The EatMatrix library / 615 entries
Foods, nutrients, extracts and E numbers. Understand their purpose, possible effects and what the research can tell us.
615 catalogue entries
No matching entry. Try a shorter ingredient name or its E number. A missing result does not establish safety.
This library covers our 619 catalogue records: 356 existing E-number guides represent 360 records, alongside 259 other ingredient records. Some names and forms overlap, so these counts do not represent distinct substances.
Category context explains a type of food or ingredient. It is not a clinical test of every named item. Nutrient summaries, scientific opinions, human trials and legal permissions answer different questions. Each source below states its role.
Study types in plain language: what human trials, observational studies and laboratory findings can tell us.
A source date is not proof that all later research has been reviewed. Selected study summaries retain their limitations. A recent-literature search is discovery, not a reviewed verdict. No local study link does not mean an ingredient has never been tested.
Some labels describe a mixture, a broad category or a nutrition measure. These need the actual composition before a specific benefit, risk or permission can be determined. Ordinary foods do not all need additive-specific approval.
Country permission depends on the exact substance, preparation, intended food use and current rules. These source references do not establish permission in every market. See the market sources and E-number evidence guide.
Library source selection: . Individual authority and study checks retain their own dates. Ingredient-specific review is still in progress. This is general food information; it does not assess your health or the quantities in a particular product.
These are source and jurisdiction guides, checked 8 October 2026. Selected entries also show named Canadian food-use records with their food categories, limits and preparation conditions. These are not eight completed permission decisions for every ingredient. Missing product matching means the decision is unresolved, rather than “banned” or “never tested”. Ordinary foods, extracts, supplements and technological uses can follow different rules.
Novel-food authorisation, scientific assessment and additive/flavouring/enzyme rules are separate. Match specifications and conditions of use in the relevant legal list.
European Commission / EFSA: official sourceIdentify whether the use is a food additive, colour additive, GRAS food use or another category. A scientific paper or supplement label is not an FDA approval.
FDA: official sourceUse the authorised-product register and relevant legislation for England, Wales and Scotland. An application is not an authorisation, and some determinations cover only England and Wales. Guidance updated 7 October 2026 describes proposed UK–EU SPS changes but says existing GB rules continue for now.
FSA / Food Standards Scotland: official sourceApplicable EU rules and Northern Ireland arrangements need a separate check. Eligible GB retail products may move through NIRMS under its conditions; a GB register entry alone does not settle every NI use.
FSA / applicable EU rules: official sourceNovel-food and food-additive pre-market requirements answer different questions. Match the exact preparation and proposed use rather than inferring permission from a familiar name.
Health Canada: official sourceCheck the Food Standards Code, including the relevant novel-food, additive or processing-aid provisions. Local enforcement and preparation-specific conditions still matter.
FSANZ / Australian enforcement authorities: official sourceThe joint Code is a starting point; check the applicable New Zealand provisions and actual preparation. Shared FSANZ assessment does not remove every jurisdictional difference.
FSANZ / New Zealand enforcement authorities: official sourceFood-additive lists, specifications and use standards need an exact match. This additive directory does not determine the status of every ordinary food, extract or supplement.
Consumer Affairs Agency / FSCJ: official sourceOpen an entry for effects, uses, risks and sources. Where an explanation applies to the category, that scope stays visible.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2011 short feeding study compared diluted acerola juice with an equal vitamin C amount in solution. Some urinary vitamin C measures differed; the blood exposure difference was described as a tendency rather than a clear statistically established advantage.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is a vitamin-absorption experiment with juice, not a clinical trial of acerola puree, infection prevention or superior immunity. It cannot establish that acerola is always better than isolated vitamin C.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
This label may refer to a food additive already represented by an E-number entry, or to several distinct forms.
Food function and relevant assessment depend on the exact form.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: The US provision identifies potassium bicarbonate, KHCO3, and specifies food-grade material used under current good manufacturing practice as a formulation aid, nutrient supplement, pH-control agent or processing aid.
EatMatrix’s reading: Potassium hydrogen carbonate is another name for potassium bicarbonate. Food-use conditions are not a recommendation to take an alkalising supplement. Match purity, intended purpose and amount; the US provision does not resolve every market.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Potassium bicarbonate has been studied in people. Bone markers and muscle performance are different outcomes, and the results should not be combined into a general “anti-ageing” claim.
EatMatrix’s reading: Its use to control acidity in a food does not mean an alkalising supplement will strengthen muscles or prevent fractures.
The 2026 trial did not find an improvement in leg-press power, physical performance or muscle mass with potassium bicarbonate.
The primary muscle outcome was null; a change in IGF-1 does not establish a practical benefit.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
The lower-dose group had improvements in bone-turnover markers and both doses reduced urinary calcium. Strength and physical function did not improve.
Markers of bone turnover are not fractures; this short study did not demonstrate fracture prevention.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Ethanol affects the brain and other organs; the exposure depends on the amount actually consumed.
No health benefit is claimed from alcohol as an ingredient.
The name does not reveal residual ethanol after cooking or processing; no personal safe dose is given.
WHO: WHO describes ethanol as psychoactive and toxic, with health risks even at low beverage intakes. A food-label name alone does not establish the actual ethanol exposure.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO identifies ethanol as a toxic, psychoactive substance associated with dependence, cancer and other harms. Risk depends on the amount and pattern of consumption, with some risk even at low consumption.
EatMatrix’s reading: An “alcohol” ingredient does not disclose the amount of ethanol remaining per serving. Distinguish an alcoholic drink from a flavour extract or a cooked food, and check the final concentration. This source cannot calculate personal risk from an unspecified residue.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Research on drinking alcohol cannot tell us the amount left in an unspecified food. A recent large study of changes in drinking also needs to be read separately from the established harms of ethanol.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the final alcohol content and serving size. A null result for changing intake in one cohort does not show that alcohol is harmless.
Changes in alcohol intake in midlife were not associated with subsequent postmenopausal breast-cancer incidence in this analysis.
Observational study, with self-reported intake and missing follow-up data handled by imputation. It did not test alcohol against abstinence in a randomized trial, or estimate risk from flavouring residues.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission. Ethanol concentration, whether the final product is a beverage, and jurisdiction-specific alcohol rules need separate checks.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
population health risk assessment, not food authorisation
28 June 2024 public-health summary, read 8 October 2026. Beverage exposure context is not an estimate of residual ethanol in a food.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The name does not reveal residual ethanol after cooking or processing; no personal safe dose is given.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
The 2025 EFSA opinion could not establish safety of a submitted novel-food application because requested information was missing. This is neither a worldwide ban nor proof that all preparations cause harm.
Allulose is a sugar substitute assessed differently from ordinary glucose or sucrose.
FDA’s US label guidance recognises its different calorie/sugar-labelling treatment.
The 2025 opinion is an application-specific scientific finding, not proof of harm or an exhaustive current worldwide authorisation check. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA’s June 2025 application assessment could not establish safety after requested identity, production, use, genotoxicity and human data were not provided.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Human studies exist, but findings vary by outcome and duration. A 2026 acute study examined glucose and hormone responses; a small2023 trial in people with type 2 diabetes did not improve overall glucose control or body composition. A 2026 two-dose tolerance study reported mainly mild transient digestive symptoms. These studies do not establish universal long-term safety, treatment benefit or country permission.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Findings apply to the specified preparation, people and outcomes.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
application-specific scientific assessment; not itself a legal ban
US label guidance, not blanket approval of every allulose product
Published 5 June 2025; adopted 6 May 2025. Selected application, missing-data and conclusion sections checked 8 October 2026. Not a worldwide legal decision or complete latest-study review.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The 2025 opinion is an application-specific scientific finding, not proof of harm or an exhaustive current worldwide authorisation check. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A tree-nut food supplying a mixture of fat, protein and fibre, rather than an isolated almond extract.
A food-group contribution rather than a treatment.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies peanuts and tree nuts as separate major-allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A July 2026 trial randomized 175 adults with poor sleep quality to whole almonds or a comparison snack for five months. Some self-reported sleep measures improved, while most objective sleep measures did not show a significant treatment effect. Participants knew their food allocation and analyses were per protocol. The Almond Board of California supported the study. This is not proof that almonds treat insomnia or that almond extract has the same effects.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Helps break starch chains into smaller carbohydrates during food processing. Amylase is a family label, not a defined alpha- or beta-amylase preparation.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: Two 2026 EFSA extensions of use assessed alpha-amylase from Aspergillus niger NZYM-MC and Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-KE. Each found no safety concern under its revised intended conditions. The preparations, production strains and assessed manufacturing processes differ.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Amylase” does not identify alpha versus other activities or the production strain. These are examples of assessed preparations, not proof that the catalogue ingredient is either one. Match the manufacturer specification, use level and residual enzyme before applying a conclusion.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Amylase can break down starch, but the selected human trials used enzyme mixtures. They do not establish that this enzyme alone improves digestion or health.
EatMatrix’s reading: For amylase, match the source organism, activity, preparation and amount. A supplement trial does not test an enzyme residue left after food processing.
Overall amino-acid exposure after a meal did not improve significantly. Leucine reached its peak earlier; glucose and free-fatty-acid concentrations were higher.
Daily digestive symptoms did not improve significantly. Three events were considered potentially related to the mixture. BIO-CAT funded the study and participated in its design and interpretation.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Digestive symptom scores improved over 60 days compared with placebo. The mixture contained amylase, protease, lipase, cellulase and lactase.
Small study; the authors were founder/employees of its manufacturer. A result for the mixture cannot identify the contribution of one enzyme.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item A.4.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (c) Chocolate syrups
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (d) Cider; Fruit wine; Wine
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (e) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (f) Infant cereal products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (g) Malt-flavoured dried breakfast cereals
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (h) Plant-based beverages
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (i) Pre-cooked (instant) breakfast cereals
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (j) Single-strength fruit juices
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (k) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (l) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (c) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (a) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (c) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (b) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (c) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (d) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (e) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis JS1252
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0003 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis JS1252
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0003 (see the official list).
Specified source: (6) Bacillus licheniformis MDT06-228
Food: (a) Bread
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Bacillus licheniformis MDT06-228
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis AR - 651; Bacillus subtilis NBA (DS 68703)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0200 NOM/ADM-0089 (see the official list).
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis AR - 651; Bacillus subtilis NBA (DS 68703)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0200 NOM/ADM-0089 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC720)
Food: Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (9) Pseudomonas fluorescens DC88
Food: (a) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0063 (see the official list).
Specified source: (9) Pseudomonas fluorescens DC88
Food: (b) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0063 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Another catalogue row for an enzyme label associated with breaking starch into smaller carbohydrates. It does not identify a production strain.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: Two 2026 EFSA extensions of use assessed alpha-amylase from Aspergillus niger NZYM-MC and Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-KE. Each found no safety concern under its revised intended conditions. The preparations, production strains and assessed manufacturing processes differ.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Amylase” does not identify alpha versus other activities or the production strain. These are examples of assessed preparations, not proof that the catalogue ingredient is either one. Match the manufacturer specification, use level and residual enzyme before applying a conclusion.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Amylase can break down starch, but the selected human trials used enzyme mixtures. They do not establish that this enzyme alone improves digestion or health.
EatMatrix’s reading: For amylase, match the source organism, activity, preparation and amount. A supplement trial does not test an enzyme residue left after food processing.
Overall amino-acid exposure after a meal did not improve significantly. Leucine reached its peak earlier; glucose and free-fatty-acid concentrations were higher.
Daily digestive symptoms did not improve significantly. Three events were considered potentially related to the mixture. BIO-CAT funded the study and participated in its design and interpretation.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Digestive symptom scores improved over 60 days compared with placebo. The mixture contained amylase, protease, lipase, cellulase and lactase.
Small study; the authors were founder/employees of its manufacturer. A result for the mixture cannot identify the contribution of one enzyme.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item A.4.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (c) Chocolate syrups
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (d) Cider; Fruit wine; Wine
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (e) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (f) Infant cereal products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (g) Malt-flavoured dried breakfast cereals
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (h) Plant-based beverages
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (i) Pre-cooked (instant) breakfast cereals
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (j) Single-strength fruit juices
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (k) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis ; Barley malt; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (l) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger STz18-9 (pHUda7)
Food: (c) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (a) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus amyloliquefaciens EBA 20 (pUBH2); Bacillus licheniformis ; Bacillus licheniformis BML 592 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis BML 730 (pAmyAmp); Bacillus licheniformis LA 57 (pDN1981); Bacillus licheniformis LAT8 (pLAT3); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1159 (pLiH1108); Bacillus licheniformis LiH 1464 (pLiH1346); Bacillus licheniformis MOL2083 (pCA164-LE399); Bacillus licheniformis PL 1303 (pPL1117)
Food: (c) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (b) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (c) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (d) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis 3253 (plCatH-3253); Bacillus licheniformis 3266 (plCatH-3266ori1); Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC800); Geobacillus stearothermophilus previously identified as Bacillus stearothermophilus
Food: (e) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis JS1252
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0003 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis JS1252
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0003 (see the official list).
Specified source: (6) Bacillus licheniformis MDT06-228
Food: (a) Bread
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Bacillus licheniformis MDT06-228
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis AR - 651; Bacillus subtilis NBA (DS 68703)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0200 NOM/ADM-0089 (see the official list).
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis AR - 651; Bacillus subtilis NBA (DS 68703)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0200 NOM/ADM-0089 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Bacillus subtilis B1.109 (pCPC720)
Food: Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (9) Pseudomonas fluorescens DC88
Food: (a) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0063 (see the official list).
Specified source: (9) Pseudomonas fluorescens DC88
Food: (b) Starch used in the manufacture of dextrins, dextrose, glucose, glucose solids or maltose
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0063 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Fruit contributes to dietary variety. Whole fruit and a concentrated juice or extract are different foods.
Can contribute fibre and nutrients.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 crossover trial in 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than equal-energy puree or juice; fullness was greater than after juice. A newer crossover study in 64 children aged 4–6 found no overall satiety difference between apple slices, puree and juice when eating speed and visual cues were controlled. These are short meal experiments, not weight-loss or long-term safety trials.
EatMatrix’s reading: The same two studies are shown for the apple, juice and puree entries; this is not three independent replications. Concentrates and mixed apple products were not tested.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 crossover trial in 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than equal-energy puree or juice; fullness was greater than after juice. A newer crossover study in 64 children aged 4–6 found no overall satiety difference between apple slices, puree and juice when eating speed and visual cues were controlled. These are short meal experiments, not weight-loss or long-term safety trials.
EatMatrix’s reading: The same two studies are shown for the apple, juice and puree entries; this is not three independent replications. Concentrates and mixed apple products were not tested.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 randomized crossover study of 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than energy-matched puree or juice. Fullness and satiety were greater for whole apples than juice; juice and puree did not differ. A separate study of 64 children aged 4–6, first published online in August 2025, found no overall satiety difference between matched apple forms when eating rate and visual cues were controlled.
EatMatrix’s reading: These studies tested ready-to-eat apple preparations, not concentrated ingredients used as sweeteners. They do not establish the fibre, sugar concentration or filling effect of this product. Adult and child results answer different questions; the studies are not a universal claim that puree is less filling.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 crossover trial in 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than equal-energy puree or juice; fullness was greater than after juice. A newer crossover study in 64 children aged 4–6 found no overall satiety difference between apple slices, puree and juice when eating speed and visual cues were controlled. These are short meal experiments, not weight-loss or long-term safety trials.
EatMatrix’s reading: The same two studies are shown for the apple, juice and puree entries; this is not three independent replications. Concentrates and mixed apple products were not tested.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 randomized crossover study of 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than energy-matched puree or juice. Fullness and satiety were greater for whole apples than juice; juice and puree did not differ. A separate study of 64 children aged 4–6, first published online in August 2025, found no overall satiety difference between matched apple forms when eating rate and visual cues were controlled.
EatMatrix’s reading: These studies tested ready-to-eat apple preparations, not concentrated ingredients used as sweeteners. They do not establish the fibre, sugar concentration or filling effect of this product. Adult and child results answer different questions; the studies are not a universal claim that puree is less filling.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
UK DHSC: The UK nutrient-model guidance published in January 2026 counts sugars naturally present in fruit purees and pastes with broken-down structure as free sugars. Its definition treats intact fresh, frozen, dried, stewed or canned fruit differently.
EatMatrix’s reading: Apricot, peach and pear puree can contribute fruit components, but “no added sugar” does not automatically mean no free sugars under this model. Check the puree proportion, fibre, portion and full recipe. This is a model definition, not evidence that every puree is harmful or a completed product assessment.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable human health trial of apricot purée was selected in this search. Studies of apricot kernels, oils or concentrated extracts would test different materials.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the fruit content, added sugar and serving size. Purée is a food form, not a treatment or an antioxidant dose.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An extracted starch used for thickening; it is not the whole arrowroot plant.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2000 pilot followed eleven patients with irritable bowel syndrome and diarrhoea while they took arrowroot powder for one month and then stopped for one month. Symptoms reportedly improved, but there was no randomized placebo group.
EatMatrix’s reading: This preliminary, uncontrolled study cannot establish an effective diarrhoea treatment. Natural symptom changes and expectation effects cannot be separated from the powder. Ordinary thickening use is a different question.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Colour category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
This names a colour category. It does not identify a particular dye or a dye mixture.
Artificial Colors is a collective label, not the name of one colour.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not transfer a finding about one dye to every colour. FDA distinguishes certified colours, which must be named on US labels, from some colours exempt from certification that may be declared collectively.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Colour ingredients change or restore a food’s appearance. The broad name does not identify which pigment or preparation was used.
Provides a chosen or more consistent colour; appearance alone does not establish a nutritional benefit.
Artificial colors is a collective label. Individual colours have separate specifications and permissions; a restriction on one colour cannot establish a ban on the whole category.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: The dye names and amounts are needed: a trial of two colour mixtures plus benzoate cannot identify the effect of an unnamed colour.
Human challenge research exists for particular colour mixtures. The 2007 childhood trial tested two mixtures together with sodium benzoate; findings differed by age, mixture and consumption analysis. It cannot identify the effect of one unnamed colour or establish that every colour causes ADHD. The record links an erratum whose full text was unavailable in this check.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find the actual dye names and amounts. Read the named assessment and study conditions rather than assigning one mixture’s result to the entire colour category.
EFSA: Food-colour assessment status, page reviewed January 2026Individual assessments and follow-up statuses; E140/E141 follow-up is listed as ongoing. A colour-family label does not identify the applicable assessment.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Artificial colours” does not identify a dye or prove that it is petroleum-derived. Obtain the actual colour names before checking research or a country’s permitted uses.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
For declared colour additives, Annex VII generally requires the function plus the specific name or E number. This collective English label does not identify that entry.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Certified colours generally need their listed names; many certification-exempt colours can use a collective colour declaration, subject to specific exceptions. FDA’s February 2026 policy permits specified voluntary “no artificial colours” claims without Part 74 colours under enforcement discretion; it does not remove other requirements.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Enforcement discretion for specified voluntary claims on foods without Part 74 certified colours. Other legal requirements remain.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
For declared colour additives, Annex VII generally requires the function plus the specific name or E number. This collective English label does not identify that entry. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
CFIA says food additives are declared by common name. A broad colour category does not identify the substance to match to a permitted-use list.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
A colour used as an additive is generally declared with its class followed by its name or code. The substance and its use still need identifying.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
A colour used as an additive is generally declared with its class followed by its name or code. The substance and its use still need identifying. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Artificial flavor identifies a flavouring category, not a particular molecule or formula.
This describes a flavouring category; different products can contain different substances.
EatMatrix’s reading: Artificial describes the flavour category, not a measured health effect. A study of one flavouring cannot assess an undisclosed blend.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Artificial flavor is a collective labelling term, not one molecule. Obtain the formulation before treating it as an individually assessed ingredient.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify each flavouring substance and carrier in this singular label; “artificial” describes a category, not one tested compound.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Artificial flavors is the plural category name. It does not reveal how many substances a product contains.
This describes a flavouring category; different products can contain different substances.
EatMatrix’s reading: Artificial describes the flavour category, not a measured health effect. A study of one flavouring cannot assess an undisclosed blend.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Artificial flavors can be a mixture. The term does not establish the presence or concentration of a particular flavouring substance.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: A multi-flavour blend needs its component list and amounts. A trial of one aroma molecule cannot rate the whole blend.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Sweetener category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Artificial sweetener describes a sweetening category. No specific sweetener is named in this record.
Artificial Sweetener can refer to different sweeteners or a blend with different use conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not assign the intake limit, warning or study result of aspartame, sucralose or another named sweetener to this whole category.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
A sweetener makes a food taste sweeter. This label does not identify which sweetener, blend or amount is present.
Provides sweetness; the name alone does not establish calories, glucose effects or a weight-loss benefit.
Artificial sweetener does not name the sweetening substance. Aspartame, sucralose, saccharin and mixtures must not inherit each other’s assessments.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: The sweetener name, blend, dose and what it replaces must match. Aspartame, sucralose, polyols and steviol glycosides do not share one trial result.
Different sweetener studies answer different questions. The 2025 SWEET trial included 341 adults and 38 children: after initial weight loss, a diet allowing sweetener products supported modestly better adult weight maintenance; cardiometabolic markers and children’s results did not differ significantly. It had EU funding and disclosed industry relationships. A June 2026 review, including a new meta-analysis with non-caloric comparators, reported concerns about glucose–insulin outcomes. These findings do not establish one effect for every sweetener.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify the sweetener and what it replaces. Replacing sugar, comparing with water, short-term glucose responses and long-term disease are different questions. Microbiome change alone is not a diagnosis or proof of clinical harm.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find the sweetener’s actual name. Different sweeteners have different permitted uses, exposure assessments and label warnings; “artificial sweetener” does not choose one.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Sweetener is a function class, not a substance identity. Annex VII generally pairs it with a specific name or E number; additional finished-food statements depend on the actual sweetener and product.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
FDA ingredient naming generally uses the common or usual substance name. This category label cannot identify a particular sweetener’s legal use or warning requirements.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Sweetener is a function class, not a substance identity. Annex VII generally pairs it with a specific name or E number; additional finished-food statements depend on the actual sweetener and product. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Food additives need common-name declarations. Identify each sweetener and match its actual food use; a collective name cannot settle a phenylalanine or other substance-specific statement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
An additive sweetener generally needs its class plus its name or code. Identify the substance before applying any separate warning or permitted-use condition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
An additive sweetener generally needs its class plus its name or code. Identify the substance before applying any separate warning or permitted-use condition. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Dried egg yolk used for food texture, emulsification and nutrients; barn describes production, not removal of egg proteins.
Food and protein contribution.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies egg as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 randomized trial assigned 24 young men to a processed fertilized-egg-yolk supplement, Fortetropin, or matched cheese powder during leg immobilization and recovery. Twenty-two completed and 20 were included after two noncompliant completers were excluded. The supplement did not prevent the loss of muscle size, lean mass or strength. A change in circulating myostatin did not translate into those benefits. The manufacturer Myos funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: Fortetropin is not ordinary barn egg-yolk powder, and cheese powder was the comparison food rather than a proven muscle treatment. This trial cannot establish a benefit for every egg-yolk or cheese powder, or remove the relevant egg or milk allergy concern.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A culinary herb or spice and a concentrated supplement from the same plant are different exposures.
Flavour and food use.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 single-blind trial in 60 patients with depression reported lower anxiety and depression questionnaire scores after four weeks of a particular basil syrup. Two earlier reports describe small one-month studies of basil-leaf extract capsules in menopausal women, with symptom and sleep-score improvements. These capsule reports may concern overlapping participants and are not counted as independent confirmation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Syrups and extracts used in selected clinical populations are different from basil leaves used as seasoning. The capsule reports describe inconsistent extract amounts, so no dose is reproduced. These findings do not establish treatment of depression, insomnia or menopause by ordinary basil.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Meat can supply protein. Fresh meat and processed meat have different evidence and handling considerations.
Dietary protein contribution.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
WHO / IARC: WHO distinguishes red meat (Group 2A) from processed meat (Group 1) in cancer hazard assessment. Classification describes strength of evidence, not equal danger to other agents or a guaranteed outcome from a serving.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 controlled-diet crossover trial compared red meat, white meat and nonmeat protein sources for four weeks each. The published correction gives 62 completers in the high-saturated-fat arm and 51 in the low-saturated-fat arm. LDL cholesterol and apoB were higher with both meat diets than with the nonmeat diet; red and white meat did not differ significantly on the primary measures. The correction also explains that differences in dietary cholesterol may account for part of the nonmeat diet’s effect. NIH funding was reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: The trial used specified beef/pork and chicken/turkey diets, not every beef or chicken product. It measured blood lipids, not heart attacks. Compare the complete dietary replacement and saturated fat, rather than promising that switching meat colour alone prevents heart disease.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
WHO Q&A dated 23 September 2026, read 8 October 2026. Explains earlier hazard assessments, not a new 2026 trial. Hazard category is not the size of an individual risk; optimal-intake guideline still under development.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Beetroot powder is a dried vegetable ingredient. Drying and processing change its concentration and food function.
Food flavour, colour or texture, depending on the preparation.
A study of beetroot juice or a specified nitrate dose cannot establish the same effect for an unspecified powder.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
An October 2026 randomized study of 27 middle-aged and older adults compared nitrate-rich with nitrate-depleted beetroot juice during 12 weeks of supervised resistance training. Training improved several muscle measures, but nitrate-rich juice did not add benefits on the reported muscle and performance outcomes. This is a measured juice preparation; it does not test this unspecified vegetable or powder. Funding, complete methods and source-version history have not been checked.
Selected abstract read only; exact food-form match absent; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
A study of beetroot juice or a specified nitrate dose cannot establish the same effect for an unspecified powder.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
An October 2026 randomized study of 27 middle-aged and older adults compared nitrate-rich with nitrate-depleted beetroot juice during 12 weeks of supervised resistance training. Training improved several muscle measures, but nitrate-rich juice did not add benefits on the reported muscle and performance outcomes. This is a measured juice preparation; it does not test this unspecified vegetable or powder. Funding, complete methods and source-version history have not been checked.
Selected abstract read only; exact food-form match absent; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s current dietary guidance supports a variety of vegetables as part of a balanced diet. That food-pattern recommendation is different from a clinical claim for an individual pepper or a concentrated pepper extract.
EatMatrix’s reading: Bell pepper and green pepper are ordinary vegetables. The identified 2017 study tested juice alongside yoga in 50 people with type 2 diabetes for four days. It also has a published corrigendum. The indexed records confirm that link, but the correction text remains unavailable in this check, so an efficacy claim is not adopted. This short, combined intervention cannot establish a diabetes treatment from eating peppers.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The identified human study tested bell-pepper juice together with yoga for four days, not eating an ordinary bell pepper. Its linked corrigendum still needs full-text resolution before an efficacy finding can be adopted.
EatMatrix’s reading: Keep peppers in the context of a varied diet. This combined, short intervention cannot establish a diabetes treatment; the original and correction links are retained above.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Processing aids require a defined substance, food-grade specification and intended process.
Processing function; no detoxification benefit is claimed.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: The US food provision concerns bentonite of suitable purity used as a processing aid under current good manufacturing practice, with no significant residue remaining in food.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is not permission to drink clay as a “detox” supplement. Food processing, intentional ingestion of a clay dose and animal-feed applications are different exposures. Match purity, process and residues before using the provision for a product.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
A purified calcium-montmorillonite clay preparation has been studied in children exposed to aflatoxin. That is a specific contaminant-binding use, not evidence for general “detox” claims.
EatMatrix’s reading: Bentonite used in food processing is not automatically the same preparation as an oral clay supplement. Identity, contaminants and exposure still matter.
The authors reported lower urinary aflatoxin M1 with NovaSil than with the placebo comparison. Most measured blood safety markers did not change.
A contaminant-exposure biomarker is not proof of less cancer or universal long-term safety. The abstract’s numerical reduction wording is ambiguous, so no percentage is adopted.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Fruit contributes to dietary variety. Whole fruit and a concentrated juice or extract are different foods.
Can contribute fibre and nutrients.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 randomized crossover study compared mixed berries, mixed-berry juice and matched gelatin foods in adults with overweight or obesity. Glucose, insulin and non-esterified fatty acids did not differ between individual treatments. A secondary pooled comparison found lower insulin exposure with the berry preparations, while its glucose difference was not statistically significant. USDA supported the research; the authors declared no conflicts.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Berry” does not identify a species, blend or portion. The secondary pooled finding cannot establish that every berry ingredient improves blood-sugar control or treats diabetes. Confirm which fruit and form the label actually contains.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Black carrot concentrate is a concentrated vegetable ingredient, which can be used for colour or flavour.
Food colour or flavour; a medicinal benefit is not established here.
General vegetable guidance does not establish a clinical effect for this particular concentrate.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2013 four-week trial in sixteen men with obesity found no significant improvement in weight, blood pressure, LDL cholesterol or inflammation with dried purple carrot; HDL cholesterol was lower. A separate 2009 feeding study in ten adults measured absorption of pigments from purple-carrot juice and found that chemical structure affected absorption.
EatMatrix’s reading: Pigment absorption is not a health benefit by itself. Neither study is a trial of every black-carrot concentrate used for colouring food, and animal antioxidant findings cannot override the human null results.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General vegetable guidance does not establish a clinical effect for this particular concentrate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
An edible mushroom ingredient requires correct species identification and proper food handling.
Food use.
“Black fungus” and “black mushroom” need species confirmation before a species-specific evidence assessment.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A small 2004 randomized, double-blind study assigned 34 people with functional constipation to placebo, Auricularia ear-mushroom fibre or an ear-mushroom mixture including cascara. The abstract reports improvement in constipation symptoms with the mushroom preparations; the mixture could cause abdominal discomfort or pain. This is an older selected study, not a new trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: First confirm that “black fungus” means the Auricularia preparation studied. A fibre supplement and a mixture containing a stimulant laxative do not establish the effects of a culinary serving. We link the PubMed record because the discovery database attached a DOI belonging to an unrelated 2022 stomach-cancer report.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
“Black fungus” and “black mushroom” need species confirmation before a species-specific evidence assessment.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
An edible mushroom ingredient requires correct species identification and proper food handling.
Food use.
“Black fungus” and “black mushroom” need species confirmation before a species-specific evidence assessment.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s dietary guidance concerns varied, safe foods. It does not identify a mushroom species or certify that a wild or vaguely named mushroom is edible.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Black mushroom” can refer to different fungi. Confirm the species and whether this is a cooked culinary food, dried powder or extract. A shiitake study cannot be assigned to this label without that match, and cooking does not establish that an unidentified wild mushroom is safe.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
An older ear-mushroom constipation study was located, but the indexed DOI resolves to an unrelated stomach-cancer paper. “Black mushroom” also does not securely identify the studied species. No benefit claim is adopted from that mismatched citation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Obtain the species and food preparation before matching a study. A named edible mushroom, extract and mixed laxative preparation are not interchangeable.
PubMed / Crossref: 2004 ear-mushroom trial: bibliographic identity unresolvedThe indexed DOI resolves to an unrelated stomach-cancer article. No result is adopted until the source and mushroom species are resolved.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
“Black fungus” and “black mushroom” need species confirmation before a species-specific evidence assessment.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: US flavour rules define natural flavour by its source and flavouring function, rather than nutritional function. They also distinguish a characterizing fruit flavour from the presence of the actual fruit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Blackcurrant flavour or cranberry flavour does not establish a fruit serving, researched polyphenol dose or the safety profile of a disclosed single compound. Obtain the formulation and carriers before matching a clinical study or permission. “Natural” alone does not settle allergy or health questions.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Blackcurrant-flavour searches did not identify a matched human health trial. Blackcurrant juice or anthocyanin research cannot show what an unspecified flavouring does in the body.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the named flavouring substances and carriers. A blackcurrant taste does not establish the presence or amount of fruit nutrients.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A report published online in 2025 and in a 2026 issue tested a standardized blackcurrant juice in twenty healthy young adults. Some brain blood-flow measures changed, but attention and working-memory performance did not improve. A separate 2024 study measured platelet enzyme inhibition after blackcurrant preparations; that is a biochemical outcome.
EatMatrix’s reading: Blood-flow or enzyme changes do not establish better cognition, depression treatment or the same effect from every blackcurrant concentrate. The specified cultivar, processing and composition differ from an unspecified flavouring ingredient.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 three-arm trial randomized 45 adults to tart-cherry juice, blueberry juice or placebo for 20 days. The primary systolic-blood-pressure outcome did not improve significantly. Some secondary cholesterol and questionnaire measures favoured blueberry juice.
EatMatrix’s reading: The tested drink and dilution matter. This small, short trial does not establish cardiovascular-disease prevention or depression treatment, and does not make every blueberry concentrate nutritionally equivalent to whole berries.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A baked grain-based food with a recipe-dependent mixture of flour, water and other ingredients.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Twenty healthy participants ate specified whole-grain sourdough and baker’s yeast breads in a short crossover trial. The overall gut-symptom score did not differ significantly. A diarrhoea subscore and some selected bacteria differed, but these exploratory findings need confirmation. The study involved and was partly funded by a bakery company.
EatMatrix’s reading: This does not show that every sourdough is easier to digest, or make wheat bread suitable for coeliac disease or wheat allergy.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A liquid sweetener supplying sugars and energy; brown colour does not establish a meaningful nutritional advantage.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s January 2026 healthy-diet guidance includes sugars in syrups and added glucose, fructose and sucrose within free sugars. It recommends limiting free sugars across the overall diet, rather than judging one ingredient name in isolation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Brown sugar syrup, caramelized sugar syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup and invert sugar differ in composition, but their names do not make the sugar contribution disappear. Compare grams of sugar and portion size in the finished food. Corn syrup is not automatically high-fructose corn syrup, and a dark colour does not prove meaningful nutritional benefit.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
A trial involving rose plus brown sugar was located. Because it tested a combined preparation, it cannot establish that brown sugar syrup alone relieves constipation. No syrup-specific clinical benefit is adopted.
EatMatrix’s reading: Judge this as a sugar ingredient from its amount in the food. The name and colour do not establish a meaningful health advantage over other sugar syrups.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A milk-derived liquid or cultured ingredient; the word does not specify an exact recipe or nutrient composition.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 secondary analysis of a 28-day fermented-buttermilk trial in 61 perimenopausal women did not show a clear cholesterol-lowering effect. Estimated dairy polar-lipid intake was associated with higher HDL cholesterol, but the intervention group had higher adjusted total and LDL cholesterol than controls. Exposure was estimated from diet questionnaires; the trial was registered retrospectively.
EatMatrix’s reading: An association with one blood marker does not establish a heart-health benefit or an effect of every buttermilk product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Check caffeine per serving and count all sources across the day. Personal sensitivity and timing matter.
Caffeine stimulates the central nervous system. It can make you feel more alert and less sleepy; it does not replace sleep or provide calories itself.
Alertness is an established effect. The amount and time of consumption matter more than whether caffeine comes from coffee, tea, guarana or an added ingredient.
The ingredient name cannot establish the caffeine amount in a product. A small sleep trial does not determine long-term safety, pregnancy safety or a personal bedtime cutoff.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2015 assessment separates acute intake, daily intake, pregnancy and sleep. It notes that even 100 mg close to bedtime can affect sleep in some adults.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA emphasizes total intake and individual sensitivity. Naturally occurring and added caffeine both count; pure concentrated products can be dangerous.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A small randomized crossover study analyzed 23 healthy men. A single 400 mg caffeine dose disrupted measured sleep even when taken 12 hours before bedtime. The 100 mg conditions did not show a statistically significant difference from placebo in this sample. That null result is not proof of no effect for everyone. The study was published online in October 2024 and in a 2025 journal issue.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
The same name occurs in the additive-use lists. These rows concern technological uses, not every nutritional, supplement or ordinary-food use of this ingredient.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Additives with Other Purposes of Use. List published ; item C.1.
Food: (a) Cola type beverages; Concentrates for cola type beverages
Purpose: (a) To characterize the product
Limit and conditions: (a) 150 ppm in the beverage as consumed
Source modification reference: M-FAA-25-07 (see the official list).
