Chapter 1 Sweeteners in general Varzakas, T., Labropoulos, A., and Anestis, S. 1.1 Overview Sweeteners are defined as food additives that are used or intended to be used either to impart a sweet taste to food or as a tabletop sweetener. Tabletop sweeteners are products that consist of, or include, any permitted sweeteners and are intended for sale to the ultimate consumer, normally for use as an alternative to sugar. Foods with sweetening properties, such as sugar and honey, are not additives and are excluded from the scope of official regulations. Sweeteners are classified as either high intensity or bulk. High-intensity sweeteners possess a sweet taste, but are non caloric, provide essentially no bulk to food, have greater sweetness than sugar, and are therefore used at very low levels. On the other hand, bulk sweeteners are generally carbohydrates, providing energy (calories) and bulk to food. These have a similar sweetness to sugar and are used at comparable levels. Sugar and other sweeteners are a major part of many diets. Sugars are carbohydrates. To clarify, carbohydrates are molecules of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen produced by plants through photosynthesis. The term saccharide is a synonym for carbohydrate; a monosaccharide (mono=1) is the fundamental unit of carbohydrates. Disaccharides (Di=2) are molecules containing 2 monosaccharide units. Di and monosaccharides are also known as sugars, simple sugars, or simple carbohydrates. Next are oligosaccharides, and polysaccharides. Oligosaccharides are made of 3-9 monosaccharide links. Polysaccharides consist of 10 to thousands of monosaccharide links. A complex carbohydrate refers to many monosaccharide units linked together. Short carbohydrate chains are those under 10 sugar molecules. And long chains are those over 10 sugar molecules. Diabetics and people looking to reduce calories are often looking for sugar substitutes. There were far more options than would have been imagined. There are still other sugars and sugar substitutes that are not included either because they are obscure and were not found or because they are not commonly found in our diets. The search for the perfect sweetener continues, but it has long been recognized that the ideal sweetener does not exist. Even sucrose, the ‘‘gold standard,’’ is not perfect and is unsuitable for some pharmaceuticals and chewing gums. Alternative sweeteners (a) provide and expand food and beverage choices to control caloric, carbohydrate, or specific sugar intake; (b) assist in weight maintenance or reduction; (c) aid in the management of diabetes; (d) assist in the control of dental caries; (e) enhance the usability of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics; (f) provide sweetness in times of sugar shortage; and (g) assist in the cost effective use of limited resources. The ideal sweetener should be at least as sweet as sucrose, colorless, odorless, and non cariogenic. It should have a clean, pleasant taste with immediate onset without lingering. The more a sweetener tastes and functions like sucrose the greater the consumer acceptability. If it can be processed much like sucrose with existing equipment, the more desirable it is to industry. The ideal sweetener should be water soluble and stable in both acidic and basic conditions and over a wide range of temperatures. Length of stability and consequently the shelf-life of the final product are also important. The final food product should taste much like the traditional one. A sweetener must be compatible with a wide range of food ingredients because sweetness is but one component of complex flavor systems. Safety is essential. The sweetener must be nontoxic and metabolized normally or excreted unchanged, and studies verifying its safety should be in the public domain. To be successful, a sweetener should be competitively priced with sucrose and other comparable sweeteners. It should be easily produced, stored, and transported. 1.2 Sugars Sugar is a carbohydrate found in every fruit and vegetable. All green plants manufacture sugar though photosynthesis, but sugar cane and sugar beets have the highest natural concentrations. Beet sugar and cane sugar — identical products that may be used interchangeably — are the most common sources for the sugar used in the United States. Understanding the variety of sugars available and their functions in food will help consumers determine when sugar can be replaced or combined with nonnutritive sweeteners. Sugar comes in many forms. The following includes many different sugars, mostly made from sugar cane or sugar beets such as table sugar, fruit sugar, crystalline fructose, superfine or ultrafine sugar, confectioner’s or powdered sugar, coarse sugar, sanding sugar, turbinado sugar, brown sugar, liquid sugars. 