Skip to main content
NCBI home page
EFSA Journal logoLink to EFSA Journal
. 2015 Mar 31;13(3):4053. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4053

Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (chemical group 31) when used as flavourings for all animal species

EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP)
PMCID: PMC11883103  PMID: 40061604

Abstract

Chemical group 31 consists of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, of which 17 are currently authorised for use as flavours in food. This opinion concerns nine compounds from this group. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) is unable to perform an assessment of 1,4(8),12‐bisabolatriene [01.016] due to the lack of data on its purity. The Panel concludes that d‐limonene [01.045] is safe for all animal species, except for male rats, at the proposed maximum dose level (25 mg/kg feed). 1‐Isopropyl‐4‐methylbenzene [01.002] is safe for all target species, except cats, at the proposed maximum dose level (25 mg/kg feed), with a margin of safety ranging from 1‐fold (no margin of safety) to 3.2‐fold. For cats the calculated maximum safe concentration is 14 mg/kg complete feed. For the compounds belonging to Cramer Class I, terpinolene [01.005], alpha‐phellandrene [01.006], 1‐isopropenyl‐4‐methylbenzene [01.010], alpha‐terpinene [01.019], gamma‐terpinene [01.020] and l‐limonene [01.046], the calculated safe use level is 1.5 mg/kg complete feed for cattle, salmonids and non‐food‐producing animals and 1 mg/kg complete feed for pigs and poultry. The absence of a margin of safety would not allow the simultaneous administration in feed and water for drinking of these substances. Overall, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the use of these additives in water for drinking. No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of these compounds up to the highest safe levels in feeds. All compounds should be considered irritant to skin, eyes and respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. No risk for the safety for the environment is foreseen. Since all of the compounds under assessment are used in food as flavourings, and their function in feed is essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

Keywords: sensory additives, aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons, chemical group 31

EFSA FEEDAP Panel (EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed) , 2015. Scientific Opinion on the safety and efficacy of aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons (chemical group 31) when used as flavourings for all animal species. EFSA Journal 2015;13(3):4053, 22 pp. doi: 10.2903/j.efsa.2015.4053

Panel members: Gabriele Aquilina, Vasileios Bampidis, Maria De Lourdes Bastos, Lucio Guido Costa, Gerhard Flachowsky, Mikolaj Antoni Gralak, Christer Hogstrand, Lubomir Leng, Secundino López‐Puente, Giovanna Martelli, Baltasar Mayo, Fernando Ramos, Derek Renshaw, Guido Rychen, Maria Saarela, Kristen Sejrsen, Patrick Van Beelen, Robert John Wallace and Johannes Westendorf.

Correspondence: FEEDAP@efsa.europa.eu

Acknowledgement: The Panel wishes to thank the members of the Working Group on Feed Flavourings, including Paul Brantom, Andrew Chesson and Anne‐Katrine Lundebye, for the preparatory work on this scientific opinion.