Food: (b) Concentrates for non-alcoholic carbonated water-based flavoured and sweetened beverages other than cola type beverages; Non-alcoholic carbonated water-based flavoured and sweetened beverages other than cola type beverages
Purpose: (b) To characterize the product
Limit and conditions: (b) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 150 ppm in the beverage as consumed. If used in combination with caffeine citrate, the total combined amount not to exceed 150 ppm in the beverage as consumed, calculated as caffeine.
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
scientific risk assessment across sources
Consumer safety and total caffeine exposure, including guarana; not approval of every product. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
2015 assessment summarized on the current topic page; distinguishes healthy adults, pregnancy and sleep effects. Checked 8 October 2026, not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The ingredient name cannot establish the caffeine amount in a product. A small sleep trial does not determine long-term safety, pregnancy safety or a personal bedtime cutoff.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A cane-derived sweetener, predominantly sucrose; it contributes energy and sweetness.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2015 randomized-order crossover study in 55 adults compared equal carbohydrate amounts from honey, sucrose and HFCS55 for two weeks each. Measured glucose and insulin responses did not differ by sweetener, and triglycerides increased after all three.
EatMatrix’s reading: This provides sucrose context for table or cane sugar, not proof that every brown, caramelized or mixed syrup has the same composition. “Natural” or cane origin does not establish a metabolic advantage.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An edible rapeseed-derived oil supplying fat and energy; its fatty-acid profile differs from butter or palm oil.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover trial in people with type 2 diabetes compared defined canola, sesame and mixed oils; 92 people completed all phases. The oils did not differ significantly in the measured oxidative-stress outcomes overall. Total antioxidant capacity decreased in some canola-containing conditions, and some findings occurred only in female subgroup analyses. These biomarkers do not establish prevention of heart attacks, a general antioxidant benefit, or equivalence of every rapeseed preparation.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A processed barley-malt flour used for colour and flavour as well as grain solids.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK identifies wheat, spelt and barley as gluten-containing grains.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA: FDA’s gluten-free framework sets conditions for a gluten-free claim; the appearance or flavour of a cereal ingredient cannot establish that it meets those conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Caramelized barley malt flour remains a barley-derived preparation. Caramelization does not establish removal of gluten. People requiring gluten exclusion need the actual composition and applicable compliant product claim, rather than assuming that browning or malting makes the ingredient suitable.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable human health trial of caramelized barley malt flour was selected. Barley-fibre studies require measured fibre and a defined preparation; they do not automatically apply to a malt flour used for colour or flavour.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the amount, fibre content and barley allergen information. Do not promise cholesterol or blood-sugar benefits from the malt-flour name.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Heated sugar syrup used for sweetness and colour. Its sugar contribution depends on the formulation.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s January 2026 healthy-diet guidance includes sugars in syrups and added glucose, fructose and sucrose within free sugars. It recommends limiting free sugars across the overall diet, rather than judging one ingredient name in isolation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Brown sugar syrup, caramelized sugar syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup and invert sugar differ in composition, but their names do not make the sugar contribution disappear. Compare grams of sugar and portion size in the finished food. Corn syrup is not automatically high-fructose corn syrup, and a dark colour does not prove meaningful nutritional benefit.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The search did not identify a matched human health trial of caramelized sugar syrup. A manufacturing colour or aroma study is not a study of effects in people.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the sugar quantity per serving. Caramelized sugar syrup is not automatically the same substance as a specified E-number caramel colour.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Nutrient category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Carbohydrates names a nutrient category. A total on a nutrition panel is not a recipe or one chemical.
Carbohydrates is a nutrient total, not a single chemical or a complete ingredient identity.
EatMatrix’s reading: A total carbohydrate value cannot distinguish free sugar from fibre or identify a specific ingredient for a clinical or additive-use check.
The original label field remains unverified. A nutrient total does not identify the food ingredients that supply it.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Total carbohydrate is a nutrition measure covering different carbohydrate components; it does not identify a single food ingredient.
Helps describe the food’s nutrient content. Sugar, starch and fibre information and the serving amount provide different details.
Carbohydrates is a nutrition category containing sugars, starches and fibres. It cannot support one substance-specific verdict or one clinical paper match.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: First confirm whether this is a nutrition-panel total. Sugars, starch and fibre within that total have different research and physiological effects.
Carbohydrate is a nutrient category covering materially different exposures, including sugars, starches and fibre. WHO’s 2023 evidence-based guideline focuses on carbohydrate quality and food sources. It does not give a total-carbohydrate number the same interpretation as a specific sugar, fibre or starch trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: Verify whether the word came from the nutrition panel or the ingredient list. Check the individual food sources and fibre/sugar information before applying a study; the nutrient total does not identify one substance to classify as safe or banned.
WHO: 2023 carbohydrate-quality guidelinePreferred food sources and carbohydrate quality; total carbohydrate does not distinguish sugar, fibre and starch.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . The original label field remains unverified. A nutrient total does not identify the food ingredients that supply it.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: First check whether this was read from the nutrition table. Energy is a measure, while total carbohydrate and total fat describe nutrients rather than a single ingredient. If fat appears as an ingredient, identify its source.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
The ingredient statement uses common or usual ingredient names. A nutrition-table value is a different kind of information; if fat is an actual ingredient, the fat/oil source needs checking.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Ingredient and component naming refers to foods and substances used in making the product. Verify the original panel before treating a nutrient total as a single ingredient or assigning a country verdict.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
CAA’s nutrition leaflet separately lists energy, fat and carbohydrate as nutrition information. These are not a recipe. Verify the original Japanese label before treating the field as an ingredient.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Selected English nutrition leaflet: energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate and salt equivalent; not a current full Japanese legal review.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explains nutrition quantities, calories, total fat and carbohydrate; does not identify the contents of a particular product
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Plain carbonated water contributes fluid; carbonation distinguishes it from still water.
Hydration without necessarily containing sugar.
No reflux, dental-erosion or mineral claim is made without product-specific evidence.
WHO: WHO prioritises microbiological and chemical water quality. Filtering, carbonation or a spring label does not by itself certify that the water meets drinking-water requirements.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 open-label trial randomized 46 Japanese adults to carbonated or still water for twelve weeks; 45 completed. Some snacking, alcohol-intake and weight measures favoured carbonated water. Many outcomes were analysed without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Asahi Soft Drinks funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: This exploratory study did not isolate spring-water origin or mineral content. It does not establish a weight-loss treatment or a liver-disease benefit, and participants knew which drink they received.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary water reference values, not contaminant test results for a water brand
13 September 2023 public-health guidance, read 8 October 2026. Microbiological and chemical water quality, not certification of a named source, filter or bottle.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No reflux, dental-erosion or mineral claim is made without product-specific evidence.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Plain carbonated water contributes fluid; carbonation distinguishes it from still water.
Hydration without necessarily containing sugar.
No reflux, dental-erosion or mineral claim is made without product-specific evidence.
WHO: WHO prioritises microbiological and chemical water quality. Filtering, carbonation or a spring label does not by itself certify that the water meets drinking-water requirements.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 12-week open-label trial enrolled 46 healthy Japanese adults with BMI 23 to below 30; 45 completed it. Carbonated water was associated with less reported snacking and alcohol intake and small changes in weight and some liver enzymes compared with still water. Many outcomes were tested without adjustment for multiple comparisons. Asahi Soft Drinks funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: This small exploratory trial does not establish weight-loss treatment or effects of sweetened soft drinks. No beverage-related adverse events were reported, which does not establish long-term safety for everyone.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary water reference values, not contaminant test results for a water brand
13 September 2023 public-health guidance, read 8 October 2026. Microbiological and chemical water quality, not certification of a named source, filter or bottle.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No reflux, dental-erosion or mineral claim is made without product-specific evidence.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2012 three-week study in 69 overweight breast-cancer survivors compared two specified carrot juices. Blood carotenoids increased with both. The study did not show improvement in the measured inflammatory markers and did not test cancer recurrence. The abstract contains an inconsistent reported odds ratio and confidence interval, so that numerical association is not used here.
EatMatrix’s reading: Carrot-juice biomarkers do not prove that whole carrots, black-carrot concentrate or supplements prevent cancer recurrence. Randomization between two juices is not a comparison against no carrot intake.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A milk protein used for nutrition and food structure; it is not the milk sugar lactose.
Can help supply dietary protein.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes milk and milk-protein-derived ingredients in major-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceWHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a crossover study of nine healthy resistance-trained adults, 40 g of casein, whey or an equal-energy carbohydrate control was taken before sleep after exercise. Whey improved some sleep measures against control; the study did not establish a casein sleep benefit or a significant whey-versus-casein sleep difference. Exercise performance and digestive symptoms did not differ between treatments.
EatMatrix’s reading: A whey-versus-control finding must not become a claim that casein worsens sleep. This small exercise experiment does not assess a normal mixed meal or long-term outcomes.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Breaks hydrogen peroxide down into water and oxygen. This is a chemical reaction, not evidence of an antioxidant benefit from eating a food containing it.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: Two 2026 follow-ups revised earlier unresolved catalase assessments. Aspergillus niger CTS2093 had updated uses and a larger exposure margin. Aspergillus tubingensis AE-CN had new evidence addressing viable cells and genotoxicity concerns. EFSA found no safety concern for each under its assessed intended conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: An older “unable to conclude” result should be read alongside its actual follow-up. These findings concern two specified preparations; they do not certify every catalase supplier, use or finished food.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Catalase activity measured in a person’s blood is not a trial of eating catalase. No applicable isolated oral-catalase trial was selected for this food-enzyme entry.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the source strain, manufacturing process and residual exposure to the official assessment above. Lack of a benefit trial does not mean the enzyme is untested for safety.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item C.3.
Specified source: Aspergillus niger ; Bovine ( Bos taurus ) liver ; Micrococcus luteus previously identified as Micrococcus lysodeikticus
Food: (a) Liquid egg-white, liquid whole egg or liquid yolk, destined for drying and treated with hydrogen peroxide – as set out in item H.1 of the List of Permitted Food Additives with Other Purposes of Use – or with glucose oxidase as set out in item G.5 of this list, or with both
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: Aspergillus niger ; Bovine ( Bos taurus ) liver ; Micrococcus luteus previously identified as Micrococcus lysodeikticus
Food: (b) Liquid whey treated with hydrogen peroxide as set out in item H.1 of the List of Permitted Food Additives with Other Purposes of Use
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: Aspergillus niger ; Bovine ( Bos taurus ) liver ; Micrococcus luteus previously identified as Micrococcus lysodeikticus
Food: (c) Soft drinks
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Celery and products made from it are on the EU mandatory allergen list. Allergen lists differ between countries.
A vegetable also used in powders, stocks and seasoning blends. Processing changes the food form, not its identity.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
UK Food Standards Agency: FSA’s guidance for England, Wales and Northern Ireland includes both mustard and celery among 14 allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2018 report studied sixteen older adults with prediabetes for twelve days using celery-leaf extract capsules or placebo. It describes a quasi-experimental design while also saying participants were randomly divided. Glucose fell in the treated group; insulin did not change significantly. The abstract does not establish a clear between-group treatment estimate.
EatMatrix’s reading: The design and analysis are too limited for a diabetes-treatment claim. Leaf-extract capsules are different from celery stalks in a meal, and within-group change alone cannot show that celery caused the difference.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
EU mandatory allergen list, Annex II
Guidance for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 14 allergen categories include celery and mustard. Publication landing page updated 17 July 2026 for a decision-tool link. Not an EU or all-market legal review. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Breaks some bonds in cellulose and related plant polysaccharides. Processing a plant material is different from proving a digestive benefit in people.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: An EFSA opinion published on 1 October 2026 assessed cellulase from genetically modified Trichoderma reesei NZYM-FS for four food-manufacturing processes. Genotoxicity and a 90-day rat study supported the assessment, alongside estimated dietary exposure. EFSA found no safety concern under the intended conditions; a low likelihood of dietary allergy could not be excluded.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is a food-use safety assessment using toxicology and exposure data, not a human trial showing a digestive benefit. It does not identify every cellulase preparation or make an enzyme-treated food safe for a person with a relevant allergy.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Cellulase was one of five enzymes in a small digestive-symptom trial. There was no cellulase-only comparison.
EatMatrix’s reading: The symptom findings apply to the tested mixture, not to cellulase in every food or supplement. Check the source organism and preparation.
Digestive symptom scores improved over 60 days compared with placebo. The mixture contained amylase, protease, lipase, cellulase and lactase.
Small study; the authors were founder/employees of its manufacturer. A result for the mixture cannot identify the contribution of one enzyme.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item C.4.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (a) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (b) Liquid coffee concentrates
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (c) Natural flavour and colour extractives; Spice extracts
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (b) Breakfast cereals
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (c) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0042 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (d) Malt extract
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (e) Plant-based products that resemble dairy products; Plant-based products that resemble dairy-based products; Plant-based products that resemble meat products, including simulated meat products; Plant-based products that resemble poultry meat products, including simulated poultry products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (f) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Trichoderma reesei A83
Food: (a) Apple juice; Grape juice; Grapefruit juice; Lemon juice; Lime juice; (Naming the fruit) juice; Orange juice; Pineapple juice
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Trichoderma reesei A83
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Trichoderma reesei A83
Food: (c) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei QM9414
Food: (a) Apricot nectar; Peach nectar; Pear nectar
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0156 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei QM9414
Food: (b) Single-strength fruit juices
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei QM9414
Food: (c) Tea leaves used in the manufacture of tea solids
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei QM9414
Food: (d) Unstandardized fruit and vegetable products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0156 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Trichoderma reesei RF11412
Food: (a) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0209 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Trichoderma reesei RF11412
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0209 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Cereal blend
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Cereal mix identifies a grain mixture. Its actual grains, proportions and processing are not specified.
A cereal mix can contain different grains, proportions and processing methods.
EatMatrix’s reading: A trial of oats or one whole-grain product does not test this unspecified cereal recipe.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
A cereal or grain mixture combines grain ingredients, but this name does not identify the actual grains, proportions or whole/refined forms.
Provides grain ingredients and texture; fibre and other nutrient content depend on the actual mix.
A cereal mix needs its grain ingredients and preparation identified. Wheat, barley, rye and oats have different allergen and gluten considerations.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Obtain the cereals, proportions, added sugar and whole-grain content. A particular cereal breakfast or porridge trial does not identify this mix.
Whole-grain and refined-grain foods are not interchangeable research exposures. A 2017 controlled-feeding trial compared specified whole-grain and refined-grain diets while maintaining body weight. The record links an erratum; its full text was unavailable here, so no numerical energy-loss or weight-loss claim is adopted. WHO’s carbohydrate guideline distinguishes food source, fibre and carbohydrate quality.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find which grains are present, their proportions and whether they are whole or refined. An illustrative list of barley, corn, rye and wheat cannot establish the tested recipe, gluten-free suitability or a fixed health effect.
WHO: 2023 carbohydrate-quality guidelinePreferred food sources and carbohydrate quality; total carbohydrate does not distinguish sugar, fibre and starch.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A cheese food providing milk-derived components; sodium, fat and lactose depend on the actual product and aging.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A six-week randomised trial assigned 162 adults aged at least 50 with overweight to unmelted cheddar, melted cheddar or its separated components. Melted cheddar raised total cholesterol and triglycerides relative to unmelted cheddar; LDL cholesterol, weight and blood-sugar measures did not differ significantly between the cheese forms.
EatMatrix’s reading: This same trial appears in the Cheese and Cheddar Cheese entries. It does not test cheese powder, every cheese variety or usual smaller portions, and is not evidence of a long-term heart-disease outcome.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A broad cheese food name, not a specification for one moisture, fat, salt or lactose level.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A six-week randomised trial assigned 162 adults aged at least 50 with overweight to unmelted cheddar, melted cheddar or its separated components. Melted cheddar raised total cholesterol and triglycerides relative to unmelted cheddar; LDL cholesterol, weight and blood-sugar measures did not differ significantly between the cheese forms.
EatMatrix’s reading: This same trial appears in the Cheese and Cheddar Cheese entries. It does not test cheese powder, every cheese variety or usual smaller portions, and is not evidence of a long-term heart-disease outcome.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A dried cheese-containing ingredient; carriers, salts and other ingredients may be present.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 randomized trial assigned 24 young men to a processed fertilized-egg-yolk supplement, Fortetropin, or matched cheese powder during leg immobilization and recovery. Twenty-two completed and 20 were included after two noncompliant completers were excluded. The supplement did not prevent the loss of muscle size, lean mass or strength. A change in circulating myostatin did not translate into those benefits. The manufacturer Myos funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: Fortetropin is not ordinary barn egg-yolk powder, and cheese powder was the comparison food rather than a proven muscle treatment. This trial cannot establish a benefit for every egg-yolk or cheese powder, or remove the relevant egg or milk allergy concern.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Seasoning blend
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Cheese seasoning names a seasoning preparation. The name does not provide its complete recipe.
Cheese Seasoning can include cheese ingredients, salt, flavourings and carriers in varying proportions.
EatMatrix’s reading: A study of whole cheese cannot establish the effects of a small amount of cheese seasoning. Check the full recipe and allergens.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Cheese seasoning is a flavouring mixture that can include cheese or milk fractions, salt, carriers and other ingredients.
Provides a cheese-style flavour; the name does not establish a meaningful cheese or protein amount.
Cheese seasoning can contain milk ingredients, salt and flavouring carriers. The full recipe is needed before assessing allergens, lactose or a specific additive.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: A cheese-seasoning recipe may contain cheese powder, salt, carriers and flavourings. The full recipe and milk-allergen information are needed before using a cheese study.
Cheese seasoning is a formulation, which may combine milk-derived ingredients, salt, flavourings and carriers. Human evidence about whole cheese or a dairy-rich eating pattern does not test a small amount of this undisclosed seasoning. FDA’s ingredient-function guidance explains why ingredients are used; it does not supply a health trial of this blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: Obtain the actual recipe, milk-allergen information and amount in the food. Read nutrition and portion information for the finished product; do not assign whole-cheese results or an isolated flavouring’s verdict to this seasoning.
FDA: Types and functions of food ingredientsTechnological purpose and nutrition categories; a purpose is not a clinical benefit or a tested recipe.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Meat can supply protein. Fresh meat and processed meat have different evidence and handling considerations.
Dietary protein contribution.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
WHO: WHO includes lean animal protein among possible protein sources in a varied diet. This is food-pattern guidance; it is not evidence that this particular chicken product is safe when raw or has a clinical benefit.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 controlled-diet crossover trial compared red meat, white meat and nonmeat protein sources for four weeks each. The published correction gives 62 completers in the high-saturated-fat arm and 51 in the low-saturated-fat arm. LDL cholesterol and apoB were higher with both meat diets than with the nonmeat diet; red and white meat did not differ significantly on the primary measures. The correction also explains that differences in dietary cholesterol may account for part of the nonmeat diet’s effect. NIH funding was reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: The trial used specified beef/pork and chicken/turkey diets, not every beef or chicken product. It measured blood lipids, not heart attacks. Compare the complete dietary replacement and saturated fat, rather than promising that switching meat colour alone prevents heart disease.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2006 randomized crossover study in 36 adults compared four weeks of a diet containing a chilli blend with a bland diet. The blend contained 55% cayenne and was provided at 30 g/day. Post-meal insulin responses were lower after the chilli period, with responses also depending on the test meal.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tested a substantial mixed-chilli exposure, not a usual serving of jalapeño or any single chilli variety. It does not demonstrate weight loss, diabetes treatment or benefit from eating an amount that causes digestive discomfort.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Chitosan source and processing matter. The name alone does not establish allergen removal or a weight-loss benefit.
Processing aids require a defined substance, food-grade specification and intended process.
Processing function; no detoxification benefit is claimed.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 trial in 33 Icelandic women with obesity compared a specified chitosan supplement with placebo alongside a structured rehabilitation programme for twelve weeks. Lifestyle-related improvements occurred across groups; chitosan was associated with a microbiome ratio change, without identified differentially abundant taxa. Primex supplied the study products.
EatMatrix’s reading: The body-composition and fitness improvements cannot all be credited to chitosan. A particular supplement trial does not assess residual chitosan used as a processing aid or establish a weight-loss treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A culinary herb or spice and a concentrated supplement from the same plant are different exposures.
Flavour and food use.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO recommends varied vegetables while also requiring diets to be safe from microbial and chemical contamination. A vegetable’s nutritional role and its handling safety are separate questions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Chives are commonly eaten in small seasoning amounts, which differ from high-dose allium supplements. Wash and handle them as fresh produce; a garlic study cannot establish a chive-specific cancer benefit. This guidance does not certify any particular batch as uncontaminated.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable human ingestion trial of chives was selected. Experiments on isolated blood cells and studies of Chinese chive or other Allium species cannot establish a health effect of ordinary culinary chives.
EatMatrix’s reading: Use the species and normal food amount to interpret this herb. Cell antioxidant results are not evidence that a serving prevents disease.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
Pigment family
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
The catalogue groups E140 and E141. E140(i) is chlorophylls; E140(ii) is chlorophyllins. E141(i) and E141(ii) are their respective copper complexes. These are distinct forms.
Chlorophylls and Chlorophyllins combines distinct pigment forms and may omit whether copper complexes are present.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not transfer a rule or study between E140, E141 or their subforms without identifying the actual preparation.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Colour ingredients change or restore a food’s appearance. The broad name does not identify which pigment or preparation was used.
Provides a chosen or more consistent colour; appearance alone does not establish a nutritional benefit.
Chlorophylls and chlorophyllins name related pigments with different chemical forms. Identify the exact pigment, including any copper complex, before matching a permission or assessment.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify the pigment form, metal complex and purity. A trial of sodium copper chlorophyllin cannot establish an effect of every chlorophyll or chlorophyllin.
A 2001 randomised trial in 180 adults exposed to aflatoxin tested a particular chlorophyllin preparation for four months. It lowered a urinary aflatoxin–DNA marker; it did not measure prevention of cancer. This is not a test of every chlorophyll pigment. EFSA’s 2015 E140(ii) opinion could not assess safety from the available relevant data and warned against transferring copper-complex evidence. Its January 2026 status page still lists E140/E141 follow-up as ongoing.
EatMatrix’s reading: Distinguish chlorophylls, chlorophyllins and copper complexes. A biomarker change is not a cancer-prevention claim, and a data gap for one form is not a finding that all green foods are unsafe. The human trial was checked at abstract level; a full version review remains open.
EFSA: 2015 E140(ii) chlorophyllin re-evaluationThe panel could not assess E140(ii) safety from the available relevant ADME/toxicity data; copper-complex studies were not interchangeable. Historical finding, not a new universal ban.
EFSA: Food-colour assessment status, page reviewed January 2026Individual assessments and follow-up statuses; E140/E141 follow-up is listed as ongoing. A colour-family label does not identify the applicable assessment.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Chlorophyll, chlorophyllin and copper complexes are different identities. Check the exact form and specification; a green colour does not establish a single legal or clinical match.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
A colour declaration normally supplies a specific name or E number. The combined catalogue name does not distinguish chlorophyll/chlorophyllin preparations or copper complexes.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Colour-additive identity and applicable use conditions must match the actual preparation. A broad pigment-family name cannot substitute for that match; collective labelling exceptions do not authorise every pigment.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
A colour declaration normally supplies a specific name or E number. The combined catalogue name does not distinguish chlorophyll/chlorophyllin preparations or copper complexes. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Common-name declaration and the permitted food/use record are separate checks. The pigment preparation and any copper complex must be distinguished.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
The additive class and name or code do not make distinct pigment preparations interchangeable. Match the actual form before checking its food-use conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
The additive class and name or code do not make distinct pigment preparations interchangeable. Match the actual form before checking its food-use conditions. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Chromium chloride is a source of chromium(III) used in some supplements. NIH describes its biological role as incompletely understood and does not currently regard chromium as necessary for good health; it is different from toxic industrial chromium(VI).
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH distinguishes food and supplement chromium(III) from toxic industrial chromium(VI). It says chromium’s role is not fully understood and does not currently regard it as necessary for good health. Diabetes findings are mixed; reported weight effects are too small to promise a meaningful benefit.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A report published online in 2013 and in a 2014 issue randomized 66 adults with type 2 diabetes to a chromium-chloride-containing milk powder or comparison powder; some insulin-response and inflammation measures improved, while others did not. A 2011 trial in 25 children combined chromium chloride or placebo with lifestyle changes for six weeks: BMI and fasting insulin did not improve significantly, although some exploratory body-composition and insulin-sensitivity measures differed.
EatMatrix’s reading: Small surrogate-outcome studies do not establish diabetes treatment or a general need for chromium supplements. The amount of fortified milk powder is not the amount of elemental chromium. Chromium(III) findings do not apply to industrial chromium(VI).
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Cinnamon species and coumarin content matter. A small culinary serving is a different exposure from a concentrated supplement.
Cinnamon is a spice made from tree bark. Ceylon and Cassia types have different compositions, particularly their coumarin content.
Food flavour is a clear use. Selected supplement trials investigate blood-glucose measures, but a culinary sprinkle is not an established diabetes or weight-loss treatment.
A result for characterized Ceylon extract does not transfer to unspecified cinnamon or Cassia. The selected trial abstract does not provide a complete independent assessment of effect size, harms or certainty.
NIH NCCIH: Its November 2024 summary says the evidence does not clearly establish cinnamon as a treatment. It highlights species uncertainty and differences between food amounts and larger exposures.
Read the authority sourceGerman BfR: BfR distinguishes higher-coumarin Cassia from lower-coumarin Ceylon cinnamon and identifies prolonged high Cassia consumption as a concern.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A December 2025 placebo-controlled trial randomized 210 people with type 2 diabetes to two Ceylon cinnamon extract groups or placebo; 186 completed four months. The abstract reports glucose-related improvements and a treatment association in regression analysis. Authors disclosed patent interests. Full between-group estimates and safety details need checking before judging clinical importance. The findings do not establish ordinary cinnamon as a treatment or a substitute for medicine.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
cinnamon research and species/form differences
27 September 2012 risk assessment distinguishing Cassia and Ceylon cinnamon; checked 8 October 2026, not a new trial or worldwide legal conclusion.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
A result for characterized Ceylon extract does not transfer to unspecified cinnamon or Cassia. The selected trial abstract does not provide a complete independent assessment of effect size, harms or certainty.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Citrus dietary fibres are fibre-containing ingredients derived from citrus material; composition depends on processing.
Texture and dietary-fibre contribution, depending on the actual fibre content.
Inulin and purified pectin are different preparations; their findings cannot automatically be applied to this ingredient.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 crossover experiment in ten healthy adults compared orange juice with and without specified citrus fibre. Glucose and insulin differed at an early time point and some fullness ratings differed; several hormones did not. Its 2021 erratum adds the fibre developers as authors and records AZTI intellectual-property rights. A separate 2013 crossover trial with 76 completers found no blood-lipid effect from the tested fibre preparations, including citrus fibre.
EatMatrix’s reading: An early time-point difference is not a demonstrated whole-day glucose benefit, diabetes treatment or colorectal-cancer prevention. The correction is part of the source record. Fibre composition and the food carrying it must match before transferring a result.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Inulin and purified pectin are different preparations; their findings cannot automatically be applied to this ingredient.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
This label may refer to a food additive already represented by an E-number entry, or to several distinct forms.
Food function and relevant assessment depend on the exact form.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 pilot reported changes in inflammatory markers and anxiety scores with a particular low-methoxy citrus pectin. The full methods show that the comparison included ten controls borrowed from a separate study, alongside the small randomized component. A second dose-escalation cohort had no placebo group. CP Kelco and public sources funded the work; an author disclosed an advisory role with CP Kelco.
EatMatrix’s reading: These design limitations make a simple claim that pectin treats anxiety unjustified. Low-methoxy pectin, modified citrus pectin used in cancer studies and an unspecified food-gelling pectin are different preparations. Biomarker changes are not proof of disease prevention.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Ground buckwheat, a different plant from wheat; coarse texture does not itself establish whole-grain composition.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2018 crossover study recruited 38 adults and found no appetite or energy-intake advantage for the tested buckwheat snacks over comparable corn- or rice-flour snacks. A separate 2026 crossover meal study in twenty young adults found no significant glucose or insulin differences between buckwheat pancakes and the control food.
EatMatrix’s reading: These short experiments do not prove weight loss or prevention of diabetes. Buckwheat-flour grade, recipe, portion and comparison food matter; a pancake result is not a result for isolated coarse flour.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Flour from spelt, a type of wheat; coarseness describes texture rather than elimination of wheat proteins.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK identifies wheat, spelt and barley as gluten-containing grains.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Two 2024 blinded crossover studies, with 20 participants each, compared wheat, spelt and emmer breads in people reporting noncoeliac wheat sensitivity. Group-level digestive symptoms did not differ significantly between the grains within either the yeast or sourdough study.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tests specified breads, not coarse spelt flour alone. Coeliac disease and wheat allergy were excluded; the result does not make spelt gluten-free or safe for those conditions.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
The fat fraction from cocoa, used for texture and melting properties. It is different from cocoa powder.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 crossover trial in 40 healthy volunteers compared controlled diets containing cocoa butter, palm olein or extra virgin olive oil for four weeks each. The primary total-to-HDL cholesterol ratio did not differ significantly. LDL cholesterol was higher with cocoa butter than olive oil, and some other lipid markers also differed.
EatMatrix’s reading: A null primary ratio does not mean every lipid measure was identical. This tests defined diets and fats, not the effects of cocoa powder, sweetened chocolate or long-term cardiovascular events.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Cocoa foods contain many components; cocoa mass, reduced-fat cocoa and purified flavanols are different preparations.
Food function; specified cocoa-flavanol evidence cannot be assigned to every chocolate product.
No therapeutic vascular/cancer effect or flavanol amount is inferred from the cocoa name.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A September 2026 COSMOS ancillary randomized analysis included 506 older adults with available tau or neurofilament measurements and 498 with the amyloid measurement. Cocoa-flavanol extract did not significantly change these three blood biomarkers over two years versus placebo. This result does not establish dementia prevention or rule out every other outcome. The intervention was an extract, not ordinary cocoa mass or fat-reduced cocoa. Funding and full source-version history were not checked for this report.
Selected abstract read only; preparation match absent; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
specified cocoa-flavanol health claim; not chocolate as a disease treatment
scientific risk assessment across sources
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No therapeutic vascular/cancer effect or flavanol amount is inferred from the cocoa name.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Whole coconut, dried coconut, coconut milk and coconut oil are different preparations with different nutrient compositions.
Food flavour, texture and energy.
No exact fatty-acid profile, product nutrient value or clinical benefit is established by this broad name.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 randomized, eight-week study of 190 people compared coconut oil, coconut flakes, coconut milk powder and no supplement. The coconut-milk-powder group had lower LDL cholesterol than the control group; the findings differed by coconut preparation. This is a comparison of specified foods and amounts, not a test of every ingredient labelled “coconut”.
EatMatrix’s reading: Coconut flesh, oil, milk and powder differ in fat, fibre and concentration. A result for one does not establish the same effect for the others, and a short lipid study cannot establish long-term heart-disease prevention.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No exact fatty-acid profile, product nutrient value or clinical benefit is established by this broad name.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A beverage ingredient containing caffeine and other compounds; brewing, serving size and decaffeination affect exposure.
Temporary alertness.
No therapeutic benefit, automatic guarana approval or safe personal dose is inferred; coffee contains compounds beyond caffeine. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA emphasizes total caffeine exposure and individual sensitivity; coffee contributes to that total.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In the 2023 CRAVE trial, 100 adults were randomly instructed to drink caffeinated coffee or avoid caffeine on different days over two weeks. Coffee did not significantly increase the primary outcome, premature atrial beats. It was associated with more premature ventricular beats, more daily steps and about 36 minutes less nightly sleep; glucose did not differ significantly. Funding came from UCSF and NIH.
EatMatrix’s reading: Different heart-rhythm measures gave different results. This short, unblinded experiment does not establish long-term heart-disease risk or a safe amount for every person.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific risk assessment across sources
Consumer safety and total caffeine exposure; not a long-term coffee-outcome trial or approval of every product. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No therapeutic benefit, automatic guarana approval or safe personal dose is inferred; coffee contains compounds beyond caffeine. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Coffee plant seeds used to prepare coffee; the bean name does not specify the caffeine in a finished serving.
Temporary alertness.
No therapeutic benefit, automatic guarana approval or safe personal dose is inferred; coffee contains compounds beyond caffeine. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA emphasizes total caffeine exposure and individual sensitivity; coffee contributes to that total.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In the 2023 CRAVE trial, 100 adults were randomly instructed on different days to drink caffeinated coffee or avoid caffeine for 14 days. The primary outcome, premature atrial beats, did not differ significantly. Coffee days had more premature ventricular beats, more steps and about 36 minutes less sleep; glucose did not differ. UCSF and the US National Institutes of Health funded the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: These findings concern brewed caffeinated coffee, not a fixed amount of coffee beans, decaffeinated coffee or every extract. More steps do not cancel out less sleep or establish a long-term health benefit. The primary null result and the other measured effects need to be read together.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific risk assessment across sources
Consumer safety and total caffeine exposure; not a long-term coffee-outcome trial or approval of every product. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No therapeutic benefit, automatic guarana approval or safe personal dose is inferred; coffee contains compounds beyond caffeine. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Collagen/gelatin supplies protein that is digested. Hydrolysed collagen peptides and intact gelatin are different preparations.
Food/protein function; proposed skin or joint benefits need matched clinical evidence.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 double-blind pilot in 22 recreationally active adults compared gelatin supplementation with placebo after demanding knee-extension exercise. The main comparisons did not show significant group differences over time in soreness or muscle function. Some exploratory comparisons at individual time points favoured gelatin, but these do not establish a recovery benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: The same pilot appears for Gelatin and Collagen / Gelatin. It does not test every collagen hydrolysate or the small quantity of gelatin used to set a food. The study regimen is not an intake recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
2011 joint health-claim assessment, not a current systematic collagen review
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Oral collagen peptides, injectable collagen and gelatin are different preparations. A historical joint-claim opinion is not a complete review of subsequent skin or joint studies.
Collagen/gelatin supplies protein that is digested. Hydrolysed collagen peptides and intact gelatin are different preparations.
Food/protein function; proposed skin or joint benefits need matched clinical evidence.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
One small2020 oral trial in postmenopausal women reported improved measured skin elasticity after four weeks of a particular marine collagen product. It does not establish that every collagen powder repairs joints or has the same effect. Injection, cell, animal and packaging-film studies answer different questions.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Findings apply to the specified preparation, people and outcomes.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
2011 joint health-claim assessment, not a current systematic collagen review
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2020 randomized crossover study of 18 healthy adults, whole apples emptied from the stomach more slowly than energy-matched puree or juice. Fullness and satiety were greater for whole apples than juice; juice and puree did not differ. A separate study of 64 children aged 4–6, first published online in August 2025, found no overall satiety difference between matched apple forms when eating rate and visual cues were controlled.
EatMatrix’s reading: These studies tested ready-to-eat apple preparations, not concentrated ingredients used as sweeteners. They do not establish the fibre, sugar concentration or filling effect of this product. Adult and child results answer different questions; the studies are not a universal claim that puree is less filling.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO and UK DHSC: WHO includes sugars naturally present in fruit juice and juice concentrates in free sugars. The UK nutrient-model guidance likewise includes concentrates among sources requiring free-sugar calculation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Concentrated strawberry juice is not nutritionally equivalent to whole strawberries. Check concentration, how it is used, and sugars in the finished portion. “Free sugars” in these dietary frameworks and “added sugars” on a US label use different definitions; not every concentrate is automatically labelled added sugar.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable health trial of concentrated strawberry juice was selected. A juice used to flavour a medicine or tested for taste does not isolate the juice’s effect on health.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check dilution, fruit content, fibre and sugar per serving. Whole strawberries, juice, concentrate and a purified extract are different exposures.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 randomized crossover study enrolled 54 adults with elevated LDL cholesterol; 36 completed all three four-week corn-flour periods. Only refined cornmeal combined with bran showed a significant LDL decrease over time. HDL cholesterol and triglycerides did not improve significantly. The North American Millers’ Association Corn Division funded the research and supplied the corn ingredients.
