Skip to main content

Advertisement

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