Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

E number

E numbers are standardized codes consisting of the letter "E" followed by a numerical identifier, assigned to substances approved as food additives within the European Union after rigorous safety evaluations by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). These additives encompass a range of functions, including colors (E100–E199), preservatives (E200–E299), antioxidants, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, enabling manufacturers to enhance food safety, shelf life, texture, and appearance while adhering to strict regulatory limits. Governed primarily by Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, E numbers facilitate clear labeling, requiring both the code and the additive's name on packaging to inform consumers. The system originated in the early 1960s as part of efforts to harmonize standards across , with the International Numbering System for Food Additives () influencing its development for global consistency, though E numbers remain specific to EU authorization. Approval demands demonstration of safety for intended uses, technological necessity, and no misleading of consumers, with EFSA conducting risk assessments based on toxicological data, exposure estimates, and epidemiological evidence before endorsement. Re-evaluations occur periodically, leading to bans or restrictions, as seen with certain colors like (E102) linked to hyperactivity in sensitive children via empirical studies. Despite empirical validation of safety at permitted levels, E numbers have sparked controversies, fueled by portrayals and distrust amplified through channels, often conflating approved synthetic additives with unproven risks like cardiovascular issues from high emulsifier intake observed in observational cohorts. Causal links remain debated, as regulatory bodies prioritize randomized controlled data over correlative findings, yet public skepticism persists, prompting demands for greater transparency in additive sourcing and long-term effects. Historical precedents of withdrawn additives, such as some preservatives banned post-market , underscore ongoing vigilance, though systemic biases in academic reporting may overemphasize risks from industry-funded trials while underreporting natural additive toxicities.

History

Origins and Early Development

Following , Europe's expanded rapidly with the adoption of synthetic additives, such as artificial colors and preservatives, to extend , improve sensory appeal, and meet rising demand in processed foods amid economic reconstruction. This proliferation, while enabling efficient production, heightened risks of adulteration and health concerns due to inconsistent national regulations; for instance, substances permitted in one country faced bans elsewhere, creating non-tariff trade barriers that hindered the nascent European common market. The (EEC), formed in , recognized the need for harmonized controls grounded in verifiable safety assessments to facilitate intra-community trade while addressing empirical evidence of additive variability's economic impacts. The E numbering system originated in 1962 with the EEC's first directive on food colorings, Council Directive 62/2645/EEC, which approved a unified list of 36 colorants—20 natural and 16 synthetic—assigning them sequential codes beginning with E100 (e.g., as E100). This framework prioritized additives subjected to toxicological evaluations emphasizing dose-response data and no-effect levels over unsubstantiated anecdotal risks, establishing a precedent for causal risk-based approvals rather than blanket prohibitions. By standardizing labeling and permitting criteria, the directive curbed fraudulent substitution of untested dyes and laid the groundwork for broader additive oversight, directly responding to documented inconsistencies in member states' pre-existing national lists. Expansion followed swiftly in 1964 with directives incorporating preservatives into the E system, such as E200 series for sorbates and benzoates, building on the colorings model to encompass substances critical for microbial control in preserved s. These early lists were compiled through intergovernmental consultations, drawing on emerging protocols from bodies like national food standards committees, which tested additives via to derive acceptable daily intakes based on observed thresholds for adverse effects. This phase marked a shift from fragmented, tradition-bound approvals to a systematic, evidence-driven approach, though initial evaluations were limited by then-available methodologies, focusing primarily on rather than long-term chronic exposures.

Harmonization and Expansion in the EU

In the 1970s, the (EEC) extended its harmonized regulations with Council Directive 70/357/EEC of 13 July 1970, which approved specific antioxidants such as ascorbic acid (E 300) and established uniform conditions for their use across member states, approximating divergent national laws to prioritize scientifically evaluated substances. This directive assigned E numbers in the 300 series, building on prior categories for colors and preservatives to create a cohesive identification system. Subsequently, Council Directive 74/329/EEC of 18 June 1974 incorporated emulsifiers, stabilizers, thickeners, and gelling agents, authorizing substances like (E 400) and (E 440) under the 400 series, thereby expanding the scope of permitted additives while mandating purity criteria derived from toxicological data. These approximation directives implemented a positive list mechanism, restricting use to EEC-approved E-numbered additives and prohibiting member states from permitting additional substances without Community authorization, which overridden less rigorous or inconsistent national regimes to enforce a of empirical safety validation throughout the common market. This harmonization facilitated causal enhancements in integrity by standardizing permissible inputs, reducing variability in additive quality and exposure risks that had persisted under fragmented rules. By the mid-1980s, labeling transparency advanced under Council Directive 79/112/EEC of 18 December 1978 on foodstuffs labeling, presentation, and advertising, with amendments requiring additives to be declared by functional category (e.g., "") followed by their specific name or E number in ingredient lists, applicable from dates such as 1 January 1985 for certain updates. This enabled direct consumer verification and regulatory oversight, aligning with the growing E number inventory and supporting enforcement of the positive list. Regulation (EC) No 258/97 of 27 1997 on novel foods and novel food ingredients marked a complementary by mandating pre-market and safety dossiers for foods or ingredients without significant pre-1997 EU consumption history, employing assessment protocols akin to those for additives and indirectly fortifying E number rigor through parallel scrutiny of innovative substances potentially eligible for additive classification post-evaluation.

Definition and Purpose

Core Definition of E Numbers

E numbers are standardized numerical codes, prefixed with the letter "E", assigned to substances approved as food additives within the . These codes identify materials that perform specific technological functions in food, such as enhancing color, preserving freshness, or stabilizing texture, and are granted only after the additive has undergone comprehensive safety evaluations confirming it poses no significant risk to health under authorized conditions of use. The system encompasses a wide range of substances, including both those extracted from natural sources and those produced synthetically; for example, E100 refers to , a derived from , while E300 designates ascorbic acid, commonly known as and used as an . Assignment of an E number signifies regulatory acceptance across member states, harmonizing identification and permitting consistent application in food manufacturing without implying inherent danger or artificial origin. In practice, E numbers facilitate clear labeling requirements under regulations, where food products containing additives must declare them either by their chemical name or corresponding E code, enabling consumers to verify ingredients against official authorization lists published by bodies like the . This approach addresses misconceptions that equate E numbers solely with synthetic chemicals, as evidenced by the prevalence of naturally sourced additives within the approved inventory, though the codes themselves prioritize functional categorization over origin or safety hierarchy.

Functional Roles in Food Production

Food additives identified by E numbers perform essential functions in food production, including preservation to inhibit microbial spoilage, coloration to maintain visual uniformity, stabilization to ensure textural consistency, and fortification to enhance nutritional content. Preservatives such as (E200) prevent deterioration by diffusing into microbial cells, partially dissociating, and disrupting intracellular pH and metabolic enzymes, thereby inhibiting growth of molds, yeasts, and certain bacteria. In laboratory studies, at concentrations as low as 0.1% delayed conidial germination and reduced biomass yields in by up to 50%, demonstrating its efficacy against fungal proliferation. Colour additives compensate for the degradation of natural pigments, which are prone to modification during due to heat, light, oxygen, or changes, ensuring product appearance remains consistent and appealing to consumers. Unlike unstable colorants that fade or alter unevenly, approved E-number colours provide reliable stability across storage and preparation conditions. Stabilisers and emulsifiers, such as lecithin (E322) and xanthan gum (E415), maintain emulsion integrity and texture by reducing surface tension and preventing ingredient separation in products like dressings and baked goods. These agents enable uniform dispersion and prolonged structural stability without altering inherent food properties. Nutritional fortificants like riboflavin (E101), a vitamin B2 source, are added to processed foods such as cereals to replenish essential micronutrients lost in refining or to address dietary shortfalls, supporting cellular energy production and redox reactions. This practice has been standard in grain fortification programs since the mid-20th century to mitigate deficiencies observed in populations consuming milled staples.

Regulatory Framework

EU Approval Process

The authorization of food additives for use in the , culminating in the assignment of an E number, requires submission of a comprehensive application under Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 establishing a common procedure for food additives, enzymes, and flavourings. Applicants, typically industry stakeholders, provide a detailing the additive's chemical identity, manufacturing process, purity specifications (including impurities and stability), evidence of technological efficacy at proposed use levels, and justification that its function—such as preservation, stabilization, or enhancement of properties—cannot be adequately achieved by existing approved means or good manufacturing practices. The is submitted electronically to the , which verifies completeness and forwards it to the (EFSA) for scientific review, emphasizing first-principles evaluation of causal mechanisms underlying the additive's performance and any potential margins of safety in application. EFSA's Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings evaluates the submission for technological justification, requiring demonstration that the additive addresses a specific need in while minimizing levels to the lowest effective dose, often expressed as "" where no maximum is deemed necessary. If the assessment confirms efficacy and necessity beyond alternatives, the , in consultation with Member States via the Standing Committee on Plants, Animals, Food and Feed, adopts a decision under Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 to include the additive in Annex II, specifying permitted food categories, functions, maximum levels or conditions of use, and labeling requirements—such as declaration by E number or systematic name on ingredient lists. Purity criteria and methods of analysis are codified in Annex III or separate specifications under Article 14, ensuring reproducibility and control in . Provisional or temporary EU-wide authorizations have been granted in limited cases for additives previously approved at national levels pending full data submission, as seen in directives incorporating substances like and for specific uses, with expiration tied to completion of required evaluations to prevent indefinite reliance on incomplete evidence. Such measures include sunset provisions aligned with data deadlines, after which non-compliance results in withdrawal, prioritizing rigorous verification over extended provisional status.

