Skip to main content

Table 1 analytical categories used in this report

From: EFSA’s toxicological assessment of aspartame: was it even-handedly trying to identify possible unreliable positives and unreliable negatives?

 

Category

1

rP

Study result(s) deemed reliable by the panel as indicating adverse effects on humans, ie reliably positive

2

uP

Study result(s) deemed unreliable by the panel as indicating adverse effects on humans, ie unreliable positive

3

rN

Study result(s) deemed reliable by the panel as indicating no adverse effects on humans, ie reliable negative

4

uN

Study result(s) deemed unreliable by the panel as indicating no adverse effects on humans ie unreliable negative

5

Cont

Contradictory (when comparing the wording in the main report with text in the Appendices of the ANS panel's report)

6

ELlow

Study indicating NOAEL at/or below 4000 mg/kg bw/day

7

E Lhigh

Study indicating adverse effects, but only at doses above 4000 mg/kg bw/day