Quinoline Yellow: Why SCCS and EFSA Safety Records Diverge

Quinoline Yellow is flagged in the cross-vertical regulatory-gap output because the same CAS record (8004-92-0) has different no-observed values in SCCS-family and EFSA source records. The lead row compares rat oral data in mg/kg bw/day.

What Each Source Says

The EFSA-side value in the lead row is 50 mg/kg bw/day. The SCCS-family value in the same matched comparison is 1000 mg/kg bw/day. The finding states that the EFSA no-observed value is lower than the SCCS-family no-observed value for the same CAS, species, route, and unit.

That match condition is important. This is not a broad statement that every safety endpoint for Quinoline Yellow disagrees. The finding is narrower and stronger: the comparison holds within the normalized species, route, and unit keys shown in the table.

Why It Matters for Formulators

For cosmetic formulation, the SCCS-family record is the more directly cosmetic source. EFSA data, however, can still matter when the same chemical identity appears across food, pesticide, or other exposure contexts. A lower EFSA no-observed value does not automatically rewrite a cosmetic opinion, but it does mark a substance that deserves careful source-by-source review.

The practical takeaway is to avoid collapsing all NOAEL values for Quinoline Yellow into a single number. The source corpus, study type, species, route, and endpoint context all carry weight. A one-number summary would hide the divergence that makes this substance worth checking.

What Not to Infer

This divergence row is not a standalone ban, approval, or reformulation deadline. It is a source-comparison signal. The correct inference is narrower: for Quinoline Yellow, one matched EFSA no-observed value is lower than one or more matched SCCS-family values under the same normalized comparison keys. That is enough to justify review, but not enough to replace the underlying source documents.

The page is therefore useful as a map, not a verdict. It points to the precise mismatch a reviewer should investigate: chemical identity, endpoint value, route, species, unit, and source corpus. Those details are the difference between a real regulatory divergence story and a vague claim that two authorities disagree.

If a brand is using Quinoline Yellow globally, this kind of cross-source mismatch is where review time should go first. A single cosmetic formulation may be legal and still deserve a closer toxicology note when another major source corpus reports a lower point of departure for a matched comparison.

The safest editorial wording is therefore specific: this page compares records, not countries. The source labels, values, and normalized matching keys are shown so the claim stays tied to the evidence that created the divergence flag.

Next Read

Use the Quinoline Yellow ingredient page for substance identity and cross-source profile, then trace the SCCS or EFSA source records listed below for the exact study-level wording.

Source

• Cross-vertical finding: query1_regulatory_gaps.json
• src_corpus: EFSA; source: EFSA_OpenFoodTox_EFSA_ReferencePoints.xlsx; src_file: Source documentation archived. reference: EFSA ANS - 2009 - OutputID 393 - neurology - neurotoxicity - Scientific Opinion on the re-evaluation of Quinoline Yellow (E 104) as a food additive - doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2009.1329
• src_corpus: SCCS; source: SCCS_vision_codex; src_file: sccs_o_253.pdf; reference: {"dose":"3.3.4 Repeated dose toxicity From SCCNFP/0789/04 Summary of toxicological studies At present, no studies on acute, subacute, subchronic, chronic, reproductive and developmental toxicity and carcinogenicity are.