EatMatrix’s reading: Whole-grain cornmeal, refined cornmeal and added bran were distinct preparations. A within-treatment LDL decrease does not by itself prove superiority to every other food. The trial does not test every corn kernel or corn grit, and does not establish that any corn ingredient lowers cholesterol.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A maize outer-layer fraction used to contribute grain solids and fibre; it is different from isolated corn starch.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 crossover study in 36 adults with elevated LDL cholesterol compared three corn-flour preparations for four weeks each. A refined-cornmeal and corn-bran blend reduced LDL over time; HDL and triglycerides did not significantly change. The finding concerns the blend, not isolated corn bran. A corn-industry association funded the study and provided the ingredients.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is not proof that every corn product lowers cholesterol or that a marker change prevents heart disease. It does not replace prescribed lipid treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A corn-derived carbohydrate ingredient. The broad dextrin name does not establish whether it is digestible or a characterized resistant fibre.
Can provide texture; a verified resistant fraction can contribute fibre.
Corn dextrin does not establish resistant dextrin; do not transfer a resistant-fibre trial to ordinary maltodextrin. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 trial in 124 healthy men compared a particular resistant dextrin with maltodextrin for four weeks. Some gut-bacteria abundances changed and returned toward baseline after stopping. Stool frequency and consistency, measured short-chain fatty acids, stool pH and IgA did not improve significantly. Roquette, the product owner, funded the work and participated in design and manuscript preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Resistant dextrin is different from an unspecified digestible corn dextrin. A change in bacterial abundance does not itself establish improved digestion or disease prevention. Confirm resistance, source and product specification before applying this evidence.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Corn dextrin does not establish resistant dextrin; do not transfer a resistant-fibre trial to ordinary maltodextrin. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Milled corn particles; degerming and other processing determine how much of the original grain remains.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 randomized crossover study enrolled 54 adults with elevated LDL cholesterol; 36 completed all three four-week corn-flour periods. Only refined cornmeal combined with bran showed a significant LDL decrease over time. HDL cholesterol and triglycerides did not improve significantly. The North American Millers’ Association Corn Division funded the research and supplied the corn ingredients.
EatMatrix’s reading: Whole-grain cornmeal, refined cornmeal and added bran were distinct preparations. A within-treatment LDL decrease does not by itself prove superiority to every other food. The trial does not test every corn kernel or corn grit, and does not establish that any corn ingredient lowers cholesterol.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An extracted maize oil supplying fat and energy, rather than the fibre or starch of whole corn.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover meal study in 18 healthy adults compared butter, coconut, flaxseed and corn oils over six hours. Some inflammation markers differed, but there was no consistent direction favouring one fat source, and triglyceride responses did not differ significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: An acute marker difference is not evidence that corn oil causes chronic inflammation or heart disease. The comparator fat, meal and long-term dietary replacement matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Extracted maize starch thickens foods and supplies digestible carbohydrate.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 randomized trial assigned 75 adults to 3.5 g or 7 g of a specified resistant potato starch, Solnul, or a digestible Amioca corn-starch control for four weeks. The low resistant-starch dose changed selected gut bacteria and some stool outcomes. The study was funded by MSP Starch Products.
EatMatrix’s reading: The tested potato preparation had specified resistant-starch content; ordinary potato starch, especially after cooking, may differ. Corn starch was the comparator, not the intervention shown to improve those outcomes. The findings cannot turn every potato or corn starch into a prebiotic.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A starch-derived liquid sweetener. Corn syrup does not necessarily mean high-fructose corn syrup.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s January 2026 healthy-diet guidance includes sugars in syrups and added glucose, fructose and sucrose within free sugars. It recommends limiting free sugars across the overall diet, rather than judging one ingredient name in isolation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Brown sugar syrup, caramelized sugar syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup and invert sugar differ in composition, but their names do not make the sugar contribution disappear. Compare grams of sugar and portion size in the finished food. Corn syrup is not automatically high-fructose corn syrup, and a dark colour does not prove meaningful nutritional benefit.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The search did not establish a clinical result for a specified ordinary corn syrup. High-fructose corn syrup and particular high-DE glucose polymers have different compositions and cannot be treated as the same trial ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: Use the ingredient specification and sugar amount. Do not transfer a result for high-fructose corn syrup to every syrup made from corn.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Cranberries can appear as whole fruit, dried fruit, juice or extracts. These are different exposures.
Fruit flavour and food use.
A cranberry-extract study cannot establish the same effect for ordinary cranberries or a sweetened food.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A September 2026 study followed 219 women with recurrent urinary symptoms using three cranberry-extract formulations for six months. It was observational and open-label, with no placebo group. Reported improvements from baseline cannot show that cranberry caused the improvement; retrospective baseline reporting and different before/after diagnostic methods add uncertainty. Nexira funded the study and a coauthor was its employee. This is extract evidence, not a trial of ordinary cranberries or proof of infection treatment.
Selected abstract plus selected discussion, limitations and funding/disclosure sections read; no complete paper or supplement review; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
A cranberry-extract study cannot establish the same effect for ordinary cranberries or a sweetened food.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: US flavour rules define natural flavour by its source and flavouring function, rather than nutritional function. They also distinguish a characterizing fruit flavour from the presence of the actual fruit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Blackcurrant flavour or cranberry flavour does not establish a fruit serving, researched polyphenol dose or the safety profile of a disclosed single compound. Obtain the formulation and carriers before matching a clinical study or permission. “Natural” alone does not settle allergy or health questions.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No matched human health trial of cranberry flavour was selected. Trials of cranberry juice or specified cranberry extracts do not establish an effect of a cranberry-tasting flavour blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not infer urinary-tract benefits from the flavour name. The formulation and actual cranberry content would need to match the research.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A fat-rich milk fraction used for texture and flavour; it differs from skimmed milk or an isolated milk protein.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 crossover meal study in 47 healthy adults compared butter, cheese, whipped cream and sour cream meals providing similar fat amounts. Sour cream produced a larger six-hour triglyceride response than the other preparations. The other meal comparisons did not show a significant triglyceride difference.
EatMatrix’s reading: Fermentation and the dairy food matrix can change an acute response. This does not test every cream recipe, establish long-term heart-disease outcomes or make a high-fat study portion an intake recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
The 2026 conclusion concerns EFSA-Q-2023-00374 and the submitted pilot-scale process. It is not a worldwide ban, a clinical efficacy finding or an identity match for this broad catalogue label.
An insect-derived protein label. Species, food preparation, rearing and processing determine what is actually present; it is not one standardized novel-food product.
Potential dietary protein contribution.
FDA major-allergen guidance does not itself establish cricket cross-reactivity or an EU permission. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: On 25 September 2026 EFSA published an opinion unable to establish safety of Alia Insect Farm’s specified house-cricket spray-dried powder: unresolved microbiological variability and contamination concerns. Earlier positive opinions concerned different preparations.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover study in Kenyan children aged 24–36 months used isotope-labelled maize meals to measure zinc absorption from house crickets. Whole-cricket meals supplied more absorbed zinc than the lower-zinc comparison meal; low-chitin cricket flour did not improve the absorbed amount over whole crickets. This was a nutrient-absorption experiment, not a long-term growth or allergy trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: The result cannot resolve the safety of a different cricket-protein preparation, reverse an application-specific EFSA finding, or establish permission in every country.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Published 25 September 2026; adopted 28 January 2026, EFSA-Q-2023-00374, Alia Insect Farm application. Abstract, previous-assessment context, selected composition/microbiology, toxicology, allergy and conclusions read 8 October 2026. Not a study of every cricket-protein preparation or efficacy trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
FDA major-allergen guidance does not itself establish cricket cross-reactivity or an EU permission. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A shellfish group including foods such as shrimp and crab; the name does not identify a species or preparation.
Dietary protein contribution.
Crustaceans and molluscs are not interchangeable allergen categories in all jurisdictions. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies crustacean shellfish as a major-allergen category.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 1996 randomized crossover study tested a specified shrimp-rich diet against a lower-cholesterol baseline diet and an egg diet. Shrimp increased both LDL and HDL cholesterol and lowered triglycerides compared with baseline; the cholesterol ratios did not worsen.
EatMatrix’s reading: A favourable ratio must not hide an increase in LDL. This shrimp experiment is not a trial of every crustacean or proof of long-term heart protection. It does not remove shellfish-allergy risk.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Crustaceans and molluscs are not interchangeable allergen categories in all jurisdictions. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 placebo-controlled study enrolled 101 people with knee osteoarthritis; 91 completed six months. A standardized cucumber extract containing idoBR1 reportedly improved pain-related measures. The accessible abstract does not fully establish allocation methods, funding or all between-group estimates.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is a specified extract capsule, not ordinary cucumber. The reported findings do not justify treating a food serving as an osteoarthritis medicine or assuming that every cucumber extract has the same composition.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies copper used in iron metabolism, connective tissue and enzymes.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH lists cupric sulfate among copper supplement forms and does not identify one form as clearly best. Excess copper can cause digestive and liver injury; people with Wilson disease have a particular copper-handling problem.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2023 copper assessment set an acceptable daily intake of 0.07 mg/kg body weight per day, based on protecting against retention in the liver. Copper is essential, but excess exposure can cause harm. The opinion was amended in June 2023.
EatMatrix’s reading: The benchmark refers to copper, not the mass of cupric sulfate, and is not a target for supplementation. Food grade, hydration state and intended use need matching. This assessment does not certify an unspecified product or establish suitability for someone with a copper-metabolism disorder.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Copper sulfate has been studied through controlled drinking-water exposure. Stomach symptoms can occur even when routine blood tests remain within their normal ranges.
EatMatrix’s reading: The concentration in water is part of the result. This experiment does not establish the risk from a small amount of cupric sulfate in a particular fortified food.
Participants drank water containing 5 mg/L total copper, with different copper-sulfate/copper-oxide ratios. Twenty reported digestive symptoms at least once; symptom incidence did not differ by ratio.
The mixtures had the same total copper concentration. This design cannot set a safe threshold or separate all effects of the two compounds.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
The curcumin concentration, absorption enhancers and serving amount matter. A curcumin extract is not automatically the same preparation as food colour E100.
Curcumin extract concentrates compounds from turmeric. Different extracts, absorption enhancers and delivery systems can produce different exposures.
Some defined oral preparations have been tested for knee-pain outcomes. A measured improvement for one extract is not proof that all curcumin products work or prevent disease.
Neither a short efficacy trial nor a case series establishes long-term safety. This entry does not establish current permission in every market or equivalence with food colour E100.
NIH NCCIH: The April 2025 summary describes early positive knee-osteoarthritis evidence while calling for better evidence and caution about enhanced-bioavailability formulations.
Read the authority sourceAustralian TGA: The 2023 advisory concerns medicinal forms and supplements, including curcumin; it is a safety signal, not a worldwide ingredient ban.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 placebo-controlled trial in 139 adults with knee osteoarthritis reported improved pain and function over 90 days with a specific water-dispersible turmeric extract. The study was industry funded, with employment, ownership and patent interests disclosed. It was too small and short to rule out uncommon or delayed harms. Separately, an 11-case retrospective series concerns suspected supplement-associated liver injury; it cannot provide an incidence rate. These findings answer different benefit and safety questions.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
turmeric/curcumin research and concentrated-product safety
15 August 2023 safety advisory about medicinal/supplement forms, not a food ban or current all-product legal register. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Neither a short efficacy trial nor a case series establishes long-term safety. This entry does not establish current permission in every market or equivalence with food colour E100.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
d-Alpha-tocopherol is a specific vitamin E form, distinct from mixed tocopherols E306.
Alpha-tocopherol is a vitamin E form that helps protect cell membranes.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH distinguishes vitamin E in food from high supplemental intake, which can increase bleeding risk. A normal antioxidant function is not proof that additional vitamin E prevents disease.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 trial randomized 79 breastfeeding women to a single high dose of RRR-alpha-tocopherol or control. Vitamin E concentrations in blood and milk increased by the next day. CAPES public funding was reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: RRR-alpha-tocopherol corresponds to the natural d-alpha form, but a concentration change over one day does not establish better infant development or routine benefit from high-dose supplements. It is different from mixed tocopherols and the synthetic all-rac form used in SELECT.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
d-Biotin is a form of vitamin B7. A different name does not establish a different clinical benefit.
Helps enzymes use carbohydrate, fat and protein.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH finds little evidence for broad cosmetic benefits from extra biotin and warns that supplements can interfere with laboratory tests, including thyroid measurements. The lack of an established upper limit does not remove this diagnostic risk.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 trial recruited 80 pregnant women; 62 completed a 24-week comparison of prenatal multivitamins with different biotin contents. The higher-biotin formulation increased maternal and cord-blood biotin markers. Some exploratory stress-marker associations were reported. Crossref identifies Ritual as a funder.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tests specific prenatal multivitamins and biomarkers, not hair growth, nail strength, infant development or every isolated d-biotin product. It does not establish that everyone benefits from extra biotin.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Dairy category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Dairy describes a food category. It does not identify one milk ingredient or its composition.
Dairy is a food category rather than a specific milk preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Yoghurt, cheese, cream and isolated milk proteins cannot be assumed to have identical effects.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Dairy describes milk-based foods or fractions whose protein, lactose and fat content can differ substantially.
Can supply food ingredients and nutrients, depending on the actual milk preparation and amount.
Dairy is a broad food category. The exact milk ingredient and preparation are needed; lactose intolerance and milk-protein allergy are different issues.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Specify the dairy food, fermentation, fat content and serving. Milk, yoghurt, cheese and isolated milk proteins are different study preparations.
Dairy-containing dietary patterns have been tested in people, but that does not give every milk product the same effect. In the original DASH feeding trial, 459 adults received different diets for eight weeks; the combination diet included fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy and reduced saturated/total fat. Blood pressure fell more than with the control diet. Multiple foods changed together, so the result cannot be assigned to an unidentified milk fraction.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify whether this is milk, cheese, cream, protein, lactose or another preparation, and check the amount. A dietary-pattern trial does not establish tolerance in milk allergy or lactose intolerance, or a benefit from cheese seasoning.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A dairy category does not tell you its lactose, protein or fat content. Check the actual milk-derived ingredients; a label-name allowance cannot establish suitability for milk allergy or lactose intolerance.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Milk and its products are covered by allergen rules with specified exceptions. The collective catalogue word does not identify the milk fraction or its composition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Milk is a major US allergen, subject to the applicable food and ingredient scope. The source must be identifiable; “dairy” is not a measurement of lactose or protein.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
The nine US major allergens and FDA food scope; the list is not a list of every possible allergy.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Milk and its products are covered by allergen rules with specified exceptions. The collective catalogue word does not identify the milk fraction or its composition. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The February 2026 table uses “milk ingredients” and “milk-derived ingredients” for specified groups. The previous specified names, including “modified milk ingredients”, remain usable during transition until 1 January 2030; this is not a ban on the older wording today.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
11 February 2026 change; old and new specified dairy names can be used during transition until 1 January 2030.
Ingredient naming is subject to mandatory declarations under Standard 1.2.3. A broad dairy description does not establish the preparation’s milk-protein or lactose content.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient naming is subject to mandatory declarations under Standard 1.2.3. A broad dairy description does not establish the preparation’s milk-protein or lactose content. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A June 2026 study measured two-hour glucose responses to date-paste snacks in 20 healthy adults and 20 people with type 2 diabetes. Snacks contained dates, nuts and either oat or psyllium fibre. The selected fibre-enriched recipes produced smaller glucose excursions than the comparison recipe. The 100 g portions were not matched for available carbohydrate, which was lower in the fibre-enriched foods.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tests complete snack recipes, not date paste alone. Fibre, nuts and carbohydrate differences prevent attribution of the result solely to dates. A short glucose test does not establish weight loss or long-term diabetes control; the experimental portion is not a serving recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Drying, curing and related processing distinguish sausage from fresh meat.
Supplies food/protein, but is not required for a healthy diet.
The assessment concerns consumption patterns; exact additives, salt, contamination and individual absolute risk require separate data.
WHO / IARC: WHO distinguishes red meat (Group 2A) from processed meat (Group 1) in cancer hazard assessment. Classification describes strength of evidence, not equal danger to other agents or a guaranteed outcome from a serving.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO / IARC: IARC’s evaluation identifies processed-meat consumption as carcinogenic to humans, principally based on colorectal-cancer evidence. Processing includes methods such as curing, salting, fermentation and smoking. The classification describes evidence of a hazard, not identical risk from every exposure.
EatMatrix’s reading: Dried or dehydrated sausage needs its recipe and processing identified. Drying does not cancel a processed-meat concern, and the category does not identify which preservative is present. Consider frequency and amount; this source does not establish a ban or a personal risk from one serving.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable human trial of an identified dehydrated sausage recipe was selected. Food-storage and manufacturing studies do not measure the long-term health effect of eating that sausage.
EatMatrix’s reading: Interpret it within processed-meat evidence, while checking the serving size, sodium, meat and curing ingredients. Dehydration alone does not identify the recipe or make a safety claim.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
sodium reduction guidance, not purity testing of a salt product
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
WHO Q&A dated 23 September 2026, read 8 October 2026. Explains earlier hazard assessments, not a new 2026 trial. Hazard category is not the size of an individual risk; optimal-intake guideline still under development.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The assessment concerns consumption patterns; exact additives, salt, contamination and individual absolute risk require separate data.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A whey-derived powder with part of its mineral content removed; it is not necessarily a high-protein whey supplement.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 pilot trial randomized 61 healthy term infants to two complete formulas, one using a particular native demineralized whey process, and followed them to six months. Growth broadly followed WHO standards. Most crying, regurgitation and stool measures did not differ; daytime sleep and some amino-acid measures differed. A separate breastfed group was a reference, not a randomized comparison.
EatMatrix’s reading: The formula as a whole was tested. This does not isolate whey, establish breastfeeding equivalence or show that every demineralized whey powder improves sleep. Funding and the full formulation were not established from the accessible abstract.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Dextrose is glucose used for sweetness, fermentation or other food functions. It supplies digestible carbohydrate.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 blinded trial in 400 at-risk newborns with persistent asymptomatic low blood glucose compared buccal dextrose solution with placebo followed by feeding. Blood glucose rose more with dextrose, but the primary need for intravenous dextrose did not fall significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is supervised neonatal care, not a trial of dextrose added to ordinary food, a home-treatment instruction or proof of long-term dietary safety. Dextrose and D-glucose refer to the same sugar; these two catalogue entries cite one trial.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
D-glucose is a simple sugar and an energy substrate; dextrose is another name for it.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 blinded trial in 400 at-risk newborns with persistent asymptomatic low blood glucose compared buccal dextrose solution with placebo followed by feeding. Blood glucose rose more with dextrose, but the primary need for intravenous dextrose did not fall significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is supervised neonatal care, not a trial of dextrose added to ordinary food, a home-treatment instruction or proof of long-term dietary safety. Dextrose and D-glucose refer to the same sugar; these two catalogue entries cite one trial.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
NIOSH lung-disease guidance concerns workplace inhalation. It does not establish that ordinary food ingestion causes the same disease.
Diacetyl is used in flavouring. Worker exposure to airborne flavouring chemicals is a different route from eating a food.
Flavouring function.
Occupational guidance does not establish current food-use permission or an ingested-dose safety threshold. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
CDC NIOSH: NIOSH’s February 2025 overview links workplace inhalation to severe lung disease and distinguishes that exposure from food ingestion; it is not an oral clinical test.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FAO/WHO JECFA: The listed 1998 JECFA evaluation found no safety concern at the assessed food-flavouring intake for diacetyl, also called 2,3-butanedione. The older 1967 entry saying no acceptable daily intake was allocated is not the only available evaluation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Occupational inhalation and eating a flavouring involve different exposure routes. This food-use assessment neither dismisses inhalation hazards nor proves unrestricted oral safety. It is not a current eight-market legal determination.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Recent name matches included radioligands containing “diacetyl” in a longer chemical name, rather than dietary diacetyl. Workplace inhalation evidence also answers a different exposure question. No matched oral health-benefit trial was selected.
EatMatrix’s reading: Keep the food-flavouring assessment separate from occupational inhalation hazards. Neither route can be used to calculate an unspecified exposure through the other.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
occupational inhalation hazard; do not transfer to ingested food dose
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
24 February 2025 overview of occupational inhalation and route-specific risk. Read 8 October 2026; not an oral clinical trial or a guarantee at every food exposure.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Occupational guidance does not establish current food-use permission or an ingested-dose safety threshold. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Food-processing diatomaceous earth and inhaled industrial dust are different exposures. A dietary detoxification benefit is not established here.
Processing aids require a defined substance, food-grade specification and intended process.
Processing function; no detoxification benefit is claimed.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2025 four-way crossover pilot, 18 adults ate test meals containing normal- or reduced-fat pâté with or without added diatomaceous earth as a silicon source. The authors did not find an added-silicon metabolic benefit during the four-hour observation and did not support this source as a bioactive food ingredient. The abstract reports serum silicon increasing across meal types; that is not evidence that the added material provided a benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: This does not establish a detox effect, the safety of swallowing an unspecified powder, or long-term effects. It also does not assess every processing-aid use.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits.
Dough preparation
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Dough identifies a preparation. The recipe and whether it is raw, cooked or ready to eat are product details.
Dough describes a prepared mixture, not a single ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: The name cannot establish the effects or safety of the whole recipe. Raw and cooked preparations must not be treated as the same exposure.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Dough is a prepared mixture whose flour, water, fats, leavening and other ingredients depend on the recipe.
Provides the mixture used to make a baked or cooked food; its nutritional content depends on the actual formulation.
Dough is a mixture, not one tested substance. Flour, added fats, sweeteners and raising agents must be identified before a useful component-level assessment.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: The flour, recipe and whether the dough is raw, baked or specifically ready to eat are needed. A cooked-bread trial cannot assess raw-dough exposure.
For dough, whether it is raw, baked or specifically made ready to eat changes the relevant risk. FDA explains that untreated flour is a raw food that can carry Salmonella or E. coli; raw eggs can add another hazard. This is microbial food-safety guidance, not evidence that every cooked dough or a particular additive is harmful.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the full recipe, treatment and ready-to-eat instructions. FDA advises against tasting raw flour, dough or batter intended to be cooked. An unspecified dough name cannot verify that a preparation has been made safe to eat raw.
FDA: Flour is a raw food: dough and batter safetyOfficial food-safety guidance: untreated raw flour can carry bacteria. A ready-to-eat product requires its actual treatment and label to be checked.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An egg ingredient with water removed; the actual whole-egg or fraction specification affects composition.
Food and protein contribution.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies egg as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 nine-month trial analysed executive-function outcomes in 122 children aged 9–13 consuming formulated foods with whole-egg powder, milk powder or gelatin. Whole-egg powder did not significantly improve the reported executive-function outcomes. One attention/inhibitory-control measure favoured the milk-powder products. The Egg Nutrition Center funded the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: A formulated food-replacement experiment does not isolate every dried-egg ingredient or show that eggs are nutritionally useless. The egg group’s null finding must not be replaced with the milk group’s result.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A study published online in 2019 randomized 70 Japanese adults to quercetin-rich onion powder or a comparison powder for 12 weeks. The primary visceral-fat measure did not differ overall. Body weight, blood pressure and several other measures also did not differ. Favourable subgroup and liver-marker findings were exploratory. NARO research funding was reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tested selected high-quercetin onion cultivars as powder. It does not establish weight loss, liver-disease treatment or the same effect from ordinary dried onion pieces. A positive subgroup result cannot override the null primary finding.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Drying, curing and related processing distinguish sausage from fresh meat.
Supplies food/protein, but is not required for a healthy diet.
The assessment concerns consumption patterns; exact additives, salt, contamination and individual absolute risk require separate data.
WHO / IARC: WHO distinguishes red meat (Group 2A) from processed meat (Group 1) in cancer hazard assessment. Classification describes strength of evidence, not equal danger to other agents or a guaranteed outcome from a serving.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO / IARC: IARC’s evaluation identifies processed-meat consumption as carcinogenic to humans, principally based on colorectal-cancer evidence. Processing includes methods such as curing, salting, fermentation and smoking. The classification describes evidence of a hazard, not identical risk from every exposure.
EatMatrix’s reading: Dried or dehydrated sausage needs its recipe and processing identified. Drying does not cancel a processed-meat concern, and the category does not identify which preservative is present. Consider frequency and amount; this source does not establish a ban or a personal risk from one serving.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Human sausage studies can test an added probiotic strain, iodine fortification or a whole meal. Those interventions do not isolate the effect of an ordinary dried sausage. No recipe-specific benefit is adopted here.
EatMatrix’s reading: Use processed-meat guidance and the actual sodium, curing agents and portion. A trial of one specially formulated sausage is not a benefit claim for this category.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
sodium reduction guidance, not purity testing of a salt product
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
WHO Q&A dated 23 September 2026, read 8 October 2026. Explains earlier hazard assessments, not a new 2026 trial. Hazard category is not the size of an individual risk; optimal-intake guideline still under development.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The assessment concerns consumption patterns; exact additives, salt, contamination and individual absolute risk require separate data.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Water supports hydration and normal body functions.
Hydration.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
WHO: WHO prioritises microbiological and chemical water quality. Filtering, carbonation or a spring label does not by itself certify that the water meets drinking-water requirements.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2010 trial assigned 48 adults aged 55–75 with overweight or obesity to a reduced-calorie diet with or without water before meals for twelve weeks. The water group lost about two kilograms more. The initial test-meal energy-intake difference was no longer statistically significant at twelve weeks.
EatMatrix’s reading: This combines water timing with a reduced-calorie diet in a specific age group. It does not show that filtered water is better than other safe drinking water or establish a fluid amount suitable for everyone. Mineral origin and filtration were not the experimental comparison.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary water reference values, not contaminant test results for a water brand
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
13 September 2023 public-health guidance, read 8 October 2026. Microbiological and chemical water quality, not certification of a named source, filter or bottle.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An egg-white protein used for food structure and protein content; it differs from egg yolk.
Food and protein contribution.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies egg as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 randomized study compared six protein foods after resistance exercise in 65 healthy, trained young adults; 11 received egg whites. Muscle protein synthesis increased after exercise and feeding without a statistically significant difference between food groups. Egg whites produced a larger whole-body net protein balance, a different outcome. Marlow Foods sponsored the study, and two authors had company employment at study design.
EatMatrix’s reading: Egg albumin is related to egg-white protein, but the trial does not identify every purified powder or its dose. An acute protein-turnover result is not proof of greater muscle growth over months. A different candidate abstract with an implausible niacin unit was not adopted.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No specific pasteurisation, nutrient value or biological test result is inferred from the name. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
The form and elemental iron amount are needed. The broad label does not establish how well it is absorbed or whether it is an appropriate food-grade preparation.
Iron is needed for oxygen transport and normal body function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH’s iron guidance concerns nutritional iron exposure and its benefits and risks. It does not certify an unspecified material labelled elemental iron as a suitable food ingredient. Excess supplemental iron can be harmful, including serious childhood poisoning.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA could not establish a tolerable upper intake level for iron from the available evidence. It instead derived a safe level of total intake of 40 mg/day for adults, including pregnancy and lactation. The point where adverse-effect risk begins to rise remains undefined.
EatMatrix’s reading: A safe level is not an upper intake limit or a recommended supplement dose. It refers to iron, not the total mass of an iron salt or unspecified elemental material. Medically supervised treatment of deficiency and product-specific absorption are separate questions.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Elemental iron powders have been tested in fortified foods, with different results depending on the powder, food and population. “Elemental iron” can also simply describe the amount of iron supplied by a supplement.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find the iron compound or powder type. A benefit in people with low iron stores does not mean extra iron benefits everyone.
Over 35 weeks, wheat snacks fortified with electrolytic or hydrogen-reduced iron improved iron-status measures; ferrous sulfate produced a larger increase in calculated iron stores.
Different forms were not equally effective. These findings concern the tested fortification programme.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Brown bread fortified with electrolytic iron, sodium iron EDTA or ferrous fumarate did not improve measured iron status relative to the control bread over 34 weeks.
A null result in this food and population limits broad claims that any iron-fortified food will correct deficiency.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Nutrition measure
Read this as nutrition information. The original label is still needed to confirm the units and serving basis.
Energy is a quantity reported as calories or kilojoules. It has no ingredient formula to uncover.
Energy on a nutrition label is a measurement in calories or kilojoules. It does not identify an ingredient. An energy blend or supplement needs its actual ingredients listed separately.
Energy reports a quantity such as calories or kilojoules rather than naming a food ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: Treat this as a possible nutrition-field entry requiring source review. There is no single substance called energy to match to an ingredient trial.
The original nutrition panel, units and serving basis remain unverified. An energy blend would need a separate ingredient list.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Energy, usually shown in kcal or kJ, reports the energy content of the food. It is a measurement, not a substance added to the recipe.
Helps compare energy content on the stated serving or weight basis.
Energy is a measurement on a nutrition label, not an ingredient. A calorie value cannot be given a food-additive approval or a chemical safety verdict.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: This is a quantity, not a chemical identity. Confirm calories or kilojoules and the original nutrition panel; it cannot receive an ingredient-specific trial or additive permission.
Energy is a measurement, commonly calories or kilojoules, rather than an ingredient. Nutrition research studies energy intake in the context of actual diets and foods. A database row called energy cannot be matched to one chemical’s toxicity, clinical trial or additive authorisation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the original label panel and units. Treat this as a possible nutrition-field classification issue; assess the real foods and eating pattern rather than inventing an ingredient-specific safety verdict.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
FDA: Types and functions of food ingredientsTechnological purpose and nutrition categories; a purpose is not a clinical benefit or a tested recipe.
Selected record check: . Selected nutrition context. Energy has no chemical formulation; the original label field, units and serving basis remain unverified.
Label-to-study match checked: . The original nutrition panel, units and serving basis remain unverified. An energy blend would need a separate ingredient list.
Nutrition-label information: Energy is a measured quantity. A calorie or kilojoule value cannot receive a food-additive permission; the actual ingredients and their uses must be considered separately.
The source panel and serving basis remain unverified. The links below explain labelling frameworks and authorities, not permission for a substance called energy.
EatMatrix’s reading: First check whether this was read from the nutrition table. Energy is a measure, while total carbohydrate and total fat describe nutrients rather than a single ingredient. If fat appears as an ingredient, identify its source.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
The ingredient statement uses common or usual ingredient names. A nutrition-table value is a different kind of information; if fat is an actual ingredient, the fat/oil source needs checking.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Ingredient and component naming refers to foods and substances used in making the product. Verify the original panel before treating a nutrient total as a single ingredient or assigning a country verdict.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
CAA’s nutrition leaflet separately lists energy, fat and carbohydrate as nutrition information. These are not a recipe. Verify the original Japanese label before treating the field as an ingredient.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Selected English nutrition leaflet: energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate and salt equivalent; not a current full Japanese legal review.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explains nutrition quantities, calories, total fat and carbohydrate; does not identify the contents of a particular product
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Ground corn with specified nutrients added; enrichment is different from keeping the whole grain.
Energy, food texture and the declared added nutrients.
Enrichment alone is not proof of a whole-grain product or a complete nutritional profile. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2021 randomized study assigned 255 lactating women in Zambia to fortified or unfortified maize meal for 90 days; 230 completed. Vitamin-A-fortified meal did not improve the primary outcome of infant total-body vitamin A stores. Some maternal milk-retinol outcomes differed, but those are not the same endpoint. A published methodological comment concerns the isotope-dilution approach.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Enriched cornmeal” does not disclose which nutrients or quantities were added. This study of a specified vitamin A fortification cannot establish the effects of every enriched cornmeal, nor make enrichment equivalent to retaining whole-grain fibre. The methodological comment was identified; its complete text has not been reviewed.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Enrichment alone is not proof of a whole-grain product or a complete nutritional profile. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Flour with selected nutrients added; the grain source and whether it is whole-grain need separate identification.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2016 community study compared folic-acid-fortified flour in eight villages with three comparison villages in a region at high risk of neural-tube defects. It included 16,648 women and reported fewer affected pregnancies in the fortification area. Allocation was not an individually randomized trial and the outcome comparison relied on endline data. Public and academic grants supported the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: This concerns folic-acid fortification in a particular population. “Enriched flour” does not confirm folic-acid content or make refined flour whole grain. The observational community comparison cannot provide an individual guarantee of prevention or replace pregnancy-specific care.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FAO/WHO JECFA: The listed 2005 JECFA evaluation retained the acceptable daily intake of 0–2 mg/kg body weight established in 1974 for ethyl maltol. The record identifies its flavouring and flavour-enhancer uses.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is an assessment of a defined chemical and exposure, not a health benefit or an intake target. Ethyl maltol is different from ethylmaltol isobutyrate; a newer assessment of that derivative cannot be substituted. Country-specific permissions still require the intended food and amount.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Recent ethyl-maltol human research included inhaled tobacco products, while other results involved cells, animals or analytical chemistry. These do not establish the effects of ethyl maltol eaten as a food flavouring.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match oral use and amount to the flavouring assessment. Do not translate vaping findings into a measured risk for a food serving, or use flavouring permission to dismiss inhalation hazards.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
An extract concentrates selected plant compounds; its effects depend on species, solvent, composition and amount.
Food function depends on the exact extract.
Do not transfer turmeric-powder, green-tea-infusion, spirulina-protein or inhalation findings to a different extract.
Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne / Poisons Information Centre: Poisons guidance warns that swallowing concentrated eucalyptus oil can cause serious neurological and breathing problems. Culinary flavour exposure and drinking pure essential oil must not be equated.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Royal Children’s Hospital Melbourne: The hospital’s poison guideline identifies depression of the central nervous system and respiratory compromise as key features of eucalyptus-oil poisoning; severe cases can involve seizures.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not drink eucalyptus essential oil. Concentrated oil is different from a controlled food-flavouring exposure, topical product or inhaled preparation. If poisoning is suspected, seek local poison-service or emergency advice; this source cannot establish safety of an unidentified dose.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The located human COPD trial tested purified medicinal cineole alongside usual treatment, not swallowing whole eucalyptus oil or eating it as a flavouring. Its positive result cannot be transferred to this oil.
EatMatrix’s reading: A plant oil and an isolated medicinal constituent are different preparations. Food-flavour use is not an instruction to ingest concentrated essential oil.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
Clinical poisoning guidance, read 8 October 2026. Pure-oil ingestion can cause serious neurological and respiratory effects. Not a food-flavour exposure trial or a supplement recommendation.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer turmeric-powder, green-tea-infusion, spirulina-protein or inhalation findings to a different extract.
Nutrient or fat ingredient
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Fat can mean a nutrient total or a fat used as an ingredient. The original panel is needed to choose between these meanings.
Animal and plant fats have different sources. The generic word fat cannot establish vegan, vegetarian, halal, kosher or dairy-free suitability.
Fat may be a nutrition total or a broad ingredient label; it does not identify an oil or its composition.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not infer a plant source, vegan suitability or a saturated-fat level from the word fat alone.
The original label field remains unverified. A nutrient total does not identify the food ingredients that supply it.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Fat may be a total in the nutrition table or a broad recipe term. Neither identifies the individual oils or their fatty-acid composition.
Describes part of a food’s nutrient content; if it is a recipe ingredient, its function depends on the named fat or oil.
Fat is a nutrition category, not a complete ingredient identity. It does not identify the animal/plant source or the balance of saturated and unsaturated fats.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify the fat source and fatty-acid composition, and what replaces it in the diet. A total-fat number alone cannot establish the effect seen in a substitution trial.
