Regulators pulled the acceptable daily intake because the data did not support it
The EU's Scientific Committee on Food originally set a daily intake limit of 0 to 1.5 mg per kilogram of body weight per day. When EFSA re-examined the evidence in 2010, it found that the rat studies underpinning that figure were too limited to identify a reliable no-effect level. JECFA had reached the same conclusion earlier for the same reason. EFSA withdrew the existing limit and declined to set a new one, citing an insufficient toxicological database rather than a proven harm.
EFSA concluded that the existing SCF ADI of 0 to 1.5 mg/kg body weight per day should be withdrawn because the Panel could not identify a suitable NOAEL, LOAEL, or benchmark dose from the available long-term studies.
2010Regulatory reviewEFSA Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Litholrubine BK (E 180), EFSA Journal
JECFA was unable to establish an ADI, finding that limited histopathological examinations in two long-term studies in mice and rats did not allow an unequivocal no-effect level to be determined.
1987Regulatory reviewJECFA evaluation cited in EFSA 2010 re-evaluation opinion
Real-world exposure from cheese rind is very low
EFSA estimated that the highest plausible intake from eating cheese rind is around 1700 times lower than the dose at which effects were seen in female rats. Because the dye is applied only to the outer surface and the rind is rarely eaten, the panel considered the practical human exposure to be negligible under current permitted use.
The highest anticipated consumer exposure to Litholrubine BK was estimated to be approximately 1700-fold lower than the identified effect level of 100 mg/kg body weight per day observed in female rats.
2010Regulatory reviewEFSA Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Litholrubine BK (E 180), EFSA Journal
Genotoxicity testing returned negative results, but the database is thin
The available in vitro tests did not show mutagenic or chromosome-damaging effects. EFSA noted this as a reassuring finding but also acknowledged that the overall dataset for Litholrubine BK is small, and gaps remain.
Summarised genotoxicity data suggest that Litholrubine BK is not mutagenic or clastogenic in vitro, based on available studies.
2010LabEFSA Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Litholrubine BK (E 180), EFSA Journal
Azo dye sensitivity: limited data for this specific dye
As a member of the azo dye family, Litholrubine BK may theoretically trigger reactions in people who are sensitive to azo compounds or who have aspirin-like intolerances. One case of lip inflammation (cheilitis) was documented following cosmetic exposure. EFSA examined the evidence in 2010 and found no well-documented cases of intolerance after oral intake, but the data set was small and no firm conclusion could be drawn.
No well-documented cases of intolerance reactions after oral exposure to Litholrubine BK have been reported. One case report of cheilitis following cosmetic exposure was identified. No conclusion on the induction of hypersensitivity could be drawn from the limited available evidence.
2010Regulatory reviewEFSA Scientific Opinion on the appropriateness of food azo-colours (including E 180) for inclusion in the food ingredient labelling list, EFSA Journal 8(10):1778
Not permitted outside the EU and UK
Litholrubine BK does not appear on the permitted food colour lists of the United States, Canada, or Australia. No food use authorisation for this dye has been identified in those jurisdictions, meaning food products from those countries will not carry it.
Litholrubine BK (E180) has not been identified as an approved food additive in the United States, Canada, or Australia. No entry for this dye appears in the FDA color additive inventory, Health Canada's List of Permitted Colouring Agents, or the FSANZ food additives schedule.
RegulatoryFDA color additive status list; Health Canada List of Permitted Colouring Agents; FSANZ Food Standards Code Schedule; consistent with JECFA/FAO additive database records showing only EU/UK use