1.3 Sweetener categories Sweeteners can be categorized as low calories, reduced calories, intense calories, bulk calories, caloric alternatives calories, natural sugar based calories, sugar polyols calories, low calorie nonnutritive calorie, non-nutritive calorie, nutritive calorie, natural calorie, syrups, intense sweeteners and others. Caloric alternatives calories characterize the crystalline fructose, high fructose corn syrup, isomaltulose, trehalose. Intense Sweeteners characterize the Acesulfame K, Alitame, Aspartame, Brazzeine, Cyclamate, Glycyrrhizin, Neohesperidine, Neotame, Saccharin, Stevioside, Sucralose, Thaumati. Bulk Sweeteners characterize the Crystalline Fructose, Erythritol, Isomalt, Isomaltulose, Lactitol, Malitol, Malitol Syrup, Mannitol, Sorbitol, Sorbitol Syrup, Trehalose, Xylitol, crystalline fructose, Non-nutritive, high intensity sweeteners characterize the Acesulfame K, Aspartame and Neotame, Saccharin and Cyclamate, Sucralose Reduced calorie bulk sweeteners characterize the Erythritol, Isomalt, Lactitol, Maltitol and maltitol syrups, Sorbitol and mannitol, Tagatose, Xylitol. Low Calorie Sweeteners include Acesulfame K, Alitame, Aspartame, Cyclamate, Neohesperidin Dihydrochalcone, Tagatose, Neotame, Saccharin, Stevioside, Sucralose, Less Common HighPotency Sweeteners, Reduced Calorie Sweeteners include Erythritol, Hydrogenated Starch Hydrolysates and Maltitol Syrups, Isomalt, Maltitol, Lactitol, Sorbitol and Mannitol, Xylitol Caloric Alternatives characterize the Crystalline Fructose, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Isomaltulose, Trehalose Other sweeteners characterize the brazzeine, glycyrrhizin, thaumatin, polydextrose, sucrose, polyols, dextrose, fructose, galactose, lactose, maltose, stafidin, glucose, saccharoze, D-tagatose, thaumatin, glycerol, glycerizim. Sweeteners that contribute calories to the diet are called caloric or nutritive sweeteners. All common caloric sweeteners have the same composition: they contain fructose and glucose in essentially equal proportions (Hanover and White, 1993). All caloric sweeteners require processing to produce a food-grade product. Common caloric sweeteners share the same general nutritional characteristics: • each has roughly the same composition—equal proportions of the simple sugars fructose and glucose; • each offers approximately the same sweetness on a per-gram basis; one gram (dry basis) of each adds 4 calories to foods and beverages; • each is absorbed from the gut at about the same rate; • similar ratios of fructose and glucose arrive in the bloodstream after a meal, which are indistinguishable in the body. Since caloric sweeteners are nutritionally equivalent, they are interchangeable in foods and beverages with no measurable change in metabolism (Widdowson and McCance, 1935). To replace one caloric sweetener with another provides no change in nutritional value. To remove sweeteners entirely from their commonly used applications and replace them with high intensity sweeteners would drastically alter product flavor and sweetness, require the use of chemical preservatives to ensure product quality and freshness, result in a reduction in perceived food quality (bran cereal with the caloric sweeteners removed would have the consistency of sawdust), and would likely require the addition of bulking agents to provide the expected texture, mouth feel or volume for most baked goods (White 2008, White, 1992). High-intensity sweeteners (also called non-nutritive sweeteners) can offer consumers a way to enjoy the taste of sweetness with little or no energy intake or glycemic response and they do not support growth of oral cavity microorganisms. Therefore, they are principally aimed at consumers in four areas of the food and beverage markets: treatment of obesity, maintenance of body weight, management of diabetes, and prevention and reduction of dental caries. There are several different high-intensity sweeteners. Some of the sweeteners are naturally occurring, while others are synthetic (artificial) or semi synthetic. Most of the more commonly available high-intensity sweeteners and/or their metabolites are rapidly absorbed in the gastrointestinal tract. For example, acesulfame-K and saccharin are not metabolized and are excreted unchanged by the kidney. Sucralose, stevioside, and cyclamate undergo degrees of metabolism, and their metabolites are readily excreted. Acesulfame-K, aspartame, and saccharin are permitted as intense sweeteners for use in food, virtually worldwide. In order to decrease cost and improve taste quality, high-intensity sweeteners