Dietary-fat effects depend on what is replaced and the fatty-acid mixture. The updated August 2020 Cochrane review included 15 long-term trials with 56,675 adults. It found fewer combined cardiovascular events when saturated fat was reduced, with little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. This updated version supersedes an earlier May 2020 record with different totals and estimates; it is not a trial of every vegetable-oil blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: For an ingredient, identify the plant/animal source, proportions and hydrogenation; for a nutrition-table value, read it as total fat rather than one chemical. Do not equate “vegetable” with one fatty-acid profile or transfer a replacement-diet result to an unnamed oil.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . The original label field remains unverified. A nutrient total does not identify the food ingredients that supply it.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: First check whether this was read from the nutrition table. Energy is a measure, while total carbohydrate and total fat describe nutrients rather than a single ingredient. If fat appears as an ingredient, identify its source.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
The ingredient statement uses common or usual ingredient names. A nutrition-table value is a different kind of information; if fat is an actual ingredient, the fat/oil source needs checking.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Article 30 lists energy, fat and carbohydrate in the nutrition declaration. Article 18 separately governs ingredients. A nutrient value cannot identify the recipe or establish one substance’s permission. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Ingredient and component naming refers to foods and substances used in making the product. Verify the original panel before treating a nutrient total as a single ingredient or assigning a country verdict.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Standard 1.2.4 concerns ingredients, not a substitution of nutrient totals for the recipe. Establish the original label field before matching a substance or food-use condition. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
CAA’s nutrition leaflet separately lists energy, fat and carbohydrate as nutrition information. These are not a recipe. Verify the original Japanese label before treating the field as an ingredient.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Selected English nutrition leaflet: energy, protein, fat, carbohydrate and salt equivalent; not a current full Japanese legal review.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explains nutrition quantities, calories, total fat and carbohydrate; does not identify the contents of a particular product
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Cocoa foods contain many components; cocoa mass, reduced-fat cocoa and purified flavanols are different preparations.
Food function; specified cocoa-flavanol evidence cannot be assigned to every chocolate product.
No therapeutic vascular/cancer effect or flavanol amount is inferred from the cocoa name.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A September 2026 COSMOS ancillary randomized analysis included 506 older adults with available tau or neurofilament measurements and 498 with the amyloid measurement. Cocoa-flavanol extract did not significantly change these three blood biomarkers over two years versus placebo. This result does not establish dementia prevention or rule out every other outcome. The intervention was an extract, not ordinary cocoa mass or fat-reduced cocoa. Funding and full source-version history were not checked for this report.
Selected abstract read only; preparation match absent; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
specified cocoa-flavanol health claim; not chocolate as a disease treatment
scientific risk assessment across sources
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No therapeutic vascular/cancer effect or flavanol amount is inferred from the cocoa name.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Food fortification and iron treatment tablets have different exposures. The ingredient name alone does not establish that someone needs extra iron.
Supplies iron needed for hemoglobin to carry oxygen.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH explains iron’s role in oxygen transport. High supplemental doses can cause digestive problems, and accidental overdose is dangerous for children. Iron should not be assumed to treat every cause of tiredness or anemia.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 open-label trial randomized 61 children and adolescents with iron-deficiency anaemia to ferric maltol or ferrous sulfate for twelve weeks; four infants received ferric maltol outside the randomized comparison. Haemoglobin increased in both randomized groups. Recruitment stopped after an interim analysis. A later published comment is linked to this trial; its full text has not been reviewed here.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is treatment of diagnosed anaemia, not a reason for a healthy child to take iron. Improvements from baseline do not establish superiority or equivalence. The linked comment and complete trial methods need review before making a stronger comparison.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A brined cheese type; animal milk source and exact formulation should be read from the product.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
CDC: CDC recommends choosing pasteurized milk and dairy products. Soft cheeses have more potential for Listeria contamination than hard cheeses, and raw-milk cheese carries additional risk. The guidance also describes risks in certain fresh cheeses even when pasteurized.
EatMatrix’s reading: For feta, check pasteurization, storage, use-by information and any recall. Pasteurization does not prevent later contamination. This guidance does not say all feta is unsafe; people at higher infection risk need the relevant food-safety advice.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable health trial of a specified feta cheese was selected. Production, brining and animal-feed studies are not human eating trials, and results for other cheeses do not identify a feta-specific effect.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read sodium, fat, portion size and milk-allergen information. The overall eating pattern matters more than assigning a unique health effect to the cheese name.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Filling preparation
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Filling identifies a role within a food. It does not say whether the recipe is fruit, cream, meat or another mixture.
Filling is a mixture label. Its individual ingredients are needed to assess allergens, nutritional effects and applicable research.
Filling describes a role in a food and can mean many unrelated mixtures.
EatMatrix’s reading: A fruit, cream or nut study cannot identify the contents or effects of an unspecified filling.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
A filling is a food component defined by where it is used, rather than by one chemical or recipe. It can be sweet or savoury.
Provides flavour or texture inside a food; the contents and amounts determine its nutritional contribution.
Filling is an unspecified mixture. A fruit filling, dairy cream and meat filling require different ingredient and allergy checks.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: A filling can be fruit, cream, meat or another recipe. Ingredient proportions, preparation and serving size are needed before any clinical match.
Filling names a role in a food, not a standard composition. Fruit, cream, nut and starch fillings can differ in allergens, nutrients and preparation. Research on one component cannot identify the effects of an undisclosed mixture, and general dietary guidance is not a clinical test of this filling.
EatMatrix’s reading: Use the full ingredient list, proportions where available, preparation and finished-food nutrition. Match evidence to the identified components before drawing a benefit, risk or country-use conclusion.
FDA: Types and functions of food ingredientsTechnological purpose and nutrition categories; a purpose is not a clinical benefit or a tested recipe.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Water supports hydration and normal body functions.
Hydration.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
WHO: WHO prioritises microbiological and chemical water quality. Filtering, carbonation or a spring label does not by itself certify that the water meets drinking-water requirements.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2010 trial assigned 48 adults aged 55–75 with overweight or obesity to a reduced-calorie diet with or without water before meals for twelve weeks. The water group lost about two kilograms more. The initial test-meal energy-intake difference was no longer statistically significant at twelve weeks.
EatMatrix’s reading: This combines water timing with a reduced-calorie diet in a specific age group. It does not show that filtered water is better than other safe drinking water or establish a fluid amount suitable for everyone. Mineral origin and filtration were not the experimental comparison.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary water reference values, not contaminant test results for a water brand
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
13 September 2023 public-health guidance, read 8 October 2026. Microbiological and chemical water quality, not certification of a named source, filter or bottle.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Flavors names a flavouring category without specifying its constituents or their sources.
Flavors or Flavouring can describe a preparation rather than an individual chemical.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read this as an unresolved formulation. The label alone cannot support a component-specific body effect or country permission.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Flavors is a broad term that can conceal multiple flavouring substances and carriers. The mixture needs identification before a specific safety or permission match.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: “Flavors” does not identify the molecules, extracts or carriers in this blend. Evidence about one named flavour cannot assess an undisclosed mixture.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Flavouring is a category name. The spelling does not identify a substance or a preparation.
Flavors or Flavouring can describe a preparation rather than an individual chemical.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read this as an unresolved formulation. The label alone cannot support a component-specific body effect or country permission.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Flavouring describes a function rather than a complete composition. Identify the substances and carriers instead of assigning a universal safe or unsafe label.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Confirm the flavouring preparation and source substances. A regulatory flavouring category does not supply a clinical dose or exact composition.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Folic acid is a specific folate form. Food folate and supplemental folic acid are not interchangeable amounts in every reference system.
Supports DNA and cell division; adequate folate before and during early pregnancy helps prevent neural-tube defects.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH distinguishes folic acid in fortified foods and supplements from naturally occurring folate. Adequate early-pregnancy intake has a specific preventive role; excessive supplemental folic acid can conceal B12-deficiency anemia while nerve injury continues.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 household-randomized trial in 360 nonpregnant Ethiopian women found that folic-acid-fortified iodized salt improved folate biomarkers over 26 weeks without detected between-group differences in the measured iodine markers or adverse events. It did not measure neural-tube defects. The pivotal 1991 MRC trial randomized 1,817 women with a previous affected pregnancy; among 1,195 completed assessed pregnancies, folic-acid groups had fewer neural-tube defects, a 72% relative reduction.
EatMatrix’s reading: Folate status and a pregnancy outcome are separate endpoints. The older trial concerns a selected high-risk population and periconceptional supplementation; neither trial is advice to eat more salt or to choose a personal dose. Natural food folates, folic acid and folinic acid are not interchangeable study preparations.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A fresh cheese preparation with product-dependent water, fat, salt and other ingredients.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2017 randomized meal study compared milk-fat foods with different physical structures, including cream cheese, providing 33 g of fat. Triglyceride concentrations at four hours and total eight-hour triglyceride exposure did not differ between foods. Cream cheese produced a higher early response at two hours, illustrating that timing can differ even when total exposure does not.
EatMatrix’s reading: Fresh spreadable cheese is not necessarily the study’s cream cheese. Fat amount, milk source and recipe need matching. An early blood-fat difference cannot establish that all soft cheeses are more harmful, or that eating cheese prevents cardiovascular disease.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Fructose is a simple sugar. Purified fructose added to a drink has a different food context from intact fruit.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2021 trial in 94 healthy men compared seven weeks of fructose-, sucrose- or glucose-sweetened drinks with avoiding those study drinks. Fructose and sucrose increased a measured liver fatty-acid synthesis rate; glucose did not show that effect. The experiment tested substantial daily drink exposure and a metabolic marker, not clinical liver disease or intact fruit. This historical finding is not a completed latest-literature review. The same paper appears in the related fructose, glucose and sucrose entries.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
This is another catalogue row for fructose, a simple sugar used in sweetening.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2021 trial in 94 healthy men compared seven weeks of fructose-, sucrose- or glucose-sweetened drinks with avoiding those study drinks. Fructose and sucrose increased a measured liver fatty-acid synthesis rate; glucose did not show that effect. The experiment tested substantial daily drink exposure and a metabolic marker, not clinical liver disease or intact fruit. This historical finding is not a completed latest-literature review. The same paper appears in the related fructose, glucose and sucrose entries.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Tea or infusion blend
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Fruity tea with cherries describes a drink blend. The name does not establish the tea base, cherry ingredient or proportions.
Fruity tea with cherries names a beverage style without identifying every ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not infer a cherry dose, caffeine content or cherry-only effect from this beverage name.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
This names a tea-style beverage or blend with a cherry description. It does not establish the actual plants, cherry preparation or caffeine content.
Provides a beverage or flavour; the recipe determines whether it contains tea leaves, fruit, flavouring or sweeteners.
Fruity tea with cherries describes a blend. The amount and identity of tea, fruit, flavouring and any sweetener are needed before assigning an extract-study result.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Obtain the tea species, cherry content and other fruit or flavour ingredients. A concentrated tart-cherry drink trial is not a test of this fruit tea.
A cherry-flavoured fruit tea does not disclose how much cherry, if any, was used as fruit, juice, extract or flavouring. Research on tart-cherry juice or a concentrated supplement cannot establish this beverage’s effects. EFSA’s flavouring guidance separates a preparation’s identity and use from its name.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the full recipe, cherry form and amount, other herbs, caffeine and added sugar. Do not promise a sleep, exercise-recovery or antioxidant benefit from the beverage name alone.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Garlic in food and concentrated garlic supplements are different exposures. Supplement interactions depend on the preparation.
Garlic is a food used for flavour. Raw garlic, cooked garlic, powder and aged extracts differ in composition and are not interchangeable study preparations.
Seasoning and food use. Some supplement evidence suggests small changes in selected cardiovascular measures, but this is not proof that adding garlic to food treats high cholesterol or prevents a heart attack.
A change in a laboratory lipid measure is not proof of fewer cardiovascular events. Neither selected trial establishes effects for every garlic food or supplement.
NIH NCCIH: Its February 2025 summary reports possible small effects of supplements on some cholesterol, blood-pressure and glucose measures, alongside limited evidence and a supplement bleeding warning.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A historical six-month trial in 192 adults compared raw garlic, a powder supplement, an aged extract and placebo. None significantly improved LDL cholesterol. A 2026 trial of a specific aged black garlic extract also reported no significant conventional lipid changes; exploratory lipoprotein-subclass findings do not demonstrate fewer heart attacks. Formulation and population matter, and results should not be selected only because they are positive.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
garlic research; food and supplement distinction
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
A change in a laboratory lipid measure is not proof of fewer cardiovascular events. Neither selected trial establishes effects for every garlic food or supplement.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Garlic powder is a dried food ingredient and is not interchangeable with every standardized garlic supplement.
Garlic powder is a dried seasoning. Processing affects its compounds; a food ingredient is not automatically equivalent to a standardized supplement tablet or aged black garlic extract.
Flavour without needing a medicinal claim. Supplement studies must be matched to their exact powder and amount before being applied to a packaged food.
The label does not establish an allicin yield or clinical dose. An aged-extract finding cannot establish a benefit for this unspecified powder.
NIH NCCIH: The February 2025 summary mainly discusses supplements. Its possible benefits and bleeding precautions do not establish a clinical effect for every garlic-powder food ingredient.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2007 randomized trial included a characterized powdered-garlic supplement as well as raw garlic, aged extract and placebo. Over six months in 192 adults, the tested forms did not significantly lower LDL cholesterol. This historical null result is useful preparation-specific evidence; it does not prove that no garlic preparation can ever have an effect, or that an unspecified food powder matches the tablet.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
garlic research; food and supplement distinction
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The label does not establish an allicin yield or clinical dose. An aged-extract finding cannot establish a benefit for this unspecified powder.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Collagen/gelatin supplies protein that is digested. Hydrolysed collagen peptides and intact gelatin are different preparations.
Food/protein function; proposed skin or joint benefits need matched clinical evidence.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 double-blind pilot in 22 recreationally active adults compared gelatin supplementation with placebo after demanding knee-extension exercise. The main comparisons did not show significant group differences over time in soreness or muscle function. Some exploratory comparisons at individual time points favoured gelatin, but these do not establish a recovery benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: The same pilot appears for Gelatin and Collagen / Gelatin. It does not test every collagen hydrolysate or the small quantity of gelatin used to set a food. The study regimen is not an intake recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
The same name occurs in the additive-use lists. These rows concern technological uses, not every nutritional, supplement or ordinary-food use of this ingredient.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Emulsifying, Gelling, Stabilizing or Thickening Agents. List published ; item G.1.
Food: (a) Brawn; Canned (naming the poultry); Headcheese; (Naming the fruit or fruits) jelly with pectin; Meat and meat by-product loaf; Meat binder sold for use in prepared meat or prepared meat by-product in which a gelling agent is a permitted ingredient; Meat by-product loaf; Meat loaf; Meat lunch; Meat roll; Potted meat; Potted meat by-product
Purpose: (a) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Food: (b) Calorie-reduced margarine
Purpose: (b) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (b) 1.0%
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0014 (see the official list).
Food: (c) Cold-pack cheese food; Cold-pack cheese food with (naming the added ingredients); Cold-pack (naming the variety) cheese with (naming the added ingredients); Cream cheese; Cream cheese with (naming the added ingredients)
Purpose: (c) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (c) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other gelling agents, or emulsifying, stabilizing or thickening agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm.
Food: (d) Cottage cheese
Purpose: (d) Stabilizing agent
Limit and conditions: (d) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other stabilizing agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm.
Food: (e) Cream; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skim milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (e) Stabilizing agent
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Food: (f) Cream cheese spread; Cream cheese spread with (naming the added ingredients)
Purpose: (f) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (f) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other gelling agents, or emulsifying, stabilizing or thickening agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. This total combined amount does not include any of citrate salts, phosphate salts, sodium gluconate or tartrate salts that may be added up to their respective maximum levels of use set out in this list.
Food: (g) Creamed cottage cheese
Purpose: (g) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (g) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other gelling agents, or emulsifying, stabilizing or thickening agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm.
Food: (g.1) (Naming the flavour) flavour
Purpose: (g.1) Emulsifying agent
Limit and conditions: (g.1) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-14 (see the official list).
Food: (h) Ice cream mix
Purpose: (h) Stabilizing agent
Limit and conditions: (h) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm of the ice cream. If used in any combination with other stabilizing agents or microcrystalline cellulose in accordance with paragraph M.8(b) of the List of Permitted Food Additives with Other Purposes of Use, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm of the ice cream.
Food: (i) Ice milk mix
Purpose: (i) Stabilizing agent
Limit and conditions: (i) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm of the ice milk. If used in any combination with other stabilizing agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm of the ice milk. This total combined amount does not include propylene glycol mono fatty acid esters that may be added up to their maximum level of use set out in this list.
Food: (j) Mustard pickles; Relishes
Purpose: (j) Thickening agent
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Food: (k) Prepared fish or prepared meat (as defined in section B.21.002 of the Food and Drug Regulations )
Purpose: (k) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0122 (see the official list).
Food: (l) Prepared hams, shoulders, butts, picnics and backs
Purpose: (l) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Food: (m) Processed cheese spread; Processed cheese spread with (naming the added ingredients)
Purpose: (m) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (m) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other gelling agents, or emulsifying, stabilizing or thickening agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. This total combined amount does not include any of citrate salts, lecithin, monoglycerides, mono- and diglycerides, phosphate salts, sodium gluconate or tartrate salts that may be added up to their maximum levels of use set out in this list.
Food: (n) Sherbet
Purpose: (n) Stabilizing agent
Limit and conditions: (n) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 7,500 ppm. If used in any combination with other stabilizing agents, the total combined amount not to exceed 7,500 ppm.
Food: (o) Sour cream
Purpose: (o) Gelling agent
Limit and conditions: (o) If used singly, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. If used in any combination with other gelling agents, or emulsifying, stabilizing or thickening agents, the amount not to exceed 5,000 ppm. This total combined amount does not include any of monoglycerides, mono- and diglycerides, potassium phosphate, dibasic or sodium phosphate, dibasic that may be added up to their respective maximum levels of use set out in this list.
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0198 (see the official list).
Food: (p) Unstandardized foods
Purpose: (p) Emulsifying, gelling, stabilizing or thickening agent
Limit and conditions: (p) Good Manufacturing Practice
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Additives with Other Purposes of Use. List published ; item G.1.
Food: Beer; Cider; Fruit wine; Wine
Purpose: Fining agent
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
2011 joint health-claim assessment, not a current systematic collagen review
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The historical claim opinion is not a rejection of every later trial or evidence of toxicity. Latest formulation-specific trials remain separate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
A ginger extract can differ from fresh ginger. Findings from a particular nausea study do not establish every extract as an effective treatment.
Ginger extract concentrates compounds from ginger root. The solvent, standardization and other ingredients determine how it differs from ginger used in food.
Some preparations have been studied for nausea. The cause of nausea and exact preparation matter; evidence for pregnancy-related nausea does not establish benefit for motion sickness, chemotherapy or every extract.
An extract name is insufficient to match a trial. Biomarker findings do not establish disease prevention, and supplementary use does not replace standard treatment.
NIH NCCIH: The February 2025 summary distinguishes different nausea settings: pregnancy-related nausea may improve, most motion-sickness studies have not shown benefit, and chemotherapy-related evidence remains uncertain. Most studies concern supplements rather than food.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 four-week pilot in 72 adults tested combined rosemary and ginger extracts. Some subgroup biomarkers changed, while overall circulating oxidative-stress and inflammatory markers did not; the mixture cannot identify a ginger-only effect. A separate trial in 103 chemotherapy patients tested standardized ginger alongside antiemetic medicines: some delayed-nausea and quality-of-life outcomes improved, but acute and anticipatory symptoms did not. Neither result establishes every ginger extract as a treatment or proves long-term disease prevention.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
ginger research and supplement safety, not all ginger extracts
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An extract name is insufficient to match a trial. Biomarker findings do not establish disease prevention, and supplementary use does not replace standard treatment.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Glucose is used by cells for energy and contributes sugar when added to foods.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2021 seven-week study of 94 healthy men, glucose-sweetened drinks did not increase the measured liver fatty-acid synthesis rate seen with fructose and sucrose drinks. This was a specific metabolic outcome, not evidence that glucose drinks prevent disease or are harmless in unlimited amounts. The trial does not establish effects for every glucose-containing food.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Uses oxygen while oxidizing glucose, producing gluconolactone and hydrogen peroxide. Its processing role does not establish control of blood glucose in a person.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: A 2026 EFSA extension assessed glucose oxidase from genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae NZYM-KP across four manufacturing processes. It combined revised dietary exposure with the previous toxicity assessment and found no safety concern under the revised intended conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: This does not establish a glucose-lowering benefit in people. The enzyme transforms glucose during food processing; the exact strain, process and residues must match the assessment.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human ingestion trial of glucose oxidase alone was selected. Glucose measurement devices, wound applications and enzyme manufacturing do not test food exposure.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the producing organism and preparation to the official safety assessment. Its technological action in food is not evidence of a blood-sugar benefit.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item G.5.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae Mtl-72 (pHUda107)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good manufacturing practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae Mtl-72 (pHUda107)
Food: (b) Liquid egg-white, liquid whole egg or liquid yolk, destined for drying and treated with catalase as set out in item C.3 of this list
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae Mtl-72 (pHUda107)
Food: (c) Soft drinks
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae Mtl-72 (pHUda107)
Food: (d) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good manufacturing practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger J39
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0142 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger J39
Food: (b) Pasta
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0142 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger J39
Food: (c) Shredded cheddar cheese; Shredded (naming the variety) cheese
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice. To be applied to the surface of the cheese.
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0142 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger J39
Food: (d) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0142 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus niger ZGL528-72; Saccharomyces cerevisiae LALL-GO
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-02 NOM/ADM-0087 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus niger ZGL528-72; Saccharomyces cerevisiae LALL-GO
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-02 NOM/ADM-0087 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei RF11400
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0120 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei RF11400
Food: (b) Liquid egg-white, liquid whole egg or liquid yolk, destined for drying and treated with catalase as set out in item C.3 of this list
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0120 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei RF11400
Food: (c) Pasta
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0120 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Trichoderma reesei RF11400
Food: (d) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0120 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A starch-derived syrup containing glucose and related saccharides; composition varies.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s January 2026 healthy-diet guidance includes sugars in syrups and added glucose, fructose and sucrose within free sugars. It recommends limiting free sugars across the overall diet, rather than judging one ingredient name in isolation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Brown sugar syrup, caramelized sugar syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup and invert sugar differ in composition, but their names do not make the sugar contribution disappear. Compare grams of sugar and portion size in the finished food. Corn syrup is not automatically high-fructose corn syrup, and a dark colour does not prove meaningful nutritional benefit.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
A 2024 human comparison used a specified DE40 glucose polymer against slowly digestible oligomalt. That does not identify every ingredient labelled glucose syrup, nor show the effect of all syrup-containing foods.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the syrup specification and amount. Findings from a fasting drink challenge cannot establish long-term diabetes prevention or the response to a mixed meal.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Microbial culture
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
This names bacteria and yeast as groups. It supplies no species, strain or count; the word good does not identify an organism.
A good-bacteria or yeast-culture label does not identify the organism or strain. Benefits of one strain cannot be assigned to every culture.
Good bacteria and yeast culture is a descriptive claim without strain identities.
EatMatrix’s reading: The word good is not evidence of a probiotic benefit. A result for a named strain cannot be transferred to an unidentified culture.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Starter organisms are used to ferment foods. Processing can change whether living organisms remain in the finished food.
Helps make a fermented food; this does not establish a probiotic health benefit for an unidentified culture.
Good bacteria and yeast culture is a marketing-style mixture label. Genus, species, strain, viable amount and final product are needed before matching probiotic evidence.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
NIH NCCIH: NIH explains that probiotic effects depend on the microorganism and product. A generic culture, live yeast or fermented food cannot inherit the results of a different clinically studied strain.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify each microbial strain, viable amount and whether the final food was heated. A named bacterial strain’s trial cannot cover unknown bacteria plus yeast.
Human research on fermented foods is not absent. A 2025 immune-cell substudy analysed 13 participants from a larger trial of specified kimchi powders, including one made with Leuconostoc mesenteroides KCKM0828. It measured cell-signalling and gene-expression outcomes, not fewer infections. A 2021 dietary trial reported increased microbial diversity and reduced inflammatory markers with fermented foods. Those are diet and biomarker findings, not proof of a clinical benefit from an unnamed starter or bacteria-and-yeast mixture.
EatMatrix’s reading: Ask for the species, strain, viability and finished food. The 2025 study was Korean government-funded; selected methods describe powders and a lactose/flavouring-containing placebo. EFSA QPS screening is a safety pre-assessment, not proof of a probiotic benefit or automatic product permission.
EFSA: QPS microorganism screening and July 2026 update routeThe page links the 6 July 2026 statement covering notifications through March 2026. Taxonomic safety screening is separate from product authorisation and clinical probiotic efficacy.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A fermentation culture is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic. The species, strain, food matrix and viability are needed before a result for a named organism can be applied.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Article 19 has an ingredient-list exemption for certain cheese, butter, fermented milk and cream made only with the specified manufacturing ingredients, including essential cultures. This is a finished-food label exception, not clinical approval of every culture.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Ingredient common-name and component rules must be applied to the actual food and culture. This label does not identify a strain or establish a GRAS determination for an unspecified use.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Article 19 has an ingredient-list exemption for certain cheese, butter, fermented milk and cream made only with the specified manufacturing ingredients, including essential cultures. This is a finished-food label exception, not clinical approval of every culture. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name table permits “bacterial culture” for one or more bacterial species and “mould culture” for mould species. These group labels do not identify strains; a bacteria-and-yeast blend still needs its actual composition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Ingredient names and any processing-aid exemption depend on the actual function and use. An unspecified starter label does not establish a probiotic effect or its legal category.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient names and any processing-aid exemption depend on the actual function and use. An unspecified starter label does not establish a probiotic effect or its legal category. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
strain- and condition-specific research summary
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
Strain, product and population-specific evidence and safety context, read 8 October 2026. Page version date not established; a starter culture is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic.
Species-level QPS screening versus strain-level assessment; not proof of probiotic efficacy or permission for an unspecified culture
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Grain category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
The words e.g. introduce examples. Barley, corn, rye and wheat cannot be treated as the confirmed recipe of a product from this record.
The examples in this label do not establish which grains are actually present.
EatMatrix’s reading: An illustrative list cannot certify gluten-free status or supply a trial-matched grain composition.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
A cereal or grain mixture combines grain ingredients, but this name does not identify the actual grains, proportions or whole/refined forms.
Provides grain ingredients and texture; fibre and other nutrient content depend on the actual mix.
The listed grains are examples rather than a verified recipe. Wheat, barley and rye cannot be treated as equivalent to corn for gluten-related exclusions.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Confirm the proportions of barley, corn, rye and wheat, whole-grain content and cooking. Studies of one grain or a defined whole-grain substitution do not identify this mixture.
Whole-grain and refined-grain foods are not interchangeable research exposures. A 2017 controlled-feeding trial compared specified whole-grain and refined-grain diets while maintaining body weight. The record links an erratum; its full text was unavailable here, so no numerical energy-loss or weight-loss claim is adopted. WHO’s carbohydrate guideline distinguishes food source, fibre and carbohydrate quality.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find which grains are present, their proportions and whether they are whole or refined. An illustrative list of barley, corn, rye and wheat cannot establish the tested recipe, gluten-free suitability or a fixed health effect.
WHO: 2023 carbohydrate-quality guidelinePreferred food sources and carbohydrate quality; total carbohydrate does not distinguish sugar, fibre and starch.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the full recipe and the allergen declaration. A filling, seasoning, dough, cereal mix or flavoured tea is a mixture; an illustrative list of grains does not identify what is actually present.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Compound ingredients may be declared with their components in parentheses or by listing those components individually under the applicable rules. A mixture’s catalogue name is not its recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Compound ingredients generally have their components listed. Annex VII’s under-2% exceptions are limited to specified cases, not every small mixture; allergen rules remain. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Component exemptions are defined for particular foods and preparations; other seasonings have a 2% condition. Mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions remain, so an omitted component cannot automatically be assumed absent.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
At 5% or more of the food, a named compound ingredient generally lists all components. Below 5%, relevant mandatory declarations, including the cited GM provisions, and additives still functioning in the final food remain. Infant-food rules differ. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Fruit contributes to dietary variety. Whole fruit and a concentrated juice or extract are different foods.
Can contribute fibre and nutrients.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 trial randomized 34 older adults to freeze-dried grape powder or placebo for 16 weeks. Macular-pigment measurements increased within the grape group; the abstract does not establish a clear treatment-by-time advantage for every endpoint. Plasma lutein and skin carotenoid measures did not differ. The California Table Grape Commission funded it. A separate 2021 crossover trial in 25 adults with obesity found no significant acute glucose, lipid, antioxidant or satiety effect from grape powder.
EatMatrix’s reading: Within-group improvement is not automatically a between-group treatment effect. Powder experiments do not prove better vision, prevention of eye disease or the same result from every grape serving.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Cheese in a grated form; additional anticaking ingredients or mixed cheeses may be present.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2018 crossover trial in 30 people with hypertension on stable treatment compared 30 g/day of a specified Grana Padano cheese with a fat- and salt-matched bread control for two months. The study reported modestly lower 24-hour blood pressure with that cheese.
EatMatrix’s reading: Grating describes a food’s physical form, not its cheese species, ageing or composition. This small study cannot establish the same effect for every grated cheese or justify replacing blood-pressure medication. Sodium, portion and milk allergy still matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s current dietary guidance supports a variety of vegetables as part of a balanced diet. That food-pattern recommendation is different from a clinical claim for an individual pepper or a concentrated pepper extract.
EatMatrix’s reading: Bell pepper and green pepper are ordinary vegetables. The identified 2017 study tested juice alongside yoga in 50 people with type 2 diabetes for four days. It also has a published corrigendum. The indexed records confirm that link, but the correction text remains unavailable in this check, so an efficacy claim is not adopted. This short, combined intervention cannot establish a diabetes treatment from eating peppers.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The human pepper study located used juice plus yoga, and has a linked correction. It does not establish a benefit for an unspecified green pepper; concentrated Capsicum or capsaicin studies are also different preparations.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the variety and preparation. The short juice study is not a basis for treating high blood sugar, and its corrected result remains unresolved.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
EFSA could not identify a safe dose for green tea extracts in its 2018 opinion. A studied high-dose liver signal does not establish a guaranteed safe threshold below it. Extracts and customary tea infusions are different exposures.
Concentrated green tea extract can expose the body to much more catechins than an ordinary tea infusion.
A concentrated catechin ingredient; no detoxification or weight-loss benefit is established here.
800 mg/day in the assessment is a studied harm signal, not a guaranteed safe threshold below it. The exact current EU legal text must be checked separately.
EFSA: EFSA’s EU framework requires the identity, preparation and intended uses of a novel food to be assessed. The framework does not determine novelty, safety or permission for this broad catalogue name.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A randomized human trial of a high-EGCG green tea supplement found more liver-enzyme elevations in the extract group. Most reported adverse events were mild, but liver-enzyme changes deserve attention. A second paper examined the same trial population and is not independent replication. This does not establish a safe personal dose below the studied exposure.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Findings apply to the specified preparation, people and outcomes.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment of catechins, extracts distinguished from infusions
EU2022 amending act; current product-specific conditions and exceptions need checking
EU assessment framework read 8 October 2026. A submitted application, scientific opinion and market authorisation are separate steps; no product permission established by this reference.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
800 mg/day in the assessment is a studied harm signal, not a guaranteed safe threshold below it. The exact current EU legal text must be checked separately.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Guarana can contribute caffeine. The extract ratio alone does not tell you the caffeine amount per serving.
Guarana is a caffeine-containing plant ingredient. An extract can increase stimulant exposure; the extract weight or ratio does not by itself tell you how much caffeine you receive.
Caffeine can increase alertness. A short sports experiment is not proof of better everyday concentration, weight loss or a benefit for every guarana extract.
The catalogue name does not specify caffeine standardization. Acute performance findings in young male players do not establish long-term safety or benefit in other populations.
US FDA: FDA explicitly includes guarana among caffeine sources in energy drinks. Total caffeine from all ingredients matters.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA evaluates caffeine exposure across dietary sources; a guarana label does not remove the need to consider caffeine amount and the consumer population.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
An August 2026 crossover trial tested guarana against placebo in 32 male amateur soccer players. Some attention and pre-exercise technical measures improved, while another cognitive measure did not. The technical advantage faded after exercise. Exercise heart rate increased and early recovery slowed. These acute, mixed outcomes do not establish general cognitive improvement or cardiovascular safety.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific risk assessment across sources
Consumer safety and total caffeine exposure, including guarana; not approval of every product. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
2015 assessment summarized on the current topic page; distinguishes healthy adults, pregnancy and sleep effects. Checked 8 October 2026, not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The catalogue name does not specify caffeine standardization. Acute performance findings in young male players do not establish long-term safety or benefit in other populations.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A named hard-cheese label; the catalogue name alone cannot establish the current formulation, aging or analytical values.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2011 crossover trial in 49 adults compared hard cheese with butter supplying an equal amount of fat for six weeks each. LDL cholesterol was lower after cheese, but HDL was also lower and glucose was higher. The proposed difference in faecal fat excretion was not observed.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is related hard-cheese evidence, not a trial of Džiugas or a recommendation to increase saturated fat. Butter was the comparator; lower LDL than butter does not prove superiority to every other food or fewer heart attacks. Full funding and later-comment review remain incomplete.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A tree-nut food used for flavour and nutrients; it is different from a flavour-only ingredient.
A food-group contribution rather than a treatment.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies peanuts and tree nuts as separate major-allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2013 twelve-week randomized study in 107 adults with overweight or obesity compared two hazelnut portions with a no-nut diet. It found no significant adjusted between-group differences in the main reported clinical measures, including inflammatory markers and body composition. Diet quality improved, while liking declined with the larger portion.
EatMatrix’s reading: This concerns ordinary hazelnuts, not the unrelated Chilean species Gevuina avellana returned by a recent search. A null result in this population is not proof that nuts have no nutritional value or that allergy risk is absent.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Hemp flower differs from hulled hemp seed, hemp-seed protein and hemp-seed oil. Their US regulatory conclusions cannot automatically be applied to a flower or cannabinoid product.
Hemp flower is different from hemp seed, seed oil or seed protein. Cannabinoid content and food-law treatment can differ.
No health benefit claimed from an unspecified flower ingredient.
US FDA cannabis guidance is not a worldwide ban or a dated EU product authorisation.
EFSA: EFSA’s EU framework requires the identity, preparation and intended uses of a novel food to be assessed. The framework does not determine novelty, safety or permission for this broad catalogue name.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2026 CBD statement retained important safety gaps. Its provisional safe dose applies only to specified supplement formulations with at least 98% CBD, no nanoparticles, an acceptable production process and genotoxicity ruled out. Safety could not be established for people under 25, pregnant or breastfeeding people, or those taking medicines.
EatMatrix’s reading: Hemp flower is not a purified CBD formulation or hemp seed. The narrow provisional dose cannot authorize a hemp-flower product, define its THC content or establish legality in any country. Confirm cannabinoid content, preparation, route and local conditions before matching an assessment.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
The located hemp-flower results included extract toxicology, chemistry and reviews of different products. None establishes a matched human benefit for an unspecified flower ingredient consumed in food.
EatMatrix’s reading: Obtain the botanical identity, preparation and measured THC/CBD content. Hemp seed, flower, cannabinoid extract and smoked cannabis cannot share one clinical or legal verdict.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission. Hemp flower is a different plant part from hemp seed: seed-food permissions cannot be transferred to flower or cannabinoid extracts. Controlled-substance and food rules both need checking.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US cannabis-derived food distinctions, not worldwide hemp permission
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
EU assessment framework read 8 October 2026. A submitted application, scientific opinion and market authorisation are separate steps; no product permission established by this reference.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
US FDA cannabis guidance is not a worldwide ban or a dated EU product authorisation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A protein-rich hemp ingredient; it is different from hemp flower, cannabinoids or a complete whole-seed food.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 crossover trial recruited 35 adults with mild hypertension. Specified hemp-seed protein smoothies, with or without added hemp-derived peptides, lowered 24-hour blood-pressure measures relative to casein during six-week periods. The peptide-containing preparation differed from hemp protein alone. Manitoba Harvest supplied the hemp protein.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is not evidence about hemp flowers, CBD or every hemp-protein product, and does not replace medical blood-pressure treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Herb category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Herbs names a plant category. The individual herbs, plant parts and proportions are not specified.
Herbs can mean many plants with different culinary uses and concentrated preparations.
EatMatrix’s reading: A supplement study of one herb does not assess this unspecified culinary mixture.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Herbs and spices season foods and add aroma. A collective name does not disclose the actual botanical blend.
Provides seasoning and variety in taste; a small food amount is different from a concentrated supplement extract.
