Table 7.

Qualitative evaluation of influence of uncertainties on the dietary exposure estimate

Sources of uncertainties	Direction (a)
Consumption data
Different methodologies/representativeness/underreporting/misreporting/no portion size standard/only a few days	+/–
Underreporting of food descriptors (facets) concerning the presence or potential presence of sweeteners	– (b)
Not considering some of the restrictions or all restrictions specified in the legislation (e.g. as flavour enhancer only)	+ (b)
Food category(ies) not considered because the restriction was very specific	–
Concentration data
Correspondence of reported use levels to the food items in the Comprehensive Database: uncertainties to which types of food the levels refer	+/–
Uncertainty in possible national differences in use levels of food categories	+/–
Refined regulatory maximum level exposure assessment and brand‐loyal scenario: three out of the 38 food categories authorised to contain neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) were considered in the exposure assessment	− (b)
Refined regulatory maximum level and brand‐loyal exposure assessment scenario: four out of 18 Mintel food subcategories in which neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) was labelled were included in the current exposure assessment. This represented 60% of the products labelled to contain neohesperidine dihydrochalcone (E 959) in the Mintel GNPD	− (b)
Regulatory maximum level exposure assessment scenario: exposure calculations are based on the MPLs	+
Methodology
Use of data from food consumption surveys covering only a few days to estimate high percentile (95th) of long‐term (chronic) exposure	+

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

^(b)Uncertainty considerations on the direction (+/–) are made assuming the effect on the same underlying population of consumers.