Safety Evaluation by EFSA and JECFA

The (EFSA) systematically re-evaluates the safety of all food additives authorised in the EU before 20 January 2009, including approximately 300 E-numbered substances, through its Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF). These assessments integrate toxicological data from short- and long-term animal studies, human clinical trials, and epidemiological evidence, targeting critical endpoints such as , carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental , , and immunotoxicity or allergenicity. Where data permit, EFSA establishes or revises an (ADI) expressed in mg/kg body weight per day, derived from the (NOAEL)—the highest dose showing no adverse effects in the most sensitive study—divided by a 100-fold uncertainty factor to extrapolate to humans, accounting for interspecies and intraspecies variability. The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), convened since , conducts parallel international evaluations of food additives, providing toxicological benchmarks that EFSA frequently references or aligns with during EU-specific re-assessments. JECFA's process emphasises dose-response relationships from biochemical, toxicological, and exposure data, prioritising to set ADIs or temporary ADIs when data gaps exist, rather than defaulting to zero-tolerance thresholds absent demonstrated harm. Like EFSA, JECFA applies a standard 100-fold safety margin to NOAELs from pivotal studies, ensuring conservative estimates of safe lifetime exposure; for instance, in evaluations of certain additives, an ADI of 0–6 mg/kg body weight was allocated based on a NOAEL from chronic rodent bioassays. Both bodies collaborate indirectly through shared scientific principles and data exchanges, as seen in harmonised ADI values for globally traded additives, though EFSA adapts findings to exposure scenarios derived from consumption surveys. For (E 621), JECFA and EFSA meta-analyses of human challenge studies and long-term animal data have upheld an ADI "not specified," indicating no identifiable hazard at projected intakes up to several grams daily, countering early anecdotal concerns about via rigorous endpoint analysis. This approach underscores a to quantitative risk characterisation over unsubstantiated precaution, with re-evaluations triggering tightened specifications or withdrawals if new evidence emerges, as in ongoing reviews of colours like silver (E 174).

Numbering Schemes and Classification

Structure of the Numbering System

The E numbering system designates approved food additives with the prefix "E", signifying evaluation and authorization for use within the following rigorous safety assessments by bodies such as the (EFSA). This prefix is followed by a three-digit numeric , with leading zeros added as needed to maintain a consistent format (e.g., E100 for or E102 for ), enabling efficient identification in labeling and regulatory documentation. The numeric sequence is not entirely consecutive, as gaps arise from early withdrawals or bans of assigned codes due to emerging data or other safety issues; E121, for example, was prohibited shortly after initial allocation because indicated potential carcinogenicity at high doses. Such discontinuities reflect an adaptive regulatory approach prioritizing over rigid sequencing, allowing for the reservation or reassignment of numbers without disrupting the system's overall utility. Formally, E numbers serve as unique identifiers tied to specific chemical substances or preparations, distinct from their colloquial shorthand for any , and they align closely with the Codex Alimentarius Commission's International Numbering System (INS), where equivalent codes (often identical sans the "E") promote global harmonization in additive nomenclature and oversight. This correspondence enhances practical categorization and cross-border regulatory efficiency without implying functional equivalence across all contexts.

Classification by Numeric Range and Additive Type

The E numbering system organizes approved food additives into broad categories based on numeric ranges, reflecting their primary functional roles as established through authorization processes. This classification scheme originated from early international standards harmonized under the and was formalized in the EU to streamline regulatory oversight, labeling, and assessment of similar additives within groups. While not rigidly prescriptive in EU Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, the ranges serve as a conventional framework for grouping, enabling efficient toxicological evaluations and functional testing tailored to category-specific risks, such as efficacy for preservatives. Additives are assigned to ranges prioritizing their predominant verified , though multifunctional —such as certain antioxidants that also act as preservatives—may appear in the of primary use per EFSA evaluations. This approach minimizes in numbering while accommodating overlaps, with over 300 approved E numbers distributed across ranges up to E as of 2023 updates. The system extends beyond E999 for miscellaneous additives like enzymes and starches, reflecting expansions in approved .
Numeric RangePrimary Additive Type
E100–E199Colours
E200–E299Preservatives
E300–E399Antioxidants, acidity regulators
E400–E499Thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers
E500–E599Acidity regulators, anti-caking agents
E600–E699Flavour enhancers
E900–E999Glazing agents, gases, sweeteners
E1000+Miscellaneous (e.g., enzymes, modified starches)
This ranged classification supports risk communication by allowing regulators and manufacturers to apply category-wide data on efficacy and exposure; for instance, preservatives in the E200–E299 range undergo standardized testing for inhibition of microbial spoilage under specific EU guidelines. It also informs consumer awareness of additive purposes without delving into individual safety profiles.

Benefits and Achievements

Improvements in Food Safety and Preservation

The use of preservatives classified under E numbers, such as (E 250), has demonstrably enhanced by inhibiting the growth of like in cured meats, thereby preventing the formation of that causes potentially fatal . This additive disrupts germination and toxin production under conditions typical of processed meats, a mechanism validated through extensive microbial challenge studies required for approval. Without such interventions, historical data from pre-additive eras indicate higher risks of outbreaks, as evidenced by reduced incidence in nitrite-treated products compared to untreated alternatives. Antioxidants within the E 300 series, including ascorbic acid (E 300) and tocopherols (E 306–E 309), mitigate oxidative degradation in , preventing rancidity that leads to off-flavors, breakdown, and loss of essential fatty acids and vitamins susceptible to peroxidation. These compounds scavenge free radicals and chelate pro-oxidant metals, extending beyond what natural barriers like packaging alone achieve, with empirical tests showing delayed increases in fortified oils and emulsions. This preservation maintains product integrity during distribution, reducing waste from spoilage-related contamination that could otherwise foster secondary microbial growth. Collectively, E-number preservatives and antioxidants have lowered risks by controlling spoilage pathways, as preservatives inhibit microbial proliferation and antioxidants preserve barriers against opportunistic pathogens, contributing to safer supply chains in regulated environments. Data from underscore that such additives enable consistent inhibition of hazards like , , and , with shelf-life extensions documented in products like items and , where untreated counterparts exhibit 2–5 times higher rejection rates due to deterioration.

Economic and Nutritional Advantages

Food additives designated by E numbers, particularly preservatives (E200–E299) and stabilizers, extend and maintain product integrity, leading to substantial reductions in spoilage-related losses for manufacturers and consumers. By preventing microbial growth and physical degradation, these additives minimize , which otherwise imposes significant economic burdens; for instance, in the dairy industry, approximately 20% of products are wasted, much of which occurs during and storage where preservation technologies play a key role in mitigation. This efficiency supports scalable food production systems, lowering overall costs through optimized supply chains and reduced need for frequent restocking or disposal. Nutritionally, certain E numbers facilitate of processed foods with essential micronutrients, addressing deficiencies in diets dominated by staples with limited natural content. For example, E101 (, B2) is incorporated into cereals and products to bolster energy metabolism and prevent conditions like ariboflavinosis, which manifests as oral lesions and in deficient populations. Such enables cost-effective delivery of nutrients at scale, particularly benefiting regions or demographics reliant on affordable, processed foods where fresh produce access is constrained. Low-calorie sweeteners within the E900 series, such as E950 (acesulfame K) and E951 (), allow formulation of reduced-energy products that mimic sugar's sensory appeal without contributing metabolically disruptive caloric loads or glycemic spikes. These enable broader adoption of strategies, supporting nutritional goals like prevention by substituting high-sugar items, with evidence indicating associations with lower body weight and improved adherence to calorie-restricted diets. Economically, this fosters market growth in health-oriented foods, reducing long-term healthcare costs tied to obesity-related comorbidities while enhancing sustainability through diversified, nutrient-dense offerings.

Health Risks, Safety Data, and Controversies

Empirical Evidence on Potential Risks

Studies in animal models have demonstrated that certain emulsifiers, such as carboxymethylcellulose (E466) and polysorbate 80 (E433), can disrupt composition, leading to increased and low-grade . These effects were observed at doses approximating human consumption levels, with mechanisms involving reduced layer thickness and altered microbial diversity in mice. However, extrapolation to humans remains limited due to species differences in gut and responses. Prospective cohort studies from the French NutriNet-Santé study, involving over 90,000 participants followed from 2009 to 2021, reported associations between higher intakes of emulsifiers like mono- and di-glycerides of fatty acids (E471) and cellulose gum (E466) and increased risks of (hazard ratio 1.15 for highest vs. lowest ) and overall cancer incidence ( 1.24). These observational findings adjusted for confounders such as age, sex, and dietary factors but cannot establish , as residual from overall diet quality or lifestyle remains possible; randomized controlled trials confirming direct causation are lacking. For color additives, (E102) has been linked to reactions, including urticaria and , in a subset of individuals. Double-blind challenge studies indicate that 1-8% of patients with chronic or acute urticaria exhibit reproducible symptoms upon exposure to doses as low as 0.22 mg, though general population prevalence of intolerance is estimated below 1%. These reactions are IgE-mediated in rare cases and more common among those with aspirin sensitivity or pre-existing urticaria, but population-level affects fewer than 0.12% without predisposing conditions. Acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) for E numbers are derived with safety margins typically exceeding observed no-effect levels by 100-fold, accounting for interspecies and interindividual variability. Empirical dietary exposure assessments in the show that average intakes from compliant foods rarely exceed ADIs, with exceedances limited to high consumers of specific products and not linked to adverse outcomes in surveillance data.