are often used as mixtures of different, synergistically compatible sweeteners. Bulk sweeteners, defined as those delivered, in solid or liquid form, for use in sweeteners per se or in foods in quantities greater than 22.5 kg, are disaccharides and monosaccharides of plant origin. Sucrose from sugarcane and sugar beet and starch derived glucose and fructose from maize (corn), potato, wheat, and cassava are the major sweeteners sold in bulk to the food and beverage manufacturing industry, or packers of small containers for retail sale. Unrefined sweeteners include all natural, unrefined or low-processed sweeteners. Sweeteners are usually made with the fruit or sap of plants. But can also be made from the whole plant or any part of it, some sweeteners are also made from starch with the use of enzymes. Sweeteners made by animals, especially insects, are put in their own section as they can come from more than one part of plants. From sap. The sap of some species is concentrated to make sweeteners, usually through drying or boiling. • Cane juice, syrup, molasses, and raw sugar, which has many regional and commercial names including demerara, jaggery, muscovado, panela, piloncillo, turbinado sugar, Florida Crystals and Sucanat, are all made from sugarcane (Saccharum spp.). • Sweet sorghum syrup is made from the sugary juice extracted from the stalks of Sorghum spp., especially S. bicolor (Nimbkar et al. 2006). • Mexican or maize sugar can be made by boiling down the juice of green maize stalks. • Agave syrup is made from the sap of Agave spp., including tequila agave (Agave tequilana) (Beckley et al. 2007). • Birch syrup is made from the sap of Birch trees (Betula spp.) (Kallio et al., 2008) • Maple syrup, taffy and sugar are made from the sap of tapped maple trees (Acer spp.) (Moerman, 1998). • Palm sugar is made from by tapping of the flower stalk of various palms to collect the sap. The most important species for this is the Indian date palm (Phoenix sylvestris), but other species used include palmyra (Borassus flabelliformis), coconut (Cocos nucifera), toddy (Caryota urens), gomuti (Arenga saccharifera), and nipa (Nypa fruticans) palms.[21][22] • The sweet resin of the Sugar Pine (Pinus lambertiana) was considered by John Muir to be better than maple sugar (Saunders, 1976). From roots The juice extracted from the tuberous roots of certain plants is, much like sap, concentrated to make sweeteners, usually through drying or boiling. • Sugar beet syrup (ZuckerrübenSirup in German) is made from the tuberous roots of the sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) (Emery, 2003). Sugar beet molasses, a by-product of the processing to make refined sugar, also exists but is mainly used for animal feed (Draycott, 2006). • Yacón syrup is made from the tuberous roots of yacón (Smallanthus sonchifolius ) (Manrique et al. 2005). From nectar and flowers A "palatable" brown sugar can be made by boiling down the dew from flowers of the common milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). From seeds The starchy seeds of certain plants are transformed into sweeteners by using the enzymes formed during germination or from bacterian cultures. Some sweeteners made with starch are quite refined and made by degrading purified starch with enzymes, such as corn syrup. • Barley malt syrup is made from germinated barley grains (Roehl, 1996). • Brown rice malt syrup is made from rice grains cooked and then cultured with malt enzymes (Belleme, and Belleme, 2007) • Amazake is made from rice fermented with Koji (Aspergillus oryzae) (Belleme, and Belleme, 2007) From fruits Many fresh fruits, dried fruits and fruit juices are used as sweeteners. Some examples are: • Watermelon sugar, made by boiling the juice of ripe watermelons. • Pumpkin sugar, made by grating the pumpkins, in the same manner as to make beet sugar (Hovey, 1841). • Dates, date paste, spread, syrup ("dibs"), or powder (date sugar) are made from the fruit of the date palm (Phoenix dactylifera). • Jallab is made by combining dates, grape molasses and rose water. • Pekmez is made of grapes, fig (Ficus carica) and mulberry (Morus spp.) juices, condensed by boiling with coagulant agents. A variety of molasses are made with fruit: • Carob molasses is made from the pulp of the Carob tree's fruit. From leaves. In a few species of plants the leaves are sweet and can be used as sweeteners. • Stevia spp. can be used whole, or dried and powdered to sweeten food or drink (Kinghorn and Douglas 2002) • Jiaogulan (Gynostemma pentaphyllum), has sweet leaves, although not as sweet as Stevia. By animals • True honey, made by honey bees (Apis spp.) from gathered nectar. • Sugarbag, the honey of stingless bees, which is more liquid than the honey from honey bees (Menzel and D'Aluisio 1998). Artificial sweeteners, or sugar substitutes, are food additives that impart a sweet flavor but no nutritional value. Commonly used in sugar-free and reduced-calorie foods, artificial sugar substitutes vary in taste, level of sweetness and stability when heated. For many diabetics and prediabetics, artificial sugars play an important role in blood sugar control and weight management. 