J Food Sci

71:51-6.

Ulca P, Atamer B, Keskin M, Senyuva HZ. 2013. Sorbate and benzoate in Turkish retail

foodstuffs. Food Addit Contam B 6:209-13.

Ulca P, Öztürk Y, Senyuva HZ. 2011. Survey of sulphites in wine and various Turkish

food and food products intended for export, 2007-2010. Food Addit Contam B

4:226-30.

Ultee A, Smid EJ. 2001. Influence of carvacrol on growth and toxin production by

Bacillus cereus. Int J Food Microbiol 64:373-8.

Ultee A, Bennik MHJ, Moezelaar R. 2002. The phenolic hydroxyl group of carvacrol is

essential for action against the food-borne pathogen Bacillus cereus. Appl

Environ Microbiol 68:1561-8.

Valencia-Chamorro SA, Palou L, Río MA, Pérez-Gago MB. 2011. Antimicrobial edible

films and coatings for fresh and minimally processed fruits and vegetables: A

review. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr 51:872-900.

Vally H, Misso NLA, Madan V. 2009. Clinical effects of sulphite additives. Clin Exp

Allergy 39:1643-51.

Vandevijvere S, Temme E, Andjelkovic M, Will MD, Goeyens L, Loco JV. 2010.

Estimate of intake of sulphites in the Belgian adult population. Food Addit

Contam A 27:1072-83.

Vandghanooni S, Forouharmehr A, Eskandani M, Barzegari A, Kashanian S, Nazhad E,

Dolatabadi J. 2013. Cytotoxicity and DNA fragmentation properties of butylated

hydroxyanisole. DNA Cell Biol 32:98-103.

  76  
Varela P, Fiszman SM. 2013. Exploring consumers’ knowledge and perceptions of

hydrocolloids used as food additives and ingredients. Food Hydrocolloids 30:477-

84.

Viberg H, Fredriksson A. 2011. Neonatal exposure to sucralose does not alter

biochemical markers of neuronal development or adult behaviour. Nutrition

27:81-5.

Walker R, Lupien JR. 2000. The safety evaluation of monosodium glutamate. J Nutr

130:1049-52.

Wang L, Zhang X, Wang Y, Wang W. 2006. Simultaneous determination of

preservatives in soft drinks, yogurts and sauces by a novel solid-phase extraction

element and thermal desorption-gas chromatography. Anal Chim Acta 577:62-7.

Watson DH. 2002. Food chemical safety. Volume 2: Additives. Woodhead Publishing

Limited, Cambridge, UK.

Weihrauch MR, Diehl V. 2004. Artificial sweeteners – do they bear a carcinogenic risk?

Ann Oncol 15:1460-65.

Weiner ML, Nuber D, Blakemore WR, Hariman JF, Cohen SM. 2007. A 90-day dietary

study on kappa-carrageenan with emphasis on the gastrointestinal tract. Food

Chem Toxicol 45:98-106.

Werley MS, McDonald P, Lilly P, Kirkpatrick D, Wallery J, Byron P, Venitz J. 2011.

Non-clinical safety and pharmacokinetic evaluations of propylene glycol aerosol

in Sprague-Dawley rats and Beagle dogs. Toxicol 287:76-90.

Williams GM, Iatropoulus MJ, Whysner J. 1999. Safety assessment of butylated

hydroxyanisole and butylated hydroxytoluene as antioxidant food additives. Food

Chem Toxicol 37:1027-38.

  77  
Wilson R, Smith M. 1998. Human studies on polyglycerol polyricinoleate (PGPR).

Food Chem Toxicol 36:743-5.

Wilson TA, Meservey CM, Nicolosi RJ. 1998. Soy lecithin reduced plasma lipoprotein

cholesterol and early atherogenesis in hypercholesterolemic monkeys and

hamsters: Beyond linoleate. Atherosclerosis 140:147-53.

Whysner J, Williams GM. 1996a. Butylated hydroxyanisole mechanistic data and risk

assessment: Conditional species-species cytotoxicity, enhanced cell proliferation,

and tumour promotion. Pharmacol Therapeut 71:137-51.

Whysner J, Williams GM. 1996b. Saccharin mechanism data and risk assessment: Urine

composition, enhanced cell proliferation, and tumor promotion. Pharmacol

Therapeut 71:225-52.