Regulatory Re-evaluations and Acceptable Daily Intakes

The (EFSA) conducts systematic re-evaluations of all food additives authorised in the EU prior to 20 January 2009, as mandated by Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, to incorporate emerging scientific data and refine safety assessments. These reviews integrate toxicological studies, exposure estimates, and epidemiological evidence, potentially leading to revisions in permitted levels, new acceptable daily intakes (ADIs), or outright withdrawals when risks are substantiated. ADIs represent the estimated amount of an additive that can be ingested daily over a lifetime without appreciable risk, typically derived by dividing the (NOAEL) from animal or human studies by an uncertainty factor of 100 to account for interspecies and intraspecies variability. Re-evaluations have resulted in specific actions, such as the 2007 withdrawal of Red 2G (E128), a synthetic azo colour, following EFSA's identification of its potential carcinogenicity based on evidence of release and concerns in bacterial tests and animal models. This led to emergency suspension via Commission Regulation (EC) No 884/2007, demonstrating the process's responsiveness to new metabolic and toxicological data. Similarly, re-assessments of preservatives like (E249) and (E250) in 2017 maintained a group ADI of 0.07 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as nitrite ion, derived from a NOAEL of 7 mg/kg bw per day in chronic rat studies divided by 100, while noting formation of N-nitrosamines as a key influencing use levels. For flavour enhancers, the 2017 re-evaluation of (E621) and related glutamates established a group ADI of 30 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as , based on a NOAEL of 3,500 mg/kg bw per day from long-term feeding studies in , adjusted by the standard safety factor; this reflects no evidence of or other adverse effects at relevant exposures in humans. Recent examples include the 2024 re-evaluation of (E954), where EFSA increased the ADI to 9 mg/kg bw per day from 5 mg/kg, citing refined toxicokinetic data and absence of carcinogenicity at lower doses in updated bioassays. These iterative processes ensure ADIs and authorisations evolve with , prioritising causal links from controlled studies over speculative concerns.

Public Perception vs. Scientific Consensus

Public perception of E numbers remains largely negative, with many consumers associating the numerical designations with artificial chemicals and risks, prompting widespread avoidance in choices. A qualitative among consumers revealed persistent distrust rooted in perceptions of additives as unnecessary or unnatural, despite their role in maintaining . This sentiment drives the "clean label" trend, where emphasizes additive-free products, leading up to 84% of surveyed individuals to shun flavor enhancers and similar categories. Such avoidance is amplified by portrayals that selectively highlight anecdotal adverse reactions, fostering disproportionate to empirical risks. In contrast, the scientific consensus, as articulated by regulatory bodies like the (EFSA) and the (WHO), affirms that approved E numbers undergo rigorous toxicological evaluations and are safe at levels below acceptable daily intakes (ADIs). These assessments prioritize causal evidence from controlled studies over correlative claims, revealing no epidemic of diseases attributable to E numbers; instead, broader chronic conditions link more strongly to excessive consumption patterns than to individual additives. Notably, true IgE-mediated food allergies stem from proteins in ingredients like nuts or , not the small-molecule structures of most E numbers, which rarely provoke such responses. Natural-origin additives, such as E270 ( from ), exemplify how E numbering applies equally to substances consumers deem benign, underscoring that untested "natural" alternatives could harbor undisclosed hazards if not similarly vetted. Proponents of clean-label argue for simplicity and perceived purity, yet indicates that minimizing preservatives heightens vulnerability to microbial spoilage and pathogens in perishable foods, potentially offsetting gains from additive removal. This tension highlights a disconnect where public heuristics favor familiarity over -driven , often overlooking how E numbers enable safer, longer-lasting supplies without of systemic at regulated doses. Mainstream reporting's toward sensational negatives—evident in selective coverage of rare sensitivities—further skews perception, as peer-reviewed syntheses consistently prioritize long-term data over isolated incidents.

International Context and Equivalents

Global Recognition via

The for food additives, established by the Commission, provides a global framework that closely mirrors the EU's E numbering system, assigning identical numerical codes to many substances—for instance, INS 621 designates , equivalent to —facilitating cross-border consistency in identification and regulation. This alignment stems from the EU's adoption of Codex principles in developing its E codes, ensuring that safety evaluations and labeling practices can be harmonized internationally without necessitating separate systems. Safety assessments conducted by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA), which has evaluated over 2,600 food additives since 1956 based on biochemical, toxicological, and exposure data, directly inform Codex INS specifications and maximum permitted levels. JECFA's risk assessments, requested by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, establish acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) and purity criteria that underpin INS entries, promoting empirical grounded in global toxicological evidence rather than regional variances. With 189 members—including 188 countries and the —the system has been adopted or referenced in standards across these jurisdictions, enabling smoother by enforcing uniform safety thresholds that reduce non-tariff barriers and minimize discrepancies in additive approvals. This widespread recognition empirically supports export efficiency, as evidenced by the harmonized thresholds preventing rejections at borders due to divergent purity or usage limits, while maintaining through data-driven consistency. Updates to INS designations and Codex standards occur through periodic meetings of the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA), which integrates the latest JECFA evaluations and global input; for example, the 55th CCFA session scheduled for March 2025 in will review proposed specifications from JECFA's 87th meeting. These sessions incorporate empirical data from international surveillance and risk assessments, ensuring standards evolve with emerging scientific findings on additive safety and usage.

Comparisons with Non-EU Systems

In the United States, the (FDA) regulates food additives through a framework that includes the (GRAS) provision, enabling manufacturers to self-affirm the safety of many substances via expert consensus or historical use without requiring pre-market FDA notification or approval, in contrast to the EU's mandatory authorization and positive listing for E-numbered additives. This self-determination process allows for a wider array of additives—often exceeding 10,000 substances including flavors and colors—without a standardized numerical coding system akin to E numbers, fostering greater industry flexibility but relying on post-market surveillance for enforcement. While the EU applies a to prohibit additives like certain azo dyes (e.g., Yellow 6) based on potential concerns pending full data, the US permits them after demonstrating no unreasonable risk under intended conditions, resulting in divergent approvals such as the EU's ban on while the US retains it for baked goods. Post-Brexit, the United Kingdom's (FSA) has retained the core E-number classification and approval mechanisms inherited from law, with applications for new additives undergoing safety assessments similar to those by the (EFSA), though now under national oversight without automatic alignment. Divergences remain limited, primarily in specific re-evaluations; for example, the UK continues to authorize (E171) as a colorant following its 2022 prohibition over DNA damage risks, prioritizing FSA's independent risk analysis over harmonized bans. This approach enables minor tweaks, such as faster approvals, but maintains overall compatibility to facilitate trade, with no wholesale shift to a US-style model. Many non-EU developing countries adopt partial guidelines for additives but implement laxer pre-market controls and enforcement due to resource constraints, often lacking comprehensive registries equivalent to E numbers and permitting unauthorized or impure substances that elevate contamination hazards. Verifiable data indicate higher adulteration rates, such as in dairy or industrial dyes in spices, correlating with elevated burdens—estimated at 420,000 deaths annually in low- and middle-income nations versus far lower per capita rates in the —stemming from inadequate monitoring rather than intentional policy leniency.

Selected Categories of E Numbers

Colours (E100–E199)

The E100–E199 series comprises food colourings authorised under EU regulations to deliver stable pigmentation in foodstuffs, countering the instability of natural dyes that degrade via oxidation, photolysis, or thermal breakdown, thereby ensuring reproducible visual quality in commercial production. Synthetic colours within this range, such as azo compounds, maintain hue integrity across diverse processing conditions and storage durations, reducing manufacturing variability compared to plant extracts susceptible to environmental fluctuations in yield and potency. This stability facilitates consistent consumer appeal in items like carbonated drinks and confectionery, where natural alternatives like beetroot or annatto often result in batch-to-batch inconsistencies. Key exemplars include E100 (curcumin), a polyphenolic extract from Curcuma longa rhizomes yielding yellow-orange tones, applied in baked goods, dairy, and mustards at concentrations up to 200 mg/kg in certain foods. In contrast, E129 (), a disodium salt of 1-(4-sulfo-1-naphthylazo)-2-naphthol-6-sulfonic acid, serves as a synthetic red for beverages, gels, and snacks, prized for its resistance to pH shifts and heat up to 100°C. These additives supplant less reliable natural sources, minimising defects like uneven colouring from variable extraction efficiencies in or . Safety evaluations by the (EFSA) assign acceptable daily intakes (ADIs) reflecting low acute toxicity, with many colours like (E101) and (E100) deemed safe without numerical limits (ADI not specified), indicating no identifiable hazard at projected exposures. For synthetic azo dyes, ADIs range from 0.5–7 mg/kg body weight, derived from no-observed-adverse-effect levels in rodent genotoxicity and carcinogenicity assays adjusted by uncertainty factors. Specific colours—tartrazine (E102), sunset yellow (E110), and Allura Red (E129)—require warning labels under Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008, alerting that they "may have an adverse effect on the activity and attention" in children, based on provocation trials including the 2007 Southampton study showing modest hyperactive responses in 8–10% of participants to mixtures, though EFSA assessments emphasise limited evidence, absence of dose-response clarity, and failure in isolated colour replications. Meta-analyses confirm small effect sizes confined to sensitive subsets, without establishing causality beyond additive interactions or influences.

