MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402930504 · doi:10.46756/001c.123522

Safety Assessment on the Change of Conditions of Use for the Novel Food, UV-treated Baker’s Yeast (RP1908)

2024· article· en· W4402930504 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFSA research and evidence. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicInsect Utilization and Effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsYeastFood scienceFood safetyChemistryComputer scienceBusinessBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) and Food Standards Scotland (FSS) received an application from Lallemand Bio-ingredients, Canada (“the applicant”) for a change in the intended conditions of use of UV-treated Baker’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as a novel food in February 2023. The novel food is UV-treated Baker’s yeast which is intended to be used as a food ingredient. The novel food is manufactured by treating Baker’s yeast with ultraviolet light to induce the conversion of ergosterol to vitamin D2 (ergocalciferol). UV-treated Baker’s yeast is currently authorised as a novel food in the UK and EU under assimilated Commission Regulation (EU) 2017/2470. This new application is a change in the conditions of use seeking to extend the intended use of UV-treated Baker’s yeast within the food category: water-based beverages. The FSA and FSS in their evaluation of the application reviewed the safety dossier and supplementary information provided by the applicant. The FSA and FSS did not consider any potential health benefits or claims arising from consuming the food, as the focus of the novel food assessment is to ensure the change in the conditions of use to extend the food is safe, and not putting consumers at a nutritional disadvantage. The FSA and FSS concluded that the applicant had provided sufficient information to assure that the change in the conditions of use for UV-treated Baker’s yeast to include the food category water-based beverages, was safe under the intended conditions of use. The anticipated intake levels and the intended use in foods was not considered to be nutritionally disadvantageous. The safety assessment represents the opinion of the FSA and FSS.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0090.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.006

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.432
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.014 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFSA research and evidence.Same topicInsect Utilization and EffectsFrench-language works237,207