The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) recently derived a tolerable daily intake (TDI) for bisphenol A (BPA) of 0.2 ng/kg bw/day. There are several issues with EFSA\'s hazard assessment review process, including that it was based on a limited subset of relevant studies. Multiple public commenters on EFSA\'s draft evaluation of BPA, including several European regulatory agencies, noted these issues, yet they were not adequately addressed by EFSA in the final evaluation. The TDI for BPA was based on an intermediate immunotoxicity endpoint in mice that has not been observed in other species; there is no evidence that it is a precursor event to any downstream pathological outcome. The TDI is several orders of magnitude lower than estimates of safe doses of BPA established by agencies worldwide, including EFSA\'s temporary TDI (t-TDI) for BPA established in 2015. Overall, the EFSA hazard assessment review process has led to a conclusion that there are low-dose effects of BPA based on very few, lower quality experimental animal studies. This conclusion is not supported by the totality of the available evidence, which includes multiple high-quality studies not considered by EFSA and indicates that the t-TDI established in 2015 is protective of human health.

The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has revised their estimate of the toxicity of bisphenol A (BPA) and, as a result, have recommended reducing the tolerable daily intake (TDI) by 20 000-fold. This would essentially ban the use of BPA in food packaging such as can liners, plastic food containers, and in consumer products. To come to this conclusion, EFSA used a systematic approach according to a pre-established protocol and included all guideline and nonguideline studies in their analysis. They found that Th-17 immune cells increased with very low exposure to BPA and used this endpoint to revise the TDI to be human health protective. A number of regulatory agencies including the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have written formal disagreements with several elements of EFSA\'s proposal. The European Commission will now decide whether to accept EFSA\'s recommendation over the objections of EMA. If the Commission accepts EFSA\'s recommendation, it will be a landmark action using knowledge acquired through independent scientific studies focused on biomarkers of chronic disease to protect human health. The goal of this Perspective is to clearly articulate the monumental nature of this debate and decision and to explain what is at stake. Our perspective is that the weight of evidence clearly supports EFSA\'s proposal to reduce the TDI by 20 000-fold.

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/article-withdrawal.

In 2017, a European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) opinion on the use of glutamate and its salts as food additives led to an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight/day. Then, in 2021, an EFSA statement presented a proposal for harmonizing the establishment of Health-Based Guidance Values for nutrients that are also regulated substances (including food additives). The present review argues that the 2017 glutamate ADI is unsuitable because safety of glutamate should firstly consider its status as a nutrient and not only as an additive.
Glutamate is a non-essential amino acid playing a key role in nitrogen homeostasis. The dietary exposure to glutamate in adults is extensive, due to its ubiquitous presence in foods, under three forms: bound to proteins, naturally free and free form added as an additive. Glutamate naturally included in proteins is the major source of dietary glutamate. Thus, since it plays a role in nitrogen homeostasis, it is a nutrient before being an additive. Its pharmacokinetics are largely impacted by concomitant food intake, but the extent to which plasma glutamate concentration must rise to have deleterious effects is never encountered in humans consuming glutamate in their daily diets. This is due to the fact that glutamate is highly metabolized in the splanchnic area.
Glutamate should be considered as a safe nutrient before being considered as an additive by risk assessor.

The European Commission (EC) recommends that policy within the EU should consider how to make the regulation of new genomic techniques \'more resilient, future-proof and uniformly applied\' than is presently the case. In this article, we explore what this might mean for the EU and what solutions might exist.

Suggestions that a food contains healthy ingredients or that it can provide beneficial effects upon consumption have been regulated in the EU since 2006. This paper describes the analysis of how this nutrition and health claim regulation has resulted in over 300 authorised claims and how the authorisation requirements and processes have affected the use of claims on foods. Five challenges are identified that negatively affect the current legislation dealing with nutrition and health claims: non-reviewed botanical claims (as well as on hold claims for infants and young children), the lack of nutrient profiles and the focus of claims on single ingredients, consumer understanding, research into health effects of nutrition and finally, enforcement. These challenges are shown to influence the goals of the regulation: protecting consumers from false and misleading claims and stimulating the development of a level playing field in the EU, to foster innovation. Tackling these political and scientific substantiation questions for health claims, together with continuously analysing the understanding and usage of claims by consumers and operators will ensure that the NHCR will stay effective, today and in the future.

The excessive growth of the food supplements\' industry highlights the need to focus attention on all aspects involved in their proper consumption; one that takes centre stage is advertising. The aim of this research is to analyse the presence of false and misleading claims in food supplements advertising. To this end, a relationship is established between the different types of health-related claims and the substances on which they are based, whether authorised or not by European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
This empirical work conducts a content analysis of all radio mentions broadcast throughout 2017 on news/talk radio stations.
Spain.
All radio mentions broadcast on news/talk commercial radio stations in Spain with the highest audience levels. The corpus is composed of 437 advertisements.
Results indicate that 80·3 % of function claims included in the analysed advertisements are not authorised by EFSA, while 20·4 % of disease claims are not allowed by EU regulation. Likewise, almost half of the substances referred to (43·7 %) are illicit: 54·1 % in function claims, 57·3 % in disease claims and 73·7 % in the case of reduction of disease risk claims.
This work reveals consistent failures to comply with European regulation on food supplements advertising. The widespread use of unauthorised health claims and substances is aggravated by the indirect recourse of illness as a persuasive argument, descriptions of alleged benefits as product attributes and the omission of essential information. This leads to dangerous misinformation and can pose serious health risks. Stronger legal mechanisms are needed for effective consumer protection.

The informational leakage account of attribute framing effects proposes that a communicator\'s choice of frame provides informational value, such that different frames are not informationally equivalent. Across five studies communicating food risks, we investigated the adaptability of communication recipients\' (our participants) use of frame information by manipulating the degree to which the communicator ostensibly had a choice over how the information was framed. Within-participants framing effects were observed across all conditions of all studies. Only in Study 4 (the only study in which communicator choice was manipulated within-participants) was there any evidence for an attenuation of framing effects where the communicator was not responsible for how the information was framed. Overall, regardless of whether or not framing effects are driven by the informational value contained in a communicator\'s choice of frame, people show little sensitivity to situations where that choice is removed.

On behalf of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), Kass and Lodi recently published a letter purporting to \'refute\' our July 2019 analysis of EFSA\'s December 2013 assessment of the risks of aspartame. We had previously claimed inter alia that the EFSA panel had evaluated studies that had indicated that aspartame might be harmful far more sceptically than those that had not indicated harm. We reported that EFSA had deemed every one of 73 studies suggesting harm to have been unreliable. Kass and Lodi provided a tabulation with figures that differed from ours in every detail. This commentary shows that, while Kass and Lodi provided a response to our analysis, they have not come close to refuting it. Our analysis provided detailed characterisations of each of the studies and how the panel interpreted them, but Kass and Lodi provide no corresponding information at all. Kass and Lodi claim that EFSA deemed 21 of 35 studies that had indicated possible harm to have been reliable. But if that is so, we now ask: why did the EFSA panel not recommend that aspartame should be banned, or at least tightly restricted?

A recent perspective defends the approach of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for evaluating the compositional normality of genetically engineered (GE) crops using a concurrently grown subset of non-GE varieties within the risk assessment. While the approach of the EFSA manages the risk of falsely claiming equivalence, this is achieved at the expense of low power to detect true equivalence. This generates inconsistent findings and safety conclusions across studies for the same GE event based on the selected non-GE comparators. Because variation in GE crop composition has not been associated with safety, we suggest policy improvements that would better align with consumer protection.