The Procedure for Preparing Application Documents
for Designation of Food Additives and Revision of Use Standards
for Food Additives

Standards and Evaluation Division
Department of Food Safety
Pharmaceutical and Food Safety Bureau
Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare

September 2014

This document is the English translation of “食品添加物の指定及び使用基準改正の要請資料作成に関する手引き.” The Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare offers this translation as a service toa broad international audience/readers. While the ministry has attempted to obtain translation thatis as faithful as possible to the Japanese version, we recognize that the translated version may
not be as precise, clear, or complete as the original version. The official version of this document
is the Japanese version.

Table of contents

A. Application documentation…………………………..………………………..…………….…..............1
B. Explanations and notes for preparing Overview Documentation…………………………………….…1
I. Information on the subject food additive……………………………………………………………….1
1. Name and uses………………………………………………………………………………………...1
1.1. Explanations……………………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2. How to confirm the relevant information………………………………………………………..1
2. Origin or details of development……………………………………………………………………..2
3. Use status in other countries………………………………………………………………………….2
3.1. Explanations and notes…………………………………………………………………………..2
3.2. How to confirm the relevant information………………………………………………………..2
4. Assessments by national and international organizations………………….…………………………4
4.1. Explanations and notes………………………………………………………………………….4
4.2. How to confirm the relevant information……………………………………………………….4
4.3. Examples of description………………………………………………………………………...6
5. Physicochemical properties………………………………………………………………………….6
5.1. Structural formula…………………………...………………………………………………….6
5.2. Manufacturing methods……………………...…………………………………………………7
5.3. Specifications………………………………...…………………………………………………7
5.3.1. Explanations and notes……………………………………………………………………7
5.3.2. How to confirm the relevant information…………………………………………………8
5.3.3. Examples of description…………………………………………………………………..95.4. Stability………………………………………………………………………………………...125.5. Analytical methods of the subject food additive in food products…………………………….12
6. Draft use standards…………………………………………………………………………………12
6.1. Drafting use standards…………………………………………………………………………12
6.2. Grounds for establishing use standards………………………………………………………..13
7. Other………………………………………………………………………………………………..13
II. Findings regarding effectiveness……………………………………………………………………14
1. Explanations and notes……………………………………………………………………………..14
2. Examples of actual cases…………………………………………………………………………...15

III. Findings regarding safety…………………………………………………………………………..16
1. Disposition studies…………………………………………………………………………………16
1.1 Explanations and notes………………………………………………………………………..16
1.2. Examples of description……………………………………………………………………...19
2. Toxicological studies………………………………………………………………………………22
2.1. Explanations and notes………………………………………………………………………..22
2.2. Examples of description………………………………………………………………………28
3. Findings in humans………………………………………………………………………………...34
3.1. Explanations and notes………………………………………………………………………..34
3.2. Examples of description………………………………………………………………………35
4. Estimation of daily intake…………….……………………………………………………………36
4.1. Explanations and notes………………………………………………………………………..36
4.2. Examples of description………………………………………………………………………39
IV. Guidelines for drafting specifications……………………………………………………………...41
V. Examples of findings regarding effectiveness………………...…………………………………...46
VI. A list of URLs………………..………...……………………....…………………………………..58
Appendices
Appendix 1. Application form for designation of a food additive…………………………………..…60
Appendix 2. Application form for revision of specifications/ standards of a food additive………...…61
Appendix 3. Model for Overview Documentation……….………………………………………………..62
Appendix 4. Checklist………………………………………………………………………………….68

A. Application documentation
Anyone may submit an application for designation, or revision of the existing specifications and standards,
of a food additive using the Form of Appendix 1 or 2. The application should be accompanied bydocumentation on an overview of the food additive that is the subject of the application (subject foodadditive) and the effectiveness and safety of the food additive (hereinafter “Overview Documentation”), andmaterials quoted in Overview Documentation (hereinafter “References”).
The Overview Documentation should be in Japanese. The References do not need to be in Japaneseand the References in English are also acceptable.

The Overview Documentation should be preferably

prepared using the Model of Appendix 3 and the checklist of Appendix 4 with reference to “B. Explanations
and notes for the preparing Overview Documentation” in this procedure.
B.

Explanations and notes for preparing Overview Documentation

I. Information of the subject food additive
1. Name and uses
1.1. Explanations(1) NameEnter the general name (Japanese name, and English name), and the chemical name (conforming to
IUPAC (International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry) Name).
(2) Registry numberEnter the CAS registry number, INS (International Numbering system) number, or the like.
(3) Uses
Denote the use status in Japan and other countries, and intended uses/purposes specified by Codex
Alimentarius Commission (Codex).
1.2. How to confirm the relevant information
The uses and INS number specified by Codex and use status in Japan can be confirmed at the following
websites.
(1) Codex
The specified uses of food additives are published in Section 3 and Section 4 of the Class Names and theInternational Numbering System for Food Additives (CAC/GL 36-1989). The GSFA online also provides
brief information.
Some listed food additives in GSFA online do not undergo safety evaluation by the Joint FAO/WHO
Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA).

1(2) Japan
In Japan, there are few food additives whose use is restricted by use category. Some examples of uses are
published at the MHLW website.
2. Origin or details of development
Describe an outline leading up to the request for designation, such as when and in what country the target
substance was developed, and subsequently in which countries it became used as a food additive.
If the substance naturally occurs in food products, provide information on a history of human consumption
as food as reference.
3. Use status in other countries
3.1 Explanations and notes
Provide use standards specified by the Codex, and foreign countries’ authorization status and use
standards.
Notes· The minimum entry should provide use standards established by the Codex Commission, andauthorization status and use standards in the European Union (EU), the United States, Australia, and New
Zealand. (When the authorization status and the use standards are not established, the statement should be
provided.)· When the maximum use concentration is established per food product as the use standards, the maximum
use concentration of not only each target product but also of each non-target food product should be
provided.
·For the basis of the authorizations and use standards, copies of regulatory documents or the like should be
attached.

3.2. How to confirm the relevant information
Use standards specified by Codex, and authorization status and use standards in the EU, the United States,
Australia, and New Zealand can be confirmed at the following websites. In some cases, for example, when
the definition of the food additive is different between Japan and other countries, websites other than thefollowing should be also consulted for additional information.
(1) Codex
Food additives
Maximum use concentrations and other necessary matters are specified for each food product category inTables 1 and 2 of the General Standard for Food Additives (CODEX STAN 192-1995), (GSFA). Food2

additives with no maximum use concentrations are listed in Table 3. Brief information is also provided at the
GSFA online.
Processing aids, vitamins, or minerals
The Codex does not treat processing aids, vitamins, and minerals as food additives; therefore, use
standards for these categories are not specified in the GSFA. Instead, they may be established in “the Codex
commodity standards.”(2) EU
Food additives
Maximum use concentrations are provided for each food product in Attached Table II of Regulation (EC)No 1333/2008. Attached Table II is periodically updated, and the latest use standards can be confirmed at the
Food Additives Database.
Processing aids, vitamins, or minerals
The EU does not treat processing aids, vitamins, or minerals as food additives; therefore, Regulation (EC)No 1333/2008 does not establish use standards for them.
(3) The United States
Food additives (including processing aids)
The Code of Federal Regulations Title 21 (21CFR) sets forth the maximum use concentrations for eachfood product. In addition, the GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) Notice Inventory publishes thosepermitted for use in food as GRAS substances.
Vitamins or minerals
As a general rule, these are controlled under DSHEA (Dietary Supplement Health Education Act).
(4) Australia and New Zealand
Food additives
Schedules 1 to 5 of Standards 1.3.1 of the Food Standards Code set forth the maximum use concentrations
for each food product.
For food additives except colors, Schedule 1 sets forth the maximum use concentrations for each foodproduct. Schedule 2 lists the food additives whose maximum use concentrations are not established. For
colors, Schedule 3 lists those whose maximum use concentrations are not established, and Schedule 4 sets
forth the maximum use concentrations for each food product.

3

Processing aids
Standard 1.3.3 of the Food Standards Code sets forth the maximum use concentrations for each intended
purpose.
Vitamins or minerals
Standard 1.3.2 of the Food Standards Code sets forth the maximum use concentrations for each foodproduct.
4. Assessments by national and international organizations
4.1. Explanations and notes
An overview of the results of safety evaluations by international organizations, like JECFA, and foreigncountries should be provided.

Notes· Not simply stating the evaluation result like “Considered to have no safety issues,” the grounds forsetting ADI and an overview of the evaluation should be briefly noted. Details on individual safety
studies should be provided under the heading of “III. Findings regarding safety.”· Evaluation documents cited in the safety evaluation must be attached.

4.2. How to confirm the relevant information
Results of safety evaluations by JECFA, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA), the ScientificCommittee on Food (SCF), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Food Standards Australia New
Zealand (FSANZ), and the Food Safety Commission of Japan（FSCJ）can be confirmed at the websites givenin each section below.
(1) JECFAJECFA evaluates internationally the safety of food additives. The WHO releases the results for each
evaluation year as the WHO Food Additives Series (FAS) and the WHO Technical Report Series (TRS) at
the WHO website. When (year) JECFA evaluated the safety of respective food additives can be searched at
the INCHEM database of the International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS).
(2) EFSA and SCF
Under the EU system, EFSA is responsible for safety evaluations for food additives. The results are
released at the EFSA website as Scientific Opinion. Prior to foundation of EFSA, SCF conducted safety
evaluations. If EFSA did not conduct any safety evaluation of a substance, confirm whether SCF conductedany safety evaluation of the substance at the SCF website.

4

(3) FDAIn the United States, the FDA evaluates the safety of food additives. Until about the 1970s, the safety of
GRAS substances had been evaluated by the FDA. The GRAS substances already evaluated are released in
the SCOGS (Select Committee on GRAS Substances) list. The evaluation results are available from the
National Technical Information Service (NTIS) website using NTIS Accession Number (pay services).
GRAS documents submitted since 1997 are published as the GRAS Notice Inventory.
Although the safety evaluation results for GRAS substances not referred to this section and other foodadditives are not released on FDA’s websites, anyone can make a request to the FDA for applicationmaterials based on the Freedom of Information Act.
(4) FSANZ
In Australia and New Zealand, FSANZ evaluates the safety of food additives. The results are released as
Approval Reports at the FSANZ website.
(5) FSCJ
Results of evaluations of food effects on human health by the FSCJ are released as evaluation documents
at the FSCJ website.

54.3 Example of description• Evaluation by JECFAAt its 10th Assembly (1966), JECFA established the conditional ADI for the additive polyvinylpyrrolidone
at 0 to 1 mg/kg body wt./day. At the 17th Assembly (1973), however, this conditional ADI was rescinded overconcerns of potential internal accumulation of the substance through intake by reticuloendothelial system(RES) cells of the mesenteric lymph nodes or others. Review of accumulated research data at the subsequent
25th Assembly (1981) led to restoration of the provisional ADI (0 to 1 mg/kg body wt./day).
At the 27th Assembly (1983), a re-examination of toxicity data associated with the additive
polyvinyl-pyrrolidone found no harmful effects in a long-term toxicity test. Thus, the provisional ADI was
modified to 0 to 25 mg/kg body wt./day.
Research of the immune function in dogs repeatedly administered with PVP was reviewed at the 29th
Assembly (1985). It was determined that harmful effects were not evoked despite accumulation in RES cells.
At this assembly, furthermore, the carcinogenicity of hydrazine, admixed in PVP in extremely trace amounts,
was presented as an issue. A two-year administration test in rats of PVP added to feed at a concentration of
100 g/kg feed, however, did not induce tumors. Consequently, no concerns for inducing cancer in humans
were deemed to exist under ordinary use conditions as a food additive, and the provisional ADI of 0 to 25
mg/kg body wt./day was retained.
Based on data showing current admixed concentrations of hydrazine in the additive polyvinylpyrrolidone
to be no greater than 1 mg/kg, the ADI for additive polyvinylpyrrolidone was established at 0 to 50 mg/kg
body wt./day at the 30th Assembly (1986).

5. Physicochemical properties
The structural formula, manufacturing method, specifications*1, stability, and analytical methods of thesubject food additive in food products should be provided.
5.1. Structural formula• Structural or rational formula
In the case of an organic compound, the Japan’s Specifications and Standards for Food Additives should
be referred to.

*1 “Specifications” includes (1) draft specifications, (2) comparison table of draft and existing specifications (specifications
established by international organizations and foreign countries and pharmaceutical specifications), (3) grounds for establishingthe draft specifications, and (4) verification data of test methods and test results.