Preservatives (E200–E299)

Preservatives classified under E200–E299 primarily function as antimicrobial agents that inhibit the growth of bacteria, yeasts, and molds in food products, thereby controlling pathogens such as and spoilage fungi to extend and reduce risks. These compounds, including sorbates, benzoates, and nitrites, are most effective in acidic environments ( below 6.5) where they disrupt microbial cell membranes or metabolic processes, with empirical studies demonstrating reductions in pathogen loads by up to 99% in treated versus untreated samples under controlled conditions. Regulatory bodies like the (EFSA) and U.S. (FDA) approve their use based on dose-response data showing efficacy without exceeding safe intake thresholds. Potassium sorbate (E202), the potassium salt of , exemplifies efficacy against fungi and yeasts, inhibiting growth by altering permeability and activity, with studies reporting complete suppression of proliferation in fruit-based products at concentrations of 0.025–0.1%. It is commonly applied in jams, beverages, and cheeses to prevent fungal spoilage, where it demonstrates fungistatic effects across ranges up to 6.5, though less potent against certain bacteria like . EFSA's re-evaluation confirmed no genotoxic potential and established an (ADI) of 3 mg/kg body weight per day, derived from chronic toxicity studies in rodents showing no adverse effects at relevant exposures. Sodium nitrite (E250) serves as a key in cured meats, where it prevents Clostridium botulinum spore germination and toxin production by interfering with bacterial respiration, with historical data linking its absence to outbreaks prior to widespread adoption in the early . This action is dose-dependent, achieving inhibition at levels of 100–150 mg/kg in products like sausages, balancing potential formation of N-nitroso compounds (linked to carcinogenicity in high-dose animal models) against prevention, as evidenced by epidemiological records of reduced incidence in nitrite-treated meats. EFSA sets the ADI at 0.07 mg/kg body weight per day for nitrites, reflecting human exposure modeling and no-observed-adverse-effect levels from subchronic studies, though rare cases of occur only at extreme intakes far exceeding regulated food levels, typically from contaminated or accidental overconsumption rather than standard preserved foods.

Antioxidants and Acidity Regulators (E300–E399)

The E300–E399 category comprises food additives authorized in the primarily for their roles as antioxidants, which inhibit and enzymatic browning to maintain flavor integrity, nutritional content, and visual appeal in fats, oils, and aqueous food systems, and as acidity regulators, which adjust to optimize microbial control, stability, and properties. These functions causally prevent quality degradation during , , and , enabling scalable food production without disproportionate reliance on or short supply chains. Most additives in this range occur naturally in fruits, , and processes, with synthetic variants mirroring biochemical pathways for equivalence in efficacy and safety. Ascorbic acid (E300), chemically L-ascorbic acid and identical to , functions as a primary by donating electrons to neutralize and reducing ferric ions to forms, thereby averting off-flavors and loss in beverages, products, and meat cures. Its salts, (E301) and (E302), provide similar protection in high-salt or calcium-fortified matrices. The EFSA Panel on Food Additives re-evaluated these in 2015, determining no or carcinogenicity, with acute oral LD50 values exceeding 11,000 mg/kg in rats and no-observed-adverse-effect levels (NOAELs) above 1,000 mg/kg body weight per day in subchronic studies; consequently, no ADI was specified, affirming safety at authorized uses up to levels. Citric acid (E330), a tricarboxylic acid produced via fermentation or extracted from , regulates acidity while synergizing antioxidants by sequestering catalytic metals like iron and , thus curbing in soft drinks, jams, and . It lowers to inhibit pathogens such as in low-acid adjuncts. EFSA's 2020 re-evaluation of organic acids, including , confirmed no toxicological concerns, with ADI "not specified" by JECFA since 1973 due to rapid metabolism via the Krebs cycle and absence of accumulation; exposure estimates from typical uses (e.g., 0.5–2 g/L in beverages) remain below endogenous production rates of 1–2 g/day in humans. Tocopherols (E306–E309), mixed or isolated forms of from soy or sunflower oils, exhibit chain-breaking activity against peroxyl radicals in lipid-rich foods like and infant formulas, extending by factors of 2–5 times in accelerated oxidation tests. (E270), generated from , buffers pH in and sausages, enhancing heat stability and curbing spoilage organisms. These additives collectively demonstrate high margins, with EFSA and FDA GRAS statuses predicated on dose-response showing thresholds for effects orders of magnitude above dietary intakes (e.g., mean European exposure to E300 at 20–100 mg/day versus nutritional needs of 75–90 mg).

Thickeners, Stabilisers, and Emulsifiers (E400–E499)

Thickeners, stabilisers, and emulsifiers (E400–E499) modify texture by increasing , forming gels, or enabling uniform of immiscible components such as fats in aqueous media, as seen in dressings and creams. These additives derive from natural sources like or fruits or are synthetically modified , with alginates (E400–E404) extracted from to provide shear-thinning properties for smooth pouring. Common examples include (E407), a sulfated from red used at concentrations of 0.1–1% to stabilise desserts against syneresis, and (E440), a fruit-derived galacturonic acid that gels under acidic conditions with , as in jams at pH below 3.5. These agents enhance product utility by improving through controlled , preventing in low-fat emulsions like yogurts, and extending via stabilised structures that resist fluctuations during processing or storage. In reduced-calorie formulations, they compensate for fat removal by mimicking creamy textures, with emulsifiers like carboxymethylcellulose (E466) binding water to maintain homogeneity in gluten-free baked goods. Carboxymethylcellulose, a derivative, functions at 0.2–0.5% to suspend particles in beverages, reducing rates by up to 90% in experimental models. Regulatory bodies like the (EFSA) have re-evaluated many E400–E499 additives, affirming safety for approved uses; for (E440i and E440ii), the 2017 assessment found no or carcinogenicity concerns at typical intakes below 10 g/day for adults. Alginates (E400–E404) were similarly cleared in 2017, with no adverse effects observed in subchronic studies up to 5% dietary levels in rats. (E407) received EFSA confirmation of safety in 2018, establishing an of 75 mg/kg body weight, unchanged as of 2024 despite industry-submitted data. Emerging 2023 research on emulsifiers like E466 indicates potential modulation in models, with 1–5% dietary exposure linked to increased gut permeability and low-grade via mucus layer , though human epidemiological data remain limited and EFSA exposure estimates (0.3–1.2 mg/kg/day) fall below no-observed-adverse-effect levels from . These findings prompt ongoing scrutiny but do not alter current approvals, which incorporate margins of safety exceeding 100-fold over mean exposures. Overall, their role in enabling consistent, appealing textures supports widespread application in processed foods without evidence of systemic risks at regulated doses.

Acidity Regulators and Anti-Caking Agents (E500–E599)

The E500–E599 range comprises inorganic compounds, primarily salts and acids, authorized as food additives in the for regulating acidity and preventing caking in dry products. Acidity regulators in this category, such as carbonates and bicarbonates, neutralize acids or release upon reaction, enabling leavening in baked goods and adjustment in beverages and processed foods. Anti-caking agents, including ferrocyanides and silicates, inhibit moisture-induced clumping by adsorbing or disrupting formation, ensuring free-flowing properties in items like table salt and powdered seasonings. Prominent acidity regulators include sodium carbonates (E500), which encompass (E500(i)), or (E500(ii)), and (E500(iii)); these are used in powders to generate CO2 for rising and in effervescent drinks for fizz. carbonates (E501) serve analogous roles, often in and processing to adjust . The (EFSA) has evaluated sodium carbonates as safe for unrestricted use in food, with no specified (ADI) due to their low toxicity and historical consumption patterns, classifying them as when adhering to good manufacturing practices. Anti-caking agents like (E535), (E536), and calcium ferrocyanide (E538) are added in trace amounts (typically up to 20 mg/kg in ) to and other powders, where they stabilize against without altering taste or solubility. (E551) functions similarly by forming a physical barrier on particle surfaces. EFSA's re-evaluation concluded that ferrocyanides pose no safety concern at authorized levels, as they remain stable and do not release toxic ions under physiological conditions, supported by toxicological data showing no , carcinogenicity, or reproductive effects. These additives enhance manufacturing efficiency, such as in producing uniform mixes or non-clumping spices, but their use is strictly limited by EU Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008 to levels where no specific maximum is set, ensuring minimal residues. While ubiquitous in processed foods, potential concerns like sodium intake from carbonates are mitigated by overall dietary guidelines rather than additive-specific risks, with no evidence of adverse effects from typical exposures.