1.4 Added sweeteners Over the past 20 years or so, Americans have developed quite the sweet tooth, with an annual consumption of sugar at about 100 pounds per person. During these same years, many more Americans — particularly children — have become overweight and obese. Added caloric sweeteners may be one of the major reasons. 1.5 Sucrose and fructose Sucrose, or table sugar, has been the most common food sweetener. In the late 1960s, a new method was introduced that converts glucose in corn syrup to fructose. High-fructose corn syrup is as sweet as sucrose, but less expensive, so soft-drink manufacturers switched over to using it in the mid-1980s. Now it has surpassed sucrose as the main added sweetener in the American diet. Fructose once seemed like one of nutrition’s good guys - it has a very low glycemic index. The glycemic index is a way of measuring how much of an effect a food or drink has on blood sugar levels; low glycemic index foods are generally better for you. But fructose, at least in large quantities, may have some serious drawbacks. Fructose is metabolized almost exclusively in the liver. It’s more likely to result in the creation of fats which increase the risk for heart disease. Moreover, recent work has shown that fructose may have an influence on the appetite hormones. High levels of fructose may blunt sensations of fullness and could lead to overeating. 1.6 Fruit-juice concentrates: Just empty calories Fruit juices such as apple or white grape juice in concentrated form are widely used sweeteners. They’re used to replace fats in low-fat products because they retain water and provide bulk, which improve the appearance and “mouth feel” of the food. Although they may seem healthier and more natural than high-fructose corn syrup, fruit-juice concentrates also have high levels of fructose. Fruit-juice concentrates are another way that empty calories get into our diets. 1.7 Sugar alcohols In sweetening power, the sugar alcohols are closer to sucrose and fructose than to the super-sweet artificial sweeteners. They don’t affect blood-sugar levels as much as sucrose, a real advantage for people with diabetes, and they don’t contribute to tooth decay. Sugar alcohols are used in candies, baked goods, ice creams, and fruit spreads. Read the ingredients carefully, and you’ll spot them in toothpaste, mouthwash, breath mints, cough syrup, and throat lozenges. 1.8 Sweetened beverages Sweeteners added to sports and juice drinks are particularly troubling because many people think those drinks are relatively healthful. Researchers are beginning to document the adverse health outcomes. Harvard researchers reported that women who drank one or more sugar-sweetened soft drinks per day were 83% more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than women who drank less than one a month. Not surprisingly, they were also more likely to gain weight. When children regularly consume beverages that are sweetened they’re getting used to a level of sweetness that could affect their habits for a lifetime. A 2004 editorial in the Journal of the American Medical Association said that reducing the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages “may be the best single opportunity to curb the obesity epidemic.” 1.9 Artificial sweeteners Artificial sweeteners sing a siren song of calorie-free and, therefore, guilt-free sweetness. The FDA-approved ones include acesulfame K (Sunett), aspartame (NutraSweet, Equal), neotame, saccharin (Sweet ’N Low, others), and sucralose (Splenda). All are intensely sweet. There’s a cyberspace cottage industry dedicated to condemning the artificial sweeteners, especially aspartame. Some fears are based on animal experiments using doses many times greater than any person would consume. But even some mainstream experts remain wary of artificial sweeteners, partly because of the lack of long-term studies in humans. Even if safety weren’t an issue, artificial sweeteners might still be a problem because they may set people (especially children) up for bad eating habits by encouraging a craving for sweetness that makes eating a balanced diet difficult. http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Added-sweeteners.shtml 1.10 New sweeteners