Adoption date: 10 March 2015

Published date: 31 March 2015

Question number: EFSA‐Q‐2010‐00816

On request from: European Commission

References

  1. Abilleira E, Virto M, Nájera AI, Albisu M, Pérez‐Elortond FJ, Ruiz de Gordoa JC, de Renobales M and Barron LJ, 2011. Effects of seasonal changes in feeding management under part‐time grazing on terpene concentrations of ewes' milk. Journal of Dairy Research, 78, 129–135. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Bampidis VA and Robinson PH, 2006. Citrus by‐products as ruminant feeds: a review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 128, 175–217. [Google Scholar]
  3. Blevins S, Siegel PB, Blodgett DJ, Ehrich M and Lewis RM, 2012. Liver enzymes in White Leghorns selected for the sheep red blood cell immune response. Poultry Science, 91, 322–326. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Brambillasca S, Britos A, Deluca C, Fraga M and Cajarville C, 2013. Addition of citrus pulp and apple pomace in diets for dogs: influence on fermentation kinetics, digestion, faecal characteristics and bacterial populations. Archives of Animal Nutrition, 67, 492–502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Cifuni GF, Claps S, Fedele V, Rubino R and Sepe L, 2005. Volatile compounds in herbage intake by goats in two different grazing seasons. Options Méditerranéennes: Série A. Séminaires Méditerranéens, 67, 261–267. [Google Scholar]
  6. Court MH and Greenblatt DJ, 1997. Molecular basis for deficient acetaminophen glucuronidation in cats. Biochemical Pharmacology, 53, 1041–1047. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Crosswhite JD, Myers NB, Adesogan AT, Brendemuhl JH, Johnson DD and Carr CC, 2013. The effect of dietary citrus pulp on the growth, feed efficiency, carcass merit, and lean quality of finishing pigs. Professional Animal Scientist, 29, 345–358. [Google Scholar]
  8. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) , 2010. Flavouring Group Evaluation 25, Revision 1 (FGE.25Rev1): Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons from chemical group 31. EFSA Journal 2010; 8 (5): 1334, 111 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2010.1334 [Google Scholar]
  9. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) , 2011a. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 78, Revision 1 (FGE.78Rev1): Consideration of aliphatic and alicyclic and aromatic hydrocarbons evaluated by JECFA (63rd meeting) structurally related to aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons evaluated by EFSA in FGE.25Rev2. EFSA Journal 2011; 9 (6): 2178, 69 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2178 [Google Scholar]
  10. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) , 2011a. Scientific Opinion on Flavouring Group Evaluation 25, Revision 2 (FGE.25Rev2): Aliphatic and aromatic hydrocarbons from chemical group 31. EFSA Journal 2011; 9 (6): 2177, 126 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2177 [Google Scholar]
  11. EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) , 2012a. Scientific Statement on List of Representative Substances for Testing. EFSA Journal 2012; 10 (3): 2639, 9 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2639 [Google Scholar]
  12. EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances Used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) , 2012a. Guidance for the preparation of dossiers for sensory additives. EFSA Journal 2012; 10 (1): 2534, 26 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2534 [Google Scholar]
  13. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2011. Use of the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database in Exposure Assessment. EFSA Journal; 9 (3): 2097, 34 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2097 [Google Scholar]
  14. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2013. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance orange oil. EFSA Journal 2013; 11 (2): 3090, 55 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2013.3090 [Google Scholar]
  15. EFSA (European Food Safety Authority) , 2014. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active substance terpenoid blend QRD‐460. EFSA Journal 2014; 12 (10): 3816, 41 pp. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2014.3816 [Google Scholar]
  16. EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) , 1994. Prevention, pesticides and toxic substances (7508 W) EPA‐738‐F‐94‐030.
  17. Espinoza HM, Shireman LM, McClain V, Atkins W and Gallagher EP, 2013. Cloning, expression and analysis of the olfactory glutathione S‐transferases in coho salmon. Biochemical Pharmacology, 85, 839–848. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Fernandez C, Astier C, Rock E, Coulon J‐B and Berdague J‐L, 2003. Characterization of milk by analysis of its terpene fractions. International Journal of Food Science and Technology, 38, 445–451. [Google Scholar]
  19. Harris TR, Morisseau C, Walzem RL, Ma SJ, and Hammock BD, 2006. The cloning and characterization of a soluble epoxide hydrolase in chicken. Poultry Science, 85, 278–287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Hink WF and Fee BJ, 1986. Toxicity of d‐limonene, the major component of citrus peel oil, to all life stages of the cat flea, Ctenocephalides felis (Siphonaptera: Pulicidae). Journal of Medical Entomology, 23, 400–404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) , 1993. d‐limonene. In: IARC monographs on the evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans, vol. 56, some naturally occurring substances: food items and constituents, heterocyclic aromatic amines and mycotoxins. IARC, Lyon, France, 135–162. [Google Scholar]
