What is E556?

Complete guide to understanding E556 (Calcium Aluminosilicate) — an approved additive that was RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION in 2008 and remains approved despite clear regulatory failure

🚨 MOST EGREGIOUS REGULATORY FAILURE: E556 WAS RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION IN 2008 AND REMAINS APPROVED IN 2025 — 17 YEAR REGULATORY FAILURE:
E556 (Calcium Aluminosilicate) remains officially approved as a food additive in the EU. However, EFSA’s 2008 opinion explicitly stated that E556 “should be deleted from the list of all additives” because dietary exposure to aluminum from E556 and other aluminum-containing additives “largely exceeds” the tolerable weekly intake. The European Parliament identified E556 for banning in 2012. Yet in 2025, 17 years after the deletion recommendation, E556 remains legally approved and widely used. This represents the most catastrophic regulatory failure in food additive oversight.

The Quick Answer

E556 (Calcium Aluminosilicate) is an anti-caking agent approved in the EU but explicitly recommended for deletion by EFSA in 2008 — a recommendation never implemented, making it the most glaring example of regulatory failure in food additive oversight.

What makes E556 uniquely emblematic of regulatory failure: E556 represents something worse than incomplete safety assessment or extreme exposure concerns. E556 represents pure regulatory inaction. EFSA explicitly recommended in 2008 that E556 be deleted from the list of approved additives because dietary exposure to aluminum from E556 and other sources “largely exceeds” the tolerable weekly intake. The European Parliament identified E556 for banning in 2012. Yet here in 2025, 17 years after the deletion recommendation, E556 continues to be legally approved and used in thousands of food products globally. No replacement, no restriction, no reclassification — just regulatory silence and inaction. E556 is the poster child for how food safety systems can fail not through bad science but through sheer bureaucratic indifference.

E556 represents the most severe regulatory failure: recommended for deletion 17 years ago; still approved today.

📌 Quick Facts

Chemical Name: Calcium Aluminosilicate; Calcium Aluminum Silicate
Type: Anti-caking agent; food additive; inorganic compound
Chemical formula: CaAl₂Si₂O₈ (anorthite form; variable as additive)
Found in: Table salt, vanilla powder, milk powders, spices
Primary function: Prevents caking; maintains powder flowability
EU Status: Officially approved BUT recommended for deletion 2008 (NOT implemented)
FDA Status: GRAS (Generally Recognized As Safe)
CRITICAL FINDING: Dietary exposure to aluminum EXCEEDS tolerable intake
Years since deletion recommended: 17 years (2008-2025)
Regulatory status: Regulatory failure; should have been banned

What Exactly Is It?

E556 is calcium aluminosilicate, a white powder used as an anti-caking agent in salt, vanilla powder, and powdered foods — 100% synthetic or mined from natural minerals.

Chemical composition: CaAl₂Si₂O₈ (anorthite form; variable stoichiometry)

Appearance: White powder or crystalline mineral; odorless

Key properties:

– Anti-caking: absorbs moisture; prevents crystalline fusion
– High hygroscopicity: excellent water absorption capacity
– Aluminum-containing: significant aluminum component
– Amorphous or crystalline: variable structure
– Heat stable: survives food processing
– Water-insoluble: remains as fine particles in products
– Mineral origin: can be natural or synthetic
– Low bioavailability: only 0.018-0.12% absorbed

🔬 Understanding E556: E556 is one of three aluminum silicate additives (E554, E555, E556). All three are approved despite aluminum exposure concerns. However, E556 is uniquely problematic because it was explicitly recommended for deletion in 2008 and has been neglected for 17 years. Unlike E554 (incomplete assessment) and E555 (extreme exposure), E556 represents pure regulatory failure — a substance EXPLICITLY RECOMMENDED FOR DELETION that remains approved through regulatory negligence.

Where You’ll Find E556

E556 is found in table salt, vanilla powder, milk powders, and various powdered food products.