Herbs is a collective botanical label. Species, plant part and preparation are required; culinary use is different from ingesting concentrated essential oils.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify the herb species and amounts. A high-herb-and-spice controlled diet cannot isolate a benefit of an unknown culinary herb blend.
In a 2021 crossover feeding trial, 71 adults received diets with different amounts of a specified mixture of 24 culinary herbs and spices for four weeks each. The primary LDL-cholesterol result was null. Some 24-hour blood-pressure comparisons favoured the highest amount, while clinic blood pressure and other outcomes did not differ. The study was funded by McCormick Science Institute and disclosed related interests.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is evidence about one culinary mixture and dietary setting. It does not identify this blend, prove a benefit for every herb, or establish that a concentrated supplement works the same way.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A permitted collective name can hide the precise herb or spice blend from the ingredient list. Use the actual botanical ingredients and allergen information before applying a study of one spice.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits collective spice/herb designations when they do not exceed 2% by weight of the food. Allergen rules remain. This is a label threshold, not a safe-dose limit.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
“Spice” has a defined seasoning scope and excludes foods such as onion, garlic and celery; those processed food ingredients generally need their own names. A spice also used for colour has a separate declaration rule.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits collective spice/herb designations when they do not exceed 2% by weight of the food. Allergen rules remain. This is a label threshold, not a safe-dose limit. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Collective spice and herb names are allowed. Spice/herb mixtures and other seasoning preparations have different component exemptions; mandatory allergens and listed exceptions still apply.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Ingredient names may be common, descriptive or a Schedule 10 generic name under its conditions. A blend’s name does not disclose every plant; mandatory declarations must still be checked.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient names may be common, descriptive or a Schedule 10 generic name under its conditions. A blend’s name does not disclose every plant; mandatory declarations must still be checked. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Hexane is a processing solvent, not a nutrient. Food-use rules depend on the process, country and permitted residual amount.
An extraction solvent used in some food-production processes, not a nutrient intended to improve health. Most solvent is removed; residual levels need product/process-specific control.
Processing function; no detoxification benefit is claimed.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA’s call describes EU-authorised extraction uses with residue limits and an ongoing safety re-evaluation, rather than a completed new safety finding.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA is re-evaluating technical hexane used as a food extraction solvent. Its 2024 technical review found the older toxicological basis insufficient for a current assessment. A March 2026 stakeholder meeting addressed data and toxicity-study plans; a data request is not a completed safety verdict.
EatMatrix’s reading: Hexane used during extraction is different from the amount remaining in food. Check the specified solvent, process and measured residues against current legal conditions. Neither ongoing re-evaluation nor the meeting establishes a new worldwide ban or a finding of unlimited safety.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Human reports about n-hexane neuropathy concern exposure settings that differ from a measured food-processing residue. Plant extracts made with hexane also do not test hexane itself as a food ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: The solvent specification, process and residual concentration are needed to assess food exposure. Neither occupational harm nor a missing oral trial alone establishes the risk in a finished food.
EFSA: Data call for re-evaluation of technical hexane used as an extraction solventIdentity, impurity, occurrence and toxicology evidence requested; the call is not a final verdict.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
The same name occurs in the additive-use lists. These rows concern technological uses, not every nutritional, supplement or ordinary-food use of this ingredient.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Solvents. List published ; item H.1.
Food: (a) Hop extract
Purpose: (a) Extraction solvent
Limit and conditions: (a) Residue not to exceed 2.2%.
Food: (b) Natural extractives; Spice extracts
Purpose: (b) Extraction solvent
Limit and conditions: (b) Residue not to exceed 25 ppm.
Food: (c) Pre-isomerized hop extract
Purpose: (c) Extraction solvent
Limit and conditions: (c) Residue not to exceed 1.5 ppm per percent iso-alpha acid content of the pre-isomerized hop extract.
Food: (d) Vegetable fats; Vegetable oils
Purpose: (d) Extraction solvent
Limit and conditions: (d) Residue not to exceed 10 ppm.
Food: (e) Vegetable oil seed meals
Purpose: (e) Extraction solvent
Limit and conditions: (e) Residue not to exceed 10 ppm.
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
Published 22 June 2025; residue-data deadline extended to 30 June 2026. Describes authorised uses with residue limits and reassessment data gaps; expired data call is not a completed reassessment. Checked 8 October 2026 alongside EFSA extraction-solvent topic.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Bentonite, diatomaceous earth, chitosan and hexane are different substances; these framework links do not establish their exact current food permission or safe residual limits. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A corn-derived sweetener containing both glucose and fructose. The blend is distinct from pure fructose.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2015 nonrandomized intervention in 85 young adults found dose-related increases in several lipid markers and uric acid after about two weeks of HFCS-sweetened drinks. A different randomized-order crossover study in 55 adults found similar measured metabolic effects from honey, sucrose and HFCS55; triglycerides increased after all three.
EatMatrix’s reading: The first study must not be called randomized. Neither experiment measures heart attacks or proves that one ordinary serving causes disease. Plain corn syrup and an unspecified glucose syrup are not automatically HFCS55.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A sugar-rich food used for sweetness and flavour; a natural origin does not remove its sugar contribution.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceUS CDC: CDC advises against honey before 12 months because of infant botulism risk.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2015 randomized-order crossover study in 55 adults compared honey, sucrose and HFCS55 for two weeks each. The sweeteners had similar measured metabolic effects and triglycerides increased after all three. A 2022 blinded study in 161 children aged 1–5 found honey no more effective than a honey-flavoured syrup for two nights of cough and sleep symptoms. A separate adult bronchitis trial also found no cough-duration benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Honey is not automatically metabolically superior because it is natural. Cough findings depend on the comparator and age; these selected null trials do not settle all cough evidence. Do not give honey to infants under one year.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
CDC: Foods and drinks to avoid or limit: honey before 12 monthsInfant botulism risk; updated 14 April 2026. Separate from the cough trials.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
14 April 2026 infant-feeding guidance: do not give honey before 12 months because of infant botulism risk. Checked 8 October 2026; not a trial of adult honey benefits.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Oral hyaluronic acid products differ from injected fillers and joint injections.
No oral skin or joint benefit is established by evidence from injections.
Novel-food framework is a review route, not an ingredient-specific scientific conclusion or permission.
EFSA: EFSA’s EU framework requires the identity, preparation and intended uses of a novel food to be assessed. The framework does not determine novelty, safety or permission for this broad catalogue name.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 trial randomized 150 healthy adults to a specified sodium hyaluronate preparation or placebo for 12 weeks. Several measured skin-hydration, elasticity and wrinkle outcomes improved, particularly in the higher-dose group; colour, redness, pores and gloss did not. ClinicalTrials.gov registration was retrospective. Contipro funded the study and several authors were company employees.
EatMatrix’s reading: This concerns oral sodium hyaluronate of a specified molecular weight, not every hyaluronic-acid product, joint injections or treatment of a skin disease. Many outcomes and a short follow-up limit the conclusion.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
EU assessment framework read 8 October 2026. A submitted application, scientific opinion and market authorisation are separate steps; no product permission established by this reference.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Novel-food framework is a review route, not an ingredient-specific scientific conclusion or permission.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A flavour ingredient made by breaking down plant proteins; the source plant and processing method affect composition.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies hydrolyzed vegetable protein and yeast extract as ingredients that can contain naturally occurring free glutamate.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA: FDA’s guidance describes formation of 3-MCPD during acid hydrolysis and process controls to reduce it. It lists a 1 ppm enforcement consideration level for acid-hydrolyzed protein on a dry basis and relevant sauces on a liquid basis; enforcement remains case-specific.
EatMatrix’s reading: Acid-hydrolyzed and enzyme-hydrolyzed vegetable proteins are different processes. An HVP name alone does not establish contamination, protein source, gluten suitability or the amount of free glutamate. Ask for the process and analytical specification rather than treating all hydrolysates as identical.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Located hydrolysed-vegetable-protein records included taste research and older headache reports. They do not establish a reproducible benefit or a quantified risk for every hydrolysate.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify the source protein, hydrolysis method and relevant contaminants. A general protein study is not a trial of the flavouring preparation in this product.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
19 November 2012 US GRAS/label/symptom context; glutamate is distinct from gluten. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new assessment, all-market approval or universal symptom guarantee.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
The EFSA bowel-function assessment concerns characterized native chicory inulin. It is not a treatment claim for every fibre mixture or for IBS.
Inulin-type fructans are fibres that can be fermented by gut microbes.
EFSA supported increased stool frequency for a specified native chicory inulin preparation.
The exact product and studied dose must match; other fibres and disease populations cannot inherit this claim.
EFSA: EFSA substantiated a normal stool-frequency claim for a specified native chicory inulin preparation under defined conditions. That conclusion does not apply to all fibres or prove treatment of bowel disease.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Inulin is a fermentable fibre. A 2025 trial in adults with functional constipation reported improvements, but carry-over between study periods complicated interpretation. Another2025 trial found different glucose responses across participant groups. These findings do not establish every inulin product as a treatment for constipation, IBS or diabetes. A September 2026 crossover challenge in 22 healthy volunteers tested inulin with methylcellulose, psyllium or control. The overall six-hour gas measure did not differ significantly; the later three-to-six-hour interval did. This is not an IBS treatment trial. An August 2026 enzyme/inulin challenge in 30 healthy adults likewise had a nonsignificant maximum early overall symptom score, despite improvements in some later symptoms. These acute challenge amounts are study conditions, not intake recommendations; funding/full methods were not reviewed.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Findings apply to the specified preparation, people and outcomes.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
specific chicory-inulin health-claim assessment, not every fibre
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
9 January 2015 opinion, adopted 11 December 2014, EFSA-Q-2014-00403. Abstract and formulation/claim conditions read 8 October 2026. Specific native chicory inulin, not every fibre, disease treatment or worldwide permission.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The exact product and studied dose must match; other fibres and disease populations cannot inherit this claim.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A glucose-and-fructose mixture made by breaking down sucrose; useful for sweetness and food texture.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s January 2026 healthy-diet guidance includes sugars in syrups and added glucose, fructose and sucrose within free sugars. It recommends limiting free sugars across the overall diet, rather than judging one ingredient name in isolation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Brown sugar syrup, caramelized sugar syrup, corn syrup, glucose syrup and invert sugar differ in composition, but their names do not make the sugar contribution disappear. Compare grams of sugar and portion size in the finished food. Corn syrup is not automatically high-fructose corn syrup, and a dark colour does not prove meaningful nutritional benefit.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Replacing sucrose with invert sugar has been tested for tooth decay. The selected childhood trial did not show a statistically significant difference in the main two-year comparison.
EatMatrix’s reading: Invert sugar is still sugar. This study does not support calling it tooth-friendly or a healthier substitute for sucrose.
Among 187 children assigned to sugar groups, 114 completed the study. The combined invert-sugar groups did not differ significantly from the combined sucrose groups in caries increment (p=0.34).
High attrition, selected between-meal foods and separate fluoride-varnish groups limit interpretation. The indexed abstract is truncated; full methods and results were not available in this check.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Splits sucrose into glucose and fructose, changing a food’s sugar mixture and processing properties.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: A 2026 EFSA opinion assessed beta-fructofuranosidase from genetically modified Trichoderma reesei AR-996 for six manufacturing processes and proposed amended invertase E1103 specifications. It found no safety concern under the revised intended uses and with the proposed specifications.
EatMatrix’s reading: An EFSA assessment of proposed specifications is separate from enactment of a legal amendment. Invertase converts sucrose into other sugars; it does not make the finished product sugar-free. The production strain and food-use conditions still need matching.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human trial of isolated invertase used in food was selected. Studies of sucrose, invert sugar or enzymes that happen to be measured in an experiment do not test ingestion of the enzyme preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the source organism, enzyme activity and processing use. Making invert sugar in food is not the same as demonstrating a digestive benefit in people.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item I.2.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus fijiensis ; Aspergillus japonicus
Food: Sucrose used in the manufacture of fructooligosaccharides
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0144 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (a) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (b) Unstandardized liquid-centered confectionery; Unstandardized soft-centered confectionery
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2006 randomized crossover study in 36 adults compared four weeks of a diet containing a chilli blend with a bland diet. The blend contained 55% cayenne and was provided at 30 g/day. Post-meal insulin responses were lower after the chilli period, with responses also depending on the test meal.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tested a substantial mixed-chilli exposure, not a usual serving of jalapeño or any single chilli variety. It does not demonstrate weight loss, diabetes treatment or benefit from eating an amount that causes digestive discomfort.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Human studies exist for particular lactase supplements and treated milks. Their results cannot identify the enzyme preparation in an unspecified food label.
Helps split lactose into simpler sugars. Effective food treatment depends on enzyme activity and processing conditions.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: A 2026 EFSA extension assessed beta-galactosidase from genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-BT for three manufacturing processes and found no safety concern under the revised intended conditions. Beta-galactosidase is a lactase activity; alpha-galactosidase is a different enzyme.
EatMatrix’s reading: This concerns manufacturing safety of one lactase preparation, not the effectiveness of every digestive supplement. Lactose reduction depends on the process; using lactase does not remove milk proteins or make food suitable for milk allergy.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
The studies below tested named supplements or treated milk. Breath hydrogen helps researchers assess how much lactose reaches gut bacteria, but a lower reading does not always mean fewer symptoms.
EatMatrix’s reading: Lactase can help with lactose digestion for some people. Results depend on the preparation, lactose load and food. A short challenge study cannot establish a cure, a lasting benefit or the safety of every enzyme product.
Lactase-treated A2 milk did not consistently produce fewer digestive symptoms than the other tested milks. Symptoms were generally mild, and breath-hydrogen changes did not reliably track discomfort.
Full methods, results and limitations reviewed. The paper describes 53 randomized participants and uses 48 in its baseline table, but its participant-flow descriptions do not fully reconcile. Lactose intolerance was not confirmed with a separate diagnostic lactose challenge. This comparison cannot isolate a universal lactase effect.
Each trial randomized 34 adults. Lactase reduced the primary breath-hydrogen measure relative to placebo in Booster Alpha, but the difference was not statistically significant in Booster Omega. The trials used different lactose-containing drinks.
The primary analyses and analysis populations were reviewed; sequence and carryover effects complicate interpretation. IFF funded the research, and several authors worked for the probiotic manufacturer. The probiotic results do not apply to unspecified starter cultures or to lactase itself.
In 47 adults with confirmed lactose intolerance, an Aspergillus oryzae supplement reduced breath hydrogen after a lactose challenge. The authors also reported lower symptom scores.
Full methods and main tables reviewed. Symptom scores already differed before the challenge in the pooled table, and the separate visit comparisons were less consistent. The sponsor supplied tablets and paid for breath testing. This was a short test of one supplement, not long-term proof for all preparations.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary papers and indexed correction links checked 12 October 2026; this is not a complete systematic or full source-version review. No linked correction or retraction was displayed in these indexed records; missing correction metadata does not prove none exists. Supplementary files have not all been reviewed, and the 2025 participant-flow discrepancies remain unresolved. The existing 2026 EFSA manufacturing assessment remains separate from these human outcomes.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item L.1.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Kluyveromyces lactis (syn. Kluyveromyces marxianus var. lactis ); Kluyveromyces marxianus (syn. Kluyveromyces fragilis ); Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Kluyveromyces lactis (syn. Kluyveromyces marxianus var. lactis ); Kluyveromyces marxianus (syn. Kluyveromyces fragilis ); Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (b) Lactose-reducing enzyme preparations
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Kluyveromyces lactis (syn. Kluyveromyces marxianus var. lactis ); Kluyveromyces marxianus (syn. Kluyveromyces fragilis ); Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (c) (Naming the flavour) malted milk; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skimmed milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Kluyveromyces lactis (syn. Kluyveromyces marxianus var. lactis ); Kluyveromyces marxianus (syn. Kluyveromyces fragilis ); Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (d) Milk for use in ice cream mix
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Kluyveromyces lactis (syn. Kluyveromyces marxianus var. lactis ); Kluyveromyces marxianus (syn. Kluyveromyces fragilis ); Saccharomyces sp.
Food: (e) Whey
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Bacillus licheniformis PP3930; Kluyveromyces lactis DS 80496
Food: (a) Lactose-reducing enzyme preparations
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0179 NOM/ADM-0090 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Bacillus licheniformis PP3930; Kluyveromyces lactis DS 80496
Food: (b) (Naming the flavour) malted milk; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skimmed milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0179 NOM/ADM-0090 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Bacillus licheniformis PP3930; Kluyveromyces lactis DS 80496
Food: (c) Milk for use in ice cream mix
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0179 NOM/ADM-0090 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Bacillus licheniformis PP3930; Kluyveromyces lactis DS 80496
Food: (d) Whey
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0179 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus subtilis CB108
Food: (a) Lactose-reducing enzyme preparations
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0118 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus subtilis CB108
Food: (b) (Naming the flavour) malted milk; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skimmed milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0118 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus subtilis CB108
Food: (c) Milk for use in ice cream mix
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0118 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus subtilis CB108
Food: (d) Whey
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0118 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus subtilis CB108
Food: (e) Yogurt
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0118 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus subtilis DH617
Food: (a) Lactose-reducing enzyme preparations
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0193 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus subtilis DH617
Food: (b) (Naming the flavour) malted milk; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skimmed milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0193 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus subtilis DH617
Food: (c) Milk for use in ice cream mix
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0193 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus subtilis DH617
Food: (d) Whey
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0193 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Cell-free extracts from Candida pseudotropicalis
Food: (a) (Naming the flavour) malted milk; (Naming the flavour) milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk; (Naming the flavour) partly skimmed milk with added milk solids; (Naming the flavour) skim milk; (Naming the flavour) skimmed milk with added milk solids
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Cell-free extracts from Candida pseudotropicalis
Food: (b) Milk for use in ice cream mix
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Cell-free extracts from Candida pseudotropicalis
Food: (c) Whey
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Cell-free extracts from Candida pseudotropicalis
Food: (d) Yogurt
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
21 CFR 184.1387 covers lactase from Candida pseudotropicalis for reducing lactose in milk and milk-derived foods where the food standard allows it. Section 184.1388 covers Kluyveromyces lactis lactase used in milk. Both require the stated enzyme specifications and good manufacturing practice; neither names every fungal or bacterial preparation.
The K. lactis section describes lactose-reduced milk as having at least 70% less lactose than regular milk. That is not a lactose-free claim. These provisions do not establish permission for an unidentified lactase product or its use in every food.
Rules current through ; checked . Exact product identity and other markets remain separate checks.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Consumer guidance, last reviewed February 2018; read 12 October 2026. Symptom management, not a new clinical trial or food-use permission.
Consumer explanation, last reviewed February 2018; read 12 October 2026. Milk-sugar digestion and immune reactions are different questions.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A milk sugar made of glucose and galactose. Digesting it requires the enzyme lactase.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover experiment in 24 adults without obesity used drinks with 100 g of carbohydrate and 50 g of fat. Lactose produced greater measured liver fat synthesis and triglyceride responses than the glucose-polymer comparator, with no detected difference from sucrose on those measures. The comparator was sucrose, not pure fructose. The result does not establish fatty-liver disease, the effects of a normal dairy meal, lactose intolerance or milk-protein allergy.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 crossover study in ten participants compared bread with water, tea or diluted lemon juice. Lemon juice reduced a measured post-meal glucose response while increasing gastric secretion and emptying; appetite did not differ significantly between meals.
EatMatrix’s reading: A small acute bread experiment is not diabetes treatment or evidence for every lemon concentrate. The measured effect cannot be reduced to a claim that lemon juice slows stomach emptying: in this study emptying was faster.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Juice and juice concentrate provide sugars in a different food matrix from intact fruit.
Useful flavour or drink ingredient.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 crossover experiment in ten healthy adults compared drinks taken with a bread meal. Diluted lemon juice lowered glucose at one measured time point and accelerated gastric emptying; appetite ratings did not improve.
EatMatrix’s reading: This was diluted juice with a particular meal, not concentrated lemon juice used as an ingredient. It does not establish diabetes treatment or show that adding concentrate improves the overall diet. The measured drink and acid exposure cannot be inferred from the ingredient name.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An ingredient list alone does not establish the consumed amount; fruit-specific disease benefits are not demonstrated here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 four-week placebo-controlled trial in Korean adults with poor sleep tested capsules of Heukharang lettuce extract. Selected sleep questionnaire, actigraphy and sleep-laboratory measures favoured the extract. Uni Bio funded the trial. The study excluded several health conditions and medicines and did not test a normal serving of lettuce.
EatMatrix’s reading: An extract of a selected cultivar is different from salad leaves. These short-term findings do not establish that eating lettuce treats insomnia or that every lettuce preparation has the same effects. Longer-term safety and generalizability remain separate questions.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Helps break fat molecules into smaller components. A role in food processing does not establish that it reduces body fat.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2026 revised assessment of lipase from Burkholderia stagnalis PL266-QLM retained the conclusion that its use could not be considered safe because production-strain DNA posed a risk of spreading antimicrobial-resistance genes. A separate 2026 lipase assessment for Trichoderma reesei DP-Nzk118 found no safety concern for distilled-alcohol production, where enzyme solids are removed.
EatMatrix’s reading: The opposite conclusions concern different preparations and uses, not contradictory ratings of one identified product. “Lipase” alone cannot establish which assessment applies. The distilled-alcohol conclusion must not be transferred to foods retaining enzyme residues.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Lipase can break down fat, but the selected human trials used enzyme mixtures. They do not establish that this enzyme alone improves digestion or health.
EatMatrix’s reading: For lipase, match the source organism, activity, preparation and amount. A supplement trial does not test an enzyme residue left after food processing.
Overall amino-acid exposure after a meal did not improve significantly. Leucine reached its peak earlier; glucose and free-fatty-acid concentrations were higher.
Daily digestive symptoms did not improve significantly. Three events were considered potentially related to the mixture. BIO-CAT funded the study and participated in its design and interpretation.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Digestive symptom scores improved over 60 days compared with placebo. The mixture contained amylase, protease, lipase, cellulase and lactase.
Small study; the authors were founder/employees of its manufacturer. A result for the mixture cannot identify the contribution of one enzyme.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item L.3.
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (b) Cheddar cheese; (Naming the variety) cheese; Processed cheddar cheese
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (c) Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (d) Dried egg-white; Liquid egg-white
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (e) Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Animal pancreatic tissue; Aspergillus niger ; Aspergillus oryzae ; Edible forestomach tissue of calves, kids or lambs; Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (f) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger (LFS-54); Komagataella phaffii LALL-LI2; Saccharomyces cerevisiae LALL-LI
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-25-01 NOM/ADM-0207 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger (LFS-54); Komagataella phaffii LALL-LI2; Saccharomyces cerevisiae LALL-LI
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-25-01 NOM/ADM-0207 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus niger (pCaHj600/MBin118#11); Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae ) AE-TL
Food: Modified fats and oils
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-09 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Aspergillus oryzae AI-11 (pBoel 960)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Aspergillus oryzae AI-11 (pBoel 960)
Food: (b) Modified fats and oils
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Aspergillus oryzae AI-11 (pBoel 960)
Food: (c) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Aspergillus oryzae BECh2#3 (pCaHj559); Aspergillus oryzae (MStr115) (pMStr20)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Aspergillus oryzae BECh2#3 (pCaHj559); Aspergillus oryzae (MStr115) (pMStr20)
Food: (b) Modified lecithin
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Aspergillus oryzae BECh2#3 (pCaHj559); Aspergillus oryzae (MStr115) (pMStr20)
Food: (c) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Aspergillus oryzae BECh2#3 (pCaHj559); Aspergillus oryzae (MStr115) (pMStr20)
Food: (d) Unstandardized egg products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Aspergillus oryzae (MLT-2) (pRML 787) (p3SR2); Rhizomucor miehe i (Cooney and Emerson) previously identified as Mucor miehei (Cooney and Emerson); Rhizopus niveus
Food: (a) Cheddar cheese; (Naming the variety) cheese
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Aspergillus oryzae (MLT-2) (pRML 787) (p3SR2); Rhizomucor miehe i (Cooney and Emerson) previously identified as Mucor miehei (Cooney and Emerson); Rhizopus niveus
Food: (b) Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Aspergillus oryzae (MLT-2) (pRML 787) (p3SR2); Rhizomucor miehe i (Cooney and Emerson) previously identified as Mucor miehei (Cooney and Emerson); Rhizopus niveus
Food: (c) Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Aspergillus oryzae (MLT-2) (pRML 787) (p3SR2); Rhizomucor miehe i (Cooney and Emerson) previously identified as Mucor miehei (Cooney and Emerson); Rhizopus niveus
Food: (d) Modified fats and oils
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (7) Candida cylindracea previously identified as Candida rugosa
Food: Cheddar cheese; Dairy-based flavouring preparations; (Naming the variety) cheese; Processed (naming the variety) cheese; Processed (naming the variety) cheese with (naming the added ingredients)
Purpose: Food Enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0177 NOM/ADM-0052 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Candida cylindracea AE-LAYH (syn. Limtongozyma cylindracea AE-LAYH)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0100 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Candida cylindracea AE-LAYH (syn. Limtongozyma cylindracea AE-LAYH)
Food: (b) Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0100 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Candida cylindracea AE-LAYH (syn. Limtongozyma cylindracea AE-LAYH)
Food: (c) Modified fats and oils
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0100 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Candida cylindracea AE-LAYH (syn. Limtongozyma cylindracea AE-LAYH)
Food: (d) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0100 (see the official list).
Specified source: (9) Mucor circinelloides f. circinelloides (syn. Mucor circinelloides Tiegh .) previously identified as Mucor javanicus ; Penicillium roquefortii
Food: Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0052 NOM/ADM-0024 (see the official list).
Specified source: (10) Mucor circinelloides f. circinelloides AE-LM
Food: Cheddar cheese; (Naming the variety) cheese
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0182 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Ogataea polymorpha B14-CBSsynt previously identified as Hansenula polymorpha B14-CBSsynt and Pichia angusta B14-CBSsynt; Trichoderma reesei Morph Lip3; Aspergillus niger PLR
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-12 NOM/ADM-0134 NOM/ADM-0126 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Ogataea polymorpha B14-CBSsynt previously identified as Hansenula polymorpha B14-CBSsynt and Pichia angusta B14-CBSsynt; Trichoderma reesei Morph Lip3; Aspergillus niger PLR
Food: (b) Pasta
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-12 NOM/ADM-0134 NOM/ADM-0126 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Ogataea polymorpha B14-CBSsynt previously identified as Hansenula polymorpha B14-CBSsynt and Pichia angusta B14-CBSsynt; Trichoderma reesei Morph Lip3; Aspergillus niger PLR
Food: (c) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: M-FAA-24-12 NOM/ADM-0134 NOM/ADM-0126 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Penicillium camemberti
Food: Edible fats and oils
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (13) Trichoderma reesei RF10625
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0123 (see the official list).
Specified source: (13) Trichoderma reesei RF10625
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0123 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies magnesium for muscle, nerve and enzyme function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH separates magnesium naturally present in food from supplemental intake, which can cause diarrhea and abdominal symptoms. Impaired kidney function increases the risk from excessive magnesium exposure.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 year-long placebo-controlled trial analysed 247 adults with type 2 diabetes. Magnesium oxide did not significantly improve the overall HbA1c measure of longer-term blood-sugar control. Some other and subgroup results favoured supplementation, but those findings do not override the non-significant main result. The study excluded people with more severe kidney impairment.
EatMatrix’s reading: The study dose is not advice to supplement. Findings do not establish a benefit in people without deficiency or diabetes, or safety in people excluded from the trial.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
The same name occurs in the additive-use lists. These rows concern technological uses, not every nutritional, supplement or ordinary-food use of this ingredient.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Anticaking Agents. List published ; item M.2.
Food: Unstandardized dry mixes, except unstandardized dry mixes used in preparations of meat and meat by-product
Purpose: Anticaking agent
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Health Canada: List of Permitted Acidity Regulators and Acid-Reacting Materials. List published ; item M.5.
Food: Ice cream mix; Ice milk mix
Purpose: Acidity regulator
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A starch-derived glucose-polymer ingredient used for food texture and carbohydrate. It is not automatically dietary fibre.
Can provide texture; a verified resistant fraction can contribute fibre.
Corn dextrin does not establish resistant dextrin; do not transfer a resistant-fibre trial to ordinary maltodextrin. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Maltodextrin was the glucose-polymer comparator in a 2026 24-person acute experiment using large carbohydrate-plus-fat drinks. Lactose and sucrose produced higher measured liver synthesis and triglyceride responses under those conditions. This does not establish maltodextrin as fibre, a generally preferable everyday food, or a substance without other metabolic effects.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Corn dextrin does not establish resistant dextrin; do not transfer a resistant-fibre trial to ordinary maltodextrin. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies manganese used in metabolism and bone formation.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH describes normal manganese functions and reports no demonstrated harm from ordinary food and beverage exposure. Toxicity from highly contaminated water or inhaled workplace dust has a different exposure context. Excess intake still matters.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2023 manganese assessment identified neurotoxicity as the critical concern but lacked adequate dose-response data for an upper intake level. It instead established a safe level of intake of 8 mg/day for adults, including pregnancy and lactation, based on high background food intakes.
EatMatrix’s reading: A safe level of intake is not the same as an upper limit: the point where risk begins to rise remains undefined. The value refers to manganese, not the mass of manganese sulfate, and is not a personal supplement dose. Occupational inhalation is a separate exposure route.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
A controlled human manganese-absorption study found that iron status was associated with manganese absorption. The indexed abstract does not identify manganese sulfate as the specific administered preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is nutrient-metabolism context, not a sulfate-specific benefit trial. Do not infer that more manganese is better or use this study to set a personal supplement dose.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FAO/WHO JECFA: JECFA’s listed 2018 evaluation gives an acceptable daily intake of 0–4 mg/kg body weight and finds no safety concern at the assessed flavouring intake. The record identifies l-menthol and dl-menthol.
EatMatrix’s reading: The assessment concerns food-flavouring exposure, not inhalation, tobacco rules, concentrated essential oil or every menthol derivative. It does not establish that adding more menthol improves health or that every country permits every use.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Menthol can make airflow feel easier without showing that it treats the cause of a blocked nose. The selected trial measured sensation and reaction time.
EatMatrix’s reading: A cooling sensation from a menthol-flavoured food is not evidence of improved lung function or recovery from a cold.
An 11 mg L-menthol lozenge increased the reported sensation of nasal airflow for up to 30 minutes compared with placebo. Reaction time did not change.
The abstract reports perceived airflow, not an objective reduction in nasal obstruction or a shorter illness.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
A microbial milk-clotting enzyme preparation used in cheese manufacture; the label does not identify one enzyme or organism.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: A 2025 EFSA opinion assessed fermentation-produced chymosin from Trichoderma reesei DP-Nyj88 for cheese production. Toxicology and estimated exposure supported a finding of no safety concern under the intended conditions. The assessment could not exclude dietary allergic reactions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Microbial rennet may refer to different milk-clotting enzymes and production organisms; chymosin is one example. An animal-derived rennet assessment is a different source. Neither this opinion nor the word “microbial” establishes every dietary or religious certification.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human health trial of microbial rennet alone was selected. Cheese-making performance and research on the final cheese do not isolate a health effect of the rennet.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify the clotting enzyme and producing organism. Read the matching food-enzyme assessment rather than borrowing claims from digestive-enzyme supplements.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A food containing water, proteins, lactose and other nutrients; species, fat level and fortification alter composition.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
An eight-week trial in 121 Korean adults with overweight compared milk intake with control while both groups were encouraged to restrict energy. Body weight and BMI did not differ significantly between groups; some nutrient intakes and blood markers improved with milk.
EatMatrix’s reading: A within-group weight change is not a milk-versus-control weight-loss effect. This does not establish the same result for milk powder, infant formula, lactose-free milk or every dairy product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
The fat fraction of milk, not a general description of its protein or lactose content.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover study in twelve healthy adults compared high-fat dairy spreads with intact, disrupted or absent milk-fat-globule membrane. The primary post-meal triglyceride response did not differ significantly. Some hormone and free-fatty-acid measures differed, while most secondary outcomes did not.
EatMatrix’s reading: This carefully specified dairy-matrix experiment does not establish the effect of every milk fat, cream or spread, or a long-term heart-health benefit.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Milk-product category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Milk products covers different milk-derived foods and ingredients. It does not specify a milk fraction or recipe.
Milk Products can include foods and fractions with different protein, lactose and fat contents.
EatMatrix’s reading: A milk-protein allergy question and a lactose-tolerance question require different information. This label does not resolve either.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Dairy describes milk-based foods or fractions whose protein, lactose and fat content can differ substantially.
Can supply food ingredients and nutrients, depending on the actual milk preparation and amount.
Milk products is an unspecified category. Lactose reduction does not remove milk proteins, and a category name cannot certify personal allergy suitability.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: List the actual milk-derived products and quantities. A milk-protein isolate, lactose, butter and fermented dairy are not the same exposure.
Dairy-containing dietary patterns have been tested in people, but that does not give every milk product the same effect. In the original DASH feeding trial, 459 adults received different diets for eight weeks; the combination diet included fruit, vegetables and low-fat dairy and reduced saturated/total fat. Blood pressure fell more than with the control diet. Multiple foods changed together, so the result cannot be assigned to an unidentified milk fraction.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify whether this is milk, cheese, cream, protein, lactose or another preparation, and check the amount. A dietary-pattern trial does not establish tolerance in milk allergy or lactose intolerance, or a benefit from cheese seasoning.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A dairy category does not tell you its lactose, protein or fat content. Check the actual milk-derived ingredients; a label-name allowance cannot establish suitability for milk allergy or lactose intolerance.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Milk and its products are covered by allergen rules with specified exceptions. The collective catalogue word does not identify the milk fraction or its composition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Milk is a major US allergen, subject to the applicable food and ingredient scope. The source must be identifiable; “dairy” is not a measurement of lactose or protein.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
The nine US major allergens and FDA food scope; the list is not a list of every possible allergy.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Milk and its products are covered by allergen rules with specified exceptions. The collective catalogue word does not identify the milk fraction or its composition. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The February 2026 table uses “milk ingredients” and “milk-derived ingredients” for specified groups. The previous specified names, including “modified milk ingredients”, remain usable during transition until 1 January 2030; this is not a ban on the older wording today.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
11 February 2026 change; old and new specified dairy names can be used during transition until 1 January 2030.
Ingredient naming is subject to mandatory declarations under Standard 1.2.3. A broad dairy description does not establish the preparation’s milk-protein or lactose content.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient naming is subject to mandatory declarations under Standard 1.2.3. A broad dairy description does not establish the preparation’s milk-protein or lactose content. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Modified corn-starch family
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Corn identifies the starch source. The name still does not identify the modification or a single additive code.
Corn identifies the starch source but not the modification or finished preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not assign a particular modified-starch code or permission solely from corn origin. Modified does not by itself identify one chemical treatment.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Modified food starch can help change texture, thickness or stability. The source and treatment affect its properties.
Can help a sauce, filling or other food achieve its intended texture; the name does not identify a clinically tested resistant starch.
Modified corn starch describes a starch source and a broad processing category. It does not identify the modification or prove that the product is genetically modified.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Specify the starch modification, resulting identity and use. Resistant-starch experiments cannot automatically apply to a modified corn starch used as a thickener.
Modified-starch research and safety assessments already exist. EFSA’s amended 2017 opinion reviewed 12 named starch additives and found no safety concern at the reported uses and levels for the general population, without requiring a numerical ADI. That is a conditional assessment of named preparations, not proof that an unidentified starch has never been tested or permission for any possible modification.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the actual modification, specification and food use to the named assessment. Corn tells you the plant source; it does not identify a treatment. A resistant-starch supplement trial cannot automatically describe this starch’s effect on blood sugar or the gut.