6• Molecular formula and molecular weight
Describe the molecular formula and molecular weight for an organic compound, or the compositional
formula and formula weight for an inorganic compound, in conformance to the rules of the Japan’sSpecifications and Standards for Food Additives. For a mixture, describe the molecular formulas andmolecular weights of all the ingredients contained in it.
5.2. Manufacturing methods
The manufacturing process should be briefly described, for example, in a flow chart.
The removal process of harmful factors should also be noted.
5.3. Specifications
5.3.1. Explanations and notes
Requirements to ensure a constant level of quality for the safety and effectiveness of the subject foodadditive should be established.
(1) Draft specifications
In the specifications, the name, content (purity), chemical and physical properties (identification, specificproperties), limits of impurities, and purity test of the additive should be presented.
For specific explanations of each item, refer to IV. Guidelines for drafting specifications.
Notes· Specifications should be preferably tabulated.
· The JECFA Combined Compendium of Food Additive Specifications, US Food Chemical Codex (FCC),
and EU regulations should be cited in a proper manner.
· If the Japanese Pharmacopoeia establishes specifications of the substance (the subject food additive),
they should be cited as necessary.
· If no specifications exist for the subject food additive, specifications should be newly established for thesubstance.
· Any laws referenced should be indicated by the reference specification number (Ref. Spec.) in tabularform. The relevant parts should be attached as Reference.
· As a general rule, test methods established as GENERAL TESTS in Japan’s Specifications andStandards for Food Additives should be used.

(2) Comparison table of draft and existing specifications
A table comparing the draft specifications with the existing specifications established by internationalorganizations and foreign countries and pharmaceutical specifications, etc. should be attached.

7

(3) Grounds for establishing the draft specifications
The grounds (reason for setting the item, source, reaction principle, etc.) and an overview of the review of
testing method in sequence of the item numbers in the draft specifications should be shown.

Notes· For any items established in the international or foreign countries’ specifications but not selected in thedraft specifications, the reasons for non-selection should be described.
· When using newly developed testing methods or modified methods of any standard testing methods, thereasons for inapplicability of the general testing methods provided in the Japan's Specifications andStandards for Food Additives should be described and the testing methods in detail should be shown.

(4) Validation data of test methods and test results
The validation data of test methods and test results should be shown. Conformity to specification values
established in the draft specifications with respect to the content (purity), chemical and physical properties(identification, specific properties), limits of impurities, etc. should also be explained.

Notes· To show appropriateness for test methods established, verification data of testing methods (e.g., recovery
tests) should be provided.
· To show that the subject food additive conforms to the specifications established in the draft
specifications, analytical results of an appropriate number of lots (e.g., 3 lots per product, 3
measurements per lot) should be provided.

5.3.2. How to confirm the relevant information
Specifications of JECFA, the United States and the EU are available at the websites of JECFA, European
Commission (EC) and U.S. Pharmacopeial Convention (USPC), respectively.

85.3.3. Examples of description(1) Draft specifications
Table X Draft specifications
Itema)

Draft Specifications

Ref.
Spec.

(a) Japanese Name

L－グルタミン酸アンモニウム(b) English Name

Monoammonium L-Glutamate

1

--

－

--

－

Alternative(c)Japanese Name
Alternative
English Name(d) Structural or

H4NOOC

Rational Formula(e) Molecular or

1, 2

COOH
H

• H2O

NH2

C5H12N2O4・H2O

1

182.181(f) Chemical Name

Monoammonium monohydrogen (2S) - 2 -aminopentanedioate monohydrate

3(g) CAS Registry[139883 - 82 - 2]

3

Compositional
FormulaMolecular or
Formula Weight

Number(h) Definitionb)(i) Assay(Content)c)-Contains not less than 99.0% of monoammonium L-glutamate monohydrate

1(C5H12N2O4∙H2O) on the dried basis.
(j) Description

Monoammonium L-Glutamate occurs as colorless to white crystals or white1

crystalline powder.
(k) Identification(1) Use an aqueous solution (1 in 200) of Monoammonium L-Glutamate as1

the test solution and a solution (1 in 200) of monosodium L-glutamate
monohydrate as the control solution. …
(2) Monoammonium L-Glutamate responds to the test for the ammonium

1, 2

salt.
(l) Specific Rotationc)[α]20D = +25.4 to +26.4˚ (10 g, hydrochloric acid (1 in 6), 100 mL, on

1

the dried basis)pH

6.0 to 7.0 (1.0 g, water 20 mL)

91

(m) Purity(1) Lead: Not more than 1 µg/g as Pb (4.0 g, Method 1, Control solution

1, 2

Lead Standard Solution 4.0 mL, frame method)(2) Arsenic: Not more than 3 µg/g as As (0.50 g, Method 1, Standard color

2

Arsenic Standard Solution 3.0 mL, Apparatus B)(3) Pyrrolidone carboxylic acid: Weigh 0.50 g of Monoammonium
L-Glutamate and dissolve in water to prepare 100 mL of test solution.

1, 2,
4

Separately, weigh 0.50 g of monosodium L-glutamate monohydrate
and 2.5 mg of DL-2-pyrrolidone-5-carboxylic acid, and dissolve themin water to make exactly 100 mL of control solution. Measure 2 µL
each of the test solution and the control solution, …a 2:1:1 mixture of
1-butanol/water/acetic acid …
c)(n) Loss on Drying

Not more than 0.5% (50°C, 4 hours)

1, 2(o) Residue on Ignition

Not more than 0.1% (800°C, 15 minutes

1, 2(p) Microbial Limit--－(q) Method of Assayc)

Weigh accurately about 0.15 g of Monoammonium L-Glutamate, add 3

1, 2

c)

mL of formic acid to dissolve, and then add 50 mL of acetic acid.
Titrate the resulting solution with 0.1 mol/L perchloric acid. Confirm
the endpoint …
(r) Storage Standards--－

Reference specifications
1: JECFA Combined Compendium of Food Additive Specifications (Ref. X)
2: Japan’s Specifications and Standards for Food Additives, 8th Edition (Ref. X)
3: Food Chemical Codex Ninth Edition (Ref. X)
4: Japanese Standards of Quasi-Drug Ingredients 2006 (Ref. X)
a)For the items given in (a) to (r), requirements to assure a certain level of quality concerning safety andeffectiveness of the subject food additive should be established (see IV. Guidelines for the preparation ofdraft specifications).
b)

If the subject food additive originates from animals, plants or minerals, or the extract of microorganisms,
the definition should include information on the origin, preparation method, nature, and impurities.
Example of (h) Definition: Dunaliella Carotene is obtained from the entire part of the alga Dunaliellabardawil or Dunaliella salina and consists mainly of β-carotene. It may contain edible fats or oils.
Reference specification: JECFA monograph Carotenes (Algae). Grounds for scientific names: NCBI
Taxonomy.

c)

The items to be set in (i), (m), (n), (o), and (q) should be entered.

10(2) Comparison table of draft and existing specifications
Table X Comparison table of draft and existing specifications
Draft Specifications
Not less than 99.0%(dried basis)
Colorless to white
crystals or white
crystalline powder

JECFA
Not less than 99.0%(dried basis)
White, practicallyodorless crystals or
crystalline powder

Test for ･･･

Positive(TLC: ninhydrin
coloration)

Positive(TLC: ninhydrin
coloration)--

Positive(TLC)

Test for ･･･

Positive

Positive--

Positive

Not established

Freely soluble in

Assay (Content)
Description

FCC
98.5%–101.5%(dried basis)
White, free flowing
crystalline powder

EU
99.0%–101.0%(anhydrous basis)
White, almost
odorless crystals or
crystalline powder

Identification tests

Solubility
Infrared Spectrum

--

water
Not established--

Matches reference
spectra---(Specific properties)
Specific Rotation[α]20D(dried basis)pH+25.4 to +26.4°(10% w/v,
hydrochloric acid (1in 6))
pH 6.0–7.0(1.0 g, water 20 mL)+25.4 to +26.4°(10% w/v, 2N HCl)

+25.4 to +26.4°+25.4 to +26.4°(10% w/v，2N HCl) (10% soln., 2N HCl)
(Identification)

pH 6.0–7.0(1 in 20)

pH 6.0–7.0(1:20)(Description)

Not more thanNot more thanNot more thanNot more than

2 µg/g

1 mg/kg

5 mg/kg

2 mg/kg

--

--

--

--

Not more than 0.2%

pH 6.0–7.0(5% solution)(Identification)

Purity tests
Lead (Pb)
Arsenic (As)____ acid
Loss on Drying
Residue on Ignition
Method of Assay

Not more than
3 µg/gNegative (TLC)

Negative (TLC)

Not more than 0.5%

Not more than 0.5% Not more than 0.5% Not more than 0.5%

(50°C, 4 hours)(50°C, 4 hours)

Not more than 0.1%

Not more than 0.1% Not more than 0.1% Not more than 0.1%

(800°C, 15 minutes)
Non-aqueous
titration, sample
mass 0.15 g, 0.1
mol/L perchloric
acid(800°C, 15 inutes)
Non-aqueous
titration, sample
mass 200 mg, 0.1N
perchloric acid11

(50°C, 4 hours)(800°C, 15 inutes)
Non-aqueous
titration, sample
mass 250 mg, 0.1N
perchloric acid

(50°C, 4 hours)

No procedure listed

5.4 Stability
Review the stability of the food additive including a search for decomposition products.
5.5 Analytical methods of the subject food additive in food products
Basically, analytical methods should be established for foods in which the food additive is likely to be
used at high possibility. They should be methods to identify the addition of the food additive quantitatively
and qualitatively by chemically analyzing target foods. If the use standard does not need to be established,or if the food additive does not remain in food, the assay may be omitted from the analytical methods ofthe food additive in food products.

Notes· In case the use standards are established, analytical methods must be denoted as a general rule.
· A quantitative assay to separate the subject additive from other food additives with the same purpose
should be considered.

6. Draft use standards
Study the needs for establishing use standards upon comprehensive review of the safety, effectiveness, andestimated intake of the subject food additive, and the Codex standards and other countries’ use standards forthat substance.

Notes· If codex standards or other countries’ standards are proposed as the draft standards, use standards forother food additives must be taken into consideration.
· The use standards should be preferably tabulated as needed.
· Any revisions to use standards should be marked by underscoring and crossing out.

6.1. Drafting use standards
Comprehensively review the safety and effectiveness of the food additive. If the establishment of use
standards is determined necessary, describe appropriate use standards.
Notes
The draft of use standards must be prepared with reference to use standards for other food additives
already established.

126.2. Grounds for establishing use standards
Provide the grounds for establishing the use standards based on use status in foreign countries andmaterials related to effectiveness and safety. Attach the materials quoted as the grounds for establishment as“References.”

Notes· Even if codex standards or standards of other countries are proposed as the use standards, applicantsshould discuss whether there are any issues of safety with reference to safety studies and intake
estimates.

7. Other
Describe any other necessary matters.

13

II. Findings regarding effectiveness1. Explanations and notes
The following are noted in the guideline published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996.
2. EffectivenessIt should be proven or confirmed that the use of the food additive comes under one or more of the
purpose set out in (1) to (4) below. However, where the manufacturing or processing method for a target
food can be improved or modified at comparatively low cost, and the improved or modified method does
not require the food additive for the manufacture or processing of the food, the use of the food additive is
not justified.
（1） To preserve the nutritional quality of the food.
An intentional reduction in the nutritional quality of a food would be justified in the circumstances
dealt with in section (2) below and also in other circumstances where the food does not constitute asignificant item in a normal diet.
（2） To provide necessary ingredients or constitutions for food manufactured for consumers who havespecial dietary need, provided that the food additive is not intended to provide medical effects, suchas prevention or treatments of certain disease.
（3） To enhance the keeping quality or stability of a food or to improve its organoleptic properties,
provided that this does not so change the nature, substance, or quality of the food as to deceive theconsumer.
（4） To provide aids in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, transport, or

storage of food, provided that the food additive is not used to disguise the effects of the use of faulty
raw materials or of undesirable (including unhygienic) practices or techniques during the course of
any of these activities.

Documents on effectiveness(i) Studies concerning effectiveness should be conducted to establish that the food additive has
expected effects, according to its purposes. For example, the studies to clarify the correlation
between the effect of the antioxidant for the target foods and the added amount, and/or thetime-course after the addition of the antioxidant. For preservative, the studies to clarify the
improved effect of shelf life time induced by the preservative property should be conducted.
(ii) Comparisons in effects with a widely used food additive, which has already been approved forthe same use, are desirable.
(iii) Studies on the stability of the food additive in foods should be conducted. For unstable foodadditives, breakdown products should be examined on their kinds and extent.
(iv) Effects of the food additive on main nutrients in foods should be also examined.

14

The points of analytical methods to generate effectiveness data and of its submission
・ The applicant is required to submit evidence from well-designed study to demonstrate that the foodadditive indeed has the intended effect and to clarify the purpose of the use of the food additive.
・ Where possible, these studies should be conducted using graded levels of the additive in the food and theeffects should be noted. The effects should be compared with controls using no additive.
・ Test results should be proven effect by statistically treating them, including the application of the test ofsignificance. These data should be used not only to demonstrate the effectiveness, but also to establish
the minimum effective use level.
・ Presentation of the results in tabular and graphical form is desirable to help to facilitate the interpretationof the results. For example, a graphical representation of effects of a food additive at various use levels
allows quick visualization of the minimum levels of efficacious use of the food additive.
・ Where possible, the data demonstrating the effectiveness should be those that have been published inscientific journals and evaluated objectively.
Notes
・ There is often the case that attached effective data is only for some target foods intended to use
without providing any explanation for reason of abbreviation of effective data on other target foods.
Explanation of the adequacy should be described if the applicant presents effective data only forsome target foods.
・ The attachment of minimum and basic safety data demonstrating the effectiveness is desirable, notjust making a statement to the effect that the subject additive is widely used overseas.
・ Description of difference (advantage) compared with other food additives that is already approved
and distributed for the same intended use is desirable.
・ Concrete explanation of the use with functional mechanism, reaction mechanism, data or the like isdesirable.

