The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has taken another swing at streamlining the flavouring substances that dance on our taste buds, specifically targeting a cluster of 19 bicyclic secondary alcohols, ketones, and their related esters. This move aims to clarify safety levels in everyday food products, stirring the pot for flavour manufacturers, food industry stakeholders, regulators, and consumer advocates alike. Expect the usual symphony of responses from industry players balancing innovation costs, regulatory bodies ensuring consumer safety, and consumers keenly watching for any taste or safety impacts.
This update emerges from EFSA's Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), published on 22 January 2026. It is the third revision of their Flavouring Group Evaluation 87 (FGE.87Rev3), following new data from the 63rd meeting of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).
Far from new legislation, this is a scientific opinion embodying a risk assessment under Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1565/2000. It offers refined exposure calculations like maximised survey-derived daily intake (MSDI) and modified theoretical added maximum daily intake (mTAMDI). The document confirms safety for most substances under current exposure levels but calls for new usage data for some, shifting the spotlight on ongoing data collection rather than instant regulatory change.
EFSA’s assessment affirms no safety concerns for one key substance, 4,4a,5,6-tetrahydro-7-methylnaphthalen-2(3H)-one, under existing intake estimates. Yet, it flags potential overexposure risks for several others due to insufficient usage data, urging for more precise data collection. This reveals a delicate tension between consumer safety—bolstered here by conservative exposure limits—and the regulatory burden on producers needing to provide extensive data. It highlights EFSA prioritizing safety transparency and evidence-based assessments while nudging industry towards greater disclosure.
EFSA and national regulators gain stronger grounds for safety assurance; flavouring producers face demands for more detailed production and use data, potentially increasing compliance costs; EU food manufacturers and distributors may need to monitor ingredient compliance more closely; and consumers receive reassurances on flavouring safety but indirectly bear any cost passed along in product prices or innovations.
Looking ahead, this revision marks a continuation of EFSA’s iterative evaluation process rather than a final regulatory verdict. The agency expects ongoing contributions from industry to refine exposure data and anticipates further scrutiny by national food safety authorities. These updates may eventually inform potential regulatory revisions, dependent on evolving evidence and stakeholder engagement.
← Atlas › News › Agri-Food