Search

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials (FCM) assessed the safety of the substances 'wax, rice bran, oxidised' and 'wax, rice bran, oxidised, calcium salt', used as additives up to 0.3% in polyethylene terephthalate (PET), polyamide (PA), thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU), polylactic acid (PLA) and poly(vinyl chloride) (PVC) in contact with all food types for long‐term storage at room temperature and below, after hot‐fill and/or heating. The substances consist of the chemical classes wax esters, carboxylic acids, alcohols and calcium salts of acids, along with an unidentified organic fraction up to ■■■■■ w/w. Migration into 10% ethanol and 4% acetic acid was below 0.012 mg/kg for each chemical class, and about 0.001 mg/kg for the unidentified fraction. In isooctane, migration was up to 0.297 mg/kg food for wax esters, below 0.01 mg/kg food for the other chemical classes and about 0.02 mg/kg food for the unidentified fraction. The contact with dry food and food simulated by 20% ethanol were considered covered by the migration tests with aqueous simulants. Based on genotoxicity assays and compositional analyses, the constituents of the chemical classes did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. The potential migration of individual constituents or groups of chemically‐related compounds of the unidentified fraction would result in exposures below (for aqueous food) and above (for fatty food) the threshold of toxicological concern for genotoxic carcinogens. Therefore, the FCM Panel concluded that the substances are not of safety concern for the consumer, if used as additives up to 0.3% w/w in PET, PLA and rigid PVC materials and articles intended for contact with all food types except for fatty foods, for long‐term storage at room temperature and below, including hot‐fill and/or heating up to 100°C for up to 2 h. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Lietpak (EU register number RECYC327), which uses the EREMA MPR technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Guolong (EU register number RECYC323), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Ecopacking (EU register number RECYC324), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor ■■■■■ before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Palamidis (EU register number RECYC325), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process KGL (EU register number RECYC326), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a ■■■■■ reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migrations of 0.1 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenarios for infants and toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Fucine Film (EU register number RECYC322), which uses the Reifenhäuser technology. The input material consists of hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are extruded under vacuum into sheets. The recycled sheets are intended to be used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, excluded drinking water and beverages, for long‐term storage at room temperature, with or without hotfill. Based on the limited data available, the Panel concluded that the information submitted to EFSA was inadequate to demonstrate that the recycling process Fucine Film is able to reduce potential unknown contamination of the input PET flakes to a concentration that does not pose a risk to human health. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the context of entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2022/1616, EFSA updated the scientific guidance to assist applicants in the preparation of applications for the authorisation or for the modification of an existing authorisation of a 'post‐consumer mechanical PET' recycling process (as defined in Annex I of Regulation (EU) 2022/1616) intended to be used for manufacturing materials and articles intended to come into contact with food. This Guidance describes the evaluation criteria and the scientific evaluation approach that EFSA will apply to assess the decontamination capability of recycling processes, as well as the information required to be included in an application dossier. The principle of the scientific evaluation approach is to apply the decontamination efficiency of a recycling process, obtained from a challenge test with surrogate contaminants, to a reference contamination level for post‐consumer PET, set at 3 mg/kg PET for a contaminant resulting from possible misuse. The resulting residual concentration of each surrogate in recycled PET is then compared to a modelled concentration in PET that is calculated using generally recognised conservative migration models, such that the related migration does not give rise to a dietary exposure exceeding 0.0025 μg/kg body weight (bw) per day. This is the lowest threshold for toxicological concern (TTC) value, i.e. for potential genotoxicity, below which the risk to human health would be negligible. The information to be provided in the applications relates to: the recycling process (i.e. collection and pre‐processing of the input, decontamination process, post‐processing and intended use); the determination of the decontamination efficiency by the challenge test; the self‐evaluation of the recycling process. On the basis of the submitted data, EFSA will assess the safety of the mechanical PET recycling process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus paralicheniformis strain AP‐01 by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. It was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed in one process, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining four food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.875 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The production strain of the food enzyme has the capacity to produce bacitracin and thus failed to meet the requirements of the Qualified Presumption of Safety approach. Bacitracin was detected in the industrial fermentation medium but not in the food enzyme itself. However, the limit of detection of the analytical method used for bacitracin was not sufficient to exclude the possible presence of bacitracin at a level representing a risk for the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and twenty‐eight matches with respiratory allergens, one match with a contact allergen and two matches with food allergens (melon and pomegranate) were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to melon or pomegranate, cannot be excluded, but would not exceed the risk of consuming melon or pomegranate. Based on the data provided, the Panel could not exclude the presence of bacitracin, a medically important antimicrobial, and consequently the safety of this food enzyme could not be established. [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 3‐phytase (myo‐inositol‐hexakisphosphate 3‐phosphohydrolase EC 3.1.3.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PHY93‐08 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two of the food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.763 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not raise safety concerns. 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 2560 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 3355. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were 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 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 α‐l‐rhamnosidase (α‐l‐rhamnoside rhamnohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.40) is produced with Penicillium adametzii strain AE‐HP by Amano Enzymes Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in two food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of four food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.022 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (300 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 13,636. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised 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 microorganism Bacillus licheniformis strain AE‐TA by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in eight food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include one additional process and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining seven processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.382 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme laccase (benzenediol:oxygen oxidoreductase, i.e. EC 1.10.3.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trametes hirsuta strain AE‐OR by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in six food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant has requested to extend its use to include three additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was calculated to be up to 0.030 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (862 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 28,733. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐GT by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in five food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to thirteen additional processes and to revise the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of eighteen food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining sixteen processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 0.678 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐NP by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in thirteen food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of fifteen food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining thirteen processes. Dietary exposure was calculated to be up to 35.251 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised dietary exposure in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Scientific Committee has updated its 2010 Guidance on risk–benefit assessment (RBA) of foods. The update addresses methodological developments and regulatory needs. While it retains the stepwise RBA approach, it provides additional methods for complex assessments, such as multiple chemical hazards and all relevant health effects impacting different population subgroups. The updated guidance includes approaches for systematic identification, prioritisation and selection of hazardous and beneficial food components. It also offers updates relevant to characterising adverse and beneficial effects, such as measures of effect size and dose–response modelling. The guidance expands options for characterising risks and benefits, incorporating variability, uncertainty, severity categorisation and ranking of different (beneficial or adverse) effects. The impact of different types of health effects is assessed qualitatively or quantitatively, depending on the problem formulation, scope of the RBA question and data availability. The integration of risks and benefits often involves value‐based judgements and should ideally be performed with the risk–benefit manager. Metrics such as Disability‐Adjusted Life Years (DALYs) and Quality‐Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) can be used. Additional approaches are presented, such as probability of all relevant effects and/or effects of given severities and their integration using severity weight functions. The update includes practical guidance on reporting results, interpreting outcomes and communicating the outcome of an RBA, considering consumer perspectives and responses to advice. [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]