EFSA: 2017 re-evaluation of 12 named modified starches, amended October 2017Selected amended abstract: no safety concern at reported uses/use levels for the general population; no numerical ADI needed. Not a specification match or permission for every starch/product.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Modified” does not identify one treatment or E number. Corn identifies the plant source, while the modification, specification and intended use still need checking.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII’s modified-starch footnote waives the specific-name/E-number declaration. Physically or enzyme-modified starch can be designated starch. Allergen requirements remain; a missing E number does not mean never assessed.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
21 CFR 172.892 covers specified starch treatments with reagent, residue and sometimes food-use restrictions. A generic modified-starch name, even with corn origin, is insufficient to confirm those conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Specified manufacturing treatments, reagent and residue conditions and some limited uses; corn origin alone is not a specification match.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII’s modified-starch footnote waives the specific-name/E-number declaration. Physically or enzyme-modified starch can be designated starch. Allergen requirements remain; a missing E number does not mean never assessed. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The incorporated common-name table specifies “modified” plus the plant name plus “starch”. “Modified corn starch” identifies a source, but not the particular modification or every permitted use.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
The ingredient-name and additive-declaration provisions must be applied to the actual preparation. Do not assign one starch code or manufacturing condition from a generic name.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
The ingredient-name and additive-declaration provisions must be applied to the actual preparation. Do not assign one starch code or manufacturing condition from a generic name. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Modified-starch family
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Modified starches is a family of preparations. E14xx is a group shorthand, not one additive identity.
Modified Starches covers multiple preparations with different identities and conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: E14xx is a family, not a single substance. Evidence and permissions must be matched to the actual member and preparation.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Modified food starch can help change texture, thickness or stability. The source and treatment affect its properties.
Can help a sauce, filling or other food achieve its intended texture; the name does not identify a clinically tested resistant starch.
Modified starches include multiple distinct preparations. The exact starch and modification are needed to match an additive assessment or current food-use condition.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify each modified starch, specification and amount. A family assessment and a trial of one resistant starch answer different questions.
Modified-starch research and safety assessments already exist. EFSA’s amended 2017 opinion reviewed 12 named starch additives and found no safety concern at the reported uses and levels for the general population, without requiring a numerical ADI. That is a conditional assessment of named preparations, not proof that an unidentified starch has never been tested or permission for any possible modification.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the actual modification, specification and food use to the named assessment. Corn tells you the plant source; it does not identify a treatment. A resistant-starch supplement trial cannot automatically describe this starch’s effect on blood sugar or the gut.
EFSA: 2017 re-evaluation of 12 named modified starches, amended October 2017Selected amended abstract: no safety concern at reported uses/use levels for the general population; no numerical ADI needed. Not a specification match or permission for every starch/product.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Modified” does not identify one treatment or E number. Corn identifies the plant source, while the modification, specification and intended use still need checking.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII’s modified-starch footnote waives the specific-name/E-number declaration. Physically or enzyme-modified starch can be designated starch. Allergen requirements remain; a missing E number does not mean never assessed.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
21 CFR 172.892 covers specified starch treatments with reagent, residue and sometimes food-use restrictions. A generic modified-starch name, even with corn origin, is insufficient to confirm those conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Specified manufacturing treatments, reagent and residue conditions and some limited uses; corn origin alone is not a specification match.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII’s modified-starch footnote waives the specific-name/E-number declaration. Physically or enzyme-modified starch can be designated starch. Allergen requirements remain; a missing E number does not mean never assessed. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The incorporated common-name table specifies “modified” plus the plant name plus “starch”. “Modified corn starch” identifies a source, but not the particular modification or every permitted use.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
The ingredient-name and additive-declaration provisions must be applied to the actual preparation. Do not assign one starch code or manufacturing condition from a generic name.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
The ingredient-name and additive-declaration provisions must be applied to the actual preparation. Do not assign one starch code or manufacturing condition from a generic name. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
The 2019 EFSA opinion concerns a particular extract-additive application. Whole fruit, different extracts and subsequent legal decisions require separate checks.
A mogroside-containing sweetening extract. Concentration and processing distinguish it from a non-selective water decoction of the fruit.
Sweetening function; no medicinal benefit claimed.
The historical opinion is not proof that all monk fruit is harmful or banned; exact current permissions remain to be verified. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2019 submitted extract-additive database was insufficient for a safety conclusion.
Read the authority sourceUK Food Standards Agency: FSA’s June 2024 England/Wales determination concerns non-selective water decoctions and consumption history, not concentrated extracts.
Read the authority sourceFood Standards Australia New Zealand: FSANZ reports no public-health/safety issues in its monk-fruit-extract assessment and did not set an ADI; exact product conditions still matter.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Thirty healthy adults took part in a 2026 crossover experiment comparing water with five sweetened drinks, including a monk-fruit drink. The primary hypothalamus brain-blood-flow measure did not differ between drinks. Some other brain responses differed from sucrose; these are short-term measurements, not proof of appetite control or disease benefit. Tate & Lyle funded the study and participated in design and manuscript review.
EatMatrix’s reading: A sweetener drink does not test every monk-fruit extract or establish long-term safety or legal permission.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
2019 application-specific scientific assessment; not all monk-fruit preparations
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
Published 11 December 2019; adopted 13 November 2019. Selected extract/composition/toxicity/conclusion sections checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial or all-preparation verdict.
26 June 2024 determination for England and Wales, RP1311, based on consumption history. Not an efficacy/safety trial, all-UK decision or concentrated mogroside-extract approval. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer summary reports no public-health/safety issues in its assessment and no ADI set. Page publication date not established; checked 8 October 2026. Exact specifications and current permissions need separate verification.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The historical opinion is not proof that all monk fruit is harmful or banned; exact current permissions remain to be verified. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Monosodium glutamate corresponds to E621. A mixture such as hydrolysed vegetable protein is not the same defined substance.
A sodium salt of glutamic acid used for savoury flavour; glutamate is different from gluten.
Food function and relevant assessment depend on the exact form.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA’s November 2012 FAQ describes MSG food use as GRAS in the US, distinguishes glutamate from gluten, and notes that reported sensitivity has not been consistently reproduced under blinded testing.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2000 blinded multiple-challenge study tested 130 people reporting MSG reactions. Initial high-dose challenges without food produced more reported reactions to MSG than placebo, but responses were inconsistent on repeated testing; the small final food-challenge stage did not show reproducible reactions.
EatMatrix’s reading: This selected study addresses reported acute symptoms in a self-selected population. It does not prove that nobody can react, measure every chronic outcome or establish current country-specific use limits.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
MSG ingredient questions; US use, not every country legal category
19 November 2012 US GRAS/label/symptom context; glutamate is distinct from gluten. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new assessment, all-market approval or universal symptom guarantee.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Mustard is on the EU mandatory allergen list. It is not one of the nine US major allergens, which does not mean it cannot cause allergy. Prepared mustard and mustard extracts can have different compositions.
A seed-derived seasoning or condiment; its finished recipe may include water, salt, vinegar and other ingredients.
Flavour and seasoning.
The seed, prepared condiment and concentrated extract are different preparations. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
UK Food Standards Agency: FSA’s guidance for England, Wales and Northern Ireland includes both mustard and celery among 14 allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover study in sixteen adults added myrosinase-containing mustard seed powder to a broccoli seed extract. Urinary sulforaphane-metabolite recovery increased compared with broccoli extract alone; faecal bacterial communities did not change after the single dose. Brassica Protection Products primarily funded the study and employee/consultancy interests were disclosed.
EatMatrix’s reading: Better recovery of a metabolite is not cancer prevention or treatment. The study tests mustard powder as part of a specified broccoli formulation, not a spoonful of every mustard condiment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
EU mandatory allergen list, Annex II
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
Guidance for England, Wales and Northern Ireland; 14 allergen categories include celery and mustard. Publication landing page updated 17 July 2026 for a decision-tool link. Not an EU or all-market legal review. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The seed, prepared condiment and concentrated extract are different preparations. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Mycoprotein needs a defined fungal species and production process. An assessment of one preparation does not cover every fungal protein.
Mycoprotein is protein-rich biomass produced using a specific fungal source and process.
Can contribute dietary protein.
Exact organism and product are not established by the broad name.
EFSA: EFSA’s EU framework requires the identity, preparation and intended uses of a novel food to be assessed. The framework does not determine novelty, safety or permission for this broad catalogue name.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 double-blind crossover trial tested six meals in 18 adults with type 2 diabetes. The tested mycoprotein meals produced a lower three-hour glucose response than chicken meals; guar gum had a separate effect. Appetite and energy-intake outcomes did not show the same benefit. Authors reported Quorn-funded educational support and consultancy interests. This acute result does not establish long-term diabetes control or equivalence of every fungal protein.
Selected abstract plus selected methods, discussion and funding/conflict sections read; supplements and complete version history unreviewed; not a complete review of all research, current permissions, corrections or later studies.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
EU assessment framework read 8 October 2026. A submitted application, scientific opinion and market authorisation are separate steps; no product permission established by this reference.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Exact organism and product are not established by the broad name.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Natural flavor identifies a source-based flavouring category. It does not identify one extract or disclose a formula.
Natural Flavor does not identify its individual flavouring substances or source materials.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural is not a clinical benefit or allergy guarantee. FDA applies the same safety standard to ingredients of natural and artificial origin.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Natural flavor is a source/function label rather than a guarantee of health benefit. Natural origin does not identify all flavouring compounds or carriers.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: The natural source and exact extract or flavouring compound are needed. Natural origin alone neither matches a study nor defines a health benefit.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Flavouring category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Natural flavors is a collective category name. It does not establish which flavouring substances are present.
Natural Flavor does not identify its individual flavouring substances or source materials.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural is not a clinical benefit or allergy guarantee. FDA applies the same safety standard to ingredients of natural and artificial origin.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Natural flavors may contain several flavouring preparations. Their legal labelling category does not make the whole mixture clinically tested or universally suitable.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Obtain the components of this natural-flavour blend and its carriers. One plant extract’s study cannot establish the effect of all substances in the blend.
Flavourings are assessed by their chemical identity, composition, manufacturing process, proposed use and dietary exposure. They are not one clinically tested substance. EFSA’s June 2026 data call concerns potential genotoxicity of the specific flavouring acetaldehyde, FL 05.001, and its ongoing assessment; it does not show that this unidentified preparation contains it.
EatMatrix’s reading: Natural or artificial origin does not supply the recipe or a human-health verdict. Obtain the constituents and carriers, then match their individual assessments. Do not transfer a safety concern or clearance for one flavouring to all flavours.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
EFSA: June 2026 acetaldehyde genotoxicity data callSpecific FL 05.001 assessment and data call, ongoing when checked. Not a finding that this unidentified flavour contains acetaldehyde, and not a blanket flavouring ban.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Oat grains with a gluten-free designation; the claim concerns gluten control, not a special guarantee for every health outcome.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK discusses gluten-free oats and common cross-contact; individual inclusion in a celiac diet needs appropriate guidance.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 Japanese pilot reported two small crossover experiments, with 11 and 10 participants. Selected oat-based meals produced lower immediate glucose responses than white rice; only cooked oats reduced the measured response to a subsequent meal. The study was funded by Calbee and included employee authors. These acute meal-specific findings do not establish diabetes prevention, a benefit for every oat flour, or the gluten-free status of a product.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Fruit contributes to dietary variety. Whole fruit and a concentrated juice or extract are different foods.
Can contribute fibre and nutrients.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2016 pilot followed 25 people eating 12 Nocellara del Belice green olives daily for 30 days without a randomized comparison group. Selected inflammation and oxidation markers decreased, while weight, BMI and measured lactobacilli did not change significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: Without a control group, changes cannot be attributed confidently to olives. This small study does not demonstrate weight loss or disease prevention. Olive variety, brine and sodium content also differ between products; olive oil is a separate preparation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The source is food-group guidance, not a fruit-specific clinical trial or safety certificate.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A study published online in 2019 randomized 70 Japanese adults to quercetin-rich onion powder or a comparison powder for 12 weeks. The primary visceral-fat measure did not differ overall. Body weight, blood pressure and several other measures also did not differ. Favourable subgroup and liver-marker findings were exploratory. NARO research funding was reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tested selected high-quercetin onion cultivars as powder. It does not establish weight loss, liver-disease treatment or the same effect from ordinary dried onion pieces. A positive subgroup result cannot override the null primary finding.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2014 randomized study assigned 54 women with polycystic ovary syndrome and overweight or obesity to higher or lower amounts of raw red onion for eight weeks. Total and LDL cholesterol decreased within both groups. Fasting glucose, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol and lipoprotein(a) did not improve significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: Within-group changes are not proof that the higher-onion diet was superior. The abstract’s wording and numerical total-cholesterol changes are not fully consistent, so we do not adopt a superiority claim. These findings do not establish an onion treatment for PCOS or apply automatically to onion powder or cooked recipes.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A palm-fruit oil supplying fat, with a different fatty-acid profile from oils richer in unsaturated fat.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 secondary analysis of a crossover study included only 10 adults with overweight or obesity. Four-week periods of foods containing soybean or palm oil did not significantly change the measured inflammatory markers or oxidized LDL. Funding included soybean-industry organizations and oil was donated. This small, short, biomarker analysis does not prove that all seed oils cause inflammation, nor establish long-term equivalence or safety of the two oils.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A pea-derived protein ingredient supplying amino acids, with composition depending on processing.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2025 trial, 27 adults aged 50–70 followed a plant-focused diet supplemented with pea protein or an animal-focused diet supplemented with whey for 10 days. Training increased measured muscle-protein synthesis, with no detected difference between the diets. The study compared whole dietary patterns, not pea powder alone; it did not demonstrate long-term strength or muscle gains. Funding included a whey-industry studentship and related interests. A short null difference is not proof of universal equivalence.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
UK DHSC: The UK nutrient-model guidance published in January 2026 counts sugars naturally present in fruit purees and pastes with broken-down structure as free sugars. Its definition treats intact fresh, frozen, dried, stewed or canned fruit differently.
EatMatrix’s reading: Apricot, peach and pear puree can contribute fruit components, but “no added sugar” does not automatically mean no free sugars under this model. Check the puree proportion, fibre, portion and full recipe. This is a model definition, not evidence that every puree is harmful or a completed product assessment.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The located peach-purée human study concerned a dessert’s acceptance and food waste, not a clinical body effect of the purée. No matched health-benefit trial is adopted.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check fruit content, added sugar and texture. Taste acceptance can matter for a food’s use, but it does not establish a metabolic or disease-prevention benefit.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A legume eaten in nut-like food uses, supplying protein, fat and other food components.
A food-group contribution rather than a treatment.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies peanuts and tree nuts as separate major-allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover trial in 31 healthy older adults tested unsalted, skin-roasted peanuts for 16 weeks. Brain blood flow, the primary outcome, and one verbal-memory measure improved; executive function and processing speed did not. The Peanut Institute funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is a small study of a particular peanut food form, not proof of dementia prevention or benefit from every peanut snack. Peanut allergy and the complete product still matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Puree contains processed fruit; the fibre and sugar content depend on the fruit and how it was made.
Useful fruit ingredient and texture.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
UK DHSC: The UK nutrient-model guidance published in January 2026 counts sugars naturally present in fruit purees and pastes with broken-down structure as free sugars. Its definition treats intact fresh, frozen, dried, stewed or canned fruit differently.
EatMatrix’s reading: Apricot, peach and pear puree can contribute fruit components, but “no added sugar” does not automatically mean no free sugars under this model. Check the puree proportion, fibre, portion and full recipe. This is a model definition, not evidence that every puree is harmful or a completed product assessment.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
No applicable human health trial of pear purée was selected. Whole-pear, fibre or mixed-fruit experiments cannot be assigned to a purée without matching its composition and amount.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the fruit content, fibre and added sugar. A familiar food does not need a disease-treatment claim to have a place in a varied diet.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket free-sugar classification, glucose claim or comparison with intact fruit is assigned without the applicable product definition.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
A broad label for enzymes acting on pectin-related plant materials, rather than one uniquely specified reaction or product.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: Two selected 2026 EFSA opinions assessed pectin-degrading preparations: endo-polygalacturonase from Aspergillus tubingensis SPG 10-1199, and combined endo-polygalacturonase/pectinesterase from Aspergillus luchuensis AP2 903-6. Both found no safety concern under the intended conditions, while dietary allergy could not be excluded.
EatMatrix’s reading: “Pectinase” can describe several enzyme activities or mixtures. These examples do not identify the catalogue preparation or demonstrate a digestive benefit in people. Match activities, production strain and use before transferring the assessment.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human health trial of pectinase alone was selected. Trials of pectin study the fibre, while studies of pectinase processing study a tool used to change food.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the enzyme’s source and intended process to the safety assessment. Do not transfer pectin’s effects to the enzyme that breaks it down.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item P.4.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (a) Cider; Fruit wine; Wine
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (c) Natural flavour and colour extractives
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (d) Single-strength fruit juices
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (e) Tea leaves destined for the manufacture of tea solids
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus niger
Food: (f) Unstandardized fruit and vegetable products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0157 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (a) Cider; Fruit wine; Wine
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (b) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (c) Natural flavour and colour extractives
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (d) Single-strength fruit juices
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (e) Skins of citrus fruits destined for jam, marmalade and candied fruit manufacture
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (f) Tea leaves used in the manufacture of tea solids
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Rhizopus arrhizus (syn. Rhizopus delemar var. multiplicisporus , Rhizopus oryzae )
Food: (g) Vegetable stocks for use in soups
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
The edible kernels of pistachios, used as food rather than a purified supplement.
A food-group contribution rather than a treatment.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies peanuts and tree nuts as separate major-allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Two twelve-week pistachio trials gave different results. In 120 Asian Indian adults with prediabetes, premeal pistachios reduced HbA1c by about 0.2 percentage points relative to control, but not fasting or two-hour glucose; 109 completed. In a separate crossover trial, 66 were randomized and 51 completed: a nighttime pistachio snack did not improve glucose, HbA1c, lipids or vascular measures relative to dietary education. The nighttime trial was funded by American Pistachio Growers.
EatMatrix’s reading: Timing, comparator, population and the tested portions differ. These are not proof that any pistachio snack treats diabetes; nut allergy and the whole product still matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Popped maize; oil, salt, sugar and flavour coatings change the finished food.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2012 counterbalanced experiment in 35 normal-weight adults compared two portions of low-fat popcorn, potato chips and water. The larger popcorn portion produced greater short-term fullness and a lower combined snack-plus-meal energy intake than the chip condition.
EatMatrix’s reading: Portions differed in energy and volume. This short meal experiment does not show long-term weight loss or apply to every buttered, salted or caramel-coated popcorn product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Meat can supply protein. Fresh meat and processed meat have different evidence and handling considerations.
Dietary protein contribution.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
WHO / IARC: WHO distinguishes red meat (Group 2A) from processed meat (Group 1) in cancer hazard assessment. Classification describes strength of evidence, not equal danger to other agents or a guaranteed outcome from a serving.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover study in 23 military cadets compared formulated pork-based and plant-based meals around repeated Army Combat Fitness Tests. Some recovery and soreness markers favoured the pork meals, while blood lipid changes favoured the plant meals. National Pork Board/USDA funding was disclosed.
EatMatrix’s reading: This compares complete meals over a short recovery period, not isolated pork protein powder, all pork cuts or long-term health outcomes. Many outcomes and different ingredient matrices limit a simple “pork is better” conclusion.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
WHO Q&A dated 23 September 2026, read 8 October 2026. Explains earlier hazard assessments, not a new 2026 trial. Hazard category is not the size of an individual risk; optimal-intake guideline still under development.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Meat can supply protein. Fresh meat and processed meat have different evidence and handling considerations.
Dietary protein contribution.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
WHO / IARC: WHO distinguishes red meat (Group 2A) from processed meat (Group 1) in cancer hazard assessment. Classification describes strength of evidence, not equal danger to other agents or a guaranteed outcome from a serving.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover study in 23 military cadets compared formulated pork-based and plant-based meals around repeated Army Combat Fitness Tests. Some recovery and soreness markers favoured the pork meals, while blood lipid changes favoured the plant meals. National Pork Board/USDA funding was disclosed.
EatMatrix’s reading: This compares complete meals over a short recovery period, not isolated pork protein powder, all pork cuts or long-term health outcomes. Many outcomes and different ingredient matrices limit a simple “pork is better” conclusion.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
cancer hazard assessment, not equal individual risk at all intakes
WHO Q&A dated 23 September 2026, read 8 October 2026. Explains earlier hazard assessments, not a new 2026 trial. Hazard category is not the size of an individual risk; optimal-intake guideline still under development.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blanket chicken-cancer conclusion or food-specific safety certificate is inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies iodine needed to make thyroid hormones.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH explains that iodine is needed for thyroid hormones, while both deficient and excessive intake can disturb thyroid function. A nutritional source of iodide is not equivalent to emergency radiation-protection treatment.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 trial in 90 pregnant women from a mildly-to-moderately iodine-deficient area compared potassium-iodide tablets with placebo. Iodine-status and some thyroid markers improved, but newborn screening TSH did not differ. Another 2019 trial in 106 breastfeeding mother–infant pairs compared potassium-iodide capsules with iodized salt; both supplied iodine, so it was not an iodine-versus-no-iodine comparison.
EatMatrix’s reading: These studies concern particular deficiency settings and monitored maternal supplementation. They do not establish a general cognitive benefit, an individual dose or equivalence to high-dose potassium iodide used in radiation emergencies.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A protein fraction derived from potatoes, distinct from potato starch.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2022 trial in 24 healthy young men found that specified potato protein concentrate and milk protein both increased muscle-protein synthesis over five hours after ingestion, with no detected difference between them. A separate 2021 crossover experiment in nine men compared potato, rice and whey isolates: insulin responses differed, but average appetite did not.
EatMatrix’s reading: Short-term protein synthesis is a body-process measurement, not proof of greater long-term muscle size or strength. The tested concentrates and isolates are different from whole potatoes, potato starch and an unspecified finished supplement.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Extracted potato starch changes food texture; cooking and processing affect digestion.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 randomized trial assigned 75 adults to 3.5 g or 7 g of a specified resistant potato starch, Solnul, or a digestible Amioca corn-starch control for four weeks. The low resistant-starch dose changed selected gut bacteria and some stool outcomes. The study was funded by MSP Starch Products.
EatMatrix’s reading: The tested potato preparation had specified resistant-starch content; ordinary potato starch, especially after cooking, may differ. Corn starch was the comparator, not the intervention shown to improve those outcomes. The findings cannot turn every potato or corn starch into a prebiotic.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
A family of enzymes that split protein bonds. Specificity, source and intended food process differ among preparations.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: Selected 2026 EFSA opinions assessed acid prolyl endopeptidase from Aspergillus niger GEP and serine endopeptidase from Aspergillus niger NZYM-MG. Both found no safety concern under their intended conditions. The latter conclusion concerns distilled-alcohol production with enzyme-solid removal; the former assessed retained exposure in several processes.
EatMatrix’s reading: Protease is an enzyme class, not one preparation. A removed-residue assessment cannot be applied to all protease-containing foods or supplements. These opinions do not establish that enzyme-treated wheat is suitable for coeliac disease.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Protease can break down protein, but the selected human trials used enzyme mixtures. They do not establish that this enzyme alone improves digestion or health.
EatMatrix’s reading: For protease, match the source organism, activity, preparation and amount. A supplement trial does not test an enzyme residue left after food processing.
Overall amino-acid exposure after a meal did not improve significantly. Leucine reached its peak earlier; glucose and free-fatty-acid concentrations were higher.
Daily digestive symptoms did not improve significantly. Three events were considered potentially related to the mixture. BIO-CAT funded the study and participated in its design and interpretation.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Digestive symptom scores improved over 60 days compared with placebo. The mixture contained amylase, protease, lipase, cellulase and lactase.
Small study; the authors were founder/employees of its manufacturer. A result for the mixture cannot identify the contribution of one enzyme.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item P.11.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus melleus
Food: Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (c) Colby cheese
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (d) Cuts of prepared meat; Cuts of prepared poultry meat
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (e) Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (f) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (g) Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (h) Meat tenderizing preparations
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (i) Plant-based beverages
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (j) Pre-cooked (instant) breakfast cereals
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (k) Sausage casings
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (l) Spray-dried cheese powder
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger ; Bacillus amyloliquefaciens ; Bacillus subtilis
Food: (m) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (m) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (m) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (c) Cheddar cheese; Cheddar cheese for processing (Granular curd cheese; Stirred curd cheese; Washed curd cheese)
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (d) Colby cheese
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (e) Cuts of prepared meat; Cuts of prepared poultry meat
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (f) Dairy-based flavouring preparations
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (g) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (h) Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (i) Meat tenderizing preparations
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (j) Plant-based beverages
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (k) Pre-cooked (instant) breakfast cereals
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (l) Sausage casings
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (m) Spray-dried cheese powder
Purpose: (m) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (m) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae
Food: (n) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (n) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (n) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0053 (see the official list).
Specified source: (4) Bacillus licheniformis Cx
Food: Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis S10-34zEK4
Food: Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0068 (see the official list).
Specified source: (6) Bacillus subtilis Raα1102
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0029 (see the official list).
Specified source: (6) Bacillus subtilis Raα1102
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0029 (see the official list).
Specified source: (7) Fusarium venenatum WTY939-8-3
Food: Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0070 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Micrococcus caseolyticus
Food: (Naming the variety) cheese
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (9) Trichoderma reesei RF8963
Food: Hydrolyzed animal, milk, and vegetable proteins
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0150 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Drying removes water from fruit, changing how much fruit and sugar fit into a small serving.
Can contribute fruit and fibre.
Exact nutrients and added sugar require the product specification. The selected food-form studies below do not assess every raisin product or establish a long-term disease outcome.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2018 acute crossover experiment in ten adults found that raisins had a lower glycaemic index than white bread. Replacing half of bread’s carbohydrate with raisins did not show a significant displacement effect, and adding a small fructose amount did not show a catalytic benefit. Dried-fruit trade organisations funded the trial. A 2026 eight-week trial in 63 coronary-disease completers tested black raisins together with dried sour cherries and cranberry powder; it reported lower uric acid, but no significant lipid, inflammatory or glycaemic benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: A raisin-containing mixture cannot isolate a raisin effect. The 2026 abstract’s numerical change is inconsistent with its stated direction, so that estimate is not reproduced. An acute glycaemic-index comparison is not long-term diabetes control or a reason to ignore the portion and sugar content.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Exact nutrients and added sugar require the product specification. The selected food-form studies below do not assess every raisin product or establish a long-term disease outcome.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An oil from rapeseed. Exact edible preparation and specifications matter; the name alone does not give composition.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover trial in people with type 2 diabetes compared defined canola, sesame and mixed oils; 92 people completed all phases. The oils did not differ significantly in the measured oxidative-stress outcomes overall. Total antioxidant capacity decreased in some canola-containing conditions, and some findings occurred only in female subgroup analyses. These biomarkers do not establish prevention of heart attacks, a general antioxidant benefit, or equivalence of every rapeseed preparation.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2018 placebo-controlled trial in 100 volunteers with overweight tested capsules containing 9 mg/day of paprika xanthophylls for 12 weeks. The primary measured visceral-fat area was lower with the capsules than placebo. This is a selected extract trial; its full methods, funding and later source updates have not been reviewed.
EatMatrix’s reading: Red paprika as a spice is different from standardized xanthophyll capsules. The result cannot establish that seasoning food with paprika causes weight loss. No reported adverse effect in a short trial is not proof of unlimited safety.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A rice food label without a specified variety, milling level or cooking method.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2019 crossover trial enrolled 166 overweight adults in Chennai to compare parboiled brown-rice and white-rice meals for three months each. The primary glucose, insulin, HbA1c, insulin-resistance and lipid outcomes did not differ significantly overall. Some subgroup results favoured brown rice in participants with metabolic syndrome or higher BMI, and a secondary inflammation marker rose less.
EatMatrix’s reading: The overall null primary results come before subgroup findings. This does not prove that every rice variety prevents diabetes or that rice flour, puffed rice and protein isolate share the same effects. Cooking, grain form and the whole meal matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Ground rice used in baking and food texture; the milling specification determines retained grain components.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2021 study developed wheat noodles partially substituted with a particular RD43 rice flour. In its human meal comparison, the substituted noodles produced lower glucose at some time points and changes in short-term fullness and gut hormones.
EatMatrix’s reading: The accessible abstract does not give the human sample size, so none is invented. This is evidence about a specified mixed wheat–rice noodle, not every rice flour. It does not establish long-term diabetes control or make wheat-containing noodles gluten-free.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A rice-derived protein ingredient, distinct from rice starch or a whole serving of rice.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 eight-week trial compared whey, pea, rice isolate and a plant-protein blend in 45 elite football players. Overall microbial diversity stayed stable; some bacteria and predicted microbial functions differed. An earlier nine-man crossover study found different short-term insulin responses to rice, potato and whey isolates, with no average appetite difference.
EatMatrix’s reading: Predicted microbial pathways are not measured butyrate production or a clinical gut-health benefit. These small studies do not establish that rice protein is better for everyone or that a rice-based infant formula has the same effects.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Expanded rice ingredients used for texture; processing and the finished recipe affect nutritional properties.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 1994 randomized-order meal experiment in 12 healthy volunteers compared puffed-rice breakfasts with equal total carbohydrate and different proportions of starch and sucrose. Replacing some starch with sucrose lowered the measured glucose and insulin responses.
EatMatrix’s reading: This older, short experiment illustrates how rapidly processed starch can be digested. It does not recommend adding sugar or prove that a sweetened cereal is healthier overall. The exact cereal, portion, fibre and total diet still matter.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Extracted starch from rice, used for food structure and carbohydrate.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2004 study measured glucose and insulin responses to three processed rice foods in ten people with type 2 diabetes. A firmer rice preparation produced lower responses than two other rice foods. Parallel digestion experiments also found that physical structure affected starch breakdown.
EatMatrix’s reading: These were rice foods with different structures, not a clinical test of every isolated rice starch. Cooking, food structure and portion can change response. Cell-free digestion results are distinct from the small human meal experiment and from long-term diabetes outcomes.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Peanuts after roasting; the finished food may also contain salt, oil or coatings.
A food-group contribution rather than a treatment.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies peanuts and tree nuts as separate major-allergen categories.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover trial in 31 healthy older adults compared 60 g daily unsalted skin-roasted peanuts with no peanuts for 16 weeks. Brain blood flow and one verbal-memory measure improved, but executive function and processing speed did not. The Peanut Institute funded the research.
EatMatrix’s reading: This does not establish dementia prevention or apply to every salted, sweetened or peanut-containing snack. Roasting does not remove peanut-allergy risk; the experimental portion is not individual dietary advice.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Peanut is a legume; individual tree-nut allergens are distinct. Roasting is not proof that an allergen is removed. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A cheese-type label; actual milk source, salt and moisture depend on the preparation.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
An intervention first published online in 2009 compared a sheep-milk pecorino naturally rich in conjugated linoleic acid with commercial cheese in ten adults over two ten-week periods. Selected inflammatory and blood-flow markers improved during the specified-cheese period.
EatMatrix’s reading: The study tested a particular CLA-rich pecorino, not every cheese called Romano. Biomarker changes in ten people do not establish fewer heart attacks or a general anti-inflammatory effect. Commercial recipes, milk sources and sodium content require matching.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A sodium-containing seasoning; sea origin does not remove the sodium contribution.
Food flavour and function.
Trace minerals and iodine depend on the product. “Sea salt” is not proof of iodine fortification. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s May 2026 guidance identifies excess sodium as a blood-pressure concern. Salt origin does not remove the need to consider sodium intake.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO’s May 2026 guidance recommends less than 2,000 mg of sodium per day for adults, equivalent to less than 5 g of salt. Sodium is required for normal body functions, but excess intake raises blood pressure and cardiovascular risk.
EatMatrix’s reading: Sea origin does not establish lower sodium. Compare sodium per portion and the overall diet; crystal size can change the amount in a spoon. Trace minerals do not establish a health advantage, and this general recommendation does not replace individual medical advice.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
The located blood-pressure trial compared a salt containing 3% chitosan with ordinary sea salt. It did not show that ordinary sea salt is healthier than table salt.
EatMatrix’s reading: Compare sodium per serving and the amount you use. Sea origin is not evidence of a blood-pressure benefit.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
sodium reduction guidance, not purity testing of a salt product
11 May 2026 population sodium/blood-pressure guidance; sea-salt origin does not establish low sodium. Not a product assay or individualized dose instruction. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Trace minerals and iodine depend on the product. “Sea salt” is not proof of iodine fortification. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Milk powder with much of the fat removed; it still supplies milk-derived solids.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 trial randomized 96 older adults with mild cognitive impairment to reconstituted A1-beta-casein-free or conventional skim milk powder for 90 days. Some cognitive measures favoured the A1-free product; the proposed glutathione mechanism and several other markers did not. The full paper distinguishes 91 participants in the safety set from 88 in the efficacy set. The a2 Milk Company funded the study and a test-provider consultancy interest was disclosed.
EatMatrix’s reading: This compares two specified milk powders, not milk versus no milk, and does not establish dementia prevention. Ordinary skimmed milk powder cannot be assumed to have the tested beta-casein composition.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies molybdenum used by enzymes that break down certain compounds.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH describes molybdenum’s enzyme roles and notes that deficiency is very rare. Evidence does not establish one supplemental form as better. A biochemical role is not proof of a commercial detox or disease-treatment benefit.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
US NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH identifies sodium molybdate as a supplemental molybdenum form and notes the lack of comparative bioavailability studies for supplement forms. Molybdenum is required for certain enzymes, but deficiency is rare.
EatMatrix’s reading: A nutrient function does not establish benefit from extra supplementation or a detox treatment. Amounts refer to molybdenum, not the mass of sodium molybdate. This older official overview does not resolve the exact salt preparation, dose or current product permission in every country.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
A small human molybdenum-metabolism study used four men and tracked absorption, retention and excretion. The indexed abstract does not confirm sodium molybdate as the exact preparation, and no clinical benefit was tested.
EatMatrix’s reading: Use this as nutrient-metabolism context only. The molybdenum amount and compound identity must be known before interpreting a supplement or fortified food.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supplies selenium used in thyroid and antioxidant enzymes.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH describes selenium’s enzyme and thyroid roles while warning that excessive intake can damage hair and nails and cause other toxicity. More selenium is not automatically better, and a nutrient function does not prove cancer prevention.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2023 opinion set an adult selenium upper intake level of 255 micrograms per day, including pregnancy and lactation, with hair loss used as the critical adverse effect. The level concerns total selenium intake; children have lower age-specific levels.
EatMatrix’s reading: Sodium selenite is one selenium source. This upper level is not a supplement recommendation, a medicinal cancer-treatment dose or the mass of sodium selenite itself. Different authorities may use different benchmarks; that does not establish a food ban.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Human studies of sodium selenite show how selenium is processed and how some enzyme markers respond. These measurements do not establish cancer prevention or an immune benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Selenium is a nutrient with dose-dependent effects. Read the amount as selenium, rather than assuming the weight of sodium selenite is the same thing.
Nine volunteers received sodium selenite. Blood and urine measurements showed selenium processing differed between participants and between selenite and the yeast preparation studied separately.
Short-term metabolism measurements, small groups and different selenium amounts; not a clinical benefit or long-term safety trial.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A soy-derived protein ingredient. It is different from refined soybean oil.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA lists soybeans as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 sixteen-week trial in 55 older adults in Singapore compared soy protein isolate, casein isolate and no supplement within a healthy dietary pattern. Overall circulating and skin advanced-glycation markers did not change significantly. One plasma marker increased with soy; the casein pentosidine finding was within-group, not proof of a between-treatment effect.
EatMatrix’s reading: Changes in selected biochemical markers do not establish ageing, diabetes or cardiovascular harm or benefit. This study tests protein isolates in a dietary programme, not every soy food.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A soybean food label; it does not specify whether the product is whole beans, flour or another preparation.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA lists soybeans as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 repeated-meal study in seventeen adults with overweight or obesity tested partial replacement of refined flour with soy flour. Some short-term glucose responses improved, but insulin, hunger and fullness did not. Soy-industry and USDA funding was reported. A different 2025 fermented-soy study randomized 61 older adults, with 47 completers; a memory finding and post-hoc older-women subgroup findings were reported.
