Evidence mapPaperPMID 41710869Full record

ArticleEFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority2026

Re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as a food additive and evaluation of a new application on extension of use of sucralose (E 955) in fine bakery wares.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Laurence Castle, Monica Andreassen, Gabriele Aquilina, Maria Lourdes Bastos, Polly Boon, Biagio Fallico, Reginald FitzGerald, Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez, Bettina Grasl-Kraupp and 27 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

37 authors.

EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF)
Laurence Castle
Monica Andreassen
Gabriele Aquilina
Maria Lourdes Bastos
Polly Boon
Biagio Fallico
Reginald FitzGerald
Maria Jose Frutos Fernandez
Bettina Grasl-Kraupp
Ursula Gundert-Remy
Rainer Gürtler
Eric Houdeau
Marcin Kurek
Henriqueta Louro
Patricia Morales
Sabina Passamonti
Monika Batke
Antonios Dourus
James Chipman
Riccardo Crebelli
Peter Fürst
Thorhallur Halldorsson
Manuela Mirat
Alicja Mortensen
Matthew Wright
Oliver Lindtner
Stefania Barmaz
Consuelo Civitella
Zsuzsanna Horvath
Sara Levorato
Elena Mazzoli
Josef Daniel Rasinger
Ana Maria Rincon
Camilla Smeraldi
Alexandra Tard
Federica Lodi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The present opinion deals with the re-evaluation of sucralose (E 955) as food additive and with the safety of a proposed extension of use in food category (FC) 7.2 'Fine bakery wares'. Based on the available data, no safety concerns arose for genotoxicity of sucralose (E 955) and its impurities and degradation products. Based on the weight of evidence (WoE), the Panel considered the decrease in body weight observed in rats as the relevant endpoint for the derivation of a reference point (RP). The Panel performed a benchmark dose (BMD) analysis on the data from the longest study (combined chronic and carcinogenicity study) with a modified benchmark dose response to account for the poor palatability of sucralose. The resulting RP was 55 mg/kg bw per day (benchmark dose lower confidence limit; BMDL). The Panel considered it appropriate to derive chemical-specific assessment factor for sucralose and concluded that there is no need to revise the current ADI of 15 mg/kg bw per day of sucralose (E 955) previously established by the Scientific Committee on Food. The exposure estimates considering the currently authorised uses did not exceed the ADI. Therefore, the Panel concluded that there is no safety concern at the reported uses and use levels of sucralose (E 955). The overall exposure did not increase substantially when considering the proposed extension of use. However, based on the available data and the identified uncertainties regarding the potential formation of chlorinated compounds under the wide range of baking processes that may be applicable for FC 7.2, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the proposed extension of use of E 955 in this FC. The Panel issued recommendations to the European Commission, primarily to consider a revision of the EU specifications for sucralose.

Indexed as

E 955food additivesucralosesweetener

Identifiers

PMID41710869
PMCPMC12911467

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.