WHO, World Health Organization. 2000. Concise International Chemical Assessment

Document. Benzoic acid and sodium benzoate. Accessed July 2013. Available

from: http://www.who.int/ipcs/publications/cicad/cicad26_rev_1.pdf

Xia W, Liu P, Zhang J, Chen J. 2011. Biological activities of chitosan and

chitooligosaccharides. Food Hydrocolloids 25:170-9.

Xiu-Qin L, Chao J, Yan-Yan S, Min-Li Y, Xiao-Gang C. 2009. Analysis of synthetic

antioxidants and preservatives in edible vegetable oil by HPLC/TOF-MS. Food

Chem 113:692-700.

Xu J, Zhou F, Ji BP, Pei RS, Xu N. 2008. The antibacterial mechanism of carvacrol and

thymol against Escherichia coli. Lett Appl Microbiol 47:174-9.

Yadav A, Kumar A, Tripathi A, Das M. 2013. Sunset yellow FCF, a permitted food

dye, alters functional responses of splenocytes at a non-cytotoxic dose. Toxicol

Lett 217:197-204.

  78  
Yang B, Bhattacharyya S, Linhardt R, Tobacman J. 2012. Exposure to common food

additive carrageenan leads to reduced sulfatase activity and increase in sulphated

glycosaminoglycans in human epithelial cells. Biochimie 94:1309-16.

Yao LH, Jiang YM, Shi J, Tomás-Barberán FA, Datta N, Singanusong R, Chen SS.

2004. Flavonoids in food and their health benefits. Plant Food Hum Nutr 59:113-

22.

Ye H, Shen S, Xu J, Lin S, Yuan Y, Jones GS. 2013. Synergistic interaction of

cinnamaldehyde in combination with carvacrol against food-borne bacteria. Food

Control 34:619-23.

Yilmaz S, Ünal F, Yüzbaşioğlu D. 2009. The in vitro genotoxicity of benzoic acid in

human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Cytotechnology 60:55-61.

Yilmaz S, Ünal F, Yüzbaşioğlu D, Çelik M. 2008. Cytogenetic effects of citric acid and

benzoic acid on Allium chromosomes. Fresen Environ Bull 17:1029-37.

Yoshikawa K, Saito S, Sakuragawa A. 2011. Simultaneous analysis of acidulants and

preservatives in food samples by using capillary zone electrophoresis with indirect

UV detection. Food Chem 127:1385-90.

Yoshioka N, Ichihashi K. 2008. Determination of 40 synthetic food colors in drinks and

candies by high-performance liquid chromatography using a short column with

photodiode array detection. Talanta 74:1408-13.

Zengin N, Yüzbaşioğlu D, Ünal F, Aksoy H. 2011. The evaluation of the genotoxicity

of two food preservatives: Sodium benzoate and potassium benzoate. Food Chem

Toxicol 49:763-9.

Zhang G, Ma Y. 2013a. Spectroscopic studies on the interaction of sodium benzoate, a

food preservative, with calf thymus DNA. Food Chem 141:41-7.

  79  
Zhang G, Ma, Y. 2013b. Mechanistic and conformational studies on the interaction of

food dye amaranth with human serum albumin by multispectroscopic methods.

Food Chem 136:442-9.

Zurita JL, Jos Á, Peso A, Salguero M, López-Artíguez M, Repetto G. 2007.

Ecotoxicological effects of the antioxidant additive propyl gallate in five aquatic

systems. Water Res 41 2599-611.

  80  
 Table 1-Antimicrobial food additives with use restrictions and their respective ADI

quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

WHO 2000
Code of Federal
Nair 2001
Regulations 21
Yilmaz and others 2008
Sec.184.1021 5 mg/kg
E210 Benzoic acid Yilmaz and others 2009
- bw
Zengin and others 2011
EU Regulation No.
Cakir and Cagri-Mehmetoglu
1129/2011
2013
Nair 2001
Code of Federal
McCann and others 2007
Regulations 21
Tsay and others 2007
Sec.184.1733 5 mg/kg
E211 Sodium benzoate Beezhold and others 2012
- bw
Ciardi and others 2012
EU Regulation No.
Mangge and others 2013
1129/2011
Zhang and Ma 2013a
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Ethyl-p-
Sec.175.105 10 mg/kg
E214 hydroxybenzoate
- bw
(paraben)
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Oishi 2002
Code of Federal
Darbre and others 2004
Regulations 21
Sodium ethyl p- Harvey and Everett 2004
Sec.175.105 10 mg/kg
E215 hydroxybenzoate Tavares and others 2009
- bw
(parabens) Meeker and others 2011
EU Regulation No.
Aubert and others 2012
1129/2011
Castelain and Castelain 2012
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Methyl p-
Sec.150.141 10 mg/kg
E218 hydroxybenzoate
- bw
(parabens)
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011