EatMatrix’s reading: Soy flour, fermented soy and whole soybeans are different food forms. Acute glucose responses and subgroup memory tests do not establish diabetes or dementia prevention. An unspecified soya ingredient does not inherit the effects of a particular fermented product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A soybean-derived fat fraction, different from soybean protein and whole soybeans.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA distinguishes highly refined oils from unrefined oils for US major-allergen labelling. The ingredient name does not establish the refining process.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 secondary analysis of a crossover study included only 10 adults with overweight or obesity. Four-week periods of foods containing soybean or palm oil did not significantly change the measured inflammatory markers or oxidized LDL. Funding included soybean-industry organizations and oil was donated. This small, short, biomarker analysis does not prove that all seed oils cause inflammation, nor establish long-term equivalence or safety of the two oils.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
January 2025 final guidance: highly refined oils have a specific US major-allergen-labelling exception, distinct from unrefined oils. Refinement cannot be assumed from the botanical name. Selected relevant text checked 8 October 2026, not a complete legal review.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Spice-extract category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Spice extracts names extracted preparations. The spice species, extraction and concentration still need identifying.
An extract can differ substantially from the original spice and from another extract of the same plant.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the tested extract and exposure before applying a study. Culinary spice evidence alone cannot establish a concentrated extract’s effect.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Flavouring ingredients change a food’s taste or aroma. An extract or flavour mixture can contain several constituents and carriers.
Provides or adjusts flavour. Natural or artificial describes a labelling category, not a demonstrated health benefit.
Spice extracts may be far more concentrated than culinary spices. Identify the species, extraction solvent and constituents before transferring a food-use or clinical conclusion.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify the spice species, extraction method, solvent and concentration. A trial of whole spices does not establish the effect of a concentrated extract.
The 2021 mixed-herb/spice feeding trial tested culinary ingredients incorporated in meals, not an unspecified concentrated spice extract. Its primary LDL outcome was null, with some ambulatory blood-pressure differences and industry funding. Extraction can change which compounds and concentrations are delivered, so this trial cannot validate the extract in this label.
EatMatrix’s reading: Obtain the botanical source, extraction method, solvent, standardisation and amount. Match a trial of that exact preparation before claiming a body benefit or transferring a culinary-use safety conclusion.
EFSA: Flavouring assessment: identity, exposure and toxicologyCharacterisation, proposed use and dietary exposure are required; an assessment applies to the specified substance/preparation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A flavouring label describes its role and sometimes its origin. It can cover a mixture, so it cannot establish a dose, allergy guarantee or a clinical benefit for every constituent.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Natural and artificial flavour are defined by source and function, and collective declarations are allowed. Natural flavour can originate from animal as well as plant materials. Protein hydrolysates used for flavour cannot simply be declared as “natural flavour”.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits “flavouring(s)” or a more specific description; “natural” follows separate legal conditions. Quinine and caffeine used as flavourings must be named. The word “natural” alone does not disclose the complete recipe. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name tables distinguish animal/plant-derived flavour from flavour derived wholly or partly through chemical synthesis. Component exemptions have mandatory-declaration and allergen exceptions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Flavouring substances may be listed as flavour or flavouring. Added caffeine and specified glutamate/nucleotide ingredients must still be identified under Standard 1.2.4; relevant mandatory declarations also remain. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Spice category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Spices identifies a seasoning category. The individual plants and proportions are not specified.
Spices is a collective label that does not disclose the precise blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: A spice blend does not inherit the effects or dose of one isolated spice extract.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Herbs and spices season foods and add aroma. A collective name does not disclose the actual botanical blend.
Provides seasoning and variety in taste; a small food amount is different from a concentrated supplement extract.
Spices is a collective ingredient label. A permitted label term does not reveal each spice or show that a particular extract has been tested.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: List the spice species and amounts in the recipe. A multi-spice dietary intervention cannot identify which spice caused an observed change.
In a 2021 crossover feeding trial, 71 adults received diets with different amounts of a specified mixture of 24 culinary herbs and spices for four weeks each. The primary LDL-cholesterol result was null. Some 24-hour blood-pressure comparisons favoured the highest amount, while clinic blood pressure and other outcomes did not differ. The study was funded by McCormick Science Institute and disclosed related interests.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is evidence about one culinary mixture and dietary setting. It does not identify this blend, prove a benefit for every herb, or establish that a concentrated supplement works the same way.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A permitted collective name can hide the precise herb or spice blend from the ingredient list. Use the actual botanical ingredients and allergen information before applying a study of one spice.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII permits collective spice/herb designations when they do not exceed 2% by weight of the food. Allergen rules remain. This is a label threshold, not a safe-dose limit.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
“Spice” has a defined seasoning scope and excludes foods such as onion, garlic and celery; those processed food ingredients generally need their own names. A spice also used for colour has a separate declaration rule.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII permits collective spice/herb designations when they do not exceed 2% by weight of the food. Allergen rules remain. This is a label threshold, not a safe-dose limit. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
Collective spice and herb names are allowed. Spice/herb mixtures and other seasoning preparations have different component exemptions; mandatory allergens and listed exceptions still apply.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Ingredient names may be common, descriptive or a Schedule 10 generic name under its conditions. A blend’s name does not disclose every plant; mandatory declarations must still be checked.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient names may be common, descriptive or a Schedule 10 generic name under its conditions. A blend’s name does not disclose every plant; mandatory declarations must still be checked. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
US ingredient-label categories and declaration examples; not a clinical test or an eight-market permission decision
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2013 crossover study in 26 adults compared a nitrate-rich spinach meal with an energy-matched low-nitrate meal. The spinach meal lowered systolic blood pressure and pulse pressure and improved one large-artery measure over a few hours. Several other vascular measures and diastolic pressure did not differ significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is an acute meal experiment, not proof of sustained blood-pressure control or cardiovascular-event prevention. Nitrate content and the finished meal determine how closely another product resembles it.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
An extract concentrates selected plant compounds; its effects depend on species, solvent, composition and amount.
Food function depends on the exact extract.
Do not transfer turmeric-powder, green-tea-infusion, spirulina-protein or inhalation findings to a different extract.
FDA: FDA describes microcystin contamination controls for blue-green-algae products. This is a quality-control concern, not proof that all spirulina produces toxins or that this product is contaminated.
Read the authority sourceFDA: The February 2026 expansion of specified spirulina colour uses was delayed indefinitely as of 20 March 2026. FDA stated that the delay does not reverse its safety determination. Existing specified uses and exact preparation requirements must be checked separately.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / Federal Register: FDA’s February 2026 order provided for expanded spirulina-extract colour uses, but its effective date was delayed indefinitely as of 20 March 2026 following objections. FDA explicitly said the delay did not reverse its safety determination under the intended conditions. The current provision still needs checking for the specific listed food use and purity.
EatMatrix’s reading: A delayed expansion is not a finding that all spirulina is unsafe, and a February announcement is not proof the expansion took effect. Colour extract, whole biomass and spirulina protein are different preparations. Match the product and currently effective use conditions rather than treating the announcement as an all-market approval.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Spirulina extracts differ in their composition. Small studies of named extracts measured blood markers; they did not establish a general immunity, liver-health or disease-prevention benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the extract and its phycocyanin content. Results for an extract cannot simply be transferred to whole spirulina powder or every colouring preparation.
A phycocyanin-enriched aqueous extract did not change the measured platelet-activation and clotting markers.
Short and small. Unchanged markers do not establish long-term safety, and changes in liver enzymes do not prove treatment of liver disease.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Some immune-cell responses after exercise differed between the extract and placebo groups.
The study measured immune-cell patterns, not fewer infections or improved protection against disease.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Preparation-specific rules: A specified spirulina colour extract has existing US use conditions under 21 CFR 73.530. The February 2026 expansion was delayed indefinitely as of 20 March 2026. This does not establish permission for every extract or protein supplement, or in every country.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
The same name occurs in the additive-use lists. These rows concern technological uses, not every nutritional, supplement or ordinary-food use of this ingredient.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Colours. List published ; item S.5.
Food: (a) Custards; Dessert coatings; Gelatin desserts; Puddings; Unstandardized frozen desserts; Toppings
Purpose: (a) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0160 NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (b) Frostings; Icings; Icing sugar
Purpose: (b) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (c) Ice cream mix
Purpose: (c) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (d) (Naming the fruit or fruits) jelly with pectin
Purpose: (d) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (e) Unstandardized confectionery
Purpose: (e) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0160 NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (f) Unstandardized non-alcoholic beverages; Unstandardized non-alcoholic beverage concentrates; Unstandardized non-alcoholic beverage dry mixes
Purpose: (f) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0160 NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
Food: (g) Yogurt
Purpose: (g) Food colour
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0152 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
Contamination and manufacturing context, read 8 October 2026. Does not say all spirulina produces toxins or that this product is contaminated.
Rechecked 9 October 2026: the February expansion was delayed indefinitely as of 20 March 2026. FDA said this does not reverse its intended-use safety determination. The current preparation and use still need matching.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer turmeric-powder, green-tea-infusion, spirulina-protein or inhalation findings to a different extract.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Spirulina-derived ingredients use specified microbial/algal biomass or fractions.
Potential protein contribution depends on composition.
No detox, immune-boosting or contaminant-test claim is established here.
FDA: FDA describes microcystin contamination controls for blue-green-algae products. This is a quality-control concern, not proof that all spirulina produces toxins or that this product is contaminated.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Two 2024 studies examined short-term amino-acid responses to specified protein foods. One crossover experiment with ten completers compared spirulina, chlorella and milk proteins: glucose, insulin, appetite and energy expenditure did not differ, while uric acid rose after the microalgae preparations. A separate study in 12 younger and ten older adults found that amino-acid availability varied by protein source and age.
EatMatrix’s reading: Amino-acid appearance in blood does not prove increased muscle mass or strength. These are protein-containing preparations, not a colour extract; species, processing, purine content and amount matter. Some analyses in the ten-completer experiment had fewer available samples.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
Contamination and manufacturing context, read 8 October 2026. Does not say all spirulina produces toxins or that this product is contaminated.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No detox, immune-boosting or contaminant-test claim is established here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 analysis followed dietary allium intake and gastric-cancer outcomes in 3,229 participants for about 22 years. Garlic intake was associated with lower risk, but scallion intake was not significantly associated with gastric-cancer risk. Diet was observed; people were not randomly assigned to eat scallions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Spring onions and garlic are not interchangeable. An observational association cannot prove prevention, and a null scallion result does not prove that the food has no nutritional value. This does not establish a cancer-prevention claim for a spring-onion ingredient.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
This label may refer to a food additive already represented by an E-number entry, or to several distinct forms.
Food function and relevant assessment depend on the exact form.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s opinion, amended in December 2022, found no reason for a safety concern for the specified infant-food uses of E471 while recommending tighter impurity specifications. A safety opinion and the subsequent enactment of legal specifications are separate steps.
EatMatrix’s reading: The assessment concerns defined uses, exposure and purity, not every stabilizer blend. Read the separate observational human findings with their limitations; neither source alone provides a personal cancer prediction or establishes whether the fat source is vegan.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
A 2024 French prospective cohort followed 92,000 adults for an average of 6.7 years. Higher estimated E471 intake was associated with higher overall cancer incidence, with a hazard ratio of 1.15 for high versus low intake. No association was detected between the studied emulsifiers and colorectal cancer. The authors note exposure-measurement error and possible residual confounding.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is observational evidence, not a randomized trial proving E471 causes cancer. The hazard ratio is a relative association, not a 15-percentage-point personal risk. Findings need replication and must be read alongside the preparation, impurities, exposure and official assessment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
Starter-culture category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Starter cultures identifies a fermentation preparation. It does not name the organisms, strains or their quantities.
Starter Cultures describes a fermentation function; different cultures contain different organisms.
EatMatrix’s reading: A fermentation starter is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic. EFSA QPS screening and strain-level product assessment have different scopes.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Starter organisms are used to ferment foods. Processing can change whether living organisms remain in the finished food.
Helps make a fermented food; this does not establish a probiotic health benefit for an unidentified culture.
Starter cultures are microorganisms used to make a food ferment. They are not automatically live at consumption or clinically validated probiotics.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
NIH NCCIH: NIH explains that probiotic effects depend on the microorganism and product. A generic culture, live yeast or fermented food cannot inherit the results of a different clinically studied strain.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: The species, strain, processing conditions and survival in the final food are needed. A starter culture is not automatically a probiotic with demonstrated benefit.
Human research on fermented foods is not absent. A 2025 immune-cell substudy analysed 13 participants from a larger trial of specified kimchi powders, including one made with Leuconostoc mesenteroides KCKM0828. It measured cell-signalling and gene-expression outcomes, not fewer infections. A 2021 dietary trial reported increased microbial diversity and reduced inflammatory markers with fermented foods. Those are diet and biomarker findings, not proof of a clinical benefit from an unnamed starter or bacteria-and-yeast mixture.
EatMatrix’s reading: Ask for the species, strain, viability and finished food. The 2025 study was Korean government-funded; selected methods describe powders and a lactose/flavouring-containing placebo. EFSA QPS screening is a safety pre-assessment, not proof of a probiotic benefit or automatic product permission.
EFSA: QPS microorganism screening and July 2026 update routeThe page links the 6 July 2026 statement covering notifications through March 2026. Taxonomic safety screening is separate from product authorisation and clinical probiotic efficacy.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: A fermentation culture is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic. The species, strain, food matrix and viability are needed before a result for a named organism can be applied.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Article 19 has an ingredient-list exemption for certain cheese, butter, fermented milk and cream made only with the specified manufacturing ingredients, including essential cultures. This is a finished-food label exception, not clinical approval of every culture.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Ingredient common-name and component rules must be applied to the actual food and culture. This label does not identify a strain or establish a GRAS determination for an unspecified use.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Article 19 has an ingredient-list exemption for certain cheese, butter, fermented milk and cream made only with the specified manufacturing ingredients, including essential cultures. This is a finished-food label exception, not clinical approval of every culture. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The common-name table permits “bacterial culture” for one or more bacterial species and “mould culture” for mould species. These group labels do not identify strains; a bacteria-and-yeast blend still needs its actual composition.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Ingredient names and any processing-aid exemption depend on the actual function and use. An unspecified starter label does not establish a probiotic effect or its legal category.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Ingredient names and any processing-aid exemption depend on the actual function and use. An unspecified starter label does not establish a probiotic effect or its legal category. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
strain- and condition-specific research summary
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
Strain, product and population-specific evidence and safety context, read 8 October 2026. Page version date not established; a starter culture is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic.
Species-level QPS screening versus strain-level assessment; not proof of probiotic efficacy or permission for an unspecified culture
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Sucrose is a sugar made of linked glucose and fructose; digestion releases those two sugars.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover study in 24 adults without obesity compared test drinks containing 100 g of lactose, sucrose or a glucose polymer alongside 50 g of fat. Lactose and sucrose increased measured liver fat synthesis and post-meal triglyceride responses relative to the glucose-polymer drink. This was an acute laboratory challenge, not a trial showing that an ordinary serving causes fatty-liver disease. A separate 2021 seven-week sweetened-drink trial in 94 men found increased synthesis with sucrose and fructose; it did not measure disease incidence.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A sweetener label that commonly refers to sucrose, but does not specify every product’s complete sugar mixture.
Useful for sweetness and energy; a sweeter ingredient is not a necessary health supplement.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes sweeteners such as these in added-sugar labelling context.
Read the authority sourceEFSA: EFSA could not establish a safe intake threshold for dietary sugars.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2015 randomized-order crossover study in 55 adults compared equal carbohydrate amounts from honey, sucrose and HFCS55 for two weeks each. Measured glucose and insulin responses did not differ by sweetener, and triglycerides increased after all three.
EatMatrix’s reading: This provides sucrose context for table or cane sugar, not proof that every brown, caramelized or mixed syrup has the same composition. “Natural” or cane origin does not establish a metabolic advantage.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
US consumer labelling context, not a personal intake target or all-market product approval. Checked 8 October 2026; publication date not established.
28 February 2022 assessment summary; no safe threshold could be set. Not a finding that every serving is toxic. Checked 8 October 2026; not a 2026 trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Specific fructose/glucose effects, diabetes context and individual products need separate evidence; not every sugar in intact fruit is a free sugar. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
An extracted oil supplying fat; high-oleic and other sunflower oils can have different fatty-acid profiles.
Dietary fat supports normal body functions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO’s fat guidance considers fat quality and the nutrient replacing saturated fat.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover experiment in nineteen healthy men compared meals with repeatedly heated versus unheated sunflower-oil/palm-olein blends. The primary four-hour vascular-function outcome, arterial stiffness, glucose and free fatty acids did not differ significantly. The triglyceride rise was smaller after the heated blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: A short trial of a blend cannot isolate sunflower oil or establish that repeatedly heated oil is safe over years. Lower post-meal triglycerides are not proof of less oxidation damage, and the heating protocol is not a cooking recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
17 July 2023 population guideline about fat quality and replacement, not certification of each oil. Read alongside WHO’s 26 January 2026 healthy-diet summary; checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No oil-specific benefit, contaminant finding or cooking-stability result is established by general fat guidance. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Tagatose is a distinct sugar substitute, not allulose.
Its food and metabolic properties need tagatose-specific evidence.
The selected human studies are separate from the assessment framework. Neither establishes current ingredient-specific country permission or a personal intake recommendation.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 1999 study included eight adults without diabetes and eight with type 2 diabetes. A large single tagatose dose transiently increased uric acid. During eight weeks of repeated intake, fasting glucose, insulin, lipids and several other markers did not improve; gas and diarrhoea occurred in some participants.
EatMatrix’s reading: This small older experiment describes tolerance and selected markers, not a complete modern safety review or diabetes treatment. The large experimental amounts are not personal intake advice.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
novel-food assessment and exact-product scope, not a market permission for a broad category
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The selected human studies are separate from the assessment framework. Neither establishes current ingredient-specific country permission or a personal intake recommendation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Cassava-derived starch provides thickening and carbohydrate, rather than the full composition of cassava.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
WHO: WHO prioritizes carbohydrate sources with naturally occurring fibre, particularly whole grains, vegetables, fruits and pulses. Isolated tapioca starch provides a different composition from a whole root or a specified resistant-starch preparation.
EatMatrix’s reading: Native tapioca, modified tapioca and resistant starch have different digestibility. A small 2011 study compared ordinary tapioca starch with a highly cross-linked phosphate preparation in ten men. Its 2012 erratum corrects swapped FOS and water labels in Figure 2A. The correction text is now checked; the complete original paper and revised figure have not been independently appraised, so numerical benefit claims are still withheld. This does not establish a low blood-sugar response for ordinary tapioca.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Human studies of modified or resistant tapioca cannot be assigned to native tapioca starch. The 2011 preparation comparison has a figure-label erratum; the complete corrected study has not been appraised here.
EatMatrix’s reading: No numerical benefit claim is adopted. The study, correction and trial-registry limits above remain visible; a registered trial without results does not establish efficacy.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
This label may refer to a food additive already represented by an E-number entry, or to several distinct forms.
Food function and relevant assessment depend on the exact form.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2015 additive review found no safety concern at the reported food-use levels, while acknowledging limited data for some tocopherols and inability to establish an additive ADI. Its separate 2024 nutrient opinion retained an adult upper level of 300 mg/day for alpha-tocopherol, with bleeding as the critical adverse effect.
EatMatrix’s reading: Mixed tocopherols, alpha-tocopherol and a high-dose vitamin E supplement are not interchangeable. The nutrient upper level is not a target or the mass limit for any tocopherol mixture. The opinion excludes particular at-risk groups, including people taking anticoagulant or antiplatelet medicines; product and medical context matter.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
High-dose tocopherol supplements have produced mixed results in people. A change in an antioxidant marker does not necessarily mean better health.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not infer that tocopherols used to protect food from oxidation have the same exposure or effects as high-dose vitamin E supplements.
Alpha-tocopherol and mixed-tocopherol supplements increased blood pressure compared with placebo, despite reducing one oxidative-stress marker.
This was a 500 mg/day supplement study in a specific patient group, not a test of antioxidant amounts normally used in food.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Mixed tocopherols increased blood and cell gamma-tocopherol, but neither tocopherol treatment significantly changed the measured platelet-activation markers.
The matching population, dose and design mean these reports should not be treated as two independent replications.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
An alias association is not a new study, permission or reason to change a stored rating.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2021 crossover study in eleven trained male athletes compared a specified tomato powder, isolated lycopene and placebo for one week each. Some blood markers of oxidation after exhaustive exercise rose less with tomato powder than placebo. Lycopene did not show the same comparisons. The university research department funded the study.
EatMatrix’s reading: Short-term oxidation markers do not establish faster recovery, fewer injuries or prevention of chronic disease. This particular powder and experimental intake may differ from the small amount used to flavour food.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Two 2026 trials in adults with MASLD reported reductions in a liver-fat surrogate. POMOSANO randomized 79 people to raw tomatoes plus sauce or a tomato-free diet for six weeks; liver stiffness, weight and most metabolic markers did not differ. A separate 98-person trial compared a specific carotenoid-rich sauce with a commercial sauce for twelve weeks; its registration was retrospective and the tested sauce was patented.
EatMatrix’s reading: These are different interventions, not trials of tomato powder or isolated lycopene. A change in an elastography surrogate does not establish cure, prevention of liver complications or suitability of every tomato product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Forms links between proteins, changing their structure. The reaction name alone does not identify a microbial food preparation.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2026 revised opinion assessed protein-glutamine gamma-glutamyltransferase, also called transglutaminase, from Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197. New production-strain data and reduced intended use levels changed the earlier unresolved assessment: EFSA found no safety concern under the revised conditions. The opinion also says a contribution to coeliac disease cannot be excluded.
EatMatrix’s reading: Read the updated conditions and remaining uncertainty together. This does not prove that every microbial transglutaminase is safe or unsafe, nor that enzyme-treated wheat is suitable for coeliac disease. Tissue-transglutaminase antibody tests are not food-enzyme trials.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human ingestion trial of a specified food transglutaminase preparation was selected. Tissue transglutaminase antibodies used in coeliac testing are not a trial of eating microbial transglutaminase.
EatMatrix’s reading: Keep the enzyme source, food process and residual exposure explicit. Mechanistic or antibody findings alone cannot establish a clinical effect from a finished food.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item T.2.
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (a) Brawn; Headcheese; Meat by-product loaf; Meat and meat by-product loaf; Meat loaf; Prepared meat or prepared meat by-product; Preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Pumping pickle, cover pickle or dry cure used in the curing of preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Sausage; (Naming the prepared meat or prepared meat by-product) with (naming the non-meat ingredients)
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0122 NOM/ADM-0086 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (b) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0071 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (c) Liquid or solid plant protein isolate-based products that resemble egg products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0168 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (d) Prepared poultry meat or prepared poultry meat by-product; Preserved poultry meat or preserved poultry meat by-product
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0122 NOM/ADM-0086 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (e) Simulated meat products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (f) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0071 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (g) Unstandardized cheese products
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (h) Unstandardized cream cheese products
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (i) Unstandardized frozen dairy desserts
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (j) Unstandardized prepared fish products
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (k) Unstandardized processed cheese products
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (1) Streptoverticillium mobaraense S-8112
Food: (l) Yogurt
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (a) Blend of prepared fish and prepared meat as set out in paragraph 18.1.3(g) of Volume 18 of the Food Compositional Standards Document
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (b) Brawn; Headcheese; Meat and meat by-product loaf; Meat by-product loaf Meat loaf; Meat lunch; Meat roll; Prepared meat or prepared meat by-product; Prepared poultry meat or prepared poultry meat by-product; Preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Preserved poultry meat or preserved poultry meat by-product; Pumping pickle, cover pickle or dry cure used in the curing of preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Sausage; (Naming the prepared meat or prepared meat by-product) with (naming the non-meat ingredients)
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (c) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (d) Pasta
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (e) Plant-based products that resemble dairy products; Plant-based products that resemble egg products; Plant-based products that resemble meat products, including simulated meat products; Plant-based products that resemble poultry meat products, including simulated poultry products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (f) Plant protein concentrates; Plant protein isolates
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (g) Tofu; Tempeh
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (h) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (i) Unstandardized cheese products
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (j) Unstandardized cream cheese products
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (k) Unstandardized frozen dairy desserts
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (l) Unstandardized prepared fish products
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (m) Unstandardized processed cheese products
Purpose: (m) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (m) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Streptomyces mobaraensis M2020197
Food: (n) Yogurt
Purpose: (n) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (n) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0196 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (a) Beer
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (b) Blend of prepared fish and prepared meat as set out in paragraph 18.1.3(g) of Volume 18 of the Food Compositional Standards Document
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (c) Brawn; Headcheese; Meat and meat by-product loaf; Meat by-product loaf; Meat loaf; Meat lunch; Meat roll; Prepared meat or prepared meat by-product; Prepared poultry meat or prepared poultry meat by-product; Preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Preserved poultry meat or preserved poultry meat by-product; Pumping pickle, cover pickle or dry cure used in the curing of preserved meat or preserved meat by-product; Sausage; (Naming the prepared meat or prepared meat by-product) with (naming the non-meat ingredients)
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (d) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (e) Brewers’ mash
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (f) Cold-pack (naming the variety) cheese; Cold-pack (naming the variety) cheese with (naming the added ingredients); Cold-pack cheese food; Cold-pack cheese food with (naming the added ingredients); Cottage cheese; Creamed cottage cheese; Cream cheese; Cream cheese with (naming the added ingredients); Cream cheese spread; Cream cheese spread with (naming the added ingredients); Processed (naming the variety) cheese; Processed (naming the variety) cheese with (naming the added ingredients); Processed cheese food; Processed cheese food with (naming the added ingredients); Processed cheese spread; Processed cheese spread with (naming the added ingredients)
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (g) Pasta
Purpose: (g) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (g) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (h) Plant-based products that resemble dairy products; Plant-based products that resemble dairy-based products; Plant-based products that resemble egg products; Plant-based products that resemble fish products; Plant-based products that resemble meat (as defined in section B.21.002 of the Food and Drug Regulations ) products; Plant-based products that resemble meat products, including simulated meat products; Plant-based products that resemble poultry meat products, including simulated poultry products
Purpose: (h) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (h) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (i) Plant protein concentrates; Plant protein isolates
Purpose: (i) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (i) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (j) Simulated meat products
Purpose: (j) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (j) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (k) Tempeh; Tofu
Purpose: (k) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (k) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (l) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (l) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (l) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (m) Unstandardized cheese products
Purpose: (m) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (m) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (n) Unstandardized cream cheese products
Purpose: (n) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (n) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (o) Unstandardized frozen dairy desserts
Purpose: (o) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (o) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (p) Unstandardized prepared fish products
Purpose: (p) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (p) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
Specified source: (3) Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-TR
Food: (q) Yogurt
Purpose: (q) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (q) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: MFAA-2602 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-specific explanation with selected evidence
Turmeric powder is different from concentrated or enhanced-absorption curcumin supplements.
Turmeric powder is a culinary spice containing curcuminoids. The powder is a different preparation from a concentrated, purified or absorption-enhanced curcumin supplement.
Flavour and colour in food. Research on a standardized supplement does not establish the same clinical effect for an unspecified amount of turmeric powder.
The selected liver cases concern supplements and cannot estimate how often injury occurs among all users. They do not test typical culinary turmeric powder.
Australian TGA: Its 2023 advisory identifies rare liver injury with medicinal/supplement forms. It does not associate that signal with typical dietary amounts of turmeric as food.
Read the authority sourceNIH NCCIH: Its April 2025 summary separates conventional oral products from enhanced-bioavailability formulations and says health-benefit conclusions remain uncertain.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected ingredient evidence; full scientific and current-market review remains in progress.
A case series published online in 2024 and in a 2025 issue described 11 people with suspected turmeric-supplement liver injury. Causality assessments were probable in eight cases and possible in three. This retrospective series has no denominator of exposed users and is not a randomized trial. It cannot establish the frequency of harm or the effect of a normal amount of spice in food.
Selected primary-paper abstracts and accessible sections checked on 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Research amounts describe study conditions, not a personal dose recommendation. Exact product composition and current market permissions still need separate checks.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
turmeric/curcumin research and concentrated-product safety
15 August 2023 safety advisory about medicinal/supplement forms, not a food ban or current all-product legal register. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The selected liver cases concern supplements and cannot estimate how often injury occurs among all users. They do not test typical culinary turmeric powder.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A culinary herb or spice and a concentrated supplement from the same plant are different exposures.
Flavour and food use.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: The US standard defines vanilla extract with at least 35% ethyl alcohol by volume and a specified vanilla-constituent concentration. It also permits certain optional ingredients, including glycerin and sugars.
EatMatrix’s reading: The 35% value concerns the extract itself, not the finished cake or other food. Vanilla beans, vanilla extract and vanillin are different preparations. This identity standard does not establish a health benefit, the final alcohol residue or permission for every formulation worldwide.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Recent vanilla trials predominantly concerned smell rather than eating vanilla. One 2026 dental-aromatherapy trial has been retracted and is excluded; it cannot support a health claim for this ingredient.
EatMatrix’s reading: Vanilla flavour in food is not evidence of pain relief, sleep improvement or a therapeutic effect. Vanillin is only one constituent and is considered separately.
SAGE Open Nursing: 2026 retraction notice: vanilla and orange dental aromatherapy trialRetracts PMID 41695609. The trial is excluded from health-benefit claims; aromatherapy also differs from eating vanilla.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
botanical risk-assessment framework, not an exact-extract assessment
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General botanical guidance does not demonstrate a specific clinical effect for every herb.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: The US standard defines vanilla extract with at least 35% ethyl alcohol by volume and a specified vanilla-constituent concentration. It also permits certain optional ingredients, including glycerin and sugars.
EatMatrix’s reading: The 35% value concerns the extract itself, not the finished cake or other food. Vanilla beans, vanilla extract and vanillin are different preparations. This identity standard does not establish a health benefit, the final alcohol residue or permission for every formulation worldwide.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
Located vanilla-extract human records included odour exposure and a case of very large vanilla-essence ingestion. Neither tests normal food use or establishes a general benefit for every extract.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the extract composition, alcohol or other carrier and amount used. Research on purified vanillin or smelling vanilla is not a matched eating trial.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
A flavouring can be a named substance or a complex mixture. “Natural” and “artificial” describe categories, not clinical benefit or harm.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FAO/WHO JECFA: JECFA’s record maintains an acceptable daily intake of 0–10 mg/kg body weight, originally set in 1967 and retained in 2001. Its latest listed 2019 entry concerns specifications only and carries the conclusion that flavouring use at the assessed intake raises no safety concern.
EatMatrix’s reading: An acceptable daily intake is a lifetime population risk-assessment benchmark, not a recommended dose. The 2019 specifications entry is not a new clinical trial. This record concerns vanillin, not every vanilla extract or permission for every food use in every country.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
Vanillin has been given to people in a metabolism experiment. That is a different question from whether eating it provides a health benefit.
EatMatrix’s reading: Treat vanillin as a flavouring. Laboratory antioxidant or anticancer findings do not establish those benefits from eating a vanilla-flavoured food.
Researchers administered vanillin and measured vanillin and vanillic acid in urine over eight hours to study variation in aldehyde-oxidase activity.
No disease-prevention or symptom-relief outcome was tested. The research dose is not a recommended intake.
Indexed abstract checked; complete methods, tables and supplementary material have not been appraised.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture.
Vegetable category
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Vegetable identifies a food category. It does not specify a plant, plant part or preparation.
Vegetable does not name the plant or the preparation in the food.
EatMatrix’s reading: A study of one vegetable or extract cannot assess an unidentified vegetable ingredient.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Vegetable is a broad food category. Whole, cooked, dried, juiced and extracted forms can have different compositions.
Can provide a plant-food ingredient; the actual species, form and amount determine its nutrient contribution.
Vegetable is a food category. The actual plant and preparation must be identified before matching nutrient, allergy, research or legal-use information.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
FDA: FDA describes ingredient functions and labelling categories. A functional or collective name does not disclose a complete preparation, establish a health benefit or prove the current permission of this product.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Identify the vegetable, preparation and portion. General advice to eat vegetables cannot be converted into a clinical claim for an unnamed ingredient.
Vegetable-rich diets have human evidence, but an unidentified vegetable is not a trial-matched intervention. The DASH study compared whole dietary patterns, including a fruit-and-vegetable diet and a combination with low-fat dairy and lower saturated fat. Its results do not isolate one vegetable, extract or dose.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify the plant and whether it is a whole food, powder, juice or extract. The amount and preparation matter; a diet’s blood-pressure result does not prove that a small unspecified ingredient has the same benefit.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Identify the actual vegetable and its preparation. A vegetable category cannot tell you the dose, extract strength or whether a study of a different plant applies.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Annex VII allows a variable-proportion fruit/vegetable/mushroom mixture description in specified cases, accompanied by the items present. A single unidentified catalogue word supplies none of those details.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Vegetable ingredients generally need their common or usual food names. Onion, garlic and celery powders are not automatically covered by the collective spice/flavour exception.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Definitions and label declarations, including colour certification and specific-name exceptions; not approval of an unidentified mixture.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Annex VII allows a variable-proportion fruit/vegetable/mushroom mixture description in specified cases, accompanied by the items present. A single unidentified catalogue word supplies none of those details. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
The general common-name and component rules apply to the actual vegetable preparation. The broad category does not disclose a species or mixture.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compound-ingredient exemptions, seasonings and mandatory declarations; exemption from listing is not exemption from food safety.
Use a common, true descriptive or permitted generic name with its conditions. The actual plant and preparation still need identifying before a study or use condition can be matched.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Use a common, true descriptive or permitted generic name with its conditions. The actual plant and preparation still need identifying before a study or use condition can be matched. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
Food functions and collective flavour/spice/colour labelling context, read 8 October 2026. Does not identify an undisclosed mixture or establish permission for this product.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Oil or oil blend
The term is understood. A specific product composition has not been established from this catalogue record.
Vegetable oil identifies plant-derived oil or a blend. The actual oils, proportions and processing are not given.
Vegetable Oil can describe one oil or a blend with different fatty-acid profiles.
EatMatrix’s reading: Do not assume all vegetable oils have the same saturated-fat content or that a trial of one named oil tests the blend.
No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Term checked: . This identifies the category or measure, not a product recipe.
Vegetable oil supplies fat to a food and can contribute texture or cooking properties. Different named oils and blends have different compositions.
Provides a cooking or formulation ingredient; a generic oil name does not establish one nutritional profile.
Vegetable oil is a broad source label. Identify the plant, refining and fatty-acid composition before assigning a specific nutritional or allergy conclusion.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Matching this label: Name the oil or blend, fatty-acid profile and processing. An olive-, palm- or soybean-oil trial cannot establish the effect of an unspecified vegetable oil.
Dietary-fat effects depend on what is replaced and the fatty-acid mixture. The updated August 2020 Cochrane review included 15 long-term trials with 56,675 adults. It found fewer combined cardiovascular events when saturated fat was reduced, with little or no effect on all-cause or cardiovascular mortality. This updated version supersedes an earlier May 2020 record with different totals and estimates; it is not a trial of every vegetable-oil blend.
EatMatrix’s reading: For an ingredient, identify the plant/animal source, proportions and hydrogenation; for a nutrition-table value, read it as total fat rather than one chemical. Do not equate “vegetable” with one fatty-acid profile or transfer a replacement-diet result to an unnamed oil.
WHO: Healthy diet, updated January 2026Dietary-pattern and nutrient guidance, checked 9 October 2026; not a test of this formulation.
Selected record check: . Selected category and related-preparation context, not a complete systematic, full-text/version or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use. Exact composition remains unresolved; research on another food or preparation is not a verdict for this label.
Label-to-study match checked: . No original product label or supplier specification is linked to this entry. Its product composition remains unverified.
Composition needed first: This label does not identify one complete ingredient. The actual components and their intended uses are required before a substance-specific country decision can be made.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
EatMatrix’s reading: Find the named plant oils and whether they were hydrogenated. A collective name can describe different blends with different fatty-acid profiles; it is not a health rating.
Selected label rules and source routes explain what a broad name can disclose. They do not establish permission or a clinical verdict for an unidentified product.
Food-function and nutrition context: FDA ingredient functions; WHO dietary guidance. These describe categories and food patterns, not a clinical test of this exact formulation.