2. Examples of actual cases
Documents for food additives already assessed in Japan are released to the public in “新規指定の可否に関する薬事・食品衛生審議会食品衛生分科会添加物部会報告書”—the Reports on Approval of New Designations by theCommittee of Food Additives of the Food Sanitation Council under the Pharmaceutical Affairs and Food
Sanitation Council on the website of MHLW. Documents on actual cases in Australia and New Zealand arereleased as “Approval Report” in the website of FSANZ. Documents submitted in EU are also released as“Scientific Opinion on safety evaluation of food additives” in the website of EFSA.
Four examples from information released to the public in Japan, EU, Australia and New Zealand are shownat V. Examples of findings regarding effectiveness.

15III. Findings regarding safety
1. Disposition studies
1.1 Explanations and notes
Disposition studies are intended to obtain information on the pharmacokinetics (absorption, distribution,
metabolism, and excretion) of a test substance after its administration in animals in order to estimate thepharmacokinetics and development of adverse effects in humans. Discussions that contribute to theevaluation of toxicity studies or their results should also be included whenever possible.
The following are noted in the assessment guideline by the FSCJ.
1. Deposition studies
Studies to examine the disposition within the body should comply with the disposition study guideline
published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996. They also should follow the notes below.
(1) The food additive or substance labeled by an isotope should be used as the test substance. When an
isotope-labeled substance is used, the species and location of the isotope should be clearly indicated.
(2) It is preferable to conduct tests on more than two species (more than one rodent species [typicallyrats] and more than one non-rodent species [typically dogs]).
(3) In principle, the test substance should be administered orally. Absorption, distribution, metabolism,and excretion should be estimated after single-dose administration and repeated-dose administration.
Additional tests with intravenous administration and other tests may be carried out when necessary inorder to calculate accurate ratio of absorption or for other purposes.
(4) Each process of absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion must be examined and values
recorded, such as concentration of the active ingredient in the blood; amount of the substance inurine, feces and other excretory matter; and successive changes in the concentration in each organ;
metabolites found in organisms, as well as factors that are influential in each step.
(5) The results regarding absorption, distribution metabolism and excretion (e.g., highest concentration inblood plasma, successive change in concentration in each organ, and elimination half-life) should be
used to determine the organ(s) that can be a target of toxicological tests. In such cases, the feasibilityof extrapolating the results to obtain the effects on the human body must be examined with regard todifferences among animal species and species specificity.
(6) For tests using a racemic body, it is preferable to examine the disposition of each optical isomer
within the body if it is necessary to understand the association with toxicity.
(7) In principle, the existence of human-specific metabolites must be examined and toxicological tests ofsuch metabolites must be carried out as necessary.
This study will include tests conducted in accordance with the guideline published by the Ministry of
Health and Welfare in 1996. However, other appropriate methods may be considered depending on thenature of the test substance, and tests based on the OECD test guidelines or ICH (International Conference16

on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use)guidelines, for example, may be selected or other tests may be substituted as befits the purpose of the study.
Appropriate data on the pharmacokinetics of the test substance that has been obtained from toxicity studies
may also be used.
(1) Absorption
Blood concentration-time profile
Information such as the maximum concentration in blood (Cmax) after dosing, the time to reach the
maximum concentration (Tmax), and the area under the blood concentration-time curve (AUC) should be
noted for each test animal to show the extent and rate of test substance absorption.
It is also useful to discuss comparisons of these parameters with the same parameters after intravenous
administrations or other standard administration methods.
Absorption rate
The level of urinary, fecal, biliary, and respiratory excretion, for example, after administration of the test
substance as well as the absorption rate in the body calculated on the basis of the above total excretion levelshould be described.
(2) Distribution
The organ and tissue distribution, as well as the changes and accumulation over time after single andrepeated doses of the test substance, should be described for each test animal. The results of measurements atseveral time points should preferably be described in order to accurately reflect the pharmacokinetics.
Organs and tissues characterized by high concentrations of distribution or accumulation and by adverse
reactions as a result of repeated doses should preferably be discussed, as should their form.
(3) Metabolism
To provide information on the metabolic pathway and the extent and rate of metabolism, quantitativevalues for unchanged compound and metabolites in biological samples, such as blood, urine, bile, and feces,
after single and repeated doses should be described for each test animal.
In vitro tests of samples of the organs involved in metabolism, such as slices, homogenates, cellsuspensions, and cell fractions, may also be described.
(4) Excretion
The levels of urinary, fecal, respiratory, biliary, lactic or other excretion over time after single andrepeated doses should be described for each test animal to provide information on the excretory pathway of
the test substance and principal metabolites, as well as the extent and rate of their excretion.

17

Notes・When existing evaluation reports are cited, the study source should be identified.
・The species, strains, gender, and number of test animals, as well as the method of administration, vehicle,
dose, and method of labeling should be clearly indicated.
・Results should be tabulated for ease of comprehension, but information that is not amenable to tabulation
should be described in detail in some paragraphs.
・When residue levels are evaluated from the test that uses radioisotope, it is preferable to be described as
residual radiation level (%TRR or %TAR) or residual concentration (mg/kg or g/kg).
・Assessments such as of pharmacokinetics and the development of adverse effects in humans should also be
discussed whenever possible.

* When the food additive is scientifically known to be a common component of food or to be broken down infood or in the digestive tract into a common component of food, test results showing the validity of thefollowing based on items in Table 2 of the guideline published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in
1996 should be noted.
When it is not validated to be or to be broken down into a common component of food, test results for thefollowing should be noted for each animal species.
Table 2. Items to be studied to determine whether the food additive is broken down in food or in the digestive
tract into a common component of food
1. Under conditions in which food additives are commonly used, the substance must be readily broken downin food or in the digestive tract into a substance that is identical with a common component of food.
2. Major factors involved in the breakdown of the substance in food or in the digestive tract (such as pH or
enzymes) must be ascertained.
3. When the proper amount is used under conditions in which food additives are commonly used, the foodadditive must be absorbed in the body to the same extent as food components and must not interfere withthe absorption of other nutritional components.
4. Non-hydrolysates or partial hydrolysates of the ingested food additive cannot be excreted in large amounts
in feces. Non-hydrolysates or partial hydrolysates also cannot accumulate in biological tissue.
5. Ingestion of food in which the food additive is used cannot result in excessive ingestion of the primary
component of the food.

18

1.2. Examples of description
When writing up the descriptions, existing evaluation reports at the FSCJ website can be used as reference.
The following are typical examples.
(1) Absorption
Absorption in rats
a. Blood concentration profile
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was
conducted to analyze blood concentration profiles after the XX administration [method of administration] ofXX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg bodyweight/day) for XX [time per period] in XX-old XX [animal
species] (X males and females each per group [group establishment]). As shown in Table 1, the results
showed that the blood concentrations of XX [test substance] in the XX dose group(s) peaked (XX to XX
mg/L) at X hours post-dose, and was XX at X hours post-dose and XX at X hours post-dose, with a T1/2 of X
hours and an AUC of X µg•hr/g (Ref. X).
Table X: Pharmacokinetics parameters in blood
GenderDose(mg/kgbody Tmax (hr)Cmax ( g/g)

T1/2 (hr)AUC ( g・hr/g)

weight)b. Absorption rate
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was
conducted to analyze the in vivo absorption rate after the XX administration [method of administration] ofXX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg bodyweight/day) for XX [time per period] in XX-old XX [animal
species] (X males and females each per group [group establishment]). Based on the radioactive concentrationin test samples [such as urine, cage wash, feces, and bile], the in vivo absorption rate in the X-dose group(s)was estimated to be at least X% (Ref. X).
(2) Distribution
Distribution in rats
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was
conducted to analyze in vivo distribution after the XX administration [method of administration] of XX [testsubstance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg bodyweight/day) for XX [time per period] in XX-old XX [animal species](X males and females each per group [group establishment]). As shown in Table X, the results revealed that19

XX [test substance] was distributed in high concentrations in XX and XX at X hours post-dose, but that the
distribution peaked in XX at X hours post-dose and was XX at X hours post-dose (Ref. X).
Table X: Total radioactivity level in tissues after XX administration of X-labeled XX in rats (%TRR, etc.)
TissueTime after dose (hours)

Liver
KidneyLarge
intestine
MusclePlasma
Whole
blood
Milk

(3) Metabolism
Metabolism in rats
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was
conducted to identify metabolites in XX and XX after the XX administration [method of administration] ofXX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg bodyweight/day) for XX [time per period] in XX-old XX [animal
species] (X males and females each per group [group establishment]). As shown in Table 3, XX and XX
were found as the unchanged compound and metabolite of XX [test substance] (Ref. X).
Table X: Radioactivity level of XX and metabolites after XX administration of X-labeled XX in rats (%TRR,
etc.)
Number of Dose (mg/kg bodydosesSingle dose

GenderSamples

weight)Unchanged

Metabolites (%TRR)

compoundBlood

A ( ), B ( ), C ( ), D ( ), andsulfate conjugate of D ( )

Urine
Bile
Feces

20

Repeated
doses(4) Excretion
Excretion in rats
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was
conducted to analyze over time the excretion rate in urine and feces after the XX administration [method ofadministration] of XX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg bodyweight/day) for XX [time per period] in
XX-old XX [animal species] (X males and females each per group [group establishment]). As shown in
Table 4, the results showed that X% of XX [test substance] was excreted in XX at X hours post-dose, and
X% was excreted in XX at X hours post-dose. The principal excretory pathway was XX (Ref. X).
Table X: Percent excreted (%TRR) in urine and feces at X and X hours-post dosing
Number of Dose (mg/kg body Gender
doses

Samples

weight)X
post-dosing

Urine
Feces

21

hours X hours
post-dosing

Total

2. Toxicological studies
2.1 Explanations and notes
Toxicological studies are intended to obtain information on the effects of the administration of a test
substance in animals in order to deduce, for example, the ways in which adverse effects develop in humans
and the doses at which they occur.
The following are noted in the assessment guideline by the FSCJ.
2. Toxicological studies(1) Subchronic toxicity studies and chronic toxicity studies(a) Tests should be conducted on one rodent species (generally rats) and one non-rodent species(generally dogs). In principle, the same number of male and female animals should be used.
(b) The administration period should be 28 days or 90 days for subchronic toxicology tests and more than
12 months for chronic toxicology tests. The 28-day test can be omitted when a test with a 90-day
administration period is carried out.
(c) In principle, the test substance should be orally administered 7 days a week. The substance should be
administered in animal feed or water, but it can be also administered by gavage.
(d) At least three groups receiving different levels of the administration dose should be established inaddition to the control group. The reasons for choosing each dose level should be clearly indicated.
Proper ratios should be chosen so that an appropriate NOAEL can be obtained.
(e) Care should be taken to prevent nutritional disturbance among test animals when feeding them thesubstance. Usually, the amount of the substance as a proportion of the feed does not have to exceed 5%(W/W). When the substance is given by gavage administration, the general maximum dose needed is
the technically possible maximum dose or 1,000 mg/kg bw. If no effect is observed at that dose, theadministration of a higher dose is not required.
(f) When the frequency or severity level of a naturally occurring pathological change that is also
observed within the control groups increases due to the administration of the substance, even within
the context of the background data it should, in principle, be taken as an effect caused by theadministration of the substance if biological some significance, such as a relationship between the dose
and the frequency or severity level, is recognized.
(g) When neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity is suspected, the need for additional tests as described in theOECD test guideline or ICH (International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements
for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use) guideline should be examined.
(h) The procedure to extrapolate the findings of toxicological tests to humans should be examined
carefully by analyzing the endpoints separately and for different factors, such as functional changes,
non-oncological morphological changes, oncological morphological changes, and changes toreproductive functions.

22

(i) When a combination test for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity is carried out using one rodent
species, a chronic toxicity test and carcinogenicity test on another rodent species can be omitted.
(j) The need to add an in utero exposure phase should be examined where necessary.
(2) Carcinogenicity studies(a) Tests should be conducted on more than two rodent species (rats, mice or hamsters are usedgenerally). In principle, the same number of male and female animals should be used.
(b) In principle, administration should be carried out orally 7 days a week. For rats, the period should be
between 24 months or longer and 30 months or shorter. For mice, the period should be between 18
months or longer and 24 months or shorter. The test substance should be orally administered in animal
feed or with water, but it can be also administered by gavage if oral administration is difficult.
(c) At least three groups receiving different levels of the administration dose should be established inaddition to the control group. The reasons for choosing each dose level should be clearly indicated.
Proper ratios should be chosen so that an appropriate NOAEL can be obtained.
(d) Care should be taken to prevent nutritional disturbance among test animals when feeding them thesubstance. Usually, the amount of the substance as a proportion of the feed does not have to exceed 5%(W/W). When the substance is given by gavage administration, the general maximum dose needed is
the technically possible maximum dose or 1,000 mg/kg bw. If no effect is observed at that dose, theadministration of a higher dose is not required.
(e) If the test for carcinogenicity is positive, the ADI cannot be established in principle if genotoxicity is
positive and the substance is determined to be a genotoxic carcinogen. If the test for carcinogenicity is
negative, the ADI can be established if genotoxicity is negative and the substance is determined not to
be a genotoxic carcinogen. Even if the food additive being assessed unavoidably generates/contains a
byproduct/residue that is suspected of being genotoxic, the ADI may be established in some cases aftera required examination.
(f) If the incidence rate of lesions is relatively low, carcinogenicity may be determined during theassessment by conducting a significance test using either: (1) the sum of benign tumor-like lesions andmalignant tumor-like lesions; or (2) the sum of precancerous lesions, benign tumor-like lesions andmalignant tumor-like lesions. Assessment of carcinogenicity, including precancerous lesions, isespecially preferable where there is an increase in endocrine system tumors, a type of lesion thatfrequently occurs with rodent species.
(g) If an increase in tumors in a region where tumor incidence is not normally high or when an increasein rare tumors is recognized it is preferable to include the carcinogenic mechanism in the assessment.
(h) Factors that modify the development of cancer (suppression of weight increase or decrease of survivalrate) should be taken into consideration for the assessment.

