Cited by 13Agricultural safety and regulationsDye analysis and toxicityCarcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Safety and efficacy of pyrazine derivatives including saturated ones belonging to chemical group 24 when used as flavourings for all animal species

Open access

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of 22 compounds belonging to chemical group 24 (pyrazine derivatives).They are currently authorised as flavours in food.The FEEDAP Panel concludes that: 2,3-diethylpyrazine [14.005], 2-ethyl-3methylpyrazine [14.006], 5,6,7,8-tetrahydroquinoxaline [14.015], 2,3,5,6-tetramethylpyrazine [14.018], 2,3,5-trimethylpyrazine [14.019], 2,5-dimethylpyrazine [14.020], 2,6-dimethylpyrazine [14.021], 2ethylpyrazine [14.022], 2-ethyl-3,5-dimethylpyrazine [14.024], 2,5 or 6-methoxy-3-methylpyrazine [14.025], 2-methylpyrazine [14.027], acetylpyrazine [14.032], 6,7-dihydro-5-methyl-5H-cyclopenta(b) pyrazine [14.037], 2-isobutyl-3-methoxypyrazine [14.043], 2-acetyl-3-ethylpyrazine [14.049], 2,3dimethylpyrazine [14.050], 2,3-diethyl-5-methylpyrazine [14.056], 2-(sec-butyl)-3-methoxypyrazine [14.062], 3,(5-or 6-)-dimethyl-2-ethylpyrazine [14.100], 2-ethyl-3-methoxypyrazine [14.112] and 2methoxy-3-methylpyrazine [14.126] are safe at the proposed maximum dose level (0.5 mg/kg complete feed) as feed for cattle, salmonids and non-food-producing animals, and at the proposed normal use level of 0.1 mg/kg complete feed for pigs and poultry; 5-methylquinoxaline [14.028] are safe only at concentrations below the proposed use levels (0.08 mg/kg complete feed for cattle, salmonids and nonfood-producing animals, and 0.05 mg/kg complete feed for pigs and poultry).No safety concern would arise for the consumer from the use of these compounds up to the highest proposed level in feeds.Hazards for skin and eye contact, and respiratory exposure are recognised for the majority of the compounds under application.Most are classified as irritating to the respiratory system.The proposed maximum use levels in feed are unlikely to have detrimental effects on the terrestrial and fresh water compartments.Because all 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.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4671