Product Category	Function	Frequency	Regulatory Concern
Table salt (PRIMARY)	Anti-caking agent	Very common	HIGH – widespread exposure
Vanilla powder	Anti-caking agent	Specialized use	MODERATE
Powdered milk & dairy	Anti-caking agent	Common	HIGH – frequent consumption
Spices and seasonings	Anti-caking agent	Limited	MODERATE
Baking ingredients	Anti-caking agent	Common	MODERATE

Key concern: Table salt is the primary application, meaning virtually everyone consuming salt in E556-treated products (which is most commercial salt) is exposed to this additive.

The 2008 EFSA Recommendation: Deletion

The most critical finding: EFSA’s 2008 official recommendation regarding E556.

Official EFSA recommendation (2008):

“The aluminium containing food additives calcium aluminium silicate E 556 and aluminium silicate (kaolin) E 559 should be deleted from the list of all additives in Part B of Annex II to Regulation (EC) No 1333/2008.”

Reason for deletion recommendation:

“It is therefore appropriate to amend the current conditions of use and reduce the use levels for aluminium-containing food additives, including aluminium lakes, to ensure that the revised TWI is not exceeded.”

Translation: Dietary exposure to aluminum from E556 and other sources exceeds the tolerable weekly intake established for human safety. E556 must be deleted to protect public health.

EFSA 2008 Aluminum Safety Assessment

EFSA’s key findings on aluminum safety:

– TWI (Tolerable Weekly Intake) for aluminum: 1 mg/kg body weight/week
– Adult dietary exposure: 0.2-1.5 mg/kg bw/week
– Children dietary exposure: 0.7-2.3 mg/kg bw/week
– EFSA conclusion: “The TWI of 1 mg aluminium/kg bw/week is likely to be exceeded in a significant part of the European population”

CCFA 2013 Dietary Exposure Reconfirmation

EFSA’s 2013 document to Codex Committee on Food Additives (page 30 of BFR presentation):

“Dietary exposure assessment based on the maximum levels recommended by the CCFA for:”

– E 523: aluminium ammonium sulphate
– E 541 (i, ii): sodium aluminium phosphates
– E 554: sodium aluminosilicate
– E 556: calcium aluminium silicate
– E 559: aluminium silicate

“Mean and 95th percentile dietary exposure estimates to the five aluminium-containing food additives largely exceed the TWI established by EFSA”

Key point: Even 5 years after the deletion recommendation, EFSA reconfirmed that E556 exposure EXCEEDS tolerable intake.

🚨 REGULATORY FAILURE: In 2008, EFSA recommended E556 be deleted because aluminum exposure exceeds tolerable intake. In 2013, EFSA reconfirmed that E556 exposure “largely exceeds” the TWI. In 2025, E556 remains approved with no action taken. This is 17 years of regulatory negligence.

The 2012 European Parliament Response

Political recognition of the E556 problem, never implemented.

European Parliament question (E-7-2012-003799):

“Three aluminium containing food additives will be banned (bentonite (E 558), calcium aluminium silicate (E 556) and aluminium silicate (kaolin) (E 559)).”

What this shows: Not only did EFSA recommend deletion in 2008, but the European Parliament explicitly acknowledged in 2012 that E556 would be banned. Yet 13 years later, the ban never occurred.

Is E556 Safe? The Regulatory Abandonment Question

E556 represents not a question of safety but a question of regulatory abandonment.

Question	Answer	Implication
Does EFSA recommend E556 deletion?	YES – since 2008	Recognized as problematic
Does dietary exposure exceed tolerable intake?	YES – confirmed 2013	Unsafe exposure levels
Did Parliament identify E556 for banning?	YES – in 2012	Political mandate existed
Has E556 been deleted?	NO – still approved 2025	REGULATORY FAILURE
Years since deletion recommended?	17 years (2008-2025)	Institutional negligence

⚠️ The E556 failure is not a failure of science. It’s a failure of regulation. EFSA did its job: it identified the problem in 2008. Parliament did its job: it mandated action in 2012. But the regulatory system failed to act. E556 remains approved through pure bureaucratic negligence — not because it’s safe, but because no one bothered to delete it.