Flavour Enhancers (E600–E699)

Flavour enhancers in the E600–E699 series primarily comprise and that intensify the taste, a sensation naturally present in foods like , cheese, and tomatoes. These additives amplify existing flavors without adding significant calories or altering the primary taste profile, allowing for more efficient seasoning in processed foods. The most prominent is , (MSG), derived from , which occurs endogenously in the and many natural foods. Other examples include E620 (), E622 (), and E635 (disodium 5'-ribonucleotides), a combination of guanylate and inosinate that synergistically enhances umami at lower concentrations. Safety assessments by regulatory bodies confirm the low risk of these compounds. The (EFSA) established a group (ADI) of 30 mg/kg body weight per day, expressed as , for glutamates (E620–E625), based on no-observed-adverse-effect levels from animal studies extrapolated to humans, with no evidence of , , or at relevant doses. Similarly, peer-reviewed reviews dismiss claims of hypersensitivity or "Chinese Restaurant Syndrome" (symptoms like headache and flushing attributed to MSG), attributing reports to effects or methodological flaws in early anecdotal studies rather than causal links, as double-blind trials show no consistent adverse reactions in sensitive populations. These enhancers offer practical benefits in efforts to curb excessive sodium consumption. Umami compounds can reduce salt requirements by 10–22% in foods like soups and snacks while maintaining , potentially lowering population-level salt intake and aiding management, as demonstrated in modeling studies and sensory trials. For instance, incorporating MSG or ribonucleotides enhances perception, enabling reformulation of products to align with dietary guidelines without compromising consumer acceptance. This application counters unfounded fears by highlighting evidence-based utility over bias-driven narratives in some media and advocacy sources.

Glazing Agents, Gases, and Sweeteners (E900–E999)

The E900–E999 category of E numbers designates food additives functioning primarily as glazing agents, gases, and sweeteners within the regulatory framework. Glazing agents form thin, shiny coatings on surfaces like and fruits to enhance appearance and provide moisture barriers, while gases serve as propellants, agents, or packaging atmospheres to extend and improve texture. Sweeteners, often high-intensity substitutes for , enable the formulation of low-calorie products by delivering sweetness without significant caloric contribution. These additives undergo rigorous evaluation by the (EFSA) for safety and efficacy prior to authorization. Carbon dioxide (E290), a common gas in this range, is utilized for carbonating beverages to produce , as a in aerosols, and in modified atmosphere packaging to displace oxygen and suppress microbial proliferation in products such as meats and baked goods. Its inert nature at food-grade concentrations minimizes reactivity, with no (ADI) established due to low systemic absorption; EFSA and provisions confirm its safety for these applications without quantified exposure limits beyond good manufacturing practices. Other gases like (E941) similarly support packaging integrity by preventing oxidation. Aspartame (E951), a methyl ester sweetener approximately 200 times sweeter than , is incorporated into sugar-free beverages, chewing gums, and tabletop sweeteners to reduce caloric density. At its authorized EU levels, typical dietary exposures remain below the ADI of 40 mg/kg body weight, as reaffirmed by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) in June 2023 following a comprehensive review of , carcinogenicity, and epidemiological data, which found no convincing evidence of harm within this threshold. This assessment contrasts with the International Agency for Research on Cancer's (IARC) concurrent classification of as "possibly carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2B), based on limited evidence from animal studies and inadequate human data linking it to and other outcomes; JECFA prioritized over hazard identification, concluding that exceeding the ADI would be required for potential effects. Glazing agents like (E901) and (E903) are applied via spraying or dipping to , chocolate-coated fruits, and peels, yielding a polished sheen that deters moisture loss and microbial adhesion while maintaining aesthetic appeal in retail displays. EFSA re-evaluations, such as for dimethyl polysiloxane (E900) used in anti-foaming and glazing capacities, have set ADIs (e.g., 17 mg/kg body weight for E900) with no safety concerns at reported use levels across food categories. These additives collectively facilitate product stability, sensory enhancement, and formulation flexibility in low-sugar diets, though their inert or non-nutritive profiles necessitate monitoring for cumulative exposure in vulnerable populations like children.

Additional Additives (E1000–E1599)

The E1000–E1599 series designates miscellaneous food additives approved for specialized functions not covered by primary categories, such as bulking agents and select preparations, reflecting the EU system's capacity to incorporate innovations like low-calorie substitutes and biotechnological enzymes as evolves. These additives undergo evaluation by the (EFSA) for safety, efficacy, and necessity, with approvals granted only after toxicological studies demonstrate no adverse effects at projected intake levels from intended uses. As of , this range includes fewer than 50 authorized substances, emphasizing targeted applications over broad deployment. A prominent example is (E 1200), a non-digestible, low-calorie synthesized from dextrose, , and , functioning as a bulking agent, , and soluble in products like low-sugar , baked goods, and beverages. It provides bulk and texture without significant caloric contribution—yielding approximately 1 kcal/g versus 4 kcal/g for sugars—and supports reduced-fat formulations by retaining moisture. EFSA's 2021 re-evaluation, incorporating exposure data from dietary surveys across populations, concluded no numerical (ADI) is required, as mean and high-level intakes (up to 18 g/day for adults) present no safety concerns, including for gastrointestinal effects at doses below 90 g/day. This approval accommodates niche demands in low-carbohydrate diets without evidence of , carcinogenicity, or in . Certain additives, such as those derived from microbial or genetically modified sources, exemplify the range's adaptation to biotechnological progress, enabling precise modifications like improved handling or protein cross-linking in processed s. Approvals require comprehensive dossiers including genetic stability assessments for biotech-derived enzymes, allergenicity evaluations, and exposure modeling, with EFSA issuing opinions prior to EU-wide authorization under Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008. Post-market surveillance, including re-assessments every 10 years, ensures ongoing safety amid advances; for instance, novel enzymes must demonstrate technological advantages over non-additive alternatives. This framework has facilitated approvals for enzymes like preparations since the early 2000s, balancing innovation with risk mitigation based on empirical toxicological data.

