Table 13.

Qualitative evaluation of influence of uncertainties on the dietary exposure estimate

Sources of uncertainties	Directiona
Consumption data: different methodologies/representativeness/underreporting/misreporting/no portion size standard	+/–
Methodology used to estimate high percentiles (95th) long‐term (chronic) exposure based on data from food consumption surveys covering only a few days	+
Correspondence of reported use levels and analytical data to the food items in the EFSA Comprehensive Database: uncertainties to which types of food the levels refer	+/–
Uncertainty in possible national differences in use levels of food categories	+/–
Occurrence data: –use levels considered applicable to all foods within the entire food category, whereas the average percentage of food products in the EU labelled as containing E 171 was only 1% of all the food products in the subcategories in Mintel in which E 171 is listed –not fully representative of foods on the EU market	+ +/–
The 16 food categories which were taken into account in the refined exposure assessment scenarios out of all authorised food categories (N = 48), corresponded to different percentage, depending on the food categories (32%–96% of the amount (gram of foods by body weight) of food consumption documented in the EFSA Comprehensive Database)	–
Food categories included in the exposure assessment: no data for certain food categories which were therefore not considered in the exposure estimates (n = 32/48)	–
Maximum level exposure assessment scenario: –exposure calculations based on the maximum reported use levels (reported use from industries)	+
Refined exposure assessment scenarios: –exposure calculations based on the maximum or mean levels (reported use from industries)	+/–

^a+, uncertainty with potential to cause overestimation of exposure; –, uncertainty with potential to cause underestimation of exposure.