Comparison: E554, E555, and E556

The three aluminum silicate additives and their different failure modes:

Additive	Failure Type	Status in 2025	Severity
E554 (Sodium aluminum silicate)	Incomplete safety assessment	Approved; incomplete assessment	HIGH
E555 (Potassium aluminum silicate)	Extreme aluminum exposure (40-55x TWI)	Approved; extreme exposure	CRITICAL
E556 (Calcium aluminum silicate)	Recommended for deletion; not implemented	Approved; should be banned	CATASTROPHIC

E556’s unique position: Not unknown risk (E554), not extreme exposure (E555), but recognized problem neglected for 17 years. This is worse than scientific uncertainty; it’s institutional failure.

The Bottom Line

E556 represents the most severe form of regulatory failure: a substance explicitly recommended for deletion that remains approved through institutional inaction.

The E556 regulatory timeline:

– 2008: EFSA recommends E556 deletion (reason: aluminum exposure exceeds safe limits)
– 2008-2012: No regulatory action; no response to EFSA recommendation
– 2012: European Parliament identifies E556 for banning
– 2012-2013: EFSA reconfirms E556 exposure “largely exceeds” tolerable intake
– 2013-2025: Complete regulatory silence; E556 remains approved
– 2025: 17 years after deletion recommended; E556 still legally sold in food

🚨 BOTTOM LINE: E556 (Calcium Aluminosilicate) is officially approved in the EU as a food additive. However, EFSA explicitly recommended in 2008 that E556 be deleted because dietary exposure to aluminum “largely exceeds” the tolerable weekly intake. The European Parliament identified E556 for banning in 2012. Yet in 2025, 17 years after the deletion recommendation and 13 years after the Parliamentary mandate, E556 remains officially approved and is legally used in thousands of food products. This represents the most egregious regulatory failure in modern food safety oversight — not a question of whether E556 is safe, but a complete failure of regulatory systems to implement their own safety recommendations.

Final Thoughts: When Regulatory Systems Fail Through Inaction

E556 represents something different and perhaps more concerning than the other problematic additives: pure regulatory abandonment.

The three types of additive failures revealed in this research:

Type 1 – Scientific uncertainty (E554): Safety cannot be assessed due to insufficient data. This is a legitimate knowledge gap requiring more research.

Type 2 – Extreme exposure risk (E555): Safety assessment reveals exposure 40-55 times safe levels. This is a clear scientific failure requiring urgent action.

Type 3 – Regulatory abandonment (E556): Safety problem identified, regulatory bodies recommend deletion, regulatory mandate exists, but nothing happens. This is institutional failure.

Why E556 is worse than E554 or E555:

E554 and E555, despite their serious problems, are at least being discussed and reconsidered. E554 had a 2020 re-evaluation. E555 faces growing pressure for action. But E556? Complete silence. A 2008 recommendation for deletion, ignored for 17 years. A 2012 Parliamentary mandate, never implemented. A 2013 EFSA reconfirmation, filed away.

What E556 reveals about food safety systems:

– Regulatory systems can identify problems but fail to act
– Scientific evidence alone is insufficient without political will
– Bureaucratic inertia can persist for decades
– Approved additives may be approved not because they’re safe, but because no one bothered to delete them
– Regulatory failure through inaction is worse than regulatory failure through bad science

Consumer implications:

– E556 in your salt may be unsafe
– EFSA identified it as problematic in 2008
– Parliament mandated its ban in 2012
– Yet nothing has changed in 2025
– Regulatory approval does not equal safety confirmation
– Consumers cannot assume all approved additives have been recently reviewed

The bigger picture: Food safety regulation requires not just scientific competence but institutional courage and political will. EFSA has provided the science. Parliament has provided the mandate. Yet the regulatory system has failed through sheer inaction. E556 remains in your salt not because scientists believe it’s safe, but because regulators neglected to delete it.

What is E556? – Complete guide to understanding Calcium Aluminosilicate