References

  1. [1]
    Food additives - EFSA - European Union
    An E number means that an additive has passed safety tests and has been approved for use, and their safety is evaluated before they can be permitted for use in ...New food additives or new uses · Re-evaluation of authorised... · EU framework
  2. [2]
  3. [3]
    EU Rules - food additives - European Commission's Food Safety
    Regulation EC 1333/2008 sets the rules on food additives: definitions, conditions of use, labelling and procedures.
  4. [4]
    Approved additives and E numbers - Food Standards Agency
    Additives and E numbers for colours, preservatives, antioxidants, sweeteners, emulsifiers, stabilisers, thickeners and other types of additives.
  5. [5]
    Consumer Distrust about E-numbers: A Qualitative Study ... - NIH
    May 27, 2019 · Results indicated that, according to food experts, consumer distrust of E-numbers arose from negative communication by traditional media, social media and ...
  6. [6]
    High intake of several emulsifier E numbers linked to increased ...
    Sep 6, 2023 · High intake of several emulsifiers (part of the 'E numbers' group of food additives), widely used in industrially processed foods to improve texture and extend ...
  7. [7]
    Food additives | Food Standards Agency
    E numbers. A food additive is only approved if; it has been tested and proved to be safe for its intended use; there is a justifiable technological need to use ...
  8. [8]
    Banned additives - Center for Science in the Public Interest
    Sep 29, 2022 · The history of food additives is riddled with additives that, after many years of use, were found to pose health risks. Those listed below have been banned.
  9. [9]
    History of UK Additive Controls | Reading Foodlaw - Bryant Research
    Apr 3, 2019 · This started with a colours directive in 1962 but controls were extended with directives on preservatives (1964), antioxidants (1970) and ...
  10. [10]
    The Structure of European Food Law - MDPI
    From the early 1960s until the eruption of the BSE crisis in the mid-1990s, European food law was principally directed at the creation of an internal market11 ...
  11. [11]
    [PDF] The European Parliament and the Origins of Consumer Policy
    From the perspective of MEPs, this meant that, from the 1960s onward, they were inundated with dozens of directives for food harmonisation.
  12. [12]
    Improvement Agents: Food Additives | Reading Foodlaw
    Aug 16, 2024 · The first directive to be agreed was for colours (1962) and used the E-number classification system for the first time.
  13. [13]
    Food: A chemical history | Science Museum
    Nov 27, 2019 · This soon led to international regulation like the European Union's E-number system for approved additives, introduced in 1962.<|control11|><|separator|>
  14. [14]
    [PDF] The History of International Food Safety Standards and the Codex ...
    Jul 5, 1973 · ... synthetic chemicals in foods in the postwar era. The concerns and increased attention stemmed from not only from this postwar shift in the use ...
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
    European Union Controls on Food Additives – A Historical Overview
    Oct 30, 2020 · The Directive on colours was followed quite quickly by a Directive for preservatives in 1964 (with numbers starting from E 200) and more slowly ...Missing: harmonization | Show results with:harmonization
  17. [17]
  18. [18]
  19. [19]
    E number - EFSA - European Union
    A number used in the European Union to identify permitted food additives. An E number means that an additive has passed safety tests and has been approved ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
  20. [20]
    What are food additives and how are they regulated in the EU? - Eufic
    Dec 1, 2021 · The name or E number of the additive (e.g. citric acid or E 330) must be listed on the labels of food products as well as information about the ...How is the safety of food... · How are food additives... · Do food additives cause...Missing: directives post-
  21. [21]
    E-Numbers: The Misunderstood Additives - Kemin
    Oct 3, 2023 · The E in E-numbers stands for Europe: these are codes added to ingredients when they are recognized as a food additive in the European Union1.
  22. [22]
    Additives in food products - EU labelling rules - Your Europe
    Products that contain additives must display: official name and/or E-number of the additive – annex 2 part E of the EU regulation on food additives ...
  23. [23]
    The Weak Acid Preservative Sorbic Acid Inhibits Conidial ... - NIH
    In our study, sorbic acid was effective at delaying spore germination and reducing biomass yields of A. niger. This growth inhibition was concentration ...
  24. [24]
    Food Colour Additives: A Synoptical Overview on Their Chemical ...
    Besides this, each food additive has a code in the EU, which includes the letter E (for Europe), followed by three or four digits. The numbering scheme follows ...
  25. [25]
    Riboflavin - Health Professional Fact Sheet
    May 11, 2022 · Some vegetables also contain riboflavin. Grains and cereals are fortified with riboflavin in the United States and many other countries [4].
  26. [26]
  27. [27]
    EU Food Additive Authorization Application - CIRS Group
    The EU food additive authorization process involves pre-submission, submission to EC, EFSA evaluation, risk assessment, and post-adoption phases.
  28. [28]
    Regulation - 1333/2008 - EN - additives - EUR-Lex
    ### Summary of Authorization Procedures for Food Additives (Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008)
  29. [29]
    Additives other than authorised colours and sweeteners - EUR-Lex
    Dec 16, 2005 · Directive 95/2/EC is a specific Directive under the framework directive 89/107/EEC concerning food additives authorised for use in foodstuffs.
  30. [30]
    EUR-Lex - 51999PC0329 - EN - European Union
    Some Member States have authorised provisionally the use of a new food additive for two years. This two-year period is now coming to an end. If the Commission ...
  31. [31]
    Re-evaluation - European Commission's Food Safety
    Food additives permitted before 20 January 2009 must go through a new risk assessment by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
  32. [32]
    [PDF] Guidance on Default assumptions used by the EFSA Scientific ...
    ... ADI but calculated a margin of safety based on the NOAEL. 550 in a 90-day study (EFSA CEF Panel, 2010). The margin of safety was defined as the ratio between ...
  33. [33]
    [PDF] Safety and regulation of low/no calorie sweeteners
    The NOAEL is then divided by a 100-fold safety factor to establish the ADI. The 100-fold safety factor ensures a margin of safety covering possible ...
  34. [34]
    Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
    It has been meeting since 1956, to evaluate the safety of food additives, contaminants, naturally occurring toxicants and residues of veterinary drugs in food.Jecfa-additives · JECFA Databases & Tools · Jecfa-flav
  35. [35]
    Food additives - World Health Organization (WHO)
    Nov 16, 2023 · Food additives can be derived from plants, animals or minerals, or they can be chemically synthesized. There are several thousand food additives used.<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    [PDF] Safety evaluation of certain food additives - INCHEM
    established an ADI of 0–6 mg/kg bwbased on this NOAEL by applying an uncertainty factor of 100 for interspecies and intraspecies differences. The Committee ...
  37. [37]
    Contributions of the joint FAO/WHO expert committee on food ...
    The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) is an international scientific committee that carries out safety and risk assessments on ...
  38. [38]
    WHO | JECFA
    This searchable database contains the summaries of all the evaluations of flavours, food additives, contaminants, toxicants and veterinary drugs JECFA has ...
  39. [39]
    Follow‐up of the re‐evaluation of silver (E 174) as a food additive ...
    Apr 23, 2025 · Silver (E 174) is a food colour that was re-evaluated by the EFSA ANS Panel (2016). The ANS Panel concluded that the information available ...
  40. [40]
    E121 – Citrus red No. 2 | proE.info
    This dye is considered potentially hazardous to health. Animal studies have shown that additive E121 may be carcinogenic at high doses and with prolonged ...Missing: toxicity | Show results with:toxicity
  41. [41]
    E numbers and INS numbers in Food Labelling
    Aug 10, 2023 · E numbers are a system of codes used within the European Union (EU) to identify food additives. The “E” stands for “Europe” and these numbers ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  42. [42]
    Introduction to International Numbering System (INS) for Food ...
    Jul 6, 2022 · E numbers where "E" stands for "Europe" are codes for substances used as food additives, including those found naturally in many foods. An ...
  43. [43]
  44. [44]
    The EFSA Journal (2003) 14, 1-31, The effects of Nitrites/Nitrates on ...
    In most cured meat products, the addition of nitrites (or nitrates) is necessary to prevent the growth and toxin production by C. botulinum. The extent of ...Missing: FDA | Show results with:FDA
  45. [45]
    [PDF] Nitrites and nitrates added to food - EFSA
    They are added to food to preserve it and also help hinder the growth of harmful microorganisms, in particular Clostridium botulinum, the bacterium responsible ...Missing: E250 cured
  46. [46]
    E250 – Sodium Nitrite - Food additives database
    Sep 12, 2025 · Preservation of cured meats such as bacon, ham, sausages, and hot dogs. · Prevention of bacterial growth, especially Clostridium botulinum.
  47. [47]
    Reduction of Nitrite in Meat Products through the Application of ...
    Aug 5, 2020 · Nitrites impart a better flavor, taste and aroma; preserve the red-pinkish color of the meat; and prevent the risk of bacterial contamination of ...
  48. [48]
    Differences between preservatives and antioxidants - BTSA
    Antioxidants are additives capable of delaying or preventing rancidity of food due to oxidation, and therefore, lengthen the shelf life of products. They are ...Missing: nutrient | Show results with:nutrient
  49. [49]
    Role of Preservatives in Food Safety and Shelf Life Extension
    Jan 17, 2024 · Preservatives protect food from spoilage, extend shelf life, prevent microbial growth, and maintain nutritional value and appearance.
  50. [50]
    IFF discusses tackling food waste in dairy
    Jul 11, 2022 · Around 20% of dairy products are wasted. One in six pints of milk are thrown away each year. Up to 17% of all yogurts go to waste in EU, which ...Missing: stabilizers | Show results with:stabilizers
  51. [51]
    Key Functions of Food Additives in Food Preservation
    Feb 10, 2024 · Maintaining and improving nutritional quality. Fortification and enrichment; Preventing nutrient loss ; Enhancing stability and keeping quality.Missing: stabilization | Show results with:stabilization
  52. [52]
    Importance of Food Preservatives: Ensuring Quality and Safety
    Jul 25, 2024 · : Longer shelf life means less food is discarded due to spoilage. Cost Savings: Consumers and manufacturers save money by reducing food waste.