23

(i) Special attention should be paid to species-specific toxicological findings (e.g., hypertrophy,
hyperplasia and tumor of thyroid follicle epithelium [specific to rodents] and renal disorder and tumor[specific to male rats]).
(j) When a combination test for chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity is carried out using one rodent
species, a chronic toxicity test and carcinogenicity test on another rodent species can be omitted.
(k) The need to add an in utero exposure phase should be examined where necessary.
(3) Toxicity/carcinogenicity combination studies with one-year repeated-dose administration
Notes in (1) and (2) should be followed.
(4) Reproductive toxicity studies
Studies to examine reproductive toxicity should comply with the reproductive toxicity study guideline
published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996. They also should follow the notes below.
(a) Tests should be conducted on more than one rodent species (rats are used generally). In principle, thesame number of male and female animals should be used.
(b) In principle, administration should be carried out orally 7 days a week. The test substance should beorally administered in animal feed or with water, but it can be also administered by gavage if oral
administration is difficult.
(c) At least three groups receiving different levels of the administration dose should be established inaddition to the control group. The reasons for choosing each dose level should be clearly indicated.
Proper ratios should be chosen so that an appropriate NOAEL can be obtained.
(d) Care should be taken to prevent nutritional disturbance among test animals when feeding them thesubstance. Usually, the amount of the substance as a proportion of the feed does not have to exceed 5%(W/W). When the substance is given by gavage administration, the general maximum dose needed is
the technically possible maximum dose or 1,000 mg/kg bw. If no effect is observed at that dose, theadministration of a higher dose is not required.
(e) When neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity is suspected, the need for additional tests as described in theOECD test guideline or ICH guideline should be examined.
(5) Prenatal developmental toxicity studies
Studies to examine prenatal developmental toxicity should comply with the teratogenetic study guideline
published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996 and the notes below. The minimum period ofadministration should be from the date of implantation to the estimated delivery date, and the substanceshould be administered daily to the pregnant animals.
(a) Tests should be conducted on more than two species (more than one rodent species [typically rats]
and more than one non-rodent species [typically rabbits]).
(b) The test substance should be orally administered by gavage.

24

(c) At least three groups receiving different levels of the administration dose should be established inaddition to the control group. The reasons for choosing each dose level should be clearly indicated.
Proper ratios should be chosen so that an appropriate NOAEL can be obtained.
(6) Genotoxicity studies
Studies to examine genotoxicity should comply with the mutagenicity test guideline published by the
Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996. But the examination should not be limited to the narrow
definition of “mutagenicity” and the assessment should be carried out based on the test results regarding
genotoxicity in general. Among the tests included in the standard combination (i.e., combination ofbacterial reverse mutation tests, chromosome aberration tests using cultured cells of mammals, andmicronucleus tests on rodents), the chromosome aberration tests using mammalian cultured cells can be
replaced with a mouse lymphoma TK assay (MLA) or in vitro micronucleus test. In order to supplement
the results from the standard test combination, single cell gel electrophoresis (“Comet Assay”) and invivo transgenic animal mutation assay can be used, in addition to those described in the Ministry of
Health and Welfare guideline of 1996.
If one of the tests in the standard combination cannot be conducted due to technical constraints, thereason should be explained backed up by scientific evidence. One of the internationally validated tests
can be used as a replacement.
The test results should be judged in accordance with the following procedure.
(a) If the results of the bacterial reverse mutation tests are positive, a comprehensive judgment should bemade by fully considering the results of in vivo tests that use genetic mutation or DNA damage (Comet
Assay, in vivo transgenic animal mutation assay) as an indicator.
(b) If the results of the chromosome aberration tests using mammalian cultured cells are positive and theeffect is also confirmed with rodent micronucleus tests, the substance can be determined as positive forgenotoxicity.
(c) Even if the results of the chromosome aberration tests using mammalian cultured cells are positive, if
the results of the rodent micronucleus tests (preferably with evidence to show exposure of the target
organ) are negative, the substance can be determined as negative for genotoxicity.
(7) Allergenic potential studies
Studies to examine the allergenicity of food additives should follow the antigenicity tests guideline
published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996. There is no well-established method forpredicting the allergenicity of chemical substances when orally ingested, particularly for predicting theimmediate type of allergenicity. Therefore, studies should be carried out with sensitization and induction
methods approved by specialists. For the time being, allergenicity studies using delayed allergy as anindicator should at least be carried out. Examples of tests for such studies include skin sensitization tests

25

on guinea pigs (e.g., guinea pig maximization test [GPMT] in the OECD test guideline 406) and lymph
node reaction tests on mice (e.g., the local lymph node assay [LLNA] in the OECD test guideline 429).
Allergenicity assessment of food additives containing protein should follow the “Standards for the
Safety Assessment of Genetically Modified Foods (Microorganisms)” (FSCJ decision, June 26, 2008).
(8) General pharmacological studies
Studies to examine general pharmacological properties of food additives should follow the generalpharmacological test guideline published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996.
(9) Other studies
When neurotoxicity is suspected following a subchronic toxicity test and other tests, additional tests
should be conducted as necessary in compliance with the OECD test guideline and other materials.
When immunotoxicity is suspected following a subchronic toxicity test and other tests, proper
immunofunctional tests should be added as necessary in accordance with the ICH guideline and othermaterials. Immunofunctional tests should be also carried out as necessary when immunotoxicity inhumans is suspected based on existing findings.
This study will include tests conducted in accordance with the guideline published by the Ministry of
Health and Welfare in 1996. However, other appropriate methods may be considered depending on the natureof the test substance, and tests based on the OECD guidelines or the ICH guidelines, for example, may be
selected or other tests may be substituted as befits the purpose of the study.
Acute toxicity study information may be included in application documentation.
If a 90-day repeated-dose toxicity study is conducted, there will be no need to conduct a separate 28-day
repeated-dose toxicity study in the same species.
If one-year repeated-dose toxicity and carcinogenicity studies are conducted in the required species, there
will be no need to conduct a combined one-year repeated-dose toxicity/carcinogenicity study. Conversely, if
a combined one-year repeated-dose toxicity/carcinogenicity study is conducted in a rodent species, there will
be no need to conduct separate one-year repeated-dose toxicity and carcinogenicity studies in a rodent
species.
* When the food additive is scientifically known to be a common component of food or to be broken down infood or in the digestive tract to become a common component of food, there will be no need to attach
toxicity-related data, as per the guideline published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996, butmaterials on 28-day repeated-dose toxicity studies in rodents and genotoxicity studies should preferably beattached.
* Regarding assessment methods for enzymes, FSCJ says “safety assessments of enzymes are, in principle,

26

carried out based on the data in Appendix 1 and other information. When the safety of a production strain
is not known for enzymes obtained from microorganisms, appropriate tests must be conducted to assess
the safety of the original microorganism. Pathogenic or toxin-producing production bacteria should not in
principle be used for the production of enzymes. When it is scientifically proven that the enzyme is broken
down in the digestive tract to become a common component of food (such judgment should be made byconsidering the items in Table 2 in the guideline published by the Ministry of Health and Welfare in 1996),
the materials regarding toxicity listed in Appendix 1 can be omitted. The materials regarding toxicity
listed in Appendix 2*1 should be submitted.”(1) Acute toxicity studies• The results of acute toxicity studies should preferably be expressed as the LD50 (median lethal dose), forexample.
(2) Subchronic toxicity studies• The results of repeated-dose toxicity studies (28-day and 90-day repeated-dose toxicity studies) should
be described in this section.
• Information on toxicity findings and the doses at which they occurred (with statistical analysis) should
be described.
• Information on the NOAEL or LOAEL should be described.
(3) Chronic toxicity studies and carcinogenicity studies• The results of life-long, chronic repeated-dose toxicity studies (one-year repeated-dose toxicity studies
and carcinogenicity studies, and combined one-year repeated-dose toxicity/carcinogenicity studies)should be described in this section.
• The main point of carcinogenicity studies is whether or not the additive is carcinogenic.
(4) Reproductive toxicity studies• Information on the reproductive functions of males and females, estrus cycle, mating behavior,conception, delivery, lactation, and development and behavior of offspring in reproductive testing(multigeneration reproductive toxicity studies) should be noted.
• Information related to the effects on fetal development in teratogenicity studies (prenatal development
toxicity studies) should be noted.

*1 Materials listed in Appendix 2: materials on (1) 90-day repeat-dose toxicity studies in rodents, (2) genotoxicity studies and (3)allergenicity studies27

* Observation and test parameters in reproductive testing: general condition, body weight, foodconsumption, water consumption, parameters related to pregnancy and delivery (such as copulation rate,
pregnancy rate, and birth rate), neonatal parameters (such as number of pups, number of dead pups,
number of live pups, external anomalies, and results of necropsy), results of necropsy, andhistopathology etc.
* Observation and test parameters in teratogenicity studies: general condition, body weight, foodconsumption, water consumption, and necropsy results for dams and fetuses etc.
(5) Genotoxicity studies (mutagenicity test)• The technical product and, if necessary, metabolites should be described under the separate categories
of in vitro tests (such as microbial reverse mutation assay and chromosomal aberration assay in cultured
mammalian cells) and in vivo tests (rodent micronucleus assay).
• It should be clearly indicated whether any metabolic activator was added or not.
(6) Other studies• Special studies such as allergenic potential studies, general pharmacology studies, neurotoxicity studies,and immune function studies should be described as needed.

Notes
・ Even when existing evaluation reports are cited, the study source should be identified.
・ In principle, tests involving oral administration should be described.
・ Results should preferably be tabulated, but if it is difficult to put together into tables, detailed information
should be described in writing in individual paragraphs.
・ The bacterial strains, types of cells, the animal species, strains, gender, and number of test animals, the methodof administration, vehicle, and dose should be clearly indicated.
・ Food additive degradation products and contaminants should also be studied as needed.
・ The doses should preferably be indicated in units of "mg/kg body weight per day."・ Suitability of the tests for the GLP should preferably be indicated.

2.2. Examples of description
When writing up the descriptions, existing evaluation reports at the FSCJ website can be used as
reference. The following are typical examples.
The results of multiple acute toxicity and genotoxicity studies should preferably be tabulated collectively.
Also, the results of repeated-dose toxicity studies should preferably be tabulated for each study. Informationthat is not amenable to tabulation may be described in writing.

