Acacia gum (E 414) in infant foods and general use
What it found
The authors found no reason for health concern from acacia gum in infants under 16 weeks, based on large margins of safety.
No new toxicology or clinical data in infants were provided.
What they found
Animal and lab studies
Infant safety margins
Using the highest doses tested without adverse effects from subchronic studies and comparing them with estimated exposure in infants, the margins of safety were large. The Panel indicated there is no reason for health concern.
Other findings
Toxic element limits
Based on analytical data submitted, the Panel recommended lowering the limits in the specifications for toxic elements.
New specifications needed
The Panel identified the need for further specifications for aluminium, microbiological criteria and protein residues.
Oxidising enzymes
Information was not provided for oxidising enzymes. The Panel recommended that oxidases and peroxidases should be inactivated during the manufacturing process.
What the authors conclude
“the margins of safety were large indicating that there is no reason for health concern”
Also in their conclusions
- They recommended to lower the limits in the specifications for toxic elements and identified the need for further specifications for aluminium, microbiological criteria and protein residues.
- They recommended that oxidases and peroxidases should be inactivated during the manufacturing process.
- They stated that the margins of safety were large indicating that there is no reason for health concern.
How it was done
Acacia gum (E 414) was re-evaluated in 2017. As a follow-up, the Panel was asked to assess its safety as a carry-over in food for infants below 16 weeks of age and to address issues from the earlier re-evaluation for the general population.
The Panel published a call for data and reviewed analytical data submitted by interested parties. They compared the highest doses tested without adverse effects from subchronic studies in the previous re-evaluation with estimated exposure in infants. No toxicological, clinical or post-marketing surveillance data specific to infants below 16 weeks were submitted.
What it can’t tell you
- We summarised it from the abstract only.
- No toxicological, clinical or post-marketing surveillance data specific to infants below 16 weeks of age were submitted.
- The safety conclusion for infants relies on animal studies and estimated exposure, not on direct studies in infants.
The paper
- Title
- Opinion on the re-evaluation of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups
- Type
- Scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
- Evidence
- Animals and lab studies
- Summarised from
- Abstract only
- Cite
- EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Younes M, Aquilina G, et al (2019). Opinion on the re-evaluation of acacia gum (E 414) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and the follow-up of its re-evaluation as a food additive for uses in foods for all population groups. EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.5922Free full textPubMed 32626209DOI
Summary written 26 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error