Search

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of liquid l‐lysine base produced with a genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. The l‐lysine base liquid produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐67535 and NRRL B‐67439 is currently authorised as a nutritional additive for all animal species. The present application is aimed at modifying the current authorisation to include C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 as a production strain. The new production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach when used for production purposes. It was unambiguously identified as C. glutamicum and was shown not to harbour acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants for antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. All the introduced sequences or mutations were considered to be safe, and no viable cells or DNA of the NRRL B‐68248 strain was detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not pose any safety concern associated with the production strain. l‐Lysine base produced using C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 does not represent a risk for the target species, the consumer or the environment. The additive was considered to be neither irritant to skin or the eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser. l‐Lysine base produced with C. glutamicum NRRL B‐68248 is considered to be an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was requested by the European Commission (in accordance with Article 29 of Regulation (EC) No 178/2002) to provide a scientific opinion on the application of new developments in biotechnology (new genomic techniques, NGTs) to viable microorganisms and products of category 4 to be released into the environment or placed on the market as or in food and feed, and to non‐viable products of category 3 to be placed on the market as or in food and feed. A horizon scanning exercise identified a variety of products containing microorganisms obtained with NGTs (NGT‐Ms), falling within the remit of EFSA, that are expected to be placed on the (EU) market in the next 10 years. No novel potential hazards/risks from NGT‐Ms were identified as compared to those obtained by established genomic techniques (EGTs), or by conventional mutagenesis. Due to the higher efficiency, specificity and predictability of NGTs, the hazards related to the changes in the genome are likely to be less frequent in NGT‐Ms than those modified by EGTs and conventional mutagenesis. It is concluded that EFSA guidances are 'partially applicable', therefore on a case‐by‐case basis for specific NGT‐Ms, fewer requirements may be needed. Some of the EFSA guidances are 'not sufficient' and updates are recommended. Because possible hazards relate to genotypic and phenotypic changes introduced and not to the method used for the modification, it is recommended that any new guidance should take a consistent risk assessment approach for strains/products derived from or produced with microorganisms obtained with conventional mutagenesis, EGTs or NGTs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium caseifulvum strain AE‐LRF by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.013 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 69 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 5308. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. However, the Panel noted that traces of ■■■■■, used in the manufacture of the triacylglycerol lipase, may be found in the food enzyme. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure could not be excluded, particularly in individuals sensitised to fish. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme asparaginase (l‐asparagine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain ASP by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in the prevention of acrylamide formation in foods and in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.792 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level at the highest dose tested of 1038 mg TOS/kg bw per day, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1311. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme β‐glucosidase (β‐D‐glucoside glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.21) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Penicillium guanacastense strain AE‐GLY by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 4.054 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 943 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 233. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the characterisation of the feed additive consisting of vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin) produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens (CGMCC 19596). The additive is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the characterisation of the production strain, due to uncertainties on whether the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 was genetically modified. However, since viable cells and DNA were not detected in the product, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that vitamin B12 (cyanocobalamin), produced with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 would not raise safety concerns as regards the production strain. In the present submission, the applicant provided supplementary information regarding the origin and history of modifications of the strain. Based on the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the characterisation of the production strain E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596, which can be considered not to be genetically modified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii as a food additive in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. The proposed food additive, LegH Prep, is intended to be used as a colour in meat analogue products. The yeast Komagataella phaffii strain MXY0541 has been genetically modified to produce soy leghemoglobin; the safety of the genetic modification is under assessment by the EFSA GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). The amount of haem iron provided by soy leghemoglobin from its proposed uses in meat analogue products is comparable to that provided by similar amounts of different types of meat. The exposure to iron from the proposed food additive, both at the mean and 95th percentile exposure, will be below the 'safe levels of intake' established by the NDA Panel for all population groups. Considering that the components of the proposed food additive will be digested to small peptide, amino acids and haem B; the recipient (non GM) strain qualifies for qualified presumption of safety status; no genotoxicity concern has been identified and no adverse effects have been identified at the highest dose tested in the available toxicological studies, the Panel concluded that there was no need to set a numerical acceptable daily intake (ADI) and that the food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use in food category 12.9 and maximum use level. The Panel concluded that the use of soy leghemoglobin from genetically modified Komagataella phaffii MXY0541 as a new food additive does not raise a safety concern at the proposed use and use level. This safety evaluation of the proposed food additive remains provisional subject to the ongoing safety assessment of the genetic modification of the production strain by the GMO Panel (EFSA‐GMO‐NL‐2019‐162). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bacillus paralicheniformis, a species known to produce the antimicrobial bacitracin, could be misidentified as Bacillus licheniformis, depending on the identification method used. For this reason, the European Commission requested EFSA to review the taxonomic identification of formerly assessed B. licheniformis production strains. Following this request, EFSA retrieved the raw data from 27 technical dossiers submitted and found that the taxonomic identification was established by 16S rRNA gene analyses for 15 strains and by whole genome sequence analysis for 12 strains. As a conclusion, only these 12 strains could be unambiguously identified as B. licheniformis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surveillance data published since 2010, although limited, showed that there is no evidence of zoonotic parasite infection in market quality Atlantic salmon, marine rainbow trout, gilthead seabream, turbot, meagre, Atlantic halibut, common carp and European catfish. No studies were found for greater amberjack, brown trout, African catfish, European eel and pikeperch. Anisakis pegreffii, A. simplex (s. s.) and Cryptocotyle lingua were found in European seabass, Atlantic bluefin tuna and/or cod, and Pseudamphistomum truncatum and Paracoenogonimus ovatus