  53. [53]
    E101 Riboflavin (Vitamin B2): A Comprehensive Overview
    Nutritional Supplement: Given its role in energy metabolism and overall health, riboflavin is added to various food products to prevent deficiencies. It is ...
  54. [54]
    Riboflavin Deficiency - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf
    In addition to boosting energy, this vitamin functions as an antioxidant for the proper functioning of the immune system, healthy skin, and hair. In riboflavin ...Bookshelf · Riboflavin Deficiency · Continuing Education...
  55. [55]
    The role of low-calorie sweeteners in the prevention and ...
    Nov 23, 2017 · The potential benefits for public health of LCS are a reduction in sugar intake and consequent reduction in the prevalence of obesity and dental ...
  56. [56]
    [PDF] Role and Benefits A guide to the science of low calorie sweeteners
    Using low calorie sweeteners in place of sugars can help reduce overall calorie intake and be a helpful tool in nutritional strategies for weight management.
  57. [57]
    Low- and No-Calorie Sweetened Beverages and Body Weight and ...
    Mar 14, 2022 · LNCSBs as a substitute for SSBs were associated with reduced body weight, body mass index, percentage of body fat, and intrahepatocellular lipid.Missing: economic | Show results with:economic<|separator|>
  58. [58]
    Food Emulsifiers and Metabolic Syndrome: The Role of the Gut ...
    Jul 25, 2022 · Emulsifiers inducing gut microbiota dysbiosis can stimulate chronic inflammation and predispose the body to the development of metabolic ...
  59. [59]
    The impact of selected food additives on the gastrointestinal tract in ...
    Even consumption of low doses of emulsifiers with food can lead to damage to the intestinal epithelium [73]. In their papers, many researchers cite the negative ...
  60. [60]
    Food additive emulsifiers and risk of cardiovascular disease in the ...
    Sep 6, 2023 · This study found positive associations between risk of CVD and intake of five individual and two groups of food additive emulsifiers widely used in industrial ...
  61. [61]
    Food additive emulsifiers and cancer risk: Results from the French ...
    Feb 13, 2024 · This study included 92,000 adults of the French NutriNet-Santé cohort without prevalent cancer at enrolment (44.5 y [SD: 14.5], 78.8% female, ...
  62. [62]
    Food additive emulsifiers and cancer risk - Research journals - PLOS
    Feb 13, 2024 · This study aimed to assess associations between food additive emulsifiers and cancer risk in a large population-based prospective cohort.
  63. [63]
    Significance of tartrazine sensitivity in chronic urticaria of unknown ...
    In a double-blind crossover challenge with 0.22 mg of tartrazine and a control, tartrazine sensitivity was found in 8% (3/38) of patients with chronic urticaria ...Missing: E102 prevalence
  64. [64]
    Scientific Opinion on the appropriateness of the food azo‐colours ...
    Oct 7, 2010 · The frequency of Tartrazine intolerance has been estimated to be <1 % in subjects with food-induced urticaria and angioedema. Only few cases of ...
  65. [65]
    Suspected tartrazine‐induced acute urticaria/angioedema is only ...
    Dec 9, 2003 · Conclusion This study shows that the percentage of acute urticaria and/or angioedema induced by tartrazine is very low (1%). In view of our ...
  66. [66]
    Use of acceptable daily intake (ADI) as a health-based benchmark ...
    May 20, 2021 · If the ratio is < 1, it means that the estimated intake is lower than the acceptable intake—i.e., no risk. That is, there is some assurance that ...
  67. [67]
    What Is an Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)? | Eufic
    Dec 1, 2021 · The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is defined as an estimate of the amount of a food additive, expressed on a bodyweight basis that can be ingested on a daily ...What is an ADI? · Who determines the ADI? · How is the ADI determined?
  68. [68]
    Guidance for establishing the safety of additives for the consumer
    Proposal of the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)​​ The ADI (expressed as mg of additive or additive related material per person per day) is derived by dividing the ...
  69. [69]
    Opinion of the Scientific Panel on food additives, flavourings ... - EFSA
    Jul 16, 2007 · ... Red 2G (E128) based on a request from the Commission related to the re-evaluation of all permitted food additives. Published: 16 July 2007.Missing: withdrawal | Show results with:withdrawal
  70. [70]
    Re-evaluation of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite ... - EFSA
    Jun 15, 2017 · A scientific opinion re-evaluating the safety of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite (E 250) when used as food additives.Missing: 2024 | Show results with:2024
  71. [71]
    Re‐evaluation of glutamic acid (E 620), sodium glutamate (E 621 ...
    Jul 12, 2017 · The Panel derived a group acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 30 mg/kg bw per day, expressed as glutamic acid, for glutamic acid and glutamates (E 620–625).
  72. [72]
    Saccharin: safety threshold increased - EFSA - European Union
    Nov 15, 2024 · EFSA has concluded that saccharin is safe for human consumption and increased the acceptable daily intake (ADI) from 5 to 9 mg/kg of body ...
  73. [73]
    EU Food Additives: Listing by E Number - Bryant Research
    The list below gives the reference number (the "E number") and the English name of all those additives now listed in Annex II of Regulation 1333/2008.
  74. [74]
    Additive numbers - Understanding Your Food
    Food Additive Numbering Scheme​​ The European scheme is based on the International Numbering System for Food Additives devised by the Codex Alimentarius ...
  75. [75]
    Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA)
    To date, JECFA has evaluated more than 2600 food additives ... Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). The requests for scientific advice are ...
  76. [76]
    Members | CODEXALIMENTARIUS FAO-WHO
    Currently the Codex Alimentarius Commission has 189 Codex Members made up of 188 Member Countries and 1 Member Organization (The European Union).
  77. [77]
    Codex Alimentarius | Food safety and quality
    The standards are adopted by the Codex Alimentarius Commission, which currently comprises 188 Member Countries, 1 Member Organization (EU) and more than 230 ...
  78. [78]
    Meetings | CODEXALIMENTARIUS FAO-WHO
    Current year and Upcoming meetings ; CCFA55 Codex Committee on Food Additives, Seoul Republic of Korea, 24/03/2025 ; CCCPL11 Codex Committee on Cereals, Pulses ...Codex Alimentarius meetin · Meetings · Calendar · CCGP32
  79. [79]
    Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA)
    Reference: CX/FA ; Terms of Reference: (a) to establish or endorse permitted maximum levels for individual food additives; (b) to prepare priority lists of food ...
  80. [80]
    Regulatory Challenges of New Foods: EU and US Perspective
    Oct 15, 2024 · In contrast, the US offers more flexibility with the GRAS system, allowing companies to move faster if they can prove their product is safe. In ...
  81. [81]
    Comparison of food colour regulations in the EU and the US
    In the EU, aluminium lakes are allowed for 21 additives, including most of the synthetic colours but only for foods for which maximum limits on aluminium ...Missing: war | Show results with:war
  82. [82]
    Food System Strategic Assessment: Trends and issues impacted by ...
    Jun 2, 2023 · Since August 2022 the additive is not permitted in the EU, but still allowed in the UK, and this has already affected the trade of products with ...
  83. [83]
    Brexit and Food Additive Authorisation Procedures
    May 7, 2021 · The UK authorization procedure for new food additives is very similar to the EU one : only the competent authorities changes.
  84. [84]
    Review: Impact of food safety on global trade - PMC - NIH
    Aug 19, 2024 · 3.7.​​ Food additives and the unregulated use of antibiotics have contributed to increased incidence of non‐communicable diseases such as cancer, ...
  85. [85]
    Food safety - World Health Organization (WHO)
    Oct 4, 2024 · Food safety fact sheet provides key facts and information on major foodborne illnesses, causes, evolving world and food safety and WHO ...Missing: unregulated additives
  86. [86]
    Assessment of the Health implications of Synthetic and Natural Food ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Synthetic colors are used in the food industry because they exhibit several advantages, for example, stability in contact with light, oxygen, or ...
  87. [87]
    Natural Food Colorants and Preservatives: A Review, a Demand ...
    The use of antimicrobial additives increases the shelf life of food, but in high concentrations, these compounds can promote an unpleasant taste, strong odor, ...
  88. [88]
    Stability and shelf life modeling of natural colorant from bee pollen
    One of the main limitations for natural food colorants as potential replacements for synthetic alternatives is their stability and shelf life, ...
  89. [89]
    [PDF] natural colour additives as alternatives to synthetic colours in food and
    Each type of colouring material has inherent advantages and disadvantages with respect to stability and scope of application. For example, while carmine (from ...
  90. [90]
    Food Additives and E Numbers - DermNet
    Foods sold throughout the EU have had full ingredient labelling since the mid-1980s. These include standard codes (E numbers) that accurately describe additives ...Missing: Commission | Show results with:Commission
  91. [91]
    Color Additives: Regulations, Uses, and Safety - UL Prospector
    Jul 3, 2020 · Curcumin (E100), Yellow, Pickles, mustard, baked goods, dairy ... Allura Red (E129). These colors are required to be labeled with the ...
  92. [92]
    Natural Sources of Food Colorants as Potential Substitutes ... - MDPI
    Among the artificial red colorants, azorubine or carmoisine (E122), Ponceau 4R (E124) and FD&C Red No. 40 or Allura red AC (E129), are the most used by the ...
  93. [93]
    [PDF] Guidelines on approaches to the replacement of Tartrazine, Allura ...
    The stability and uses of these are very similar to the corresponding additive colour of the pigment that they contain. So for example a red grape concentrate ...
  94. [94]
    Food colours | EFSA - European Union
    An E number means that an additive has passed safety tests and has been approved for use. Check out the full list of permitted food colours in the EU.
  95. [95]
    EFSA updates safety advice on six food colours
    Nov 12, 2009 · The six colours re-evaluated by the Panel can be used in a range of foodstuffs including soft drinks, bakery products and desserts.Missing: E100- E199 list
  96. [96]
    EFSA evaluates Southampton study on food additives and child ...
    Mar 14, 2008 · This study provided limited evidence that the mixtures of additives tested had a small effect on the activity and attention of some children.
  97. [97]
    Potential impacts of synthetic food dyes on activity and attention in ...
    Apr 29, 2022 · Sixteen (64%) out of 25 challenge studies identified some evidence of a positive association, and in 13 (52%) the association was statistically ...