28

(1) Acute toxicity studies
The results of acute toxicity studies on XX [test substance] and its metabolites in rats and mice are presented inTable X (Ref. X).
Table X: Summary of acute toxicity study results
Test

Route

of

substance

administra

Species

LD50 (mg/kg body weight)

Observed

Reference

Males

Females

symptoms

SD rats＞5,000＞5,000

Watery stool

XX, Year

ICR mice＞4,000＞4,000

1 death at

XX, Year

tion
XX

Oral

1,000 mg/kg
body weight
Percutane

F344 rats

2,500

3,000

ous

No

XX, Yearsymptoms ordeathsInhalation

SD rats＞10＞10

Diarrhea,

XX, Year

blepharoptosisMetabolit

Oral

SD rats＞2,000＞2,000

Watery stool

XX, YeareA(2) Repeated-dose toxicity studies or carcinogenicity studies<In case of using tables>
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was conductedon the XX administration [method of administration] of XX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg
bodyweight/day) for XX [period] in XX-old XX [animal species] (X males and females each per group [group
establishment]) setting administered group as Table 6 (Ref. X).
Table X: Dosage level
Dosage level (% or ppm)

A, B, C

Equivalent to mg/kg body weight/day

A’, B’, C’

29

The results showed no treatment-related effects on observation parameters such as general condition, bodyweight, food consumption, water consumption, blood biochemistry, urinalysis, ophthalmology. Bloodbiochemistry revealed elevated ALT and AST levels in males and females of the B’ mg/kg bodyweight/day andhigher dose groups. Elevated sodium level was also observed in males of the B’ mg/kg/body weight/day group.
This was not considered to be toxic changes because no other related electrolyte changes or dose-response
relationships were found.
Analysis of organ weight revealed increases in the absolute and relative weight of the liver in males of the B’
mg/kg/ body weight/day and higher dose groups and in females of the C’ mg/kg body weight/day dose group.
Histopathology revealed centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy in males and females of the B’ mg/kg bodyweight/day and higher dose groups, and single cell necrosis of hepatocytes in males of the C’ mg/kg bodyweight/day dose group. These findings were determined to indicate toxicity because they were consistent changes
characterized by a dose-response relationship. The NOAEL was, thus, assessed as A’ mg/kg/ body weight/day inthis study.
Table X: Toxic findings in XX [study title] toxicity study (XX [animal species])
Dose
C’ mg/kg body

Males

FemalesSingle cell necrosis of hepatocytes

weight/day

Increases in absolute and relative weight ofliver≥ B’ mg/kg body

Elevated ALT and AST

Elevated ALT and AST

weight/day

Increases in absolute and relative

Centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophyweight of liver
Centrilobular hepatocyte hypertrophy<In case of not using tables>
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant study was conductedon the XX administration [method of administration] of XX [test substance] (XX, XX, XX mg/kg
bodyweight/day) for XX [period] in XX-old XX [animal species] (X males and females each per group [group
establishment]) setting administered group. The results showed no treatment-related effects on XX [individually
noted observation parameters such as general condition, body weight, food consumption, and water consumption,and test parameters such as hematology, blood biochemistry, urinalysis, ophthalmology or other functional tests,
necropsy, or histopathology]. XX [findings] in XX [individually noted observation parameters such as generalcondition, body weight, food consumption, and water consumption, and test parameters such as hematology,
blood biochemistry, urinalysis, ophthalmology or other functional tests, necropsy, or histopathology] were notedin XX [males and females] in the XX [dose] group. These findings were (or were not) determined to indicate
toxicity based on XX [reasons]. The NOAEL (LOAEL) was, thus, assessed as XX [dose] in this study. (Ref. X)

30

(3) Reproductive toxicity studies
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a GLP-compliant, two-generation
reproductive study was conducted on the administration of XX [test substance] mixed with feed (A, B, and Cppm) for in XX-old XX [animal species] (X males and females each per group [group establishment]). The P
generation parent animals mated and produced pups twice (offspring animals: F1a, F1b), F1b animals were used as
the F1 generation parent animals, and they mated and produced pups twice (offspring animals: F2a, F2b). Analysisof the parent animals revealed suppressed weight gain in P generation males and females and in F1 generation
females in the C ppm dose group. Food consumption was also lower during the entire study period in P generation
females and during the lactation periods of the two F1 generations. Analysis of the offspring revealed lower 4-day
postnatal survival rates in both F1 and F2 offspring as well as suppressed weight gain in F1b, F2a, and F2b offspringin the C ppm dose group. These findings appeared to be secondary to the toxic effect of the test substance inparent animals.
The NOAEL in this study was thus B ppm for parent and offspring animals (P males: b mg/kg body weight/day;
P females: e mg/kg body weight/day; F1 males: h mg/kg body weight/day; F1 females: k mg/kg body weight/ day),with no findings of teratogenicity (Ref. X).
Table X: Mean test article consumption in 2-generation reproductive study (XX [animal species])
Dose group
Mean foodP generation

consumption(mg/kg bodyweight/day)

F1 generation

A ppm

B ppm

C ppm

Males

a

b

c

Females

d

e

f

Males

g

h

i

FemalesjklTable X: Toxic findings in 2-generation reproductive study (XX [animal species])
1st generation

2nd generation(parents: P; offspring: F1a,1b)(parents: F1b; offspring: F2a,2b)

Dose

ParentC ppm

animals

Offspring
animals

C ppm

Males

Females

Males

Females

Suppressed

Suppressed

No toxic

Suppressedweight gain

weight gain

findings

weight gain

Lower

Decreased foodDecreased foodconsumption

consumption

survival

Lower survival

Lower survival

Lower survival

rate in nursing

rate in nursing

rate in nursing

rate in nursing

pups

pups

pups

pups

31

Suppressed

Suppressed

Suppressed

Suppressedweight gain

weight gain

weight gain

weight gain(4) Genotoxicity studies (mutagenicity test)
Table X: Summary of in vitro genotoxicity studies
Type of

Test subject

test

Test

Treatment

substance

concentration and

Results

Reference

Negative

XX, Year

Positive

XX, Year

Negative

XX, Year

XX, Yeardose
ReverseS. typhimurium

X to X mg/platemutation(TA XX, TA XX strain)(+/-S9)assay

S. typhimurium

X to X mg/plate(TA XX, TA XX strain)(+/-S9)Chromoso

Chinese hamster ovary

X to X mg/mL (-S9)

mal

cells

X to X mg/mL (+S9)

aberration(CHO cells)

assay

Human peripheral

X to X mg/mL (-S9)

Negativeblood lymphocytes

X to X mg/mL (+S9)

Positive

Table X: Summary of in vivo genotoxicity studies
Type of test

Test subject

Test

Treatment

substance

concentration and

Results

Reference

Negative

XX, Year

Positive

XX, Year

Negative

XX, Yeardose
Micronucleus

XX mice; 5 males andX, X, and X mg/kg

assay

females each

body weight (single(bone marrow cells)

oral dose)

XX mice; 5 males andX, X, and X mg/kg

females each

body weight (single(hepatocytes)

oral dose)

Reportergpt delta mice; 5 males

X, X, and X mg/kg

gene

and females each

body weight (X-weektransgenic(liver, kidneys)

oral dosing)animalmutagenicity

32

assay33

3. Findings in humans
3.1. Explanations and notes
Because the purpose of safety evaluations of food additives is to deduce safety and adverse effects inhumans, the available information in humans should be noted.
The following are noted in the assessment guideline by the FSCJ.
Article 3. Findings in humans
When available, appropriate clinical tests, epidemiological data and other information regarding humans
must be actively used. When allergenicity is suspected, findings in humans should be especially valued
because it is often infeasible to extrapolate the results of animal tests to humans.
Studies in humans include epidemiological studies, clinical experience, observations in case studies, researchof the effects on health in humans during occupational exposure, reports of poisoning, and allergy studies involunteers.

Notes
・When existing evaluation reports are cited, the study source should be identified.
・Gender, age, number of individuals, health status, and dosing method and dose should be noted.

34

3.2. Examples of description(1) Intervention studies
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]), a randomized clinical study was
conducted in XX Year in XX [location], in which XX- to XX-year old (average age XX) XX [study population]
were randomized by a double-blind method to a placebo group (XX subjects) or an XX [test substance] (X mg/kg
body weight/day) ingestion group for oral ingestion XX times a day [dosing method (such as capsules atbreakfast)] for XX [period]. The results revealed no test substance treatment-related effects on XX [observation
parameters such as general condition, hematology, blood biochemistry, urinalysis] (or revealed that XX wasaffected). (Ref. X)(2) Cohort studies
According to the report by XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]) cited in the report of XX [assessment
document source], an XX-year cohort study was conducted in X [gender] XX subjects (XX to XX years of age)in XX [location]. XX patients contracted XX [disease]. The relative risk for XX [disease] was XX (95% CI = XX
to XX) in the X mg/kg body weight/day and higher dose groups when compared to groups with XX [testsubstance] consumption < X mg/kg bodyweight/day, revealing that XX [test substance] consumption ≥ X mg/kg
body weight/day was strongly correlated to increased risk for XX [disease]. (Ref. X)(3) Other studies
No reports on studies of the oral administration of this test product in humans have been found, but thefollowing related data is available from XX [name of author] (XX [year of report]).
When XX [test substance] (X mg/kg body weight/day) was orally administered for XX [period] to patientswith XX, there were no medically abnormal findings in any subjects, and X% of the ingested amount was
detected in urine. (Ref. X)

35

4. Estimation of daily intake
4.1. Explanations and notes
The following are noted in the assessment guideline by the FSCJ.

Article 4. Estimation of daily intake
1. The daily intake should be determined based on the Japanese diet. Care should be taken to avoid
intake estimations that are too small. In principle, the estimated daily intake is calculated bymultiplying the daily intake of the food items for which the additive is to be used by the amount ofadditive used. The daily intake of food should be properly estimated based on the food group intakes
given in the National Health and Nutrition Survey or other materials. Estimations based on data
gathered using other reliable methods, such as market basket surveys and production analysis, canalso be used. The daily intake should be estimated for body weight of 50 kg.
2. The estimated daily intake should be compared with the ADI obtained from toxicological tests, andthe results of such comparison should be examined. Where necessary, the safety of food additives
should also be examined in cases where more than one item of the same kind of food additive, etc. issimultaneously consumed. This can be done by comparing the sum of estimated daily intake to thegroup ADI, or by any other method.
3. Where considered necessary based on food consumption habits in Japan, the overconsumption ofnutritional elements and effects on electrolyte balance should also be examined along with otherrelevant effects.

There are generally three methods to estimate the daily intake of a food additive: (1) the method bymultiplying the corresponding daily intakes of the individual food products that can contain the food additiveby the corresponding intended use levels of the additive, (2) the market basket method, and (3) the method
based on production statistics survey (production statistics-based). These methods are outlined below.
(1) The method based on the daily intakes of individual food products and the intended use levels of theadditive
The daily intake of the food additive is estimated from the daily intake (I) of food product “f” and theconcentration (C) of food additive “x” by the formula:

In the formula, F is the total number of food products in which the food additive “x” can be contained.

36

Cxf is the concentration of the food additive “x” in the food product “f”. Thus, [estimated daily intake offood additive] = sum of [intake of a food product containing the food additive] × [food additive
concentration in the food product].
In Japan, the daily intake of food products is released at the MHLW website as result of the national
health and nutrition survey.
[REFERENCE]
The Codex estimates the theoretical maximum daily intake (TMDI) whenever a reference value exists
for food additive concentration in food products, and recommends a method of employing the estimateddaily intake (EDI) when the TMDI exceeds the ADI.
The TMDI is calculated by multiplying the average per capita daily food consumption for each foodproduct by the maximum use standard level of the food additive established by respective national
regulations or internationally, and summing up the resulting values. The TMDI does not take into
consideration food consumption by a particular group of population, and therefore should preferably beconsidered a rough index pertaining to food additive intake. The TMDI calculation assumes thefollowing items:a) All food products permitted to contain the food additive are cumulative.
b) Food additives are always present at their maximum permitted amount.
c) Food products containing the food additive are consumed at their daily average value per capita.
d) Food additive content does not decrease according to preparation or processing technology.
e) All food products permitted to contain the food additives are consumed and not disposed of.
The EDI is an estimate of the amount of a food additive ingested daily by the average food consumer,
and derived by a) actual use concentrations of the food additive by industry or b) the nearest possible
value to actual use concentrations whenever the minimum necessary use of food additive is authorizedunder appropriate manufacture and quality control in conformance with Good Manufacturing Practices.
Reference 1: Guidelines for simple evaluation of food additive intake CAC/GL 03-19891
Reference 2: FDA Guidance for Industry: Estimating Dietary Intake of Substances in Food2(2) The market basket method
This method determines dietary intakes of food additives by purchasing food products distributed on themarketplace, measuring amounts of food additives contained therein, and multiplying the obtained values by1www.codexalimentarius.org/input/download/standards/6/cxg_003e.pdf

2 http://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/IngredientsAdditivesGRASPackagi

ng/ucm074725.htm#ftn1

37

the amounts of food ingested. Results of MHLW’s intake surveys by this method are released to the public at
the website.
The method is used in estimating the current intake at the time of the amendment to the use standards, andin estimating an intake at the time of designation request under the assumption that food additives with an
identical purpose are replaced with the subject food additive.
(3) Method based on production statistics survey
The results of production statistics survey compiled by the MHLW (surveys by questionnaire method tofood additive manufacturers and import distributors in Japan to estimate food additive shipments anddistribution) are released to the public.
The method is used in estimating the current intake at the time of the amendment to the use standards, andin estimating an intake at the time of designation request under the assumption that food additives with an
identical purpose are replaced with the subject food additive.

Notes∙ If maximum use concentrations in individual food products are established in the use standards, theestimation should be based on the method by multiplying the daily intake of each product in which thesubject additive is to be used by the amount of the additive used, as a general rule.
∙ If subject food products in which the additive can be used are increased, applicants should estimate not only
the current intake of the additive, but also the increment of the intake with the revised standards.
∙ The assessment guideline by the FSCJ has noted that the daily intake should be estimated assuming that the
body weight is 50 kg. However, based on the FSCJ decision of March 31, 2014 on the change of theaverage body weight used for evaluation of the effects of foods on human health 食品健康影響評価に用いる
平均体重の変更について

the body weight used for estimation of the daily intake

instead of 50 kg.