in tench, produced in open offshore cages or flow‐through ponds or tanks. It is almost certain that fish produced in closed recirculating aquaculture systems (RAS) or flow‐through facilities with filtered water intake and exclusively fed heat‐treated feed are free of zoonotic parasites. Since the last EFSA opinion, the UV‐press and artificial digestion methods have been developed into ISO standards to detect parasites in fish, while new UV‐scanning, optical, molecular and OMICs technologies and methodologies have been developed for the detection, visualisation, isolation and/or identification of zoonotic parasites in fish. Freezing and heating continue to be the most efficient methods to kill parasites in fishery products. High‐pressure processing may be suitable for some specific products. Pulsed electric field is a promising technology although further development is needed. Ultrasound treatments were not effective. Traditional dry salting of anchovies successfully inactivated Anisakis. Studies on other traditional processes – air‐drying and double salting (brine salting plus dry salting) – suggest that anisakids are successfully inactivated, but more data covering these and other parasites in more fish species and products is required to determine if these processes are always effective. Marinade combinations with anchovies have not effectively inactivated anisakids. Natural products, essential oils and plant extracts, may kill parasites but safety and organoleptic data are lacking. Advanced processing techniques for intelligent gutting and trimming are being developed to remove parasites from fish. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive consisting of l‐tryptophan produced by fermentation with Escherichia coli CGMCC 7.460 when used as a nutritional additive in feed and water for drinking for all animal species and categories. The production strain is not genetically modified. Viable cells of the production strain were not detected in the final additive. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. The use of l‐tryptophan (≥ 98%) produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.460 to supplement feed is safe for non‐ruminant species. There may be a risk for an increased production of toxic metabolites when unprotected tryptophan is used in ruminants. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) has concerns on the safety of the simultaneous oral administration of l‐tryptophan via water for drinking and feed due to possible amino acid imbalances and hygienic reasons. The use of l‐tryptophan produced with E. coli CGMCC 7.460 in animal nutrition raises no safety concerns to consumers of animal products and to the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be irritant to skin or eyes, or on its potential to be a dermal sensitiser. The endotoxin activity of the additive in combination with the high dusting potential may represent a risk of exposure by inhalation to endotoxins for users. The additive l‐tryptophan is regarded as an effective source of the amino acid l‐tryptophan for all non‐ruminant species. To be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminants, it should be protected from ruminal degradation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the selenised yeast (inactivated) Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402 (Plexomin® Se 3000, available in two forms: 'granules' and 'micro') as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on a tolerance–efficacy trial, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species. In the absence of deposition data in all animal species and products, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer. Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules) is dust‐free; therefore, the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) presents a risk by inhalation. Both forms of the additive (granules and micro) are considered as respiratory sensitisers. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal and eye irritation potential of Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules). Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) is not irritant to the skin and the eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is an efficacious source of selenium in feedingstuffs for all animal species. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF) was requested to evaluate the safety of synthesised DNA oligonucleotides as a new food additive, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008. Considering that the additional information requested by the Panel during the risk assessment was not provided by the applicant, the assessment was concluded on the basis of the sole information available in the application. The proposed food additive consists of purified synthetic DNA sequences intended to be used for traceability purposes, alone or combined with carriers. Information provided by the applicant on the identity, characterisation and production process of the proposed food additive was considered insufficient. The Panel considered that the product specifications as proposed by the applicant do not adequately define and characterise the proposed food additive. The applicant proposed for the food additive the maximum use levels of 0.001 mg/kg for a variety of food categories. The food additive was also proposed as a Group I additive at a specific maximum level of quantum satis. The applicant did not provide exposure estimates according to the EFSA ANS Panel guidance (2012). No biological or toxicological data were provided by the applicant for the proposed food additive. Considering the inadequate information available and the uncertainty introduced by the proposal at quantum satis, along with the insufficient specifications, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the food additive as proposed and described by the applicant. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a new process to produce steviol glycosides by fermentation of simple sugars using a genetically modified strain of Yarrowia lipolytica (named Y. lipolytica VRM). The manufacturing process may result in impurities different from those that may be present in the other steviol glycosides E 960a‐d, therefore the Panel concluded that separate specifications are required for the food additive produced as described in the current application. Viable cells and DNA from the production strain are not present in the final product. The Panel considered that the demonstration of the absence of kaurenoic acid in the proposed food additive, using a method with a limit of detection (LOD) of 0.3 mg/kg, is adequate to dispel the concerns for potential genotoxicity. Given that all steviol glycosides follow the same metabolic pathways, the Panel considered that the current steviol glycosides would fall within the same group of substances. Therefore, the Panel considered that the already existing data on rebaudioside M and structurally related steviol glycosides are sufficient, and a similar metabolic fate and toxicity is expected for the food additive. The results from the bacterial reverse mutation assay and the in vitro micronucleus assay were negative and indicated absence of genotoxicity from the food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day, expressed as steviol equivalents, was considered to be applicable to the proposed food additive. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for steviol glycosides, predominantly Rebaudioside M, produced by fermentation using Y. lipolytica VRM, to be used as a food additive at the proposed uses and use levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a protease (ProAct 360) produced by a genetically modified strain of Bacillus licheniformis (DSM 33099) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. The production strain and its recombinant DNA were not detected in an intermediate concentrated product representative of the final formulation. The final product did not trigger a safety concern with regard to the genetic modification. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that ProAct 360 is considered safe for all growing poultry species at the recommended inclusion level of 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed. The use ProAct 360 as a feed additive did not give rise to concerns for the consumers or the environment. The additive is not an eye or a dermal irritant but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be reached on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious at 30,000 NFP/kg complete feed for all poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐valine produced by fermentation using a non‐genetically modified strain of Corynebacterium glutamicum (CGMCC 18932). l‐Valine is intended to be used in feed and water for drinking as a nutritional additive, functional group amino acids, their salts and analogues, for all animal species and categories. The production strain is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that l‐valine produced by C. glutamicum CGMCC 18932 is considered safe for the target species when supplemented to the diet in appropriate amounts according to the nutritional needs of the target species. The use of l‐valine produced using C. glutamicum CGMCC 18932 in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and for the environment. No conclusion could be drawn on the potential of l‐valine produced using C. glutamicum CGMCC 18932 to be irritant to the skin or eyes, or a dermal sensitiser due to the lack of data. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the l‐valine produced by fermentation using C. glutamicum CGMCC 18932 is an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐valine for non‐ruminant nutrition. To be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminants, supplemental l‐valine requires protection against ruminal degradation. The FEEDAP Panel expressed concerns on the use of amino acids in water for drinking for hygienic reasons. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An assessment was conducted on the level of inactivation of relevant pathogens that could be present in processed animal protein of porcine origin intended to feed poultry and aquaculture animals when methods 2 to 5 and method 7, as detailed in Regulation (EU) No 142/2011, are applied. Five approved scenarios were selected for method 7. Salmonella Senftenberg, Enterococcus faecalis, spores of Clostridium perfringens and parvoviruses were shortlisted as target indicators. Inactivation parameters for these indicators were extracted from extensive literature search and a recent EFSA scientific opinion. An adapted Bigelow model was fitted to retrieved data to estimate the probability that methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive modes, and the five scenarios of method 7 are able to achieve a 5 log10 and a 3 log10 reduction of bacterial indicators and parvoviruses, respectively. Spores of C. perfringens were the indicator with the lowest probability of achieving the target reduction by methods 2 to 5, in coincidental and consecutive mode, and by the five considered scenarios of method 7. An expert knowledge elicitation was conducted to estimate the certainty of achieving a 5 log10 reduction of spores of C. perfringens considering the results of the model and additional evidence. A 5 log10 reduction of C. perfringens spores was judged: 99–100% certain for methods 2 and 3 in coincidental mode; 98–100% certain for method 7 scenario 3; 80–99% certain for method 5 in coincidental mode; 66–100% certain for method 4 in coincidental mode and for method 7 scenarios 4 and 5; 25–75% certain for method 7 scenario 2; and 0–5% certain for method 7 scenario 1. Higher certainty is expected for methods 2 to 5 in consecutive mode compared to coincidental mode. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a new scientific opinion on the coccidiostat monensin sodium (Elancoban® G200) when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening and turkeys. Based on the new data provided, the Panel updates its previous conclusions as follows: monensin sodium is produced by fermentation by a non‐genetically modified strain of Streptomyces sp. NRRL B‐67924. Genome analysis suggests the production strain may belong to a new species within the genus Streptomyces. The production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final additive. The product is free of antimicrobial activity other than monensin. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of monensin sodium from Elancoban® G200 in feed for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying at the proposed maximum use level due to a dose‐related reduction of the final body weight. The toxicological profile of monensin sodium was evaluated in studies made with the product obtained from the parental strain ATCC 15413. Based on a comparison of the genomes of the two strains, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that toxicological equivalence has been established, thus the conclusions already drawn on Elancoban® G200 are valid for the product obtained with the new production strain concluding that the additive is safe for the consumer and the environment; the production strain does not represent an additional risk when safety for the user is considered. Monensin sodium from Elancoban® G200 is safe for turkeys up to 16 weeks of age at the concentration of 100 mg monensin sodium/kg feed and has the potential to control coccidiosis at the minimum concentration of 60 mg/kg complete feed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella enterica ser. Gallinarum B/00111, intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all avian species. The additive (tradename Bafasal®) is not currently authorised in the European Union. Bafasal® is intended to be used in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed to guarantee a minimum daily dose of 2 × 106 PFU/bird, to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry carcasses and load in the environment, and to improve the zootechnical performance of the treated animals. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the additive's potential to be irritant or a dermal sensitiser, or on its efficacy for any avian species due to insufficient data. The applicant provided supplementary information to address these data gaps. The new data showed that Bafasal® is not a skin or eye irritant. No conclusions could be drawn on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bafasal® to improve the zootechnical performance of the target species based on the available data. The additive showed the potential to decrease the counts of two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in boots swabs and caecal digesta of chickens for fattening. No conclusions could be drawn on the capacity of Bafasal® to reduce the contamination of other Salmonella enterica strains, serovars or other species of Salmonella. The potential of Bafasal® to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination poultry carcasses and/or the environment is limited. The FEEDAP Panel recommended a post‐market monitoring plan to address the potential selection and spread of resistant variants of Salmonella to Bafasal®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149 (Natupulse® TS/TS L) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens and turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. The additive under assessment, Natupulse® TS/TS L, does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is tolerated by chickens for fattening, and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all poultry for fattening. Due to the lack of reliable data regarding the potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and on the safety for consumer. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is considered not to be irritant to the skin and eyes but is considered a respiratory sensitiser, although exposure by inhalation is unlikely. The Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. Due to the lack of reliable data, the FEEDAP Panel considered that a potential of the additive to induce chromosomal damage in exposed unprotected users cannot be excluded. Consequently, exposure of users should be minimised. The Panel concluded that the additive Natupulse® TS/TS L has the potential to be efficacious in chickens for fattening at the proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to evaluate synthetic biology (SynBio) developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine whether or not they are expected to constitute potential new hazards/risks. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment of SynBio and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers food and feed risk assessment, the variety of microorganisms that can be used in the food/feed chain and the whole spectrum of techniques used in SynBio. This Opinion complements a previously adopted Opinion with the evaluation of existing guidelines for the microbial characterisation and environmental risk assessment of microorganisms obtained through SynBio. The present Opinion confirms that microbial SynBio applications for food and feed use, with the exception of xenobionts, could be ready in the European Union in the next decade. New hazards were identified related to the use or production of unusual and/or new‐to‐nature components. Fifteen cases were selected for evaluating the adequacy of existing guidelines. These were generally adequate for assessing the product, the production process, nutritional and toxicological safety, allergenicity, exposure and post‐market monitoring. The comparative approach and a safety assessment per se could be applied depending on the degree of familiarity of the SynBio organism/product with the non‐genetically modified counterparts. Updated guidance is recommended for: (i) bacteriophages, protists/microalgae, (ii) exposure to plant protection products and biostimulants, (iii) xenobionts and (iv) feed additives for insects as target species. Development of risk assessment tools is recommended for assessing nutritional value of biomasses, influence of microorganisms on the gut microbiome and the gut function, allergenic potential of new‐to‐nature proteins, impact of horizontal gene transfer and potential risks of living cell intake. A further development towards a strain‐driven risk assessment approach is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Flavourings (FAF Panel) provides a scientific opinion on the safety of a proposed amendment of the specifications of enzymatically produced steviol glycosides (E 960c) with respect to the inclusion of rebaudioside D produced via enzyme‐catalysed bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract. Rebaudioside D (95% on dry basis) is produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using uridine diphosphate (UDP)‐glucosyltransferase (UGT) and sucrose synthase enzymes produced by the genetically modified yeast K. phaffii UGT‐A, that facilitates the transfer of glucose to purified stevia leaf extract via glycosidic bonds. The same enzymes from K. phaffii UGT‐A may be used in the manufacturing process of the food additive, rebaudioside M produced via enzyme modification of steviol glycosides from stevia (E 960c(i)). The Panel considered that separate specifications would be needed for this food additive produced via the manufacturing process described in the current application, aligned with those already established for E 960c(i). The Panel concluded that there is no toxicological concern for Rebaudioside D produced via enzymatic bioconversion of purified stevia leaf extract using UDP‐glucosyltransferase and sucrose synthase produced by a genetically modified strain of the yeast K. phaffii. However, based on the available data, the Panel could not exclude the possibility that some residual amount of DNA coding for the kanamycin resistance gene could remain in the final product. Should this gene propagate in microbiota due to the presence of recombinant DNA in the final product, this would be of concern. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the safety of Rebaudioside D produced via this enzymatic bioconversion was not sufficiently demonstrated with the available data given that the absence of recombinant DNA was not shown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme pectin lyase ((1→4)‐6‐O‐methyl‐α‐d‐galacturonan lyase; EC 4.2.2.10) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus luchuensis (formally Aspergillus niger) strain FLOSC by Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in fruit and vegetable processing for juice production. Based on the maximum use level and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.268 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 794 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 2,900. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐lysine sulfate produced by the genetically modified strain Escherichia coli CGMCC 7.398 as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Neither the production strain nor its recombinant DNA were detected in the final product. The additive does not pose any safety concerns associated with the production strain. The additive under assessment is considered safe for the target species. When using l‐lysine sulfate, the background sulfur/sulfate content in the compound feed should be taken into account. l‐lysine sulfate produced by E. coli CGMCC 7.398 is safe for the consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive under assessment to be irritant to skin or eyes, or on its potential to be a dermal sensitiser. The endotoxin activity of the additive represents a risk by inhalation for users handling the additive. The additive l‐lysine sulfate is considered as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐lysine for non‐ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l‐lysine to be as efficacious in ruminants as it is in non‐ruminant species, this would require protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Additive and Flavourings (FAF) assessed the safety of glucosylated steviol glycosides proposed for use as a new food additive in different food categories. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of a mixture of glucosylated steviol glycosides, containing 1–20 additional glucose units bound to the parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides consist of not less than 95% (on dry, dextrin‐free, basis) of total steviol glycosides, comprised of glucosylated and parent steviol glycosides. Glucosylated steviol glycosides are produced via enzymatic bioconversion using cyclomaltodextrin glucanotransferase (CGTase) (EC 2.4.1.19), derived from a non‐genetically modified strain of Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, that catalyses the transfer of glucose from starch to steviol glycosides mixtures isolated from the dried leaves of Stevia Rebaudiana. The Panel considered that the metabolism of glucosylated steviol glycosides is sufficiently similar to the already authorised steviol glycosides, and thus, the toxicological data previously assessed by the ANS Panel for steviol glycosides (E 960) were considered to support their safety as food additive. The existing acceptable daily intake (ADI) for steviol glycosides (E 960) of 4 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day expressed as steviol can also be applied to glucosylated steviol glycosides. The Panel concluded that there is no safety concern for the use of glucosylated steviol glycosides as a new food additive at the proposed use and use levels. The Panel recommended some modifications to the specifications proposed by the applicant for glucosylated steviol glycosides with respect to the assay, the definition of the proposed new food additive and the proposed maximum limits for arsenic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission requested EFSA to assess if different thermal processes achieve a 5 log10 reduction in Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W) and (if relevant) a 3 log10 reduction in thermoresistant viruses (e.g. Parvovirus) as well as if different chemical processes achieve a 3 log10 reduction of eggs of Ascaris sp., in eight groups of Category 2 and 3 derived products and animal by‐products (ABP). These included (1) ash derived from incineration, co‐incineration and combustion; (2) glycerine derived from the production of biodiesel and renewable fuels; (3) other materials derived from the production of biodiesel and renewable fuels; (4) hides and skins; (5) wool and hair; (6) feathers and down; (7) pig bristles; and (8) horns, horn products, hooves and hoof products. Data on the presence of viral hazards and on thermal and chemical inactivation of the targeted indicator microorganisms and biological hazards under relevant processing conditions were extracted via extensive literature searches. The evidence was assessed via expert knowledge elicitation. The certainty that the required log10 reductions in the most resistant indicator microorganisms or biological hazards will be achieved for each of the eight groups of materials mentioned above by the thermal and/or chemical processes was (1) 99–100% for the two processes assessed; (2) 98–100% in Category 2 ABP, at least 90–99% in Category 3 ABP; (3) 90–99% in Category 2 ABP; at least 66–90% in Category 3 ABP; (4) 10–66% and 33–66%; (5) 1–33% and 10–50%; (6) 66–90%; (7) 33–66% and 50–95%; (8) 66–95%, respectively. Data generation on the occurrence and reduction of biological hazards by thermal and/or chemical methods in these materials and on the characterisation of the usage pathways of ABP as organic fertilisers/soil improvers is recommended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of an endo-1,4-b-xylanase (Beltherm MP/ML), produced by a genetically-modified Bacillus subtilis strain, as a zootechnical additive for laying hens, minor poultry species and all avian species. The additive is authorised for use in feed for poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and minor porcine species for fattening. The safety and efficacy of the additive for those species have been evaluated previously by the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel). The current application is for an extension of use of the additive. No viable cells were detected in the additive, but the data provided to support the absence of DNA in the additive was not sufficient to conclude on the absence of recombinant DNA in the additive. However, the Panel concluded that no safety concerns would arise from the presence of DNA from the production strain in the additive. In the current assessment, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for all avian species at the recommended level of 100 ADXU/kg feed. Similarly, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that Beltherm MP/ML is safe for the consumer and the environment. Concerning the user safety, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is not toxic by inhalation or irritant for skin or eyes, but it is considered a potential dermal and a respiratory sensitiser. In a previous opinion, the efficacy of the additive in poultry species for fattening was shown. However, owing to the insufficient data submitted in previous and current assessments, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the product for the target species for which the application was made. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA developed an updated scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for food enzymes. This guidance describes the scientific data to be included in applications for the authorisation of food enzymes, as well as for the extension of use for existing authorisations, in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 and its implementing rules. Information to be provided in applications relates to source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme, toxicological data, allergenicity and dietary exposure estimation. Source, production and characteristics of the food enzyme are first considered only for enzymes of microbial origin and subsequently for those enzymes derived from plants and for enzymes from animal sources. Finally, the data requested for toxicology, allergenicity and dietary exposure applies to all food enzymes independent of the source. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of food enzymes and conclude whether or not they present a risk to human health under the proposed conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To meet their growing interest and to counteract the increase of diet-related diseases worldwide, the field-to-fork concept comprises opportunities for providing consumers with nutritious and health-beneficial food. Although health-beneficial effects have been ascribed to specific food compounds, most often in vivo human evidence and/or accepted health/nutrient claims are lacking. Part I of this review gives an overview of possible sources of macronutrients, micronutrients and other compounds (e.g. secondary metabolites) with proven in vivo human health-beneficial effects and/or health/nutrition EFSA claims. More importantly, it focuses on opportunities within the primary production to obtain/increase/maintain sufficient amounts of such compounds: (i) crop choice, breeding, crop husbandry and environment, harvesting/storage for plant-derived products, (ii) breeding stock selection, feeding strategies and animal husbandry for animal-derived products. However, providing food commodities/products with sufficient amounts of such nutrients is one thing, but aspects like, for example, bioavailability and interindividual variability play a role as well. As such, a balanced diet should be aimed at by means of differentiation within the dietary pattern while considering foods as a whole rather than a sum of compounds. Within this concept, all factors/actors of the agriculture-food-health trichotomy should be integrated as much as possible to provide consumers with health-beneficial food commodities/products. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme β-amylase (4-α-D-glucan maltohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.2) is produced with the nongenetically modified Bacillus flexus strain AE-BAF by Amano Enzyme Inc. The production strain has been shown to qualify for Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) status. The food enzyme is intended to be used in baking and brewing processes, and in starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups, dietary exposure was not calculated for this food process. Based on the maximum use levels recommended by the applicant for the baking and brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 2 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Toxicological studies were not considered necessary given the QPS status of the production strain and the nature of the manufacturing process. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, in particular, the QPS status of the production strain and that no issues of concern arose from the production process, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme β-amylase produced with B. flexus strain AE-BAF does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrPSc), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrPSc, of at least 6 log10 should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log10 reduction in detectable PrPSc, by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrPSc from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log10 reduction in PrPSc. Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with a genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain NZYM-DB by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and recombinant DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in an immobilised form in the production of modified fats and oils by interesterification. Based on the estimated use levels recommended for interesterification of fats and oils and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme--total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.75 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90-day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level at the highest dose of 1,132 mg TOS/kg bw per day, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 1,500. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is likely to be low. Based on the data provided, the immobilisation of the food enzyme and the removal of total organic solids during fats and oils processing, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme a-amylase (1,4-a-D-glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP-Dzb45 by Danisco US Inc. The production strain of the food enzyme contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene. However, based on the absence of viable cells and DNA from the production organism in the food enzyme, this was not considered to be a risk. The a-amylase is intended to be used in brewing processes and distilled alcohol production. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation, no dietary exposure was calculated for this intended use. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme-total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.138 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Toxicological tests with the food enzyme indicated that there was no concern with respect to genotoxicity or systemic toxicity. A no observed adverse effect level was identified in rats, which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 484. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions can be excluded in distilled alcohol production but cannot be excluded when the enzyme is used in brewing. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Commission requested EFSA to provide scientific advice on the translocation potential by Pseudomonas chlororaphis MA342 in plants after seed treatment of cereals and peas and, if applicable, for a revision of the assessment of the risk to humans by its metabolite 2,3‐deepoxy‐2,3‐didehydro‐rhizoxin (DDR) and this based on the evidence available in the dossier for renewal of the approval. The information from other P. chlororaphis strains than MA342 was taken into account with care, because the studies available in the dossier did not confirm the identity of the strain MA342 as belonging to the species P. chlororaphis. It has been concluded that there is a potential for translocation of P. chlororaphis MA342 to edible plant parts following seed treatment till an estimated concentration up to about 105 cfu/g and some exposure can be assumed by consumption of fresh commodities. Also, production of the metabolite DDR in the plant cannot be excluded. Regarding levels of DDR in the raw agricultural commodities, exposure estimates based on the limit of quantification (LOQ) for DDR in cereals cannot be further refined while there is no information on the levels of DDR in peas in the dossier. As regards genotoxicity, DDR induced chromosomal damage; however, it was not possible to conclude whether it is through an aneugenic