Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. 
Clinical Pharmacist and Master’s student in Clinical Pharmacy with research interests in pharmacovigilance, behavioral interventions in mental health, and AI applications in clinical decision support. Experience includes digital health research with Bloomsbury Health (London) and pharmacovigilance practice in patient support programs. Published work covers drug awareness among healthcare providers, postpartum depression management, and patient safety reporting. What was reviewed?
This scientific opinion reviewed dietary aluminium safety by integrating European occurrence data for aluminium in foods and beverages, exposure estimates across age groups, and toxicological evidence on absorption, kinetics, and adverse outcomes relevant to setting a health-based guidance value. It explicitly considered aluminium from natural presence in foods, permitted aluminium-containing food additives, drinking water, and migration from food contact materials, noting that acidic or salty foods in contact with aluminium cookware/foil can increase aluminium levels in specific foods.
Who was reviewed?
This scientific opinion reviewed evidence and exposure estimates for the general European population, with emphasis on vulnerable subgroups such as infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, and the elderly. It summarized dietary survey–linked estimates (including mean and 97.5th percentile exposures) and noted that children have higher intake per kg body weight than adults, making them the subgroup with the highest potential exposure. Infant exposures were reviewed across feeding scenarios (breast-fed, milk-based formulas, and soya-based formulas), including consideration of “brand-loyal” infants where aluminium concentrations can be substantially higher than mean values.
Most important findings
For dietary aluminium safety, the Panel established a tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw/week, derived from toxicological endpoints including neurodevelopmental effects, and concluded this TWI is likely to be exceeded in a significant part of the European population, especially children with high-end dietary exposures.
| Critical point | Details |
|---|---|
| Health-based limit used for certification benchmarking | The Panel set a TWI of 1 mg/kg bw/week, selecting a rounded value between LOAEL- and NOAEL-based weekly intakes due to limited dose–response clarity and study limitations. |
| Population groups most likely to exceed the limit | Adult mean exposures varied widely across countries (about 0.2–1.5 mg/kg bw/week), while children and adolescents at the 97.5th percentile reached up to 2.3 mg/kg bw/week (toddlers in the UK), indicating frequent exceedance risk for high consumers. |
| Key dietary contributors to target in controls | Across assessments, cereals/cereal products, vegetables, and beverages were repeatedly identified as main contributors (>10%) to dietary aluminium exposure; certain infant formulae also contributed materially. |
| Source attribution limits that matter for HMTC evidence standards | Because studies measured total aluminium rather than aluminium species, the opinion stated it was not possible to attribute aluminium in a given food to background presence vs additives vs migration without dedicated, compound-specific studies and additive-use data. |
| Bioavailability and “worst-case” food scenarios | Oral bioavailability was described as low overall (often cited as ~0.1% from food and ~0.3% from drinking water) but potentially variable at least 10-fold depending on chemical form; acids/salts and specific ligands can increase uptake, and acidic/salty foods in contact with aluminium cookware/foil can raise food concentrations. |
| Toxicology endpoints most relevant to a certification program | The Panel highlighted aluminium compounds’ potential for neurotoxicity and developmental nervous system effects after maternal exposure; it summarized low-end LOAELs for neurotoxicity (~52 mg/kg bw/day) and for developing nervous system effects (~50 mg/kg bw/day) used in setting tolerable intake. |
Key implications
For dietary aluminium safety, the TWI-based finding that high consumers—especially children—can exceed 1 mg/kg bw/week supports tighter regulatory controls and HMTC certification requirements emphasizing high-exposure foods, additive-containing categories, and infant nutrition products, while accounting for migration risks from aluminium food-contact uses with acidic/salty foods. Industry applications include supplier qualification, routine total-aluminium testing of high-contributor categories, and process controls that limit additive use and contact-migration conditions. Research gaps include compound-speciation data and additive-use transparency needed to attribute sources; practical recommendations are to pair product testing with formulation and packaging audits and to prioritize vulnerable-population consumption scenarios.
Citation
European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) Panel on Food Additives, Flavourings, Processing Aids and Food Contact Materials (AFC). (2008). Safety of aluminium from dietary intake. EFSA Journal, 754, 1–34. doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2008.754
Aluminum is a pervasive metal found in a wide range of consumer products, from food packaging and cookware to medications and personal care items. Although often overlooked, aluminum exposure can accumulate over time, posing long-term health risks, especially to vulnerable populations like infants, children, and individuals with kidney conditions.