study shows no link with cancer A study of more than 16,000 patients has found no link between sweetener intake and the risk of cancer. This supports a previous ruling by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The safety of artificial sweeteners has been under scrutiny since the 1970s, when animal studies reported links with some forms of cancer. The studies were criticised because very high doses of sweeteners were used. More recent research in rats found that sweetener intakes similar to those consumed by humans could increase the risk of certain types of cancer. These findings were not replicated in studies of humans. After evaluating these and other studies in 2006, EFSA concluded that no further safety reviews of aspartame were needed and that the acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 40 mg/kg body weight should remain. The new review, published in the Annals of Oncology, looked at the safety of a number of common sweeteners, particularly saccharin and aspartame. Italian case-control studies conducted over a 13year period were brought together and checked for associations between sweetener consumption and the risk of developing cancer. Patients with various types of cancers formed the ‘test group’, including those with colon, rectal, oral and breast cancers. The ‘control group’ comprised 7000 patients admitted to hospital for reasons other than cancer. Dietary assessments were used to compare the intake of sweeteners in each group. No significant differences were found. When individual cancers were considered, it was found that women with breast or ovarian cancer tended to consume fewer sweeteners than controls. In the case of laryngeal cancer, a direct relationship was found between risk and total sweetener intake, although the sample size was relatively small. The authors concluded that consumption of saccharin, aspartame and other sweeteners did not appear to increase the risk of cancer. Average sweetener intake in Italy is lower than in other European countries, and little data were available for individual sweeteners, or the use of ‘Diet’ drinks. Despite these shortcomings, the study nevertheless makes an important contribution to the debate. For more information, see Gallus S et al (2007). Artificial sweeteners and cancer risk in a network of case-control studies. Annals of Oncology, vol 18: pp 40-44. http://www.eufic.org/page/el/show/latest-science-news/fftid/sweeteners-cancer/ Historically, honey and maple syrup have been used to replace sugar. Pure cornstarch is by far the biggest source of the other carbohydrate sweeteners used by today's food manufacturers. Cornstarch is split into a variety of smaller fragments (called dextrins) with acid or enzymes. The smaller fragments are then converted into the various cornstarch sweeteners used by today's food manufacturers. Hydrolysis is the term used to describe the overall process where starch is converted into various sweeteners. Sweetener products made by cornstarch hydrolysis include dextrose, corn syrup, corn syrup solids, maltodextrin, high fructose corn syrup, and crystalline fructose. A juice concentrate is the syrup produced after water, fiber and nutrients are removed from the original fruit juice. http://www.sugar.org/other-sweeteners/other-caloric-sweeteners.html 1.11 Safety of Low-Calorie Sweeteners All low-calorie sweeteners are subject to comprehensive safety evaluation by regulatory authorities; any unresolved issues at the time of application have to be investigated before they are approved for use in the human diet. Definitive independent information on the safety of sweeteners can be obtained from the websites of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA, http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_home.htm), the European Scientific Committee on Food (SCF, http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_ en.html) and Joint WHO/FAO Expert Committee http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/). on Food Additives (JECFA, The safety testing of food additives involves in vitro investigations, to detect possible actions on DNA, and in vivo studies in animals, to determine what effects the compound is capable of producing when administered at high doses, or high dietary concentrations, every day. The daily dose levels are increased until either some adverse effect is produced or until 5% of the animal’s diet has been replaced by the compound. The dose levels are usually very high because a primary purpose of animal studies is to find out what effects the compound can produce on the body irrespective of dose level (hazard identification). The dose-response data are analyzed to determine which the