or clastogenic mechanism. Hence, it is not possible to draw a reliable conclusion that DDR is producing an aneugenic effect nor to determine a threshold dose for aneugenicity. Thus, it is not possible to revise the human risk assessment as regards exposure to DDR. The concerns identified in the EFSA conclusion of 2017 remain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was requested to estimate the cattle bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) risk (C‐, L‐ and H‐BSE) posed by ruminant collagen and gelatine produced from raw material fit for human consumption, or from material classified as Category 3 animal by‐products (ABP), to be used in feed intended for non‐ruminant animals, including aquaculture animals. Three risk pathways (RP) were identified by which cattle could be exposed to ruminant feed cross‐contaminated with ruminant collagen or gelatine: 1) recycled former foodstuffs produced in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (RP1), 2) technological or nutritional additives or 3) compound feed, produced either in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 (RP2a) or Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 (RP2b). A probabilistic model was developed to estimate the BSE infectivity load measured in cattle oral ID50 (CoID50)/kg, in the gelatine produced from the bones and hide of one infected animal older than 30 months with clinical BSE (worst‐case scenario). The amount of BSE infectivity (50th percentile estimate) in a member state (MS) with negligible risk status was 7.6 × 10–2 CoID50/kg, and 3.1 × 10–4 CoID50/kg in a MS with controlled risk status. The assessment considered the potential contamination pathways and the model results (including uncertainties) regarding the current epidemiological situation in the EU and current statutory controls. Given the estimated amount of BSE infectivity to which cattle would be exposed in a single year, and even if all the estimated undetected BSE cases in the EU were used for the production of collagen or gelatine (either using raw materials fit for human consumption or Category 3 ABP raw materials), it was concluded that the probability that no new case of BSE in the cattle population would be generated through any of the three RP is 99–100% (almost certain). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was asked by the European Commission to consider synthetic biology developments for agri‐food use in the near future and to determine if the use of this technology is expected to constitute potential risks and hazards for the environment. Moreover, EFSA was requested to evaluate the adequacy of existing guidelines for risk assessment and if updated guidance is needed. The scope of this Opinion covers viable synthetic biology microorganisms (SynBioMs) expected to be deliberately released into the environment. The evaluation was based on: (i) horizon scanning of published information, (ii) gap analysis of existing guidelines covering the scope of this mandate, and (iii) future outlooks. A horizon scan showed that SynBioM applications could be ready for deliberate release into the environment of the EU in the next decade. However, extensively engineered SynBioMs are only expected in the wider future. For the microbial characterisation and the environmental risk assessment, the existing EFSA Guidances are useful as a basis. The extent to which existing Guidances can be used depends on the familiarity of the SynBioM with non‐modified organisms. Among the recommendations for updated Guidance, the range of uses of products to be assessed covering all agri‐food uses and taking into account all types of microorganisms, their relevant exposure routes and receiving environments. It is suggested that new EFSA Guidances address all 'specific areas of risk' as per Directive 2001/18/EC. No novel environmental hazards are expected for current and near future SynBioMs. However, the efficacy by which the SynBioMs interact with the environment may differ. This could lead to increased exposure and risk. Novel hazards connected with the development of xenobionts may be expected in the wider future. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2020.EN-1934/full [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme glucoamylase (4‐α‐D‐glucan glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain DP‐Nzh38 by Danisco US Inc. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in distilled alcohol production, starch processing for glucose syrup production, baking and brewing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation and by purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups, consequently, dietary exposure was not calculated for these uses. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for baking and brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be up to 5.8749 mg TOS/kg body weight per day. The toxicity studies were carried out with another glucoamylase from T. reesei (strain DP‐Nzh49) considered by the Panel as a suitable substitute. Genotoxicity tests did not raise safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose tested of 1,149 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day resulting in a margin of exposure of at least 195. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched for and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme α‐amylase (1,4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with a non‐genetically modified Parageobacillus thermoglucosidasius strain DP‐Gzb47 by Danisco US Inc. The α‐amylase food enzyme is intended to be used in brewing processes and distilled alcohol production. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation, dietary exposure was only calculated for brewing processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for brewing processes, and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.880 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain of P. thermoglucosidasius meets the requirements for a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach, no toxicological data are required. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched for and no match was found. The Panel considered that under the intended conditions of use, other than distilled alcohol production, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Biacton® when used as a feed additive for weaned piglets. Biacton® is a preparation of viable cells of Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3740 intended to be incorporated into feed for weaned piglets at a minimum recommended application level of 1 × 109 CFU/kg complete feed. L. farciminis is a species considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment which requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established and evidence that it does not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach to safety assessment and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, the additive is presumed safe for all target species, consumers and the environment. Biacton® is not irritant to skin, eyes or to the respiratory tract, but should be considered a prespiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential skin sensitisation potential of the additive. No conclusion can be drawn on the efficacy of Biacton® for weaned piglets based on the data available. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An alternative method for the production of biodiesel from processed fats derived from Category 1, 2 and 3 animal by‐products was assessed. The method is based on a pre‐cleaning process, acidic esterification/transesterification of tallow using 1.5% methanesulfonic acid w/w; 140°C; 5.5 bar absolute pressure (bara); 4 h, followed by fractional distillation. The application focuses on the capacity of the alternative method to inactivate prions. Given the limitations that biodiesel presents for direct measurement of prion infectivity, the BIOHAZ Panel considered, based on the outcome of previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, that a reduction of 6 log10 in detectable PrPSc signal would be necessary to consider the process at least equivalent to previously approved methods for Category 1 animal by‐products. This is in addition to the inactivation achieved by the pressure sterilisation method applied before the application of any biodiesel production method. Experimental data were provided via ad hoc studies commissioned to quantify the reduction in detectable PrPSc in material spiked with scrapie hamster strain 263K, as measured by western blot, for the first two steps, with distillation assumed to provide at least an additional 3 log10 reduction, based on published data. Despite the intrinsic methodological caveats of the detection of PrPSc in laboratory studies, the BIOHAZ Panel