Banned in the USA

Sodium methyl p-
-
E219 hydroxybenzoate 10 mg/kg
EU Regulation No.
(paraben)
1129/2011

Code of Federal 25 mg/kg Binstok and others 1998

E200 Sorbic acid
Regulations 21 bw Ferrand and others 2000

  81  
 Sec.182.3089
-
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
25 mg/kg Jung and others 1992
E201 Sodium sorbate Sec.182.3089
bw Mamur and others 2012
-
Not approved in the EU
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Sec.182.3640 25 mg/kg Mpountoukas and others 2008
E202 Potassium sorbate
- bw Mamur and others 2010
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal Rencüzoğullari and others 2001
Regulations 21 Suh and others 2007
Sec.182.3616, 3637, Cressey and Jones 2009
E220 -
Sulfites 3739, 3766, 3798 0.7 mg/kg Vally and others 2009
E228
- Vandevijvere and others 2010
EU Regulation No. Ulca and others 2011
1129/2011 García-Gavín and others 2012
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Cammack and others 1999
Sec.172.160 0.07
E249 Potassium nitrite Sebranek and Bacus 2007
- mg/kg bw
Hord and others 2009
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal Cammack and others 1999
Regulations 21 Chow and Hong 2002
Sec.172.175 0.1 mg/kg Sebranek and Bacus 2007
Sodium nitrite
E250 - bw Hord and others 2009
EU Regulation No. Chan 2011
1129/2011 Hord 2011
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Dengate and Ruben 2002
Sodium Sec.184.1784 Not
E281 Türkoğlu 2008
propionate - specified
Maier and others 2010
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011

  82  
 Table 2-Antioxidant food additives with use restrictions and their respective ADI
quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

Jacobi and others 1998

Code of Federal Branen and others 2001
Regulations 21 Tayama and Nakagawa 2001
Propyl galate Sec.184.1660 1.4 mg/kg Chen and others 2011
E310
(PG) - bw Zurita and others 2007
EU Regulation No. Amadasi and others., 2009
1129/2011 Han and Park 2009
Tian and others 2012
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
tert-
Sec.172185 0.7 mg/kg Whysner and Williams 1996a
E319 butylhydroquino
- bw EFSA 2004
ne (TBHQ)
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal Whysner and Williams 1996a
Regulations 21 Jeong and others 2005
Butylated
Sec.172.110 0.5 mg/kg EFSA 2011
E320 hydroxyanisole
- bw Ali and Suziki 2012
(BHA)
EU Regulation No. Carocho and Ferreira 2013a
1129/2011 Vandghanooni and others 2013
Code of Federal McFarlane and others 1997
Regulations 21 Williams and others 1999
Butylated
Sec.172.115 0.05 mg/kg Botterweck and others 2000
E321 hydroxytoluene
- bw Engin and others 2011
(BHT)
EU Regulation No. EFSA 2012a
1129/2011 Carocho and Ferreira 2013a
Code of Federal
Regulations 21 Błaszczyk and others 2003
Ethoxyquin Sec.172.140 0.005 Rodríguez-Trabado and others
E324
(EQ) - mg/kg bw 2007
EU Regulation No. Błaszczyk and others 2013
1129/2011

  83  
 Table 3-Azo compounds of dyes with use restrictions and their respective ADI
quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

Tanaka 2006
Code of Federal Moutinho and others 2007
Tartrazine Regulations 21 Tanaka and others 2008
- Sec.74.1705 7.5 mg/kg Poul and others 2009
E102
FD&C Yellow - bw Amin and others 2010
No. 5 EU Regulation No. Mpountoukas and others 2010
1129/2011 Gao and others 2011
Axon and others 2012
Code of Federal
Sunset yellow Regulations 21 Axon and others 2012
- Sec.74.1706 2.5 mg/kg Sayed and others 2012
E110
FD&C Yellow - bw Ceyhan and others 2013
No. 6 EU Regulation No. Yadav and others 2013
1129/2011
No permission sought in
the USA Amin and others 2010
Carmoisine 4 mg/kg
E122 - Arvin and others 2013
bw
EU Regulation No. Datta and others 2013
1129/2011
Banned in the USA Sasaki and others 2002
- 0.8 mg/kg Mpountoukas and others 2010
E123 Amaranth
EU Regulation No. bw Poul and others 2012
1129/2011 Sarikaya and others 2012
Code of Federal
Tsuda and others 2001
Allura red Regulations 21
Shimada and others 2010
- Sec.74.340 7 mg/kg
E129 Ceyhan and others 2013
FD&C Red No. - bw
Abramsson-Zetterberg and
40 EU Regulation No.
Ilbäck 2013
1129/2011