most sensitive effect (the so called critical effect). The highest level of intake that does not produce the critical effect, the no-observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), is used to establish a human intake with negligible risk, which is called the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The NOAEL is normally derived from chronic (long-term) studies in rodents. The ADI is usually calculated as the NOAEL (in mg/kg body weight per day) divided by a 100-fold uncertainty factor, which is to allow for possible species differences and human variability (Renwick et al., 2003; Renwick, 2009). Low-calorie sweeteners are often added to foods as mixtures or blends, because mixtures can provide an improved taste profile and in some cases the combination is sweeter than predicted from the amounts present. The only property that is common to all low-calorie sweeteners is their activity at the sweet-taste receptor. They do not share similar metabolic fates or high-dose effects. Therefore no interactions would arise if different low-calorie sweeteners are consumed together in a blend (Groten et al., 2000), and each sweetener would be as safe as if it were consumed alone. 1.12 REFERENCES Beckley, J. H., J.Huang, E. Topp, M. Foley, and W. Prinyawiwatkul. 2007. Accelerating New Food Product Design and Development. Blackwell Publishing, 36. ISBN 081380809X. Retrieved on 2011-05-13. Belleme, J., and J. Belleme. 2007. Japanese Foods That Heal. Tuttle Publishing, 55-58. ISBN 0804835942. Retrieved on 2011-05-13. Draycott, P. A. 2006. Sugar Beet. Blackwell Publishing, 451. ISBN 140511911X. Retrieved on 2011-05-13. Emery, C. 2003. The Encyclopedia of Country Living, An Old Fashioned Recipe Book. Sasquatch Books, 313. ISBN 157061377X. Retrieved on 2011-05-13. Groten, J.P., W. Butler, V.J. Feron, G. Kozianowski, A.G. Renwick, and R. Walker. 2000. An analysis of the possibility for health implications of joint actions and interactions between food additives. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 31: 77-91. Hanover, L.M, and J.S. White. 1993. Manufacturing, composition, and applications of fructose. Am J Clin Nutr 58(suppl 5):724S-732S. Heikki, K., T. Teerinen, S. Ahtonen, M. Suihko, and R. R. Linko. 2007. Composition and Properties of Birch Syrup (Betula pubescens). J. Agric. Food Chem. 37: 51-54. Hovey, M. C. 1841. The Magazine of Horticulture, Botany, and All Useful Discoveries. Hovey and Co., 32. Retrieved on 2011-05-11. Kinghorn, A. D. 2002. Stevia: The Genus Stevia. CRC Press. ISBN 0415268303. Manrique, I., A. Párraga and M. Hermann. 2005. "Yacon syrup: Principles and processing" (PDF). Series: Conservación y uso de la biodiversidad de raíces y tubérculos andinos: Una década de investigación para el desarrollo (1993-2003). 8B: 31p. Menzel, P., and F. D'Aluisio, 1998. Man Eating Bugs: The Art and Science of Eating Insects. Ten Speed Press, 29. ISBN 1580080227. Retrieved on 2011-06-02. Moerman, D. E. 1998. Native American Ethnobotany. Timber Press, 38-41. ISBN 0881924539. Retrieved on 2011-05-14. Nimbkar, N., N. M. Kolekar, J. H. Akade and A.K. Rajvanshi 2006. "Syrup Production from Sweet Sorghum" (PDF). Nimbkar Agricultural Research Institute (NARI), Phaltan: 1-10. Renwick, 2009. 10th Panhellenic Congress on Nutrition. Sweetener risk roadshow booklet. Renwick, A.G., S.M. Barlow, I. Hertz-Picciotto, A.R. Boobis, E. Dybing, L. Edler, G. Eisenbrand, J.B. Greig, J. Kleiner, J. Lambe, D.J.G. Muller, M.R. Smith, A. Tritscher, S. Tuijtelaars, P.A. van den Brandt, R. Walker, and R. Kroes, 2003. Risk characterization of chemicals in food and diet. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 41: 1211-1271. Roehl, E. 1996. Whole Food Facts: The Complete Reference Guide. Inner Traditions / Bear & Company, 134-135. ISBN 089281635X. Saunders, C. F. 1976. Edible and Useful Wild Plants of the United States and Canada. Courier Dover Publications, 219. ISBN 0486233103.White, J.S. 1992. Fructose syrup: production, properties and applications, In Starch Hydrolysis Products – Worldwide Technology, Production, and Applications eds FW Schenck & RE Hebeda, VCH Publishers, Inc. pp. 177200. White, J.S. 2008. Straight talk about high-fructose corn syrup: what it is and what it ain't. Am J Clin Nutr 88(6):1716S-1721S. Widdowson, E.M. and R.A. McCance. 1935. The available carbohydrate of fruits: Determination of glucose, fructose, sucrose and starch. Biochem. J. 29(1):151-156. Internet sources http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scf/reports_ en.html, Accessed July 2011. http://www.efsa.europa.eu/EFSA/efsa_locale-1178620753812_home.htm, Accessed August 2011. http://www.who.int/ipcs/food/jecfa/en/, Accessed July 2011.