Refined vegetable oils can be grouped, followed immediately by their specific plant origins. Hydrogenated oils must be marked fully or partly hydrogenated as applicable. The broad word alone omits those details.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Individual fats/oils use specific common names. Blends can use a collective description followed by component names, with specified order/substitution rules and hydrogenation wording.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Common names, compound ingredients and oil blends in FDA-regulated foods; other federal agencies can regulate other food categories.
Great Britain uses its own assimilated food-information law. FSA guidance covers England/Wales and Food Standards Scotland covers Scottish enforcement. Check the original ingredients and relevant allergens; an EU name or assessment alone does not settle a GB product permission.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
General ingredient-list and allergen guidance; detailed exceptions and product authorisations require a separate check.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Separate Scottish enforcement guidance; not an EU authorisation transfer.
Refined vegetable oils can be grouped, followed immediately by their specific plant origins. Hydrogenated oils must be marked fully or partly hydrogenated as applicable. The broad word alone omits those details. For NI, check the applicable EU route separately from eligible GB retail goods moved under NIRMS; the latter has registration, movement and labelling conditions.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Articles 18–21 and 30; Annex VII and its modified-starch footnote. Consolidated text dated 1 April 2025, selected provisions read 9 October 2026; not a complete amendment review.
Updated 17 July 2026; England, Wales and Northern Ireland scope. Explains assimilated GB law and conditional NIRMS route.
Conditional GB-to-NI retail route, registration and labelling; not a general EU market permission.
“Vegetable oil” is a permitted collective name for specified oils, but not for coconut, palm, palm-kernel, peanut oil or cocoa butter under that entry. Separate naming rules cover hydrogenated and other modified oils.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Incorporated common-name tables, last amended 11 February 2026. Naming rules are separate from additive-use permission.
Common/descriptive naming or a Schedule 10 generic name must meet its conditions and mandatory declarations. A generic oil label still does not establish the exact blend or fatty-acid profile.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Common/descriptive naming or a Schedule 10 generic name must meet its conditions and mandatory declarations. A generic oil label still does not establish the exact blend or fatty-acid profile. Check the applicable New Zealand provisions for the actual food; shared Code text does not settle every local requirement.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Compilation effective 2 September 2025, listed as latest on the official register when checked. Ingredient names, flavourings and compound ingredients; not the full use-permission Code.
Food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. Match the actual Japanese ingredient/additive name and its constituents; CAA’s separate additive categories and use standards cannot be decided from this English catalogue label.
Exact-product permission: unresolved because the composition or source label is missing.
Official English navigation states that food labels for sale in Japan must be in Japanese. No exact Japanese label or constituent match supplied here.
Designated additives, existing additives, natural flavouring agents and ordinary foods used as additives; applicable specifications and use standards still matter.
Selected label-source check: . The original-label and manufacturer questions above remain open.
dietary fat reference values, not a judgment on any particular oil brand
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
The name alone is insufficient for an ingredient-specific clinical or legal conclusion.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vinegar is a food ingredient containing acetic acid; the concentration and recipe vary.
Food flavour and acidification.
No blood-sugar treatment, weight-loss claim or safe consumption dose is assigned here.
BMJ Nutrition, Prevention & Health: The publisher retracted a widely circulated apple-cider-vinegar weight-loss trial in September 2025 because of reliability and reporting concerns. EatMatrix does not use that trial as evidence of weight loss.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 twelve-week trial in 94 women with PCOS and metabolic syndrome compared apple-cider-vinegar capsules with placebo alongside metformin; several metabolic and patient-reported outcomes favoured the capsules. Older small crossover experiments found lower acute glucose responses when vinegar accompanied complex-carbohydrate meals, but not a monosaccharide drink.
EatMatrix’s reading: Capsules added to medical treatment are different from culinary vinegar. These selected studies do not establish a general weight-loss treatment or replace prescribed care; acute meal responses and clinical outcomes must be kept separate.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
scientific assessment, not a personal sugar prescription
Publisher retraction dated 23 September 2025 and publisher explanation checked 8 October 2026. DOI 10.1136/bmjnph-2023-000823ret; original trial must not support a weight-loss claim. Complete later vinegar literature not reviewed.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No blood-sugar treatment, weight-loss claim or safe consumption dose is assigned here.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Needed for vision and normal immune function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH distinguishes preformed vitamin A from beta-carotene. Vitamin A is needed for vision and immune function, but excess preformed vitamin A can harm fetal development. High-dose beta-carotene supplements have a separate lung-cancer concern in smokers.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: EFSA’s 2024 opinion retained an adult upper intake level of 3,000 micrograms retinol equivalents per day for preformed vitamin A, including pregnancy and lactation. It could not derive a beta-carotene upper level from the available data and advises smokers to avoid beta-carotene supplements. These are different chemical forms and exposure questions.
EatMatrix’s reading: The upper level is not a target or an individual dose. Not establishing a beta-carotene upper level does not establish unlimited safety. Findings on high-dose supplemental beta-carotene must not be transferred to ordinary vegetables or silently substituted for preformed vitamin A.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
A report published online in 2025 and in a 2026 issue randomized 504 Ethiopian schoolchildren to iron, high-dose vitamin A, both or placebo for eleven months. Vitamin A did not significantly improve the reported haemoglobin, vitamin-A-status or iron-status outcomes. Iron improved some iron-storage measures, which cannot be credited to vitamin A.
EatMatrix’s reading: A supervised high-dose intervention in one population is not an intake recommendation or proof that vitamin A is unnecessary. The nutrient is essential, while deficiency, chemical form and excess are separate questions.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps cells release energy from food and supports nerve function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Thiamin helps the body use energy from food. NIH describes the harm of deficiency, but that does not establish extra thiamin as a general disease treatment. No established upper limit is not proof that arbitrarily high amounts are useful.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 crossover trial enrolled 36 patients with primary biliary cholangitis; 34 completed. High-dose oral thiamine did not reduce fatigue more than placebo. In a different 2021 trial, 335 breastfeeding Cambodian women received placebo or thiamine; supplementation increased milk thiamine concentrations, with similar concentrations across the supplemented groups.
EatMatrix’s reading: Correcting nutrient intake in one setting does not establish that high-dose thiamine treats fatigue in another. Milk concentrations are a biomarker; these experiments do not establish a general energy-boosting supplement benefit.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supports red blood cells, DNA and normal nerve function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Vitamin B12 is needed for normal blood and nerve function. NIH states that extra B12 does not improve energy, endurance or athletic performance in people already getting enough. Deficiency and impaired absorption are separate clinical questions.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 blinded trial randomized 800 pregnant women in Nepal to oral vitamin B12 or placebo through six months postpartum. Although supplementation improved B12 status, it did not improve the primary infant growth or cognitive outcomes. Many participants had low or marginal B12 status. The Research Council of Norway funded the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: An essential nutrient can improve a blood marker without improving every clinical outcome. This does not rule out treatment of a diagnosed B12 deficiency or justify stopping prescribed treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps cells turn food into usable energy.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH separates normal food intake from high supplemental or medicinal doses. Nicotinic acid can cause flushing and liver problems; nicotinamide has a different risk profile. Improved lipid numbers do not automatically mean fewer cardiovascular events.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
The 2014 HPS2-THRIVE trial randomized 25,673 adults with vascular disease to high-dose extended-release niacin plus laropiprant or placebo alongside statin treatment. Lipid markers improved, but major vascular events did not fall significantly over a median 3.9 years. Several serious adverse events increased. Merck and others funded the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is a pharmacological combination in high-risk patients, not ordinary dietary niacin, nicotinamide or nicotinamide riboside. Better HDL/LDL measurements did not guarantee a clinical benefit.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps release energy from food and make and break down fats.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH describes pantothenic acid’s role in energy and fat metabolism. Very high supplemental intakes can cause digestive symptoms. Research on pantethine and cholesterol should not be assigned to every form of vitamin B5.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2014 twelve-week trial enrolled 48 adults with mild-to-moderate facial acne; 41 were evaluable. A branded pantothenic-acid-based supplement reduced total lesion count more than placebo. Avilan Marketing sponsored the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: The product contained a high amount of B5 and was studied briefly. This does not establish that ordinary food B5 treats acne, that B5 alone caused the result or that long-term high-dose use is safe. The full composition was not independently verified by the published certificate data.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps process protein and supports blood and nerve function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Vitamin B6 is needed for many enzyme reactions. NIH warns that prolonged high supplemental intake can damage nerves. Lowering a blood marker with B vitamins has not established prevention of heart disease or stroke.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 study recruited 267 mostly female participants and compared high-dose pyridoxine, B12 and placebo for about one month. Reduced depression-questionnaire scores occurred in a symptom-defined subgroup; anxiety and stress outcomes did not improve. It was not a large clinical treatment trial in diagnosed depression. The tablets were donated.
EatMatrix’s reading: The experimental 100 mg daily B6 dose is well above EFSA’s 2023 adult upper intake level of 12 mg/day, which addresses peripheral-nerve damage risk. This preliminary subgroup finding is not self-treatment advice or evidence that ordinary food B6 is harmful.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
EFSA: 2023 scientific opinion: tolerable upper intake level for vitamin B6 (adult UL 12 mg/day)Peripheral-neuropathy basis and adult upper level; not a treatment dose.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Biotin supplements can interfere with laboratory tests. Tell the professional ordering a test about supplements you take.
Helps enzymes use carbohydrate, fat and protein.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH finds little evidence for the commonly promoted hair, skin and nail benefits of extra biotin. Supplemental biotin can produce misleading laboratory results, including thyroid hormone tests.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 trial recruited 80 pregnant women; 62 completed a 24-week comparison of prenatal multivitamins with different biotin contents. The higher-biotin formulation increased maternal and cord-blood biotin markers. Some exploratory stress-marker associations were reported. Crossref identifies Ritual as a funder.
EatMatrix’s reading: This tests specific prenatal multivitamins and biomarkers, not hair growth, nail strength, infant development or every isolated d-biotin product. It does not establish that everyone benefits from extra biotin.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Supports DNA and cell division; adequate folate before and during early pregnancy helps prevent neural-tube defects.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Folate supports cell division; adequate folic acid before and during early pregnancy helps prevent neural-tube defects. NIH distinguishes this benefit from excessive supplemental folic acid, which can conceal the anemia of B12 deficiency while nerve damage continues.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 household-randomized trial in 360 nonpregnant Ethiopian women found that folic-acid-fortified iodized salt improved folate biomarkers over 26 weeks without detected between-group differences in the measured iodine markers or adverse events. It did not measure neural-tube defects. The pivotal 1991 MRC trial randomized 1,817 women with a previous affected pregnancy; among 1,195 completed assessed pregnancies, folic-acid groups had fewer neural-tube defects, a 72% relative reduction.
EatMatrix’s reading: Folate status and a pregnancy outcome are separate endpoints. The older trial concerns a selected high-risk population and periconceptional supplementation; neither trial is advice to eat more salt or to choose a personal dose. Natural food folates, folic acid and folinic acid are not interchangeable study preparations.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps absorb calcium and supports bones, muscles and nerves.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH explains vitamin D’s role in calcium absorption and bone health. Excess supplemental vitamin D can raise blood calcium and injure kidneys. This does not mean ordinary food intake or sunlight has the same overdose profile.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 report from a Finnish randomised trial followed 2,495 older adults assigned vitamin D3 or placebo. Over about four years of supplementation, neither tested dose reduced fractures. The lower-dose group had more fractures than placebo; the higher-dose group did not differ significantly. Participants were largely vitamin-D sufficient, so this does not answer treatment of a diagnosed deficiency.
EatMatrix’s reading: Nutrient function does not mean extra high-dose supplementation prevents fractures. This result is population-specific, not evidence that all vitamin D intake is harmful or advice to stop prescribed treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Cholecalciferol is a form of vitamin D used by the body to support calcium absorption.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH discusses vitamin D2 and D3 as nutrient forms. The main excess-intake concern is high supplemental vitamin D causing high blood calcium and related harm, rather than the D3 name alone.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 report from a Finnish randomised trial followed 2,495 older adults assigned vitamin D3 or placebo. Over about four years of supplementation, neither tested dose reduced fractures. The lower-dose group had more fractures than placebo; the higher-dose group did not differ significantly. Participants were largely vitamin-D sufficient, so this does not answer treatment of a diagnosed deficiency.
EatMatrix’s reading: Nutrient function does not mean extra high-dose supplementation prevents fractures. This result is population-specific, not evidence that all vitamin D intake is harmful or advice to stop prescribed treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Helps blood clot normally and supports bone proteins.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: Vitamin K supports normal clotting. NIH emphasizes a consistent intake for people taking warfarin: sudden changes can alter its effect. Research has not established that extra vitamin K prevents heart disease or improves everyone’s bone health.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 report from a two-year trial randomized 180 patients with symptomatic coronary disease to menaquinone-7 (MK-7) or placebo. CT coronary-calcium progression was slower with MK-7 among the analysed participants. The clinical meaning for plaque stability and heart attacks remains unresolved. A linked editorial questions coronary-calcium progression as a trial outcome.
EatMatrix’s reading: MK-7 is one vitamin K2 form, not a study of every vitamin K ingredient. A scan surrogate does not prove fewer heart attacks; this is not advice to change anticoagulants or prescribed treatment.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Water supports hydration and normal body functions.
Hydration.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
WHO: WHO prioritises microbiological and chemical water quality. Filtering, carbonation or a spring label does not by itself certify that the water meets drinking-water requirements.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2010 trial assigned 48 adults aged 55–75 with overweight or obesity to a reduced-calorie diet with or without water before meals for twelve weeks. The water group lost about two kilograms more. The initial test-meal energy-intake difference was no longer statistically significant at twelve weeks.
EatMatrix’s reading: This combines water timing with a reduced-calorie diet in a specific age group. It does not show that filtered water is better than other safe drinking water or establish a fluid amount suitable for everyone. Mineral origin and filtration were not the experimental comparison.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary water reference values, not contaminant test results for a water brand
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
13 September 2023 public-health guidance, read 8 October 2026. Microbiological and chemical water quality, not certification of a named source, filter or bottle.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
No contaminant results, electrolyte composition or universal fluid prescription are inferred.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Ground wheat; refinement and the amount of retained bran and germ depend on specification.
Energy and food function; enrichment can add specified nutrients.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK identifies wheat, spelt and barley as gluten-containing grains.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover trial enrolled 26 healthy adults to compare white breads made from specified high-amylose and control wheat flours. Laboratory starch digestion was lower for the high-amylose bread, but the primary rise in measured glucose and overall satiety did not differ significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: A laboratory digestion change did not become a demonstrated human glucose benefit. The result concerns the tested wheat lines and breads, not every flour, isolated wheat starch or a gluten-free product.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Rice/popcorn/puffed grains are not necessarily wheat-containing; no exact glucose or nutrient outcome is inferred. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A wheat protein fraction used for food structure and as a concentrated protein ingredient.
Can contribute to dietary protein intake.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA lists wheat as a major allergen.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK identifies wheat gluten as relevant to celiac disease; gluten-free eating is not automatically beneficial for everyone.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2025 blinded crossover study, 28 adults with irritable bowel syndrome who reported improvement on a gluten-free diet completed wheat, gluten and sham-food challenges. Symptom worsening did not differ significantly between challenges, and symptoms were common in all three conditions. The small study cannot exclude responses in particular individuals.
EatMatrix’s reading: These results do not apply to coeliac disease or wheat allergy and must not be used to dismiss someone’s symptoms or certify a product as gluten-free.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer a soy trial to pea, rice, potato or hemp protein; contaminants and extraction processes are product-specific. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A wheat-derived starch fraction. Its remaining protein and gluten depend on processing and specification.
Useful food texture and energy.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceUS FDA: FDA’s gluten-free claim requires less than 20 ppm gluten and other conditions; this does not certify unspecified wheat starch.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2023 double-blind crossover trial in 15 adults tested cookies containing a cross-linked phosphorylated resistant wheat starch, Fibersym, after three days of pre-feeding. The primary two-hour glucose-area outcome did not differ significantly from the matched control. Some shorter-term glucose measures and two-hour insulin exposure were lower.
EatMatrix’s reading: The primary null result should not be hidden by positive secondary measures. Modified resistant wheat starch is different from ordinary wheat starch. This study does not establish a benefit for every starch or suitability for coeliac disease or wheat allergy.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
US voluntary gluten-free claim and less-than-20-ppm criterion with other requirements; not a wheat-allergy safety guarantee or worldwide threshold. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Botanical source, processing and preparation can change digestibility. Wheat-source allergy/gluten questions need product evidence. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A whey-processing fraction, often used for milk solids and food functions; it is different from concentrated whey protein.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
Two 2023 reports concern the same 750-child Ugandan trial, not two independent trials. Children with stunting received different nutrient-supplement formulations or no supplement for 12 weeks. Adding whey permeate did not improve overall height growth, body composition or developmental domains. The complete supplement improved growth compared with no supplement. Dairy-industry partnerships and foundations funded the trial.
EatMatrix’s reading: Benefits of a complete energy-containing supplement cannot be credited to whey permeate. Breastfeeding subgroup findings do not replace the overall result, and this does not describe effects in healthy adults.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Dried whey containing a product-dependent mixture of milk solids; it is not automatically whey protein isolate.
Nutrient contribution depends on the actual dairy ingredient.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies milk-derived ingredients in US food-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK distinguishes lactose malabsorption from immune reactions to milk proteins.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
FDA / eCFR: The US provision describes dried whey as removal of water without changing the constituent ratios. Its dry-whey composition specifies 10–15% protein and 61–75% lactose on a dry basis, alongside other specifications and pasteurization conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: Ordinary whey powder is not the same as whey-protein isolate or concentrate. A muscle-protein trial using an isolate cannot be assigned to a mainly lactose-containing powder. Check protein, lactose and milk allergy separately; removing lactose does not remove milk proteins.
Selected source check: . Selected official guidance, identity or legal-use context, not a human intervention trial, complete scientific dossier or completed eight-market product review. Guidance, standards, safety opinions and enacted permissions answer different questions.
A specified whey powder was studied as a source of vitamin B12 in people with low B12 status. Ordinary whey powder should not be confused with an isolated whey-protein supplement.
EatMatrix’s reading: Check the product’s B12, protein and lactose content. This small study does not make whey powder a treatment for B12 deficiency.
The specified whey powder and B12 capsules improved several B12-status markers, but did not normalize B12 status. A bigger rise in total blood B12 with capsules did not imply a correspondingly bigger metabolic improvement.
Small groups and biomarker outcomes, with unequal numbers available for some measurements. The preparation was supplied by Arla, and an author was affiliated with Arla Foods Ingredients.
Full article methods, results and limitations checked; supplements not independently reanalysed.
Selected study check: .
These are selected human studies, not a complete systematic review or a safety certificate for every dose, preparation or product. Study amounts describe the research and are not dosing advice.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
US FDA-regulated food allergen context, including milk and whey; other agency/product scopes differ. Not an individual tolerance test. Checked 8 October 2026.
Consumer explanation of lactose malabsorption versus milk-protein allergy; underlying topic last reviewed February 2018. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new clinical trial.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Cheese, whey permeate, cream and milk powder cannot share a single measured lactose/nutrient value. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A milk-derived protein fraction supplying amino acids; it differs from whey permeate or mostly lactose-containing powders.
Can help supply dietary protein.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes milk and milk-protein-derived ingredients in major-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceWHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 27-person trial found no detected difference in muscle-protein synthesis between whey-supplemented animal-focused and pea-supplemented plant-focused diets over 10 days; exercise increased synthesis. It was partly whey-industry supported. Separately, a 2026 acute study in nine postmenopausal women compared whey and almond-protein beverages with comparators. Appetite and hydration responses were broadly similar between protein drinks; the beverages differed in energy and other nutrients. Almond-industry funding was disclosed. Neither trial establishes long-term strength gain, weight loss or superiority of every whey powder.
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods/disclosures checked 8 October 2026, not a complete systematic, full-text/table/supplement or current-version review. Experimental amounts are not personal recommendations. Repeated papers under aliases or related preparations are one study, not independent replications. Exact product and market checks remain separate.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A concentrated milk-protein ingredient that can retain varying amounts of lactose and fat.
Can help supply dietary protein.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA includes milk and milk-protein-derived ingredients in major-allergen context.
Read the authority sourceWHO: WHO considers protein sources within the complete diet.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover trial in 24 healthy young adults compared whey protein concentrate with a particular three-protease blend against the same whey with placebo. The blend increased some early blood amino-acid measures and fullness ratings, but not subsequent meal intake, total amino-acid availability or glucose/insulin responses. BIO-CAT funded the study; company employees and patent interests were involved.
EatMatrix’s reading: The tested difference concerns this enzyme-plus-whey preparation. It does not demonstrate greater muscle growth, weight loss or a benefit of an unspecified protease.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and accessible methods, funding or conflict sections checked; not a complete systematic or full-text/version review. Exact PMID/DOI identities and returned linked-update metadata were checked. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no correction exists. Findings concern the tested form, people, duration and outcomes; they do not establish universal safety or country permission.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary protein reference values, not a benefit trial for each protein powder
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
lactose intolerance physiology and nutrition, distinct from milk-protein allergy
US statutory major-allergen categories and protein-derived ingredients. Does not mean unlisted foods cannot cause allergy. Checked 8 October 2026; source publication date not established.
26 January 2026 dietary-pattern guidance: food sources, protein and fat quality; not a trial of each named ingredient or personal treatment advice. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Dietary protein reference values are not a trial of this particular whey/casein powder. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Vegetables can contribute fibre and nutrients as part of a varied diet.
Useful dietary variety.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
WHO: WHO’s food-pattern guidance supports varied plant foods and attention to sugar, salt, fibre and fat quality. It is category context, not a clinical test or approval of this exact label.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2024 randomized crossover study enrolled 54 adults with elevated LDL cholesterol; 36 completed all three four-week corn-flour periods. Only refined cornmeal combined with bran showed a significant LDL decrease over time. HDL cholesterol and triglycerides did not improve significantly. The North American Millers’ Association Corn Division funded the research and supplied the corn ingredients.
EatMatrix’s reading: Whole-grain cornmeal, refined cornmeal and added bran were distinct preparations. A within-treatment LDL decrease does not by itself prove superiority to every other food. The trial does not test every corn kernel or corn grit, and does not establish that any corn ingredient lowers cholesterol.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and the accessible methods, correction and funding sections recorded in the audit were checked; this is not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Funding and source-version history remain unreviewed where not stated. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Related forms and null results remain explicit. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
handling/contamination safety, distinct from inherent food toxicity
26 January 2026 food-pattern guidance, read 8 October 2026. Category context, not an individual ingredient trial or legal approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
General dietary guidance does not prove that this particular vegetable treats a disease or that a powder/extract has the same effect.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
Flour described as retaining the whole oat grain; grinding still changes the physical food form.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
In a 2024 crossover experiment, 20 healthy adults ate porridges made with four oat flours. Coarser and whole flours produced lower short-term glucose and insulin responses than finer flours. Appetite was higher after coarse than commercial flour. The flours were not matched for available carbohydrate, protein and fibre.
EatMatrix’s reading: Whole oat flour is not one standard preparation: particle size and composition matter. Lower glucose in this two-hour experiment is not proof of diabetes prevention or a weight-loss effect.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A whole-wheat grain ingredient retaining grain components; it is still wheat.
Whole grains can be part of a varied diet.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
WHO: WHO prioritizes fibre-rich carbohydrate sources.
Read the authority sourceNIH NIDDK: NIDDK identifies wheat, spelt and barley as gluten-containing grains.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2025 crossover study in 15 adults compared several wheat-based breads, including whole-grain and chickpea-flour formulations. The lower glucose response and greater fullness were found for the large-particle chickpea formulation relative to selected comparators; insulin responses were similar across breads.
EatMatrix’s reading: The benefit reported for large-particle chickpea flour must not be reassigned to whole wheat. This acute mixed-recipe study helps explain why grain names alone cannot predict a glucose response.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food form and finished recipe: For an ordinary food, a missing additive approval is not evidence of a ban. The actual recipe, processing, allergen information and local food rules still matter.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
dietary guidance, not ingredient approval
carbohydrate and fibre reference values, not a generic product rating
celiac disease and gluten, not every wheat sensitivity
US allergen labelling and safety guidance
17 July 2023 guideline on carbohydrate quality, food source and fibre; read alongside the January 2026 healthy-diet summary. Not a glycemic-index test of this product. Checked 8 October 2026.
October 2020 consumer guidance distinguishing gluten-containing grains, cross-contact and oats. Checked 8 October 2026; not a new trial or a product test.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Buckwheat is not wheat; corn and oats are not automatically contaminated with wheat. Gluten-free claims require the actual product controls. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Preparation-specific function and authority context
Food-processing use is not a demonstrated clinical benefit. Exact preparation and current-market checks remain incomplete.
Breaks bonds in xylans, which are plant-cell-wall polysaccharides. Its function is different from proof of a health effect after eating the food.
Useful processing function, not automatically a digestive-health benefit for the consumer.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
EFSA: EFSA requires preparation-specific source, allergy and exposure assessment.
Read the authority sourceEuropean Commission: The application register is not an authorisation list.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official assessment and preparation boundaries checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
EFSA: A 2026 EFSA extension assessed endo-1,4-beta-xylanase from genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis NZYM-FX across four manufacturing processes. Enzyme solids were removed in two; the remaining exposure was assessed. EFSA found no safety concern under the revised intended conditions.
EatMatrix’s reading: This is one production strain and specified processes, not a general human digestive trial or proof that xylanase makes wheat gluten-free.
Selected assessment check: . Selected official assessment context, not a complete assessment history or an exact-product eight-market permission decision. An EFSA opinion is distinct from legal authorisation; intended use, preparation and exposure must match.
No applicable human health trial of xylanase alone was selected. Animal-feed trials and processing studies cannot establish a benefit for people, and xylan fibre is not the enzyme.
EatMatrix’s reading: Match the production strain and food-processing conditions to the assessment. An enzyme’s ability to alter flour does not prove a digestive benefit after eating the finished food.
Selected record check: . Selected records and preparation matches checked. This is not a complete systematic, full-text or eight-market product review. A missing match is not evidence of no research or unsafe use.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
Named food-use records located. Health Canada lists the preparations below for specified foods and purposes. This is conditional permission for those uses, not approval of every product or a personal safety verdict.
This enzyme name has source-specific legal records. The organism, production strain and intended food must match; an unspecified enzyme preparation is not confirmed.
Source tables captured . List publication dates are shown separately. Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) is a condition of use, not an unlimited amount or a recommended intake.
Food and Drug Regulations B.16.003 requires the listed source, purpose, amount and other conditions to match. The official consolidation read was current to 21 September 2026; product specifications and applicable later changes still need checking.
Health Canada: List of Permitted Food Enzymes. List published ; item X.1.
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus acidus RF7398
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0159 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus acidus RF7398
Food: (b) Pasta
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0159 (see the official list).
Specified source: (1) Aspergillus acidus RF7398
Food: (c) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0159 (see the official list).
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger (XYL-2) (pXYL3); Bacillus subtilis XAS; Trichoderma reesei A83
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (2) Aspergillus niger (XYL-2) (pXYL3); Bacillus subtilis XAS; Trichoderma reesei A83
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae Fa 1-1 (pA2X1TI)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (3) Aspergillus oryzae Fa 1-1 (pA2X1TI)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Aspergillus oryzae JaL 339 (pJaL537); Bacillus subtilis DIDK 0115 (pUB110 OIS2)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (4) Aspergillus oryzae JaL 339 (pJaL537); Bacillus subtilis DIDK 0115 (pUB110 OIS2)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis HyGe329
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0030 (see the official list).
Specified source: (5) Bacillus licheniformis HyGe329
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0030 (see the official list).
Specified source: (6) Bacillus subtilis CF 307 (pJHPaprE-xynAss-BS3xylanase#1)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (6) Bacillus subtilis CF 307 (pJHPaprE-xynAss-BS3xylanase#1)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis Gizα3508
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0062 (see the official list).
Specified source: (7) Bacillus subtilis Gizα3508
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0062 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Bacillus subtilis RH 6000
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0020 (see the official list).
Specified source: (8) Bacillus subtilis RH 6000
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0020 (see the official list).
Specified source: (9) Disporotrichum dimorphosporum DXL-1 (syn. Chrysosporium dimorphum DXL-1)
Food: Brewers' mash
Purpose: Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0057 NOM/ADM-0042 (see the official list).
Specified source: (10) Trichoderma reesei (LOVxlnA#568.4)
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0141 (see the official list).
Specified source: (10) Trichoderma reesei (LOVxlnA#568.4)
Food: (b) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0141 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Trichoderma reesei RF5427
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0206 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Trichoderma reesei RF5427
Food: (b) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0206 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Trichoderma reesei RF5427
Food: (c) Distillers' mash
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0206 (see the official list).
Specified source: (11) Trichoderma reesei RF5427
Food: (d) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0206 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (a) Bread; White flour; Whole wheat flour
Purpose: (a) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (a) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (b) Breakfast cereals
Purpose: (b) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (b) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (c) Brewers' mash
Purpose: (c) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (c) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (d) Malt extract
Purpose: (d) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (d) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (e) Plant-based products that resemble dairy products; Plant-based products that resemble dairy-based products; Plant-based products that resemble meat products, including simulated meat products; Plant-based products that resemble poultry meat products, including simulated poultry products
Purpose: (e) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (e) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
Specified source: (12) Rasamsonia emersonii previously identified as Talaromyces emersonii
Food: (f) Unstandardized bakery products
Purpose: (f) Food enzyme
Limit and conditions: (f) Good Manufacturing Practice
Source modification reference: NOM/ADM-0205 (see the official list).
EatMatrix reading: match the exact preparation and food first. A manufacturing limit is not an acceptable daily intake (ADI). A label without the amount cannot establish exposure, and an unlisted name here does not establish a ban.
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
2021 guidance; amendments dated 8 April 2022 and 26 July 2023, with Annex D replaced by 2023 exposure guidance. Selected source/strain, allergenicity and exposure text checked 8 October 2026; not a review of this unspecified enzyme product.
Checked 8 October 2026: Commission distinguishes an application register from authorisation and describes national provisions pending a Union list. Not a complete national/all-market legal check.
Established enzyme nomenclature/reaction context checked 8 October 2026; not a new study, product identity or safety approval.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not transfer worker inhalation sensitisation to dietary exposure, or treat all fungal enzyme preparations as one product. A named enzyme activity, extract or protein label does not identify the exact assessed production preparation or establish current permission in every market.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient-category context
Food-fermentation cultures and probiotics are not interchangeable categories. A probiotic effect depends on the specific microorganism/strain and tested use.
Fermentation can serve a food-processing role.
Do not inherit another strain’s trial, a probiotic recommendation or a blanket seven-agency verdict.
NIH NCCIH: NIH explains that probiotic effects depend on the microorganism and product. A generic culture, live yeast or fermented food cannot inherit the results of a different clinically studied strain.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected official source and label/form distinctions checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2020 trial randomized 60 healthy women to a particular live Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain, CNCM I-3856, or placebo for four weeks; 57 completed. The strain was detected in some vaginal samples and in most supplemented participants’ stool samples. Lesaffre funded the study and all authors were employees.
EatMatrix’s reading: Detection of a strain is not proof that it prevents or treats vaginal infection. An ordinary baking yeast label does not establish that this probiotic strain is present, alive or supplied at the tested amount.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and recorded accessible methods, correction and funding sections checked; not a complete systematic review, clinical dossier or full-text review of every paper. Preparation matches and null results are stated explicitly. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
strain- and condition-specific research summary
food-enzyme safety evaluation by source/strain/process/use
Strain, product and population-specific evidence and safety context, read 8 October 2026. Page version date not established; a starter culture is not automatically a clinically tested probiotic.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
Do not inherit another strain’s trial, a probiotic recommendation or a blanket seven-agency verdict.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Ingredient form explained with scoped authority guidance
A yeast-derived savoury ingredient that can contain free glutamate; it differs from live baking yeast.
Flavour, not an assumed nutrient or medical effect.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
US FDA: FDA identifies hydrolyzed vegetable protein and yeast extract as ingredients that can contain naturally occurring free glutamate.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected food-form authority context checked; complete ingredient-specific primary-study, source-version and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2026 crossover study in 27 completers tested a particular yeast-extract-containing hangover product after alcohol. Ethanol, acetaldehyde and symptom comparisons did not differ significantly between product and placebo. The abstract’s positive concluding language goes further than those statistical results.
EatMatrix’s reading: This does not demonstrate hangover prevention by ordinary savoury yeast extract, protection from alcohol damage or a reason to drink more. The tested product is a mixture.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Food-processing use: A flavouring, enzyme, additive or processing aid needs the exact substance/preparation, food category, purpose and permitted conditions checked. A use in one country does not establish the same permission elsewhere.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
US flavour ingredient oversight; safety and authorisation require exact identity/use
19 November 2012 US GRAS/label/symptom context; glutamate is distinct from gluten. Checked 8 October 2026, not a new assessment, all-market approval or universal symptom guarantee.
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
The general ingredient guide is not a substance-specific approval for vanilla, vanillin, ethyl maltol, menthol or an unnamed mixture. Authority guidance covers the stated nutrient, food category or labelling question; it is not a clinical test or worldwide approval of this exact product.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
Zinc supports growth, wound healing and normal immune function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH describes zinc’s roles in growth, wound healing and immune function. Excessive zinc can lower copper status and cause harm. It does not establish that zinc oxide is the best preparation or that extra zinc universally improves immunity.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A 2014 randomized crossover absorption study in 15 healthy adults compared zinc citrate, gluconate and oxide supplements taken without food. Median absorption from oxide was lower than from the other two forms, and three participants absorbed little or none from oxide.
EatMatrix’s reading: Zinc oxide has been studied orally; a missing library trial was not evidence of “untested”. This small fasting absorption experiment does not establish effectiveness with meals, treatment outcomes or the safety of every dose.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
Check the form and amount
The advice below applies to the stated ingredient or category. It is not a safety rating for every product or preparation.
Nutrient-specific explanation with authority summary
A source of zinc for normal growth and immune function.
Meeting nutrient needs supports normal function; more is not necessarily better.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements: NIH includes zinc sulfate among supplement forms and warns that excess zinc can interfere with copper. Being a source of an essential mineral does not establish an advantage for every supplement or a benefit from extra intake.
Read the authority sourceSelected evidence checked: . Selected nutrient authority summary checked; full primary-study, exact preparation and current-market review remains in progress.
A study published online in 2024 and in a 2025 issue randomized 50 people with chronic hepatitis C to antiviral therapy with or without zinc sulfate for three months. Some fibrosis-related blood markers and APRI improved with zinc; FIB-4 did not differ significantly.
EatMatrix’s reading: These are surrogate markers during antiviral treatment, not proof of reversed fibrosis, liver-cancer prevention or benefit in people without this condition. Zinc-sulfate mass is not automatically elemental-zinc mass; the abstract does not justify an individual dose recommendation.
Selected study check: .
Selected primary abstracts and specified accessible sections checked; not a complete clinical dossier or systematic review. Linked correction metadata was checked, and the meat-trial corrigendum was read. Other linked comments or editorials have not all been read in full. Missing correction metadata does not prove that no later update exists. Experimental amounts are not intake recommendations. Exact-product country permissions remain unresolved.
Preparation-specific rules: A concentrated extract, nutrient, culture or new preparation needs its exact composition, manufacturing source and intended food/supplement use matched to local rules. An opinion or application is not automatically a market permission.
Exact-product country review is incomplete. The links below explain the relevant authorities and rules; they do not certify this ingredient as permitted or banned.
nutrient physiology/safety summary, not FDA/EFSA approval of the named commercial chemical preparation
Explore the recent-literature searchSearch results need checking for the exact ingredient, oral exposure, study design and outcome. They are not adopted clinical conclusions.
NIH guidance is a nutrient summary, not a current market authorisation of every chemical preparation or a clinical test of this product. The authority summary is not a newly reviewed human trial, a complete latest-literature review or approval of this commercial preparation.
These open the existing guides, including recorded research, scoped official references and separate market checks. Recorded ratings are not verified current approvals.
Scan a food label with EatMatrix on iPhone to look up its ingredients in the app.