EFSA opinion · EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023Abstract only

Calcium carbonate (E 170) as a food additive, re-assessed

What it found

The authors say there is no need for a numerical daily limit for calcium carbonate and no safety concern from its use as a food additive at reported levels, including in infants under 16 weeks.

They flag aluminium present in it as a concern.

What they found

Daily limit not needed

The authors concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake for calcium carbonate.

No safety concern, according to the study

The authors say that, in principle, there are no safety concerns from exposure to calcium carbonate itself at the currently reported uses and use levels in all age groups, including infants below 16 weeks of age.

Small part of calcium

Calcium taken in from E 170 in food makes up only a small part of the total calcium in the diet for the general population and for infants under 16 weeks.

Aluminium in E 170

Aluminium is unavoidably present in E 170. The authors say this is of concern and should be addressed.

Specifications update

The technical data sent in by business operators support further changes to the specifications for E 170 set out in Commission Regulation (EU) No 231/2012.

What the authors conclude

“the Panel concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) for calcium carbonate and that, in principle, there are no safety concern with respect to the exposure to calcium carbonate per se at the currently reported uses and use levels in all age groups of the population, including infants below 16 weeks of age.”
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Younes M, Aquilina G, et al, 2023

Also in their conclusions

  • They concluded that there is no need for a numerical acceptable daily intake for calcium carbonate.
  • They say that, in principle, there are no safety concerns with respect to exposure to calcium carbonate per se at the currently reported uses and use levels in all age groups, including infants below 16 weeks of age.
  • They state that the unavoidable presence of aluminium in E 170 is of concern and should be addressed.

How it was done

Calcium carbonate (E 170) was last re-evaluated in 2011. The authors were asked to look again at its use in foods for infants under 16 weeks and to address issues left open from the earlier assessment for the general population.

The authors ran a call for data so that interested business operators could send in the information needed to complete the risk assessment. They then assessed the safety of calcium carbonate for its uses as a food additive, including in foods for infants under 16 weeks, and as carry over.

What it can’t tell you

  • We summarised it from the abstract only.
  • This assessment is based on data provided by business operators and on reported uses and use levels.
  • It cannot show what happens when calcium carbonate is used at different levels or in different foods from those reported.

The paper

Title
Re-evaluation of calcium carbonate (E 170) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as food additive for uses in foods for all population groups
Type
Scientific opinion of the European Food Safety Authority
Summarised from
Abstract only
Cite
EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF), Younes M, Aquilina G, et al (2023). Re-evaluation of calcium carbonate (E 170) as a food additive in foods for infants below 16 weeks of age and follow-up of its re-evaluation as food additive for uses in foods for all population groups. EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8106Free full textPubMed 37522100DOI

Summary written 26 Sep 2026. Check it against the paper before it changes what you eat. How we summarise papers · Report an error