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Blevins, 2012, Liver enzymes in White Leghorns selected for the sheep red blood cell immune response, Poultry Science, 91, 322, 10.3382/ps.2011-01764 · DOI
  2. Court, 2013, Feline drug metabolism and disposition: pharmacokinetic evidence for species differences and molecular mechanisms, The Veterinary Clinics of North America. Small Animal Practice, 43, 1039, 10.1016/j.cvsm.2013.05.002 · DOI
  3. EFSA, 2008, Flavouring Group Evaluation 53 (FGE.53): Consideration of phenethyl alcohol, aldehyde, acid and related acetals and esters evaluated by JECFA (59th meeting) structurally related to phenethyl alcohol, aldehyde, esters and related phenylacetic acid esters evaluated by EFSA in FGE.14 (2005) and one phenoxyethyl ester evaluated in FGE.23 (2006) (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000) – Opinion of the Scientific Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Materials in contact with Food (AFC), EFSA Journal, 6, 710, 10.2903/j.efsa.2008.710 · DOI
  4. EFSA, 2008, Technical Guidance of the Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) for assessing the safety of feed additives for the environment, EFSA Journal, 6, 842, 10.2903/j.efsa.2008.842 · DOI
  5. EFSA CEF Panel, 2011, Scientific Opinion on the Flavouring Group Evaluation 50, Revision 1 (FGE.50Rev1): Consideration of pyrazine derivatives evaluated by JECFA (57th meeting) structurally related to pyrazine derivatives evaluated by EFSA in FGE.17Rev2 (2010) (Commission Regulation (EC) No 1565/2000 of 18 July 2000), EFSA Journal, 9, 1921, 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.1921 · DOI
  6. EFSA CEF Panel, 2011, Scientific Opinion on the Flavouring Group Evaluation 17, Revision 3 (FGE.17Rev3): pyrazine derivatives from chemical group 24, EFSA Journal, 9, 2456, 10.2903/j.efsa.2011.2456 · DOI
  7. EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012, Guidance for the preparation of dossiers for sensory additives, EFSA Journal, 10, 2534, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2534 · DOI
  8. EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012, Guidance for the preparation of dossiers for additives already authorised for use in food, EFSA Journal, 10, 2538, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2538 · DOI
  9. EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012, Guidance for establishing the safety of additives for the consumer, EFSA Journal, 10, 2537, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2537 · DOI
  10. EFSA FEEDAP Panel, 2012, Guidance on studies concerning the safety of use of the additive for users/workers, EFSA Journal, 10, 2539, 10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2539 · DOI
  11. Jakoby, 1980, Biochemical Pharmacology and Toxicology, 281
  12. Fink‐Gremmels, 2008, Implications of hepatic cytochrome P450‐related biotransformation processes in veterinary sciences, European Journal of Pharmacology, 585, 502, 10.1016/j.ejphar.2008.03.013 · DOI
  13. Gupta, 2007, Veterinary Toxicology. Basic and Clinical Principles, 10.5005/jp/books/10078 · DOI
  14. Gusson, 2006, Comparison of hydrolitic and conjugative biotransformations pathways in horse, cattle, pig, broiler chick, rabbit and rat liver subcellular fractions, Veterinary Research Communications, 30, 271, 10.1007/s11259-006-3247-y · DOI
  15. Rose, 2013, Trace Elements in Health: A Review of Current Issues, 150
  16. Hawksworth, 1975, Metabolism in the rat of some pyrazine derivatives having flavour importance in foods, Xenobiotica, 5, 389, 10.3109/00498257509056108 · DOI
  17. Ioannides, 2006, Cytochrome P450 expression in the liver of food‐producing animals, Current Drug Metabolism, 7, 335, 10.2174/138920006776873544 · DOI
  18. James, 1987, Conjugation of organic pollutants in aquatic species, Environmental Health Perspectives, 71, 97, 10.1289/ehp.877197 · DOI
  19. Morikawa, 1997, Distribution and pathophysiologic role of molybdenum‐containing enzymes, Histology and Histopathology, 12, 513
  20. Müller, 2010, Pyrazine: occurrence, formation and biodegradation, Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 85, 1315, 10.1007/s00253-009-2362-4 · DOI
  21. Nebbia, 2003, Comparative expression of liver cytochrome P450‐dependent monooxygenases in the horse and in other agricultural and laboratory species, Veterinary Journal, 165, 53, 10.1016/S1090-0233(02)00174-0 · DOI
  22. Posternak, 1969, Summaries of toxicological data. Toxicological tests on flavouring matters, Food Cosmetic Toxicology, 7, 405, 10.1016/S0015-6264(69)80418-9 · DOI
  23. Posternak, 1975, Summaries of toxicological data. Toxicological tests on flavouring matters. II. Pyrazines and other compounds, Food and Cosmetic Toxicology, 13, 487, 10.1016/S0015-6264(75)80215-X · DOI
  24. Watkins, 1986, Xenobiotic biotransformation in livestock: comparison to other species commonly used in toxicity testing, Journal of Animal Science, 63, 933, 10.2527/jas1986.633933x · DOI
  25. Wolf, 2005, A brief overview of nonneoplastic hepatic toxicity in fish, Toxicologic Pathology, 33, 75, 10.1080/01926230590890187 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
(FEEDAP), E. P. O. A. A. P. O. S. U. I. A. F., Rychen, G., Aquilina, G., Azimonti, G., Bampidis, V., de Lourdes Bastos, M., Bories, G., Cocconcelli, P. S., Flachowsky, G., Gropp, J., Kolar, B., Kouba, M., López Puente, S., López‐Alonso, M., Mantovani, A., Mayo, B., Ramos, F., Saarela, M., Villa, R. E., Wallace, R. J., Wester, P., Brantom, P., Dusemund, B., Hogstrand, C., Van Beelen, P., Westendorf, J., Gregoretti, L., Manini, P., & Chesson, A.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-02
Volume
15
Issue
2
Pages
e04671-e04671
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2584862832
Cited by
13
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.54
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archivio Istituzionale della Ricerca (Universita Degli Studi Di Milano) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OpenAgrar (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Dye analysis and toxicity
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cancer Research › Carcinogens and Genotoxicity Assessment
Keywords
pyrazine derivatives, flavourings, feed additives, food flavourings, safety assessment, respiratory irritation, consumer exposure, environmental fate, cattle, salmonids, pigs, poultry

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review