  84  
 Table 4-Triarylmethane compounds of dyes with use restrictions and their respective
ADI quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

Banned in the USA

Patent blue - 15 mg/kg Sarikaya and others 2012
E131
EU Regulation No. bw Lucová and others 2013
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Brilliant blue Regulations 21
- Sec.74.101 10 mg/kg Tanaka and others 2012
E133
FD&C Blue No. - bw Lucová and others 2013
1 EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
No permission sought in
the USA
5 mg/kg
E142 Brilliant green - EFSA 2010b
bw
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Fast green
Regulations 21
- 25 mg/kg
E143 Sec.74.203 Ha and others 2013
FD&C Green bw
-
No. 3
Banned in the EU
No permission sought in
Macioszek and Kononowicz
the USA
5 mg/kg 2004
E151 Brilliant black -
bw May and others 2010
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011

  85  
 Table 5-Sweeteners with use restrictions and their respective ADI quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

Code of Federal
Regulations 21 Mukherjee and Chakrabart 1997
Sec.172.800 15 mg/kg EFSA 2000
E950 Acesulfame K
- bw Karstadt 2006
EU Regulation No. Soffritti 2006
1129/2011
Banned in the USA
Takayama and others 2000
- 11 mg/kg
E952 Cyclamates Martins and others 2010
EU Regulation No. bw
Renwick and others 2004
1129/2011
Code of Federal Whysner and Williams 1996b
Regulations 21 Dybing 2002
Sec.180.37 5 mg/kg Bandyopadhyay and others
E954 Saccharin
- bw 2008
EU Regulation No. Swithers and others 2010
1129/2011 Feijó and others 2013
Abou-Donia and others 2000
Code of Federal
Baird and others 2000
Regulations 21
Roberts and others 2000
Sec.172.831 5 mg/kg
E955 Sucralose Sims and others 2000
- bw
Brusick and others 2009
EU Regulation No.
Brusick and others 2010
1129/2011
Viberg and Fredriksson 2011
Code of Federal
Renwick and Nordmann 2007
Regulations 21
Abhilash and others 2011
Sec.172.804 40 mg/kg
E962 Aspartame Ashok and others 2013
- bw
Rycerz and Jaworsaka-Adamu
EU Regulation No.
2013
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Fructose (high- CFR 2003
Sec.184.1866 No
- fructose corn Bray 2004
- limitation
syrup) EFSA 2008
Not considered a food
additive in the EU
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
CFR 2003
Sec.184.1854 No
- Sucrose EFSA 2008
- limitations
Anton 2010
Not considered a food
additive in the EU
EAFUS Doc No. 2849
Gibbs and others 1996
- Not
E957 Thaumatin Branen and others 2001
EU Regulation No. specified
Watson 2002
1129/2011

  86  
 Koyama and others 2003
GRAS No. 000468 Kroger and others 2006
- 4 mg/kg Carakostas and others 2008
E960 Stevia
EU Regulation No. bw EFSA 2010a
1129/2011 Lemus-Mondaca and others
2012

  87  
 Table 6-Stabilizers with use restrictions and their respective ADI quantities (mg/kg bw)

E number Name Legislation ADI References

Code of Federal
Regulations 21
E400 – Sec.184.1011
Alginates - Bouyer and others 2012
E404 -
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Tobacman 2001
Sec.172.620
E407 Carrageenan - Weiner and others 2007
-
Yang and others 2012
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011
Code of Federal
Regulations 21
Sec.184.1588 Akhtar and others 2002
E440 Pectin -
- Leroux 2003
EU Regulation No.
1129/2011

  88  
Figure 1-Groups and sub-groups of food additives. Adapted from Branen and others

(2001), Watson (2002) and Sarikaya and others (2012).

  89