  22. Igimi H, Kodama M and Ide H, 1974. Studies on the metabolism of d‐limonene (p‐mentha‐1,8‐diene). I. The absorption, distribution and excretion of d‐limonene in rats. Xenobiotica, 4 (2), 77–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Ioannides C, 2006. Cytochrome P450 expression in the liver of food‐producing animals. Current Drug Metabolism, 7, 335–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. James MO, 1987. Conjugation of organic pollutants in aquatic species. Environmental Health Perspectives, 71, 97–103. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Kodama R, Noda K and Ide H, 1974. Studies on the metabolism of d‐limonene (p‐mentha‐1,8‐diene). II. The metabolic fate of d‐limonene in rabbits. Xenobiotica, 4, 85–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Kodama R, Yano T, Furukawa K, Noda K and Ide H, 1976. Studies on the metabolism of d‐limonene. IV Isolation and characterization of new metabolites and species differences in metabolism. Xenobiotica, 6, 377–389. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Malafaia MIFR, Pedrozo EA, Santos JAP, Ribeiro MD, Malafaia P and Lana AMQ, 2002. Nutrient intake, in vivo and in vitro digestibility of dog diets containing citrus pulp and alfalfa leaf. Ciěncia Rural, Santa Maria, 32, 121–126. [Google Scholar]
  28. Malecky M and Broudiscou LP, 2009a. Disappearance of nine monoterpenes exposed in vitro to the rumen microflora of dairy goats: effects of inoculum source, redox potential, and vancomycin. Journal of Animal Science, 87, 1366–1373. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Malecky M, Fedele V and Broudiscou LP, 2009a. In vitro degradation by mixed rumen bacteria of 17 mono‐ and sesquiterpenes typical of winter and spring diets of goats on Basilitica rangelands (southern Italy). Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 89, 531–536. [Google Scholar]
  30. Malecky M, Albarello H and Broudiscou LP, 2012. Degradation of terpenes and terpenoids from Mediterranean rangelands by mixed rumen bacteria in vitro . Animal, 6 (4), 612–616. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Marini S, Longo V, Mazzacaro A and Gervasi PG, 1998. Xenobiotic‐metabolizing enzymes in pig nasal and hepatic tissues. Xenobiotica, 28 (10), 923–935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Nazok A, Rezaei M and Sayyahzadeh H, 2010. Effect of different levels of dried citrus pulp on performance, egg quality, and blood parameters of laying hens in early phase of production. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42, 737–742. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Nebbia C, Dacasto M, Rossetto Giaccherino A, Giuliano Albo A and Carletti M, 2003. Comparative expression of liver cytochrome P450‐dependent monooxygenases in the horse and in other agricultural and laboratory species. The Veterinary Journal, 165, 53–64. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Newman JW, Denton DL, Morisseau C, Koger CS, Wheelock CE, Hinton DE and Hammock BD, 2001. Evaluation of fish models of soluble epoxide hydrolase inhibition. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109, 61–66. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. NTP (National Toxicology Program) , 1990. Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of d‐limonene (CAS No. 5989‐27‐5) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (Gavage Studies). NTP TR 347. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Institutes of Health. NIH Publication No 90‐2802.
  36. O'Sullivan TC, Lynch PB, Morrissey PA and O'Grady GF, 2003. Evaluation of citrus pulp in diets for sows and growing pigs. Irish Journal of Agricultural and Food Research, 42, 243–253. [Google Scholar]
  37. Osweiler GD and Grauer GF, 1991. Chapter 7, Toxicology. In: Feline husbandry. Ed Pedersen NC. American Veterinary Publications, Inc., Goleta, CA, USA, 357–392. [Google Scholar]
  38. Poulopoulou I, Zoidis E, Massouras T and Hadjigeorgiou I, 2012a. Terpenes transfer to milk and cheese after oral administration to sheep fed indoors. Journal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition, 96, 172–181. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Poulopoulou I, Zoidis E, Massouras T and Hadjigeorgiou I, 2012a. Transfer of orally administered terpenes in goat milk and cheese. Journal of Animal Science, 25, 1411–1418. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Prache S, Cornu A, Berdagu JL and Priolo A, 2005. Traceability of animal feeding diet in the meat and milk of small ruminants. Small Ruminant Research, 59, 157–168. [Google Scholar]
  41. SCF (Scientific Committee on Food) , 1999. Opinion on a programme for the evaluation of flavouring substances (expressed on 2 December 1999). SCF/CS/FLAV/TASK/11 Final 6/12/1999. Annex I the minutes of the 119th plenary meeting. European Commission, Health & Consumer Protection Directorate‐General.
  42. Serrano E, Cornu A, Kondjoyan N, Figueredo G, Agabriel J and Micol D, 2007. Terpene accumulation in muscle and fatty tissues of calves supplemented with essential oils. Journal of Animal and Feed Sciences, 16, 168–179. [Google Scholar]
  43. Watkins JB III and Klaassen CD, 1986. Xenobiotic biotransformation in livestock: comparison to other species commonly used in toxicity testing. Journal of Animal Science, 63, 933–942. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. WHO (World Health Organization) , 2005. Evaluation of certain food additives. Sixty‐third report of the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, 8–17 June 2004, Geneva, Switzerland. World Health Organization Technical Report Series 928.
  45. Wisniewski JA, Moody DE, Hammock BD and Shull LR, 1987. Interlobular distribution of hepatic xenobiotic‐metabolizing enzyme activities in cattle, goats and sheep. Journal of Animal Science, 64, 210–215. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Wolf JC and Wolfe MJ, 2005. A brief overview of nonneoplastic hepatic toxicity in fish. Toxicologic Pathology, 33, 75–85. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Wolf MA, Rowe VK, McCollister, DD , Hollingsworth RL and Oyen F, 1956. Toxicological studies of certain alkylated benzenes and benzene. American Medical Association (AMA) Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 14, 387–398. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from EFSA Journal are provided here courtesy of Wiley

RESOURCES