Statement on the safety of iodized ethyl esters of poppy seed oil as a source of iodine added for nutritional purposes to foodstuffs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources added to Food (ANS) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of “iodized ethyl esters of poppy seed oil” (ethyl esters of iodinated fatty acids of poppy seed oil, EEIFAPSO) and the bioavailability of the iodine from this source when used for the fortification of vegetable oils with iodine. The safety of iodine itself, in terms of amounts that may be consumed, is outside the remit of this Panel. EEIFAPSO are described as a mixture of ethyl palmitate, ethyl stearate, ethyl monoiodostearates, ethyl diiodostearates and ethyl triiodostearates. The iodine content of EEIFAPSO is 37-39 % (w/w) and the source is intended to be added at the concentration of 2.76-3.05 mg of EEIFAPSO per kg of vegetable oil. The Panel noted that kinetic data referring to exposure conditions of fortification are limited and that available results are indicating that a possible bioaccumulation of EEIFAPSO and/or their metabolites may occur. Furthermore the available data did not allow a quantitative assessment of the bioavailability of iodine from EEIFAPSO. No data are available on short-term, subchronic and chronic toxicity, carcinogenicity and reproductive toxicity of EEIFAPSO. Overall the Panel could not conclude on the safety of EEIFAPSO as a source of iodine in food fortification and on the bioavailability of iodine from this source due to data gaps in the kinetic and the dynamic properties of the different iodinated compounds in EEIFAPSO.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.032 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".