  98. [98]
    Artificial Food Colors and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Symptoms
    Recent data suggest a small but significant deleterious effect of AFCs on children's behavior that is not confined to those with diagnosable ADHD.
  99. [99]
    Effect of Conventional Preservatives and Essential Oils on the ... - NIH
    Jul 26, 2023 · These findings support the effectiveness of preservatives in reducing pathogen survival in acidic plant products, including salsa. ... Ceylan E., ...Missing: E299 | Show results with:E299
  100. [100]
    Re-evaluation of sorbic acid, potassium sorbate and calcium ... - EFSA
    Jun 30, 2015 · The Panel noted that there was no evidence of genotoxic activity for sorbic acid or potassium sorbate. Sub-acute, sub-chronic and chronic toxicity studies did ...Missing: E299 | Show results with:E299
  101. [101]
    A comparative study on the antifungal effect of potassium sorbate ...
    Potassium sorbate is effective against yeast, mold, and some bacteria, and should be added to cheese at a rate of 0.025%–0.1% [12]. It was listed in the Union ...
  102. [102]
    The effect of potassium sorbate, NaCI and pH on the growth of food ...
    Aug 10, 2025 · This study indicates that potassium sorbate is a suitable preserving agent to inhibit growth of fungi in fermented products of pH near 4.5 regardless levels of ...
  103. [103]
    Re‐evaluation of potassium nitrite (E 249) and sodium nitrite (E 250 ...
    Jun 15, 2017 · EFSA is currently re-evaluating the safety of potassium and sodium nitrite (E 249 and E 250) and is expected to issue a scientific opinion by ...<|separator|>
  104. [104]
    Nitrite and nitrate in meat processing: Functions and alternatives
    The discovery of carcinogenic and genotoxic N-nitroso compounds (NOCs) in processed meat products has had serious negative impacts on the meat industry. In ...
  105. [105]
    Food‐induced methemoglobinemia: A systematic review
    Mar 22, 2022 · Methemoglobinemia cases continue to occur due to accidental exposure, meat curing misadventures, and babies ingesting nitrate-rich vegetables ...Abstract · INTRODUCTION · RESULTS · DISCUSSION
  106. [106]
    Re-evaluation of ascorbic acid, sodium ascorbate and calcium ...
    May 6, 2015 · There is no safety concern for the use of ascorbic acid (E 300), sodium ascorbate (E 301) and calcium ascorbate (E 302) as food additives at the reported uses ...<|separator|>
  107. [107]
    Scientific Opinion on the re‐evaluation of ascorbic acid (E 300 ...
    May 6, 2015 · Ascorbic acid and its salts have very low acute toxicities, and short-term tests in animals showed little effect, and even so only at high doses ...
  108. [108]
    Re‐evaluation of acetic acid, lactic acid, citric acid, tartaric acid ...
    Mar 11, 2020 · In 2003, the Commission already requested EFSA to start a systematic re-evaluation of authorised food additives. However, as a result of ...Introduction · Assessment · Documentation provided to... · References
  109. [109]
    What Is Citric Acid (E330) In Food? Uses, Benefits, Safety, Side Effects
    Feb 5, 2020 · It is commonly used to add an acidic (sour) taste, enhance flavor and adjust PH to foods and soft drinks. Preservative. Due to its acidic pH, it ...
  110. [110]
    (PDF) Re‐evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium ...
    Aug 9, 2025 · The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of alginic acid and its sodium, potassium, ammonium and calcium salts (E 400-E 404) when used ...
  111. [111]
    What Is Carrageenan (E407) In Food? Types, Uses, Safety, Side ...
    Feb 29, 2020 · Yes, it has been approved safe by U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), as well as Joint FAO/WHO ...<|separator|>
  112. [112]
    What is Pectin (E440)? Sources, Types, Uses, and Benefits
    Jun 13, 2020 · Pectin, a natural polysaccharide commonly used as a gelling agent, thickener, emulsifier, and stabilizer in food with the European food additive number E440.
  113. [113]
    Five Functions of Food Thickeners - Ace Ingredients Co., Ltd.
    Jul 13, 2022 · The main function of natural food thickeners is to increase the viscosity of the system and reduce the separation speed of dispersed particles ...
  114. [114]
    Functional Benefits of Food Emulsifiers in Processed Foods
    Aug 18, 2025 · 1. Enhancing Stability and Shelf Life · 2. Giving Smooth Texture and Consistency · 3. Optimising End-Product Functional Capabilities · 4. Cost ...
  115. [115]
    3 benefits of using thickeners to stabilize emulsions - Kemfood
    Oct 31, 2023 · Thickeners can make emulsions more stable and avoid problems such as stratification and precipitation, thereby improving product quality. At the ...
  116. [116]
    Re‐evaluation of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) as ...
    The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of pectin (E 440i) and amidated pectin (E 440ii) as food additives for the general population.
  117. [117]
    Re‐evaluation of carrageenan (E 407) and processed Eucheuma ...
    Apr 26, 2018 · The present opinion deals with the re‐evaluation of the safety of food‐grade carrageenan (E 407) and processes Eucheuma seaweed (E 407a) used as food additives.Missing: 2023-2024 | Show results with:2023-2024
  118. [118]
    [PDF] Marinalg Statement Carrageenan and Food Safety Long and safe ...
    since the latest EU safety evaluation in 2003. In the Scientific Opinion, EFSA noted no safety concerns regarding carrageenan and processed Eucheuma seaweed ...
  119. [119]
    Evidence and hypotheses on adverse effects of the food additives ...
    Dec 5, 2023 · The most studied adverse effects on the intestines were for both additives inflammation, the gut microbiome, including fermentation, intestinal permeability, ...
  120. [120]
    [PDF] Scoping review of research on gastrointestinal effects of selected ...
    Nov 29, 2023 · Sodium carboxymethyl cellulose (E 466) was associated with local effects on the GI tract, such as effects on caecal size, gut microbiota and ...
  121. [121]
    Food additives | EFSA - European Union
    Apr 4, 2025 · Food additives are substances added to food to maintain or improve its safety, freshness, taste, texture, or appearance.
  122. [122]
    E-Numbers List | Food Additives & Ingredient Codes
    The “E” stands for Europe, and the numbers are assigned after rigorous safety testing and approval by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA).
  123. [123]
    Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium carbonate ...
    Sodium carbonate is authorised for use in food without any restriction. A food additive is generally assumed to be also safe for target animals if the ...
  124. [124]
    Understanding E500 Food Additive and Its Impacts on Health and ...
    Nov 10, 2024 · Both agencies have classified sodium carbonates as safe for human consumption when used in accordance with good manufacturing practices.
  125. [125]
    Re‐evaluation of sodium ferrocyanide (E 535), potassium ...
    Jul 25, 2018 · Opinion of the Scientific Committee for Animal Nutrition on the safety of potassium and sodium ferrocyanide used as anticaking agents.Summary · Introduction · Assessment · References
  126. [126]
    What is Sodium Ferrocyanide (E535) in Salt and Is Cyanide in it Bad ...
    Jul 25, 2020 · It is a cyanide salt used as an anticaking agent in table salts to keep them free flowing and with the European food additive number E535. Given ...
  127. [127]
    Is MSG Truly Unhealthy? All You Need to Know - Healthline
    ... (EFSA) consider MSG to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS). They have also determined an acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 14 mg per pound ( 30 mg per kilogram ...
  128. [128]
    A review of the alleged health hazards of monosodium glutamate
    A similar review was undertaken in June 2017, when EFSA reassessed the safety of glutamic acid and glutamates and found a group ADI of 30 mg/kg/day, expressed ...
  129. [129]
    How MSG Got A Bad Rap: Flawed Science And Xenophobia
    Jan 8, 2016 · People who suffer after eating MSG may be experiencing the nocebo effect, the lesser-known and poorly understood cousin of the placebo effect.
  130. [130]
    Modelling of salt intake reduction by incorporation of umami ...
    Mar 19, 2023 · As umami substances enhance the original flavor in foods, incorporation of umami substances into food items will reduce the salt intake more ...
  131. [131]
    Reducing salt intake with umami: A secondary analysis of data in the ...
    Nov 12, 2022 · The incorporation of umami substances into certain foods could potentially reduce population‐level daily salt intake in the UK by up to 9.09%– ...
  132. [132]
    Effects of umami substances as taste enhancers on salt reduction in ...
    Umami substances can lower NaCl in meat products without quality loss. Natural umami substances can increase the water-holding capacity and reduce lipid ...
  133. [133]
    GSFA Online Food Additive Details for Carbon dioxide
    Although not listed below, Carbon dioxide could also be used in heat-treated butter milk of food category 01.1.1 and spices of food category 12.2.1. Note ...
  134. [134]
    E-numbers : E290: Carbon dioxide - Food-Info
    Function & characteristics: Used in carbonated drinks for the sparkling effect. Also used in modified atmosphere packaging and propellant in gas containers.
  135. [135]
    Aspartame hazard and risk assessment results released
    Jul 14, 2023 · IARC classified aspartame as possibly carcinogenic to humans (IARC Group 2B) and JECFA reaffirmed the acceptable daily intake of 40 mg/kg body weight.
  136. [136]
    [PDF] jecfa-summary-of-findings-aspartame.pdf
    Jul 13, 2023 · • At the 96th JECFA meeting, which took place on 27 June – 6 July 2023, aspartame was re-evaluated. The last evaluation was done in 2016 ...
  137. [137]
    Critical role of JECFA expert risk assessment body reinforced as ...
    Jul 14, 2023 · The update reaffirmed the existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) level for aspartame of 0-40 mg/kg body weight. As a practical example, an 85kg ...
  138. [138]
    Re‐evaluation of dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) as a food additive
    May 6, 2020 · The re-evaluation concluded that there is no safety concern for dimethyl polysiloxane (E 900) at reported uses and levels, with a new ADI of 17 ...Missing: E999 | Show results with:E999<|separator|>
  139. [139]
    Search Food additives | Food and Feed Information Portal Database
    E no. Is a group? Additive/group name. E 586, No, 4-Hexylresorcinol. E 950, No, Acesulfame K. E 260, No, Acetic acid. E 472a, No, Acetic acid esters of ...
  140. [140]
    Re‐evaluation of polydextrose (E 1200) as a food additive - EFSA
    Jan 8, 2021 · The Panel concluded that there is no need for numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for polydextrose (E 1200), and that there is no safety concern.
  141. [141]
    EU List and Applications - European Commission's Food Safety
    The process to draw up the Union list requires the submission of applications for approval of food enzymes. Numerous applications were received and are ...