38

should be 55.1 kg

4.2 Examples of description(Examples of description)(1) The estimation based on the daily intakes of individual food products and the intended use levels of theadditive
Estimated daily intake of sugar and advantame as estimated from intake by food group (total count) from2008 national health and nutrition survey results (partial excerpt)
Food Products

Intake ofEstimated

Addition offood

sucroseadvantameproducts

intake(g)
Bread (excl. sweet fine bakery

(g)

(ppm)

Estimated advantame intake(mg)(mg/kg body wt./day)

30.7

1.842

3.00

0.09

0.00184

Sweet fine bakery products

5.7

1.425

12.50

0.07

0.00143

Sugars, sweeteners

6.7

6.633

49.50

0.34

0.00670

Leafy vegetable pickles

5.1

0.22442.20

0.01

0.00022

Takuan (radish), other pickles

9.5

0.855

4.50

0.04

0.00086

Jams

1.2

0.6

25.00

0.03

0.00060

Fruit juice, fruit drinks

10.0

0.5

2.50

0.03

0.00050

0.3

0.03

5.00

0.00

0.00003

9.8

0.196

1.00

0.01

0.00020

Fish ham, fish sausage

0.6

0.00996

0.83

0.00

0.00001

Ham, sausage

11.0

0.11

0.50

0.01

0.00011

19.9

2.189

5.50

0.11

0.00219

Other dairy products

6.6

0.132

1.00

0.01

0.00013

Japanese confections

12.4

3.1

12.50

0.16

0.00310

Cakes, pastries

6.5

2.275

18.00

0.12

0.00234

Biscuits, cookies

1.7

0.425

12.50

0.02

0.00043

Candies

0.3

0.3

50.00

0.02

0.00030

Other confections

5.8

1.45

12.50

0.07

0.00145

Coffee, cocoa

118.8

3.564

3.10

0.37

0.00737

Other preference drinks

81.2

5.684

9.40

0.76

0.01527

Sauces

1.9

0.19

5.00

0.01

0.00019

Mayonnaise

2.8

0.056

1.00

0.00

0.00006

Other seasonings

61.4

3.07

2.50

0.15

0.00307

products)

Fish, shellfish (preserved)
Fish, shellfish (paste
products)

Fermented milk, lactic acidbacteria beverage

39

Total

409.9

34.86

2.42

0.0484(2) The market basket- and production statistics-based estimations (Calcium saccharate)
Calcium saccharate is used as a sweetener, the same as saccharin and sodium saccharate, which aredesignated additives. The substance is similar in physicochemical properties to the sodium salt. It isconsidered appropriate that the substance is evaluated as a compound categorized in the same group assaccharin and sodium saccharate in terms of safety. Thus, the use standards (draft) are set similarly to for
sodium saccharate as described previously. The maximum use amount is expressed as the sum of therespective amounts of this substance and sodium saccharate for each authorized food product. Consequently,
the daily intake should be estimated based on the intake as saccharin.
Current Saccharin Intake According to MHLW Surveys
Saccharin is a synthetic chemical substance not present in nature. Saccharin intake according to market
basket method presents intake of saccharin and sodium saccharate consumed by people as used in foodproducts. Daily intake per capita ranged from 0.5 to 1 mg between 1982 and 1994. After a high value of 2.88
mg indicated for 1997, the number dropped to 0.65 mg in 2002 and 0.18 mg in 2006, and the overall trend isdownward. This decreasing trend is believed to reflect the market launch in recent years of new sweeteners,
both synthetic and of natural origin, and the advancement of saccharin substitution.
According to the production amount survey of the additive method, the reported daily intake per capita insurvey years 1998 and 2001 was respectively 3.70 mg and 2.68 mg for sodium saccharate and 0.0015 mg and0.0015 mg for saccharin (Ref. X). These values are higher than the aforesaid values by market basket method.
The difference might occurred due to the estimation obtained from the usage of food additive as
well as the other product such as pharmaceuticals based on the production survey of theadditive. The 0.18 mg/day per capita, which is the latest data by the market basket method above, isequivalent to approximately 0.07% of JECFA ADI 5 mg/kg body wt./day (for 50 kg body weight).
* This example used 50 kg for body weight as this was cited from past application. Notes in this section
should be referenced for preparation of documentation.

40

IV. Guidelines for drafting specifications
As specifications, establish items required to assure a certain level of quality concerning safety andeffectiveness of the subject food additive from the following 18 items.
(a)

Name

(b)

English name and alternative English name(c)

Alternative Japanese name(d)

Structural or rational formula(e)Molecular formula or molecular weight(f)

Chemical name(g)

CAS registry number(h)Definition(i)

Assay (Content) or enzyme activity(j)Description(k)Identification(l)Specific properties(m)

Purity(n)Loss on drying, loss on ignition, or water content(o)Residue on ignition, ash, or acid-insoluble ash(p)Microbial limit(q)(Method of assay) or enzyme activity determination(r)

Storage standards

Notes to preparation of draft specifications(a) Name
Establish the common name.
(b) English name and alternative English name
Establish an alternative English name when necessary for labeling.
(c) Alternative Japanese name
Establish an alternative Japanese name when necessary for labeling.
(d) Structural or rational formula
Refer to the Japan’s Specifications and Standards for Food Additives, in the case of organic compounds.
(e) Molecular formula and molecular weight41

Conform to the rules of the Japan’s Specifications and Standards for Food Additives. For mixtures,provide the molecular formulas and molecular weights of the respective components included.
(f) Chemical name
Follow the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC) nomenclature system.
(g) CAS registry numberEnter the CAS registry number.
(h) Definition
Describe the origin, preparation method, essence, inclusions, etc., of the subject product. For achemically synthesized food additive for which the essence cannot be specified by the chemical namealone, describe the raw materials used, an overview of the preparation method, or a composition of thecomponents if necessary. Describe synthetic materials for chemically synthesized polymers.
For a food additive derived from animals or plants, extracts of microorganisms, minerals, or the like, theorigin should be provided.
∙ As a general rule, express the species of the originating organism by the standard Japanese name andscientific name for animals or plants, and the scientific name for microorganisms. Cite the data
(source or database) for foundation of the scientific name. Omit the family. When multiple species ofthe same genus are broadly used, or if the species under the genus is unidentified, denote up to thegenus.
∙ As a rule of plant taxonomy, when the species is indicated, the variety, subspecies, and agricultural
species (cultivated variety) are also included. Unless particularly necessary, variety, subspecies, andagricultural species (cultivated variety) below the species are not denoted.
∙ If two scientific names are used widely as synonyms and the listing of just one could invite
misunderstanding, denote the synonym as well.
∙ If multiple Japanese names exist, select the standard Japanese name or name established within thetaxonomy.
∙ The collective name used generally, though not a species, may be used as necessary for the name offlora or microorganisms.
Examples: grapes, beets, canola, Gram-positive bacteria, actinomycete, filamentous fungus, yeast∙ If an appropriate Japanese name does not exist, make a decision for the individual case. For example,
flora collected overseas and neither growing naturally nor cultivated in Japan has no establishedJapanese name in the taxonomy.
(i) Assay (Content) or enzyme activity
Establish the content (assay) as the value necessary for assuring a consistent quality comparable in42

safety and effectiveness, based on manufacturing processes, quantitative error, stability, and the like.
The content (assay) as a food additive is presented as a percentage of the effective ingredient(s). If two
or more effective ingredients exist, they are denoted respectively.
Enzyme activity determination is listed for enzymes. Use the units established in the draft specifications
whenever the quantity of main ingredients are represented under a certain biological action (titer).
(j) Description
As the items necessary for identification and handling at the time of use, ordinarily describe odor, color,and form. For substances with special forms, denote information pertaining to grain size, grain size
distribution, and format.
(k) Identification
Identification tests are required to identify whether the substance is the target food additive, based on its
characteristics.
If the food additive can be identified from items other than identification tests, these items can be
included in consideration. For example, selecting chromatography with high specificity for the assay canallow simplification of identification tests. Duplicate tests do not need to be set forth.
Ordinarily, conceivable methods for identification are based on spectral analysis or chemical reaction.
For any chemical reaction, establish one that can appropriately identify the characteristics of the chemical
structure.
(l) Specific properties
Specific properties are expressed as analytical values measured according to physicochemical methods,
such as absorbance (specific absorbance), congealing point, refraction index, rotation (specific rotation),
viscosity (dynamic viscosity), pH, specific gravity, boiling point, melting point, acid value, saponification
number, ester value, hydroxyl value, iodine value, etc. Provide the items necessary to secure quality.
(m) Purity
Purity tests are required to determine levels of impurities in the food additive, and specify the purity of
the food additive as well as assay. Among substances that may be contained in the food additive (rawmaterials, intermediates, by-products, decomposition products, reagents and catalysts, heavy metals andinorganic salts, and solvents), target the necessary ones.
Whenever methods are established under General Tests of the Japan’s Specifications and Standards for
Food Additives, use the testing methods as a general rule.
For newly developed testing methods or a modification of any standard testing methods, explain thereasons for inapplicability of the general testing methods provided in the Japan’s Specifications andStandards for Food Additives, and describe the testing methods applied in detail and provide verification43

data of the methods.
Specifications for lead and arsenic are established as a general rule. If not established, describe thegrounds in the Section, “Grounds for establishing the draft specifications.” Establish specifications forrespective harmful elements as necessary, such as cadmium and mercury.
(n) Loss on drying, loss on ignition, or water content
A test for loss on drying is usually required to measure substances that are present in the food additiveand can be lost by drying. The substances include free water, all or part of the crystalline water, andvolatile substances. A test for loss on ignition is usually required on an inorganic substance that can losea part of its components or admixed substances by igniting. Water determination is usually required todetermine the water content in the food additive.
(o) Residue on ignition, ash, or acid-insoluble ash
Residue on ignition refers to the residual substance obtained when the food additive is ignited in thepresence of a small quantity of sulfuric acid. Ordinarily, the test is conducted to learn the amount of
inorganic matter contained as impurities in organic matter. In some cases, the test is conducted to measure
the amount of constituent inorganic matter in organic matter or the amount of impurities contained ininorganic matter that volatilize when heated.
Ash is the residual substance obtained when the food additive is ignited. Acid-insoluble ash is theresidual substance obtained when ash is boiled with diluted hydrochloric acid (1 in 4) and then the
resulting insoluble matter is ignited. The testing is established for additives originating from animals,
plants, or microorganisms, as necessary, to learn the amount of inorganic matter contained as impurities inorganic matter.
(p) Microbial limit
Establishes limits of bacteria, fungi (mold and yeast), Salmonella, Escherichia coli, etc. with proliferation
ability present in the food additives. Microbial limit tests shall be conducted according to the methods
given under General Tests of the Japan’s Specifications and Standards for Food Additives.
(q) Method of assay or enzyme activity determination
An (Method of assay) refers to an analysis to determine the amount of an effective ingredient according
to physical, chemical, or biological methods.
Establish a testing method with emphasis placed on accuracy, reproducibility, and specificity. If the limitof admixed material is controlled by an appropriate purity test, a method able to measure absolute amounts
with good reproducibility can be established, even if the method presents low specificity. In such a case,
employ a purity test method with high specificity to complement the lack of specificity for the assay
method. If there are 2 or more components subject to the assay, denote them in the sequence of importance.

44

For a relative test method like chromatography, establish specifications for the standard substance used in
the assay.
Enzyme activity determination measures specific activity of enzymes. Establish a test method withemphasis on substrate specificity. Use the units specified in the corresponding monographs, whenever the
enzyme activity is represented by titer.
For establishing new testing methods or applying modified standard testing methods for assay or
enzyme activity determination, describe the testing methods in detail and provide verification data of thetesting.
(r) Storage standards
Set this item for cases that require particular mention about stability.

45

V. Examples of findings regarding effectiveness
Example 1. Polysorbate (excerpt from the Report of the Committee on Food Additives Concerning Food
Additive Designation) (Japan)(1) Characteristics as an EmulsifierEmulsifiers are substances that have a hydrophilic group and lipophilic group in each molecule. Arrayed
between water and oil or between water and air, they facilitate emulsification and stabilize mixtures. There
are two types of emulsifiers: the O/W type with oil droplets in water and the W/O type with water dropletsin oil. As O/W emulsifiers, polysorbates are strongly hydrophilic and have an HLB*1, the index of thebalance between hydrophilic and lipophilic groups, ranging from 10 to 17. Many conventional emulsifiers
have a low or medium HLB with high lipophilicity. Sucrose fatty acid esters and glycerin fatty acid esters
can be used to prepare emulsifiers with a wide HLB range by respectively varying their degree of
esterification or glycerin polymerization, and the type of fatty acid. Nonetheless, it is thought to be difficult
to obtain an HLB as high as a polysorbate. HLBs for polysorbates and other emulsifiers are compiled in thefollowing table. (Ref. X)
Name

HLB

Polysorbates

10 -17a)Fatty acid monoglyceride

3-4Sucrose fatty acid esters

3 - 15

Sorbian fatty acid ester

2-8

propylene glycol fatty acid ester

3-4

Vegetable lecithina)-Polysorbate 20: 16.7; Polysorbate 60: 14.9;

Polysorbate 65: 10.5; Polysorbate 80: 15.0
(2) Emulsifying Power Test for O/W Systems
For a blend of 50 g soy oil and 450 g tap water with no emulsifier as control segment, test segments wereprepared by adding 5 g each of the emulsifiers provided in the table, such as polysorbate 60 or glycerin fatty
acid ester, to either soy oil or tap water. Soy oil, water, and emulsifier (test segment) were then emulsified
with a TK Homo Mixer at 60˚C, 10,000 rpm for 5 minutes. The emulsion was transferred to an emulsion
test tube and left to stand at room temperature. The amount of separation to the oil layer was measured overtime. The test segment employing polysorbate 60 did not result in observation of any oil flotation after 24hours; however, glycerin fatty acid ester and lecithin caused gelation and uneven emulsification, while*1

HLB (Hydrophilic-Lipophilic Balance): The Value shows the degree of affinity to oil and water and takes 0 to 20. Lipophilic
property becomes higher as it approaches 0 and hydrophilic property becomes higher as it approaches 20.