considers that the alternative method, including the final fractional distillation, is capable of achieving the required 6 log10 reduction of the strain 263K PrPSc signal. Therefore, the method under assessment can be considered at least equivalent to the processing methods previously approved for the production of biodiesel from all categories of animal by‐product raw materials. It is recommended to check the feasibility of the proposed HACCP plan by recording the main processing parameters for a certain time period under real industrial conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2011 EFSA opinion on Campylobacter was updated using more recent scientific data. The relative risk reduction in EU human campylobacteriosis attributable to broiler meat was estimated for on‐farm control options using Population Attributable Fractions (PAF) for interventions that reduce Campylobacter flock prevalence, updating the modelling approach for interventions that reduce caecal concentrations and reviewing scientific literature. According to the PAF analyses calculated for six control options, the mean relative risk reductions that could be achieved by adoption of each of these six control options individually are estimated to be substantial but the width of the confidence intervals of all control options indicates a high degree of uncertainty in the specific risk reduction potentials. The updated model resulted in lower estimates of impact than the model used in the previous opinion. A 3‐log10 reduction in broiler caecal concentrations was estimated to reduce the relative EU risk of human campylobacteriosis attributable to broiler meat by 58% compared to an estimate larger than 90% in the previous opinion. Expert Knowledge Elicitation was used to rank control options, for weighting and integrating different evidence streams and assess uncertainties. Medians of the relative risk reductions of selected control options had largely overlapping probability intervals, so the rank order was uncertain: vaccination 27% (90% probability interval (PI) 4–74%); feed and water additives 24% (90% PI 4–60%); discontinued thinning 18% (90% PI 5–65%); employing few and well‐trained staff 16% (90% PI 5–45%); avoiding drinkers that allow standing water 15% (90% PI 4–53%); addition of disinfectants to drinking water 14% (90% PI 3–36%); hygienic anterooms 12% (90% PI 3–50%); designated tools per broiler house 7% (90% PI 1–18%). It is not possible to quantify the effects of combined control activities because the evidence‐derived estimates are inter‐dependent and there is a high level of uncertainty associated with each. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Capsozyme SB Plus as a zootechnical feed additive (digestibility enhancers) for poultry species and ornamental birds. The additive contains two enzyme activities (α‐galactosidase and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase) and it is presented in solid form. The α‐galactosidase is produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Aspergillus tubingensis and the xylanase is produced by a non‐genetically modified strain of Trichoderma longibrachiatum. Based on the results obtained in a tolerance trial performed in chickens for fattening, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the target species at the recommended levels. The mixture of the two enzyme concentrates that are used to formulate the additive, did not show any potential for a genotoxic effect in a bacterial reverse mutation assay and an in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. However, owing to the limitations identified in the subchronic oral toxicity study, the Panel could not conclude on the toxicological potential of the additive. No studies were submitted by the applicant to address the safety aspects related to the user. Therefore, the Panel could not conclude on the skin or eye irritation potential of the additive nor on its skin sensitisation potential. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the additive it should be regarded as a potential respiratory sensitiser, but the exposure is presumed to be limited due to the low dusting potential. The Panel considered that the product, used as feed additive, poses no risks to the environment and no further environmental risk assessment is required. The Panel considered a total of five efficacy trials, however, the limited evidence of the efficacy provided by those studies did not allow the Panel to conclude on the efficacy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Biacton® when used as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. Biacton® is a preparation of viable cells of Lactobacillus farciminis CNCM I‐3740 intended for use in feed for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens at a minimum recommended application level of 5 × 108CFU/kg complete feedingstuffs. L. farciminis is a species considered by EFSA to be suitable for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment which requires the identity of the strain to be conclusively established and evidence that it does not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The strain was found to meet the criteria for the QPS approach to safety assessment, and since concerns are not expected from other components of the additive, the additive is presumed safe for all target species, consumers and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the irritancy of Biacton® to skin and eyes or on its dermal sensitisation potential. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Due to poor reporting and significant limitations in the data available, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening and laying hens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐valine (≥ 98.0%) produced by fermentation using a genetically modified strain of Escherichia coli (KCCM 80159). It is intended to be used in feed for all animal species and categories. Species identity of the production organism E. coli KCCM 80159 was confirmed; the strain was sensitive to antibiotics at concentrations below or equal to thresholds specified by EFSA; and no viable cells or its recombinant DNA were detected in the final product. Therefore, the final product does not give raise to any safety concern with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that l‐valine produced by E. coli KCCM 80159 is safe for the target species when supplemented in appropriate amounts to the diet according to the nutritional needs of the target species, for the consumer, for the users and for the environment. The product l‐valine produced by fermentation using E. coli KCCM 80159 is regarded as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l‐valine for non‐ruminant nutrition. For the supplemental l‐valine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non‐ruminant species, it requires protection against degradation in the rumen. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The provisional molecular approach, proposed by EFSA in 2013, for the pathogenicity assessment of Shiga toxin‐producing Escherichia coli (STEC) has been reviewed. Analysis of the confirmed reported human STEC infections in the EU/EEA (2012–2017) demonstrated that isolates positive for any of the reported Shiga toxin (Stx) subtypes (and encoding stx gene subtypes) may be associated with severe illness (defined as bloody diarrhoea (BD), haemolytic uraemic syndrome (HUS) and/or hospitalisation). Although strains positive for stx2a gene showed the highest rates, strains with all other stx subtypes, or combinations thereof, were also associated with at least one human case with a severe clinical outcome. Serogroup cannot be used as a predictor of clinical outcome and the presence of the intimin gene (eae) is not essential for severe illness. These findings are supported by the published literature, a review of which suggested there was no single or combination of virulence markers associated exclusively with severe illness. Based on available evidence, it was concluded that all STEC strains are pathogenic in humans, capable of causing at least diarrhoea and that all STEC subtypes may be associated with severe illness. Source attribution analysis, based on ‘strong evidence’ outbreak data in the EU/EEA (2012–2017), suggests that ‘bovine meat and products thereof’, ‘milk and dairy products’, ‘tap water including well water’ and ‘vegetables, fruit and products thereof’ are the main sources of STEC infections in the EU/EEA, but a ranking between these categories cannot be made as the data are insufficient. Other food commodities are also potentially associated with STEC infections but rank lower. Data gaps are identified, and are primarily caused by the lack of harmonisation in sampling strategies, sampling methods, detection and characterisation methods, data collation and reporting within the EU. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme with xylanases (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.8) and glucanases active against β‐1,4 linkages is produced with the non‐genetically modified fungus Disporotrichum dimorphosporum strain DXL by DSM Food Specialities B.V. The food enzyme is intended to be used in brewing processes. Based on the maximum use level and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.167 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 199 mg TOS/kg bw per day that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a high Margin of Exposure of at least 1,100. Similarity of amino acid sequences of the identified xylanases and β‐glucanases to those of known allergens was searched. No matches were found for two endo‐1,4‐β‐glucanases and two endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanases. However, for a third endo‐β‐1,4‐glucanase the search resulted in matches with three mite protein sequences. While incidental cases of allergic reactions to endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanases and β‐glucanases have been reported after inhalation in respiratory sensitised individuals in the workplace, no allergic reactions to xylanases or β‐glucanases have been reported in the literature after oral exposure. The Panel considered that, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified B. amyloliquefaciens strain BANSC by Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. The α‐amylase is intended to be used in brewing and baking processes and in starch processing for glucose syrups production and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed during the starch processing for glucose syrups production, it is excluded from the dietary exposure estimation. Based on the maximum recommended use levels for brewing and baking processes, and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.468 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. The parental strain meets the required qualifications to be considered as a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) organism and is therefore presumed to be safe. The conclusions on safety of the food enzyme are made following the QPS approach in relation to the production strain, with additional consideration of the conditions of manufacture. Consequently, the Panel considers no toxicological studies other than assessment of allergenicity necessary. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is considered low. Based on the QPS status of the production strain and the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme maltogenic amylase (glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.133) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzr50 by Danisco US Inc. The production strain of the food enzyme contains multiple copies of a known antimicrobial resistance gene. However, based on the absence of viable cells and DNA from the production organism in the food enzyme, this is not considered to be a risk. The food enzyme is intended to be used in distilled alcohol production, starch processing for the production of glucose syrups, baking and brewing processes. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation and starch processing, no dietary exposure was calculated for these processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for baking and brewing and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.199 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of at least 80 mg TOS/kg bw per day which, compared to the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 400. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and three matches were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure can be excluded in distilled alcohol production and is considered to be low in starch processing, baking and brewing. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The European Food Safety Authority asked the Panel on Biological Hazards (BIOHAZ) to deliver a scientific opinion providing: (i) a review of the approaches used by the BIOHAZ Panel to address requests from risk managers to suggest the establishment of microbiological criteria; (ii) guidance on the required scientific evidence, data and methods/tools necessary for considering the development of microbiological criteria for pathogenic microorganisms and indicator microorganisms; (iii) recommendations on methods/tools to design microbiological criteria and (iv) guidelines for the requirements and tasks of risk assessors, compared to risk managers, in relation to microbiological criteria. This document provides guidance on approaches when: (i) a quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is available, (ii) prevalence and concentration data are available, but not a QMRA model, and (iii) neither a QMRA nor prevalence and/or concentration data are available. The role of risk assessors should be focused on assessing the impact of different microbiological criteria on public health and on product compliance. It is the task of the risk managers to: (1) formulate unambiguous questions, preferably in consultation with risk assessors, (2) decide on the establishment of a microbiological criterion, or target in primary production sectors, and to formulate the specific intended purpose for using such criteria, (3) consider the uncertainties in impact assessments on public health and on product compliance and (4) decide the point in the food chain where the microbiological criteria are intended to be applied and decide on the actions which should be taken in case of noncompliance. It is the task of the risk assessors to support risk managers to ensure that questions are formulated in a way that a precise answer can be given, if sufficient information is available, and to ensure clear and unambiguous answers, including the assessment of uncertainties, based on available scientific evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA was requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notifications for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended) and the completeness of the body of knowledge were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. A total of 57 biological agents were notified to EFSA between the end of April 2016 and the beginning of September 2016. From these, 34 biological agents already had a QPS status and did not require further evaluation, and 10 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci, biological groups which have been excluded from QPS evaluation since 2014. Three notifications for Streptomyces violaceoruber, one for Streptomyces albus, one for Bacillus circulans and four for Escherichia coli were not evaluated for QPS status because these species were recently assessed and considered not suitable for QPS status. Therefore, only four notifications related to three taxonomic units were evaluated for QPS status. Of these, Arthrobacter ramosus and Pseudomonas fluorescens are not recommended for the QPS list. Bacillus smithii is recommended for the QPS status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EFSA is requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notification for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended), and the completeness of the body of knowledge are assessed. Identified safety concerns for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. The list of QPS recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore becomes the valid list. The 2016 update reviews previously assessed microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts and viruses used for plant protection purposes following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. The taxonomic units related to the new notifications received since the 2013 QPS opinion, were periodically evaluated for a QPS status and the results published as Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel. Carnobacterium divergens, Lactobacillus diolivorans, Microbacterium imperiale, Pasteuria nishizawae, Pediococcus parvulus, Bacillus flexus, Bacillus smithii, Xanthomonas campestris and Candida cylindracea were recommended for the QPS list. All taxonomic units previously recommended for the 2013 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well their qualifications with the exception of Pasteuria nishizawae for which the qualification was removed. The exclusion of filamentous fungi and enterococci from the QPS evaluations was reconsidered but monitoring will be maintained and the status will be re-evaluated in the next QPS Opinion update. Evaluation of bacteriophages should remain as a case-by-case procedure and should not be considered for QPS status. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]