Cited by 62Agricultural safety and regulationsDye analysis and toxicityMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food

Statement on the safety of synthetic l‐ergothioneine as a novel food – supplementary dietary exposure and safety assessment for infants and young children, pregnant and breastfeeding women

Open access
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA), Turck, Dominique, Bresson, Jean‐Louis, Burlingame, Barbara, Dean, Tara, Fairweather‐Tait, Susan, Heinonen, Marina, Hirsch‐Ernst, Karen Ildico +20 more·2017·EFSA Journal

Abstract

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, Nutrition and Allergies (NDA) was asked to provide a supplementary dietary exposure and safety assessment of synthetic l-ergothioneine for those groups of the population which had been excluded by the applicant in the original application, i.e. infants and young children (i.e. toddlers), pregnant and breastfeeding women. Thus, intake estimates were calculated for these population groups and the following maximum anticipated daily intakes of l-ergothioneine from the NF, in addition to the background diet, were calculated: 2.82 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day for infants, 3.39 mg/kg bw per day for toddlers and 1.31 mg/kg bw per day for adults including pregnant and breastfeeding women. The Panel considers that based on the overall toxicological data the no-observed-adverse-effect level (NOAEL) of 800 mg/kg bw per day as established in the original assessment also pertains to pregnant and breastfeeding women as well as to young children (i.e. toddlers) and infants. The corresponding margins of exposure (i.e. the ratio between the NOAEL and the maximum anticipated daily intakes) are 284 for infants, 236 for young children and 610 for pregnant and breastfeeding women. These margins of exposure are considered sufficient. The Panel concludes that the novel food, synthetic l-ergothioneine, is safe under the proposed uses and use levels for infants, young children (i.e. toddlers) and pregnant and breastfeeding women.

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.2017.5060

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A number of high-dose studies indicate ERG is safe for mammalian consumption at levels far in excess of those likely in foodstuffs, and it has been declared safe by EFSA.

    “Notwithstanding the highly variable intake between individuals(358), however, a number of high-dose studies have indicated that ERG is safe for mammalian consumption at levels far in excess of those likely to be encountered in foodstuffs(125,131,359,360), and it has been declared safe by relevant committees such as those of the European Food Standards Agency(361,362).”

    From The biology of ergothioneine, an antioxidant nutraceutical (2020) · cites this paper as [362]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 3 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
EFSA Panel on Dietetic Products, N. A. A. (., Turck, D., Bresson, J., Burlingame, B., Dean, T., Fairweather‐Tait, S., Heinonen, M., Hirsch‐Ernst, K. I., Mangelsdorf, I., McArdle, H. J., Naska, A., Neuhäuser‐Berthold, M., Nowicka, G., Pentieva, K., Sanz, Y., Siani, A., Sjödin, A., Stern, M., Tomé, D., Vinceti, M., Willatts, P., Engel, K., Marchelli, R., Pöting, A., Poulsen, M., Schlatter, J. R., Ackerl, R., & van Loveren, H.
Venue
EFSA Journal
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017-11
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
e05060-e05060
ISSN
1831-4732 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2769315410
Cited by
62
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nd
Locations
  • EFSA Journal (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • IRIS UNIMORE (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Agricultural safety and regulations
  • Physical Sciences › Chemistry › Analytical Chemistry › Dye analysis and toxicity
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Mycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Keywords
L-ergothioneine, novel foods, dietary exposure assessment, infants, young children, pregnant women, lactating women, no-observed-adverse-effect level, margin of exposure, food safety

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