46

sorbitan fatty acid ester and propylene glycol fatty acid ester resulted in 100% oil flotation after 24 hours.
Oil droplets were present after 24 hours for sucrose fatty acid ester, demonstrating insufficient emulsifying
power. (Ref. X)
Emulsifier

The amount of separation to the oil layer
0.5h

None
Polysorbate 60
Glycerin fatty acid ester

1h

2h

Addition method

HLB

-

-

24h

100%

100%

100%

100%

0%

0%

0%

0%

Add to soy oil

14.9

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Add to soy oil

3.8

a)

Add to water

11

Sucrose fatty acid esters

0%

0%

0%

0%

Sorbian fatty acid ester

100%

100%

100%

100%

Add to soy oil

4.7

10%

40%

60%

100%

Add to soy oil

3.4

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Gelatinization

Add to soy oil

propylene glycol fatty acidester
Lecithin

a)

47

-

Oil droplets on its surface

Example 2. Calcium Silicate (excerpt from the Report of the Committee on Food Additives Concerning Food
Additive Designation) (Japan)(1) Fundamental Properties
a. Formability
A mixture (400 mg) of aspirin granules with enteric coating, excipient, and disintegrator at a weight ratio of
1:2:1 was made into a tablet (tableting pressure 100 MPa) to measure the tableting pressure necessary for
obtaining a tablet with a hardness of approximately 5 kgf. Consequently, the use of calcium silicate asexcipient was found to afford the lowest tableting pressure and to exhibit favorable formability. (Ref. X)
Excipient

Hardness（kgf）

Tabletingpressure（MPa）

Calcium silicate

5.9±0.17

6.8±0.07

Synthetic hydrotalcite

6.0±0.28

46.9±0.06

Crystalline cellulose

5.2±0.2149.9±0.05

Magnesium aluminometasilicate

5.4±0.1456.2±0.12

Dried aluminum hydroxide gel

5.5±0.32

74.7±0.23

Cornstarch

5.0±0.58

100.5±0.05

Table 1. The tableting pressure necessary for obtaining a tablet with a hardness of approximately 5 kgf.
b. Liquid absorption
Dibutyl phthalate was used as oily substance in the measurement of liquid volume absorbed by calcium
silicate and other excipients (three kinds of silicate, crystalline cellulose, cornstarch, and calcium
monohydrogen phosphate) according to the method provided by JIS K-6220, 26 (1977). The liquid
absorption volume of calcium silicate was approximately 7 times its own weight and exhibited liquid
retention capacity of approximately 4 to 14 times more than the other excipients, except for light anhydrous
silicic acid. (Ref. X)

48

Calcium silicate
Light anhydrous silicic acid
Magnesium aluminometasilicate
Synthetic aluminium silicate
Crystalline cellulose
Calcium hydrogen phosphate
Cornstarch
Lactose
0

200

400

600

800

Liquid retention capacities (ml/100g)
Figure 1. Liquid retention capacities of calcium silicate and the other excipients(2) Use in Food Products
In the United States, the product is employed as an anti-caking agent in powdered drinks such as iced tea,creamed soup, and cocoa, flavorings such as pork spice, cinnamon, and pork gravy, and sweeteners such as
cane sugar and aspartame (Ref. X). In Japan, its properties of oil absorption and formability lend the productto use as an excipient for formulations of vitamin E (which is fat-soluble) as powders, granules, or tablets inthe field of pharmaceuticals (Ref. X).

49

Example 3. Neotame (excerpt from the Report of the Committee on Food Additives Concerning Food
Additive Designation) (Japan)(1) Sweetness
The sweetness of neotame was assessed by sugar-equivalent sweetness (Reference 1). Aqueous neotame
solutions with various concentrations (2, 4, 9, 20, 40 ppm) were prepared. Sweetness was assessed according
to organoleptic testing, and represented by sugar solution concentrations (sugar-equivalent sweetness: %SE)
offering comparable sweetness.
The results are shown in Figure 1 as a sugar-equivalent sweetness curve plotted against neotame
concentration. According to the fitted curve, the concentration of neotame that provided the same sweetness
as 8% sugar (8% SE) was 10.3 ppm.
Comparison of the sweetness between neotame and sugar (Table 1) revealed that the sweetness of neotame

Sweetness (%SE)

was approximately 7,000 to 13,000 times greater than that of sugar.

Neotame concentration (ppm)

Figure 1. The sugar-equivalent sweetness curve of neotame●：Measured values ――：A fitted curve ---：95% confidence limits
The fitted curve:
Sweetness (%SE) =Rmax
1/K×1/C＋1=

15.1
9.18×1/C＋1

Rmax : maximum sweetness (%SE), 1/K : The concentration provided the degree of
one half of the maximum sweetness (ppm), C : Concentration (ppm)50

Table 1. Comparison of the sweetness between neotame and sugar
Sweetness magnification

Sweetness (%SE)(Sugar / Neotame)

3

13181

4

12092

5

11002

6

9913

7

8824

8

7734

9

6645

(2) Stability
A long-term storage testing (25˚C, 60% RH, 260 weeks) found that neotame was almost stable in the full test
period of 260 weeks in terms of items/parameters, including properties and content (Reference 2).
The stability of neotame in solution is affected by pH and temperature. Neotame is relatively stable between
the pH range of 3 to 5.5, but becomes more susceptible to hydrolysis at pH3 and below and at 5.5 and above,
and as the temperature rises (Reference 6). The half-life of neotame at pH 4.5 was about 30 weeks at 25˚C, about
45 days at 40˚C, and about 40 hours at 80˚C. At pH 7, the half-life was about 2 weeks at 25˚C, about 3 days at
40˚C, and about 4 hours at 80˚C.
1000

Half-life (days)

100
10
1
25 C
40 C
80 C

0.1
0.01
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

pH
Figure 2. The effects of pH and temperature on the stability of neotame

51

The report regarding neotame stability compared to aspartame and regarding stability in food products was asfollows.
Stability Comparison to AspartameThe comparison of half-life between neotame and aspartame at pH 3.2 and pH 7 is shown below. Under thedescribed conditions, the half-life of neotame was longer. Neotame can be considered as or more stable than
aspartame.
(a) pH 3.2
1000

Neotame
AspartameHalf-life (days)

100
10
1
0.1
0.01

0

20

40
60
Temperature ( C)5280

(b) pH 7
1000

Neotame
AspartameHalf-life (days)

100
10
1
0.1
0.01

0

20

40

60

80

Temperature ( C)

Figure 3. The comparison of half-life between neotame and aspartamea. Thermal stability
Neotame (25 ppm) and aspartame (500 ppm) were respectively added to milk (1% fat, pH 6.5). After therespective mixtures were homogenized, they were subjected to UHT*1 processing for 8 seconds at 142˚C. The
sweetener content both before and after UHT processing was analyzed to study the impact of UHT processing of
milk on neotame stability. The residual ratios of neotame and aspartame after UHT processing were 91.0% and69.0%, respectively (Reference 3).

The stability of neotame (25 ppm) and aspartame (525 ppm) after HTST*2 processing for 40 seconds at
85 C was also compared during yogurt manufacture operation. The residual ratios of neotame and aspartameafter HTST processing were 98.7% and 89.5%, respectively (Reference 4).

The heat resistance of neotame (35 ppm) and aspartame (about 2,700 ppm) was also compared during abaking process of yellow cake. The residual ratios of neotame and aspartame were 85.1% and 59.3%,
respectively (Reference 5).
*1

U H T: U l t r a - h i g h t e mp e r a t u r e p a s t e u r i z a t i o n ( M i n i s t e r i a l o r d i n a n c e o n M i l k a n d M i l k p r o d u c t s
C o n c e r n i n g C o mp o s i t i o n a l S t a n d a r d s , e t c . s e t s t h i s m e t h o d o f p a s t e u r i z i n g mo r e t h a n o n e s e c o n d a n d l e s sthan three seconds between 120 C and 150 C using continuous ultrahigh-temperature sterilizer with
automatic control device.)*2

H TS T : H i gh - t e m p e r a t u r e s h o r t - t i m e p a s t e u r i z a t i o n ( M i n i s t e r i a l o r d i n a n c e o n M i l k a n d M i l k p r o d u c t s
C o n c e r n i n g C o mp o s i t i o n a l S t a n d a r d s , e t c . s e t s t h i s m e t h o d o f p a s t e u r i z i n g 1 5 s e c o n d s o r m o r e a t 7 2 C o r
m o r e u s i n g c o n t i n u o u s u l t r a h i gh - t e m p e r a t u r e a n d s h o r t - t i m e s t e r i l i z e r w i t h a u t o m a t i c c o n t r o l d e vi c e . )53

b. Resistance property for fermentation
The stability of neotame and aspartame was compared during a fermentation process of yogurt (for 6hours at 40 C). The residual ratios of neotame and aspartame during the fermentation process were 87.9% and56.0%, respectively (Reference 4).

c. Preservation stability
After refrigerating 8 weeks of yogurt, the stability of neotame and aspartame was favorable without
decrease (Reference 3).
After 5 days storage of yellowcake at 25 C and 60% RH, the residual ratios of neotame and aspartame were
94.6% and 83.9%, respectively (Reference 5).

Producti
on /storage

Food

UHT
processing

Milkc)(1%fat)HTST
processing

Yogurtd)(milk)

bakingYellow
cakee)

fermentat
ion

Yogurtc)

storage

Yellow
cakee)

storaged)a)

YogurtsweetenerpH

temp
Relative
eratur humidityeConcentration
at early phasetime

Concentration
after
processing

ppm

%SEa)

ppm

%SEa)

25.0
500.0
24.0
519.0
35.1
2624.
7
23.7
464.5
29.9
1556.
1

11.0
7.7
10.9
7.8
12.0

22.8
345.0
23.7
464.5
29.9
1556.
1
20.8
260.3
28.3
1306.
0

10.8
6.1
10.9
7.3
11.5

Neotame
Aspartame
Neotame
Aspartame
Neotame

6.5
6.5
6.5
6.5
-

142 C
142 C
85 C
85 C
177 C

-

8 seconds
8 seconds
40 seconds
40 seconds
30 minutes

Aspartame

-

177 C

-

30 minutes

Neotame
Aspartame
Neotame

-

40 C
40 C
25 C

60%

6 hours
6 hours
5 daysAspartame

-

25 C

60%

5 daysNeotame

4.4

5C

-

8 weeks

20.8

10.5

20.8

10.5

Aspartame

4.4

5C

-

8 weeks

260.3

5.1

254.0

5.0

13.8
10.9
7.3
11.5
12.2

12.2
10.5
5.1
11.4
11.6

Resid
ue
ratio
of
sweet
nessb)
(%)

97.4
80.2
99.6
94.0
96.5
88.5
96.3
69.2
98.7
94.9
100.
0
98.3

The values were calculated using the concentration of neotame or aspartame (A ppm) and the following formula (sugar-equivalent
sweetness curve (Reference 2)).
Sugar-equivalent sweetness of neotame (%SE)=

Sugar-equivalent sweetness of aspartame (%SE)=

15.1
9.18 x 1/A+1
17.1
610 x 1/A+1b)

Residual ratio of sweetness (%) = the sweetness after processing (%SE) / the sweetness at early phase (%SE) x 100

c)

Reference 5d)Reference 6e)Reference 7

Above results actually applied to foods indicates that neotame can be considered as or more stable than54

aspartame, analogical sweetener.
The stability and chronological change of sweetness in carbonated drink
A Coca-Cola type carbonated drink containing 17 ppm of neotame (approximately pH3.2) was
prepared and stored 26 weeks at 25±2 C. The change of neotame content during preservation period wasmeasured. The chronological change of sweetness was also evaluated using organoleptic test (Reference 7).
The residual concentration after 8weeks was 12.2 ppm (72% of early phase), and 5.9 ppm (35%) after 26
weeks. The sweetness was maintained through 22 weeks (the final residual concentration of neotame was
41% of early phase).
Resolvents from a carbonated drink (200 ppm) after preservation for 8 weeks at 20 C wereN-[N-(3,3-dimethylbutyl)-L-α-aspartyl]-L-phenylalanine(NC-00751),
aspartyl]-L-

phenylalanine

1-methylester(NC-00764),

N-[N-(3,3-dimethylbutyl)-L-β-N-[N-(3,3-dimethylbutyl)-L-aspartimide]-L-

phenylalanine 1-methyl ester (NC-00777） and N-[N-(3,3-dimethylbutyl)-L- aspartimide]-L- phenylalanine（NC-00779）.
The stability and chronological change of sweetness in black tea
Black tea containing 8 ppm of neotame (approximately pH3.2) was prepared and stored 26 weeks at
25±2 C. The change of neotame content during preservation period was measured. The chronological changeof sweetness was also evaluated using organoleptic test (Reference 8).
The residual concentration after 8weeks was 6.14 ppm (77% of early phase), and 4.09 ppm (52%) after 26
weeks. The half-life period was estimated to be week 31. At sweetness judgment after 26 weeks storage, 71%
of inspectors judged the sweetness was weak or not enough. The sweetness was maintained until
approximately week 25.
The stability and chronological change of sweetness in chewing gum
A chewing gum containing 250 ppm of neotame was prepared and stored 26 weeks at 25±2 C and 60±5%
RH. The change of neotame content in week 0, 4, 8, 16 and 26, respectively, was measured. The
chronological change of sweetness was also evaluated using organoleptic test (Reference 9). (Table 2)
The residual ratio after 26 weeks was 43% of early phase. The half-life period of neotame in chewing gum
was estimated to be week 21.3. At organoleptic test after 26 weeks storage, 80% of inspectors judged thechewing gum has enough sweetness.

55

Table 2 Chronological change of amount of neotame in chewing gum (0 ~ 26 weeks storage)
Neotame (ppm)

0 week

4 weeks

8 weeks

a)

b)

b)

242.7

16 weeksb)

26 weeks

222.2

192.0

149.9

103.5b)

92

79

62

43

14.5

14.4

14.2

13.9

Residual ratio of
neotame (%)

100

Sweetness
equivalence to sugar(% SE)a)

14.5

Average of repeated 18 times storageb)

Average of repeated 6 times storage

With above results, it is reported that neotame retains its sweetness for certain period although influenced
from pH and temperature and resolves over time.

56

Example 4. Sodium carboxymethylcellulose (CMC) (excerpt from safety evaluation)(Australia and New Zealand)
3.1 Technological justification
3.1.1 Use of the additive in wine and sparkling wine
The Application requests an extension of use of CMC to enable it to be used in wine and sparkling wine
production as an additional tool for preventing clouding and sediment formation resulting from the precipitationof tartrate crystals during storage. Tartrate occurs naturally in wine and is mainly in the potassium form however
calcium tartrate can also be present. As a result of change in storage temperature during transport tartrate cancrystallize in wine resulting in cloudy wine with sediment which is undesirable to many consumers. Current
methods used in Australia to control tartrate crystallization in wine can be divided into two categories: 1)
encouraging and accelerating crystal growth followed by removing the crystals by filtering 2) inhibiting crystal
precipitation.
The Application explains that the additive works by inhibiting crystal growth in wine. The additive acts as aprotective colloid which prevents tartrate crystals seeding and subsequently precipitating. CMC is added to thewine towards the end of the production process unlike other existing tartrate crystal control methods chilling or
filtration steps are not required.
Information provided by the applicant states that in contrast to metatartaric acid the effectiveness of thisadditive is temperature insensitive and thus crystal stability is obtained even with temperature fluctuations, such as
those which occur during storage and transport. However other currently available methods for tartrate crystal
control need to be retained as under certain circumstances e.g. for high quality wine, wine which is strongly
saturated with tartrate or wines with high levels of calcium tartrate the existing methods may be more suitable.
A maximum use level of 100 mg/L is proposed in the application. Information provided with the application,
namely results of tests to investigate the degree of tartrate crystal precipitation overtime is deemed sufficient by
FSANZ to demonstrate that the use of CMC at this proposed level is effective.

3.1.2 Evidence of the effectiveness of the additive in wine
The Applicant stated that the additive has been trialled by several major companies, including in Australia, andhas provided information to show increased stability of wines treated with CMC compared with untreated or
metatartic acid treated wine.
Storage of additive treated wine at 170C for 10 months followed by storage at -40C for 8 days did not result invisual evidence of crystal precipitation. This test is an OIV accepted method to test the stability of tartrate crystals.
In addition storage of additive treated wine at 170C for 10 months followed by checking the difference in
conductivity by means of the minicontact process, showed the additive treated wine had a low difference in57

conductivity compared with untreated (Control) or metatartaric acid treated wine. The Applicant provided a paper
which stated that low difference in conductivity means high stability with respect to tartrate. This information wasprovided by the Applicant to demonstrate stability of the wine treated with additive over time.

3.1.3 Cost and environmental advantages
As indicated in Section 3.1.1 above use of CMC for tartrate crystal control does not involve chilling or filtration
step, both of which are energy dependent. The Applicant explains that the absence of these steps in wine
production utilising CMC results in a more cost effective process with environmental advantages over otherexisting methods of control.

VI. A list of URLs
Institute
MHLW

Type of information

URL
http://www.ffcr.or.jp/zaidan/FFCRHOME.n

Uses and use standards

sf/pages/stanrd.use

Daily intake of food products (result

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/bunya/kenkou/kenkou_

of the national health and nutrition

eiyou_chousa.html

survey)FSCJ

Survey of daily intake of food

http://www.mhlw.go.jp/seisakunitsuite/bunya/k

additives (the market basket method)

enkou_iryou/shokuhin/syokuten/sesshu/

Evaluation results

https://www.fsc.go.jp/english/evaluationreports/additives_e3.html

Codex

INS number and uses (technological

http://www.codexalimentarius.org/download/st

purposes) (Class names and theandards/13341/CXG_036e_2014.pdf

International Numbering System forfood additives (CAC/GL 36-1989))

JECFA

INS number and use standards

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/d(GSFA (CODEX STAN 192-1995))

ocs/CXS_192e.pdf

INS number, uses and use standards

http://www.codexalimentarius.net/gsfaonline/i(GSFA online)

ndex.html?lang=en

Evaluation results (TRS and FAS）

http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/jecfa-reports/en/ (TRS)
http://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/monographs/en/ (FAS)

Specifications

http://www.fao.org/food/food-safety-quality/sc
ientific-advice/jecfa/jecfa-additives/en/

58

EU

Authorization status and use

https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/sanco_foods/mainstandards (Food Additives Database)/?event=substances.search&substances.paginat
ion=1

Evaluation results (Scientifichttp://www.efsa.europa.eu/

Opinion (Evaluation of EFSA))
Evaluation results (Opinion

http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_en.ht(Evaluation of SCF))

ml

Specifications

http://ec.europa.eu/food/food/fAEF/additives/s
pecifications_en.htm

The United

Authorization status and use

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfd

Statesstandards (21 CFR)

ocs/cfcfr/cfrsearch.cfm

Authorization status and use

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fcn/fcnN

standards (GRAS Notice Inventory)

avigation.cfm?rpt=grasListing

Evaluation results (SCOGS list)

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/?set=SCOGS

Evaluation results (NTIS website)

http://www.ntis.gov/

Freedom of Information request to

http://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/foi/

FDA

default.htm

Specifications (FCC) (*pay services)

http://www.usp.org/store/products-services/foo
d-chemicals-codex-fcc

Australia andAuthorization status and use

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/Pages/d

New Zealandstandards (Food Standards Code)efault.aspx

Evaluation results (Approval Report)

http://www.foodstandards.gov.au/code/applicat
ions/Pages/default.aspx

IPCS

Evaluation results (INCHEM)

http://www.inchem.org/

59

(Appendix 1)
Designation
Date
Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare
Address of applicant (For a corporation, principal place of business)
Name of applicant (For a corporation, its name and the representative’s name) Seal

I/We hereby apply for the designation of the substance given below, based on Article 10 of the Food
Sanitation Act, as a food additive unlikely to cause damage to human health.

Name of the substance(Notes)
1. Use JIS A4-size paper.
2. Use black ink, and type in clear block letters in English or Japanese.
3. Give the contact information in Japan, if the applicant lives overseas. Seal may be replaced by theapplicant’s signature.

60

(Appendix 2)

Revision of standards
Date
Minister of Health, Labour and Welfare
Address of applicant (For a corporation, principal place of business)
Name (For a corporation, its name and the representative’s) Seal

I/We hereby apply for partial revision of the specifications/standards for food additives, as given
below, based on Article 11 Paragraph 1 of the Food Sanitation Act.

Name of the food additive
Draft revision of specifications/standards(Notes)
1. Use JIS A4-size paper
2. Use black ink, and type in clear block letters in English or Japanese
3. Give the contact information in Japan, if the applicant lives overseas. Seal may be replaced by theapplicant’s signature.

61

(Appendix 3)

Date

The Overview Documentation should be in Japanese.

The Overview Documentation of XXX (the name of a food additive)

Corporate name62

Table of contents
SectionPage

I. Overview of the food additive
1. Name and uses
2. Origin or details of development
3. Use status in other countries
4. Assessments by national and international organizations
5. Physicochemical properties(1) Structural formula(2) Manufacturing method(3) Specifications(4) Stability of the food additive(5) Analytical methods of the food additive in food products
6. Draft of use standards
7. OtherII. Findings regarding effectiveness(1) Effectiveness as food additives and comparison with other similar food additives(2) Stability in food products(3) Effects on nutritional component in food products
III. Findings regarding safety
1. Disposition studies
2. Toxicological studies(1) Subchronic toxicity studies and chronic toxicity studies(2) Carcinogenicity studies(3) Toxicity/carcinogenicity combination studies with one-year repeated-dose
administration(4) Reproductive toxicity studies(5) Prenatal developmental toxicity studies(6) Genotoxicity studies(7) Allergenic potential studies(8) General pharmacological studies(9) Other studies
3. Findings in humans
4. Estimation of daily intake
IV. References63

I. Overview of the food additive
1. Name and uses
(1) Name(2) CAS registry number.
(3) Uses
2. Origin or details of development
3. Use status in other countries
4. Assessments by national and international organizations
5. Physicochemical properties(1) Structural formula(i) Structural or rational formula(ii) Molecular formula or molecular weight(2) Manufacturing method(3) Specifications(i) Draft specifications
Items

Specifications(a) Japanese Name(b) English Name
Alternative(c)

English Names
Alternative
Japanese Name(d) Structural Formula(e) Molecular or
Compositional
FormulaMolecular or Formula
64

Ref.
Spec.

Weight(f) Chemical Name(g) CAS Registry
Number.
(h) Definition(i) Assay(Content) or
Enzyme Activity(j) Description(k) Identification

(1)
(2)

(l) (Specific Properties)(m) Purity

(1)
(2)

(n) Loss on Drying,
Loss on Ignition or
Water Content(o) Residue on Ignition,
Ash, orAcid-insoluble Ash(p) Microbial Limit(q) Method of Assay or
Enzyme Activity
Determination(r) Storage Standards
Reference specifications
1：
2：
3：
4：
(ii) Comparison table of draft and existing specifications(iii) Grounds for establishing the draft specifications.
(iv) Verification data of test methods and test results.
(4) Stability of the food additive65

(5) Analytical methods of the food additive in food products
6. Draft of use standards(1) Draft of use standards(2) Grounds for establishing the draft of use standards
7. OtherII. Findings regarding effectiveness(1) Efficacy as food additives and comparison with other similar food additives(2) Stability in food products(3) Effects on nutritional component in food products
III. Findings regarding safety
1. Disposition studies
2. Toxicological studies(1) Subchronic toxicity studies and chronic toxicity studies(2) Carcinogenicity studies(3) Toxicity/carcinogenicity combination studies with one-year repeated-dose administration(4) Reproductive toxicity studies(5) Prenatal developmental toxicity studies(6) Genotoxicity studies
Index

Type of
test

Target of test

Test substance

Geneticmutations
Chromosomal
aberration(7) Allergenic potential studies

66

DosageSummary of thetest result

Ref No.

(8) General pharmacological studies(9) Other studies
3. Findings in humans
4. Estimation of daily intake
IV. References

67

(Appendix 4)
Checklist
1. Type of application□

Designation□

Revision of use standards□

Revision of specifications□

Other ()

2. Applicant information
Name (corporate name,)
Address
Contact

Affiliation

personName

Telephone No.
FAX No.
E-mail
3. Food additive information
Name of the foodadditive
Intended uses
CODEX standards (GSFA, etc.)□ Presence□ Absence□ Presence□ Absence

Available evaluation by FSCJ (including evaluations other than □ Presence□ Absence(Place a checkmark in “Yes” for the additive listed in table 3 ofGSFA)
Evaluation by international organizations (JECFA, etc.)
as a food additive)
Is the additive broken down in the food or in the digestive tract □ Yes□ No

to common food components by?
4. Information on submission materials(1) Overview of the food additive subject to evaluation
Use status in foreign countries□ Presence□ Absence

Assessments by international and national organizations□ Presence□ Absence

Manufacturing methods□ Presence□ Absence

Draft specifications (including grounds for the establishment)□ Presence□ Absence68

Stability of the food additive□ Presence□ Absence

Analytical methods of the food additive in food products□ Presence□ Absence

Draft use standards (including grounds for the establishment)□ Presence□ Absence

Effectiveness as food additive and comparison with other □ Presence□ Absence(2) Findings regarding effectivenesssimilar food additives
Stability in food products□ Presence□ Absence

Effects on nutritional components in food products□ Presence□ Absence

Data on disposition studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on subchronic and chronic toxicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on carcinogenicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on combined one-year toxicity/carcinogenicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on reproductive toxicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on prenatal developmental toxicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on genotoxicity studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on allergenic potential studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on general pharmacological studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on other studies□ Presence□ Absence

Data on findings in humans□ Presence□ Absence

Presence or absence of new findings obtained after the □ Presence□ Absence(3) Findings regarding safety

publication of FSCJ evaluation results(Place a checkmark only when FSCJ evaluation results areavailable)
Estimation of daily intake□ Presence

69□ Absence