EFSA requested its Scientific Committee to prepare a guidance document on appraising and integrating evidence from epidemiological studies for use in EFSA's scientific assessments. The guidance document provides an introduction to epidemiological studies and illustrates the typical biases, which may be present in different epidemiological study designs. It then describes key epidemiological concepts relevant for evidence appraisal. This includes brief explanations for measures of association, exposure assessment, statistical inference, systematic error and effect modification. The guidance then describes the concept of external validity and the principles of appraising epidemiological studies. The customisation of the study appraisal process is explained including tailoring of tools for assessing the risk of bias (RoB). Several examples of appraising experimental and observational studies using a RoB tool are annexed to the document to illustrate the application of the approach. The latter part of this guidance focuses on different steps of evidence integration, first within and then across different streams of evidence. With respect to risk characterisation, the guidance considers how evidence from human epidemiological studies can be used in dose–response modelling with several different options being presented. Finally, the guidance addresses the application of uncertainty factors in risk characterisation when using evidence from human epidemiological studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme sucrose phosphorylase (sucrose: phosphate α‐d‐glucosyltransferase; EC 2.4.1.7) is produced with the genetically modified Escherichia coli strain LE1B109‐pPB129 by c‐LEcta GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in combination with a cellobiose phosphorylase in the production of the specialty carbohydrate cellobiose. Since residual amounts of food enzyme–total organic solids are removed by the downstream purification steps, the Panel considered that toxicological studies other than assessment of allergenicity were unnecessary and a dietary exposure was not estimated. 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 carboxypeptidase D (EC 3.4.16.6) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae strain NZYM‐MK by Novozymes A/S. It is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.908 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 2220 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 2445. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches were found, one with a food allergen (wheat). The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to wheat, cannot be excluded, but will not exceed that of wheat consumption. 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 cellobiose phosphorylase (cellobiose: phosphate α‐d‐glucosyltransferase; EC 2.4.1.20) is produced with the genetically modified Escherichia coli strain LE1B109‐pPB130 by c‐LEcta GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in combination with a sucrose phosphorylase in the production of the specialty carbohydrate cellobiose. Since residual amounts of total organic solids are removed by downstream purification steps, the Panel considered that toxicological studies other than assessment of allergenicity were unnecessary and a dietary exposure was not estimated. 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 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 with two declared activities, bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) and subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62), is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AR‐383 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The food enzyme is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in the production of distilled alcohol, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining eight food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 1.958 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment and no issues of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made, and 30 matches were found, including one food allergen (melon). The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but for individuals sensitised to melon, this would not exceed the risk of consuming melon. 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 laccase (benzenediol:oxygen oxidoreductase; EC 1.10.3.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trametes hirsuta strain AE‐OR by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.026 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 862 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 33,154. 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 a 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]

The food enzyme with phospholipase A1 (phosphatidycholine 1‐acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.32) and lysophospholipase (2‐lysophosphatidylcholine acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.5) activities is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain PLN by DSM. 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. It is intended to be used for the production of refined edible fats and oils by degumming. Since residual amounts of total organic solids are removed during this process, dietary exposure was not calculated and toxicological studies were considered unnecessary for the assessment of this food enzyme. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were 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 α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Bacillus licheniformis strain AE‐TA by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed in two food manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining six processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.056 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The production strain of the food enzyme fulfils the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. Consequently, in the absence of other concerns, the Panel considered that toxicological studies were not needed for the safety assessment of this food enzyme. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with respiratory allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded (except for the production of distilled alcohol), 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 glucan 1,4‐α‐glucosidase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizopus arrhizus strain AE‐G by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in one food manufacturing process. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to nine additional processes and revised the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for uses in a total of 10 food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from the final foods in two food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining eight processes. Dietary exposure was up to 0.424 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (1868 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 4406. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the margin of exposure revised in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme β‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan maltohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus flexus strain AE‐BAF by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in three food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to four additional processes and revised the use levels. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for use in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) are removed from the final foods in one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated only for the remaining six processes. The dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.247 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the dietary exposure revised in the present evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme inulinase (1‐β‐d‐fructan fructanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.7) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus welwitschiae strain NZYM‐KF by Novozymes A/S. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of fructo‐polysaccharides for the production of fructo‐oligosaccharides. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during the food manufacturing process, toxicological studies other than allergenicity were considered unnecessary and dietary exposure was not calculated. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with tomato allergens were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to tomato, cannot be excluded, but is expected not to exceed that of tomato. As the prevalence of allergic reactions to tomato is low, also the likelihood of such reactions to occur to the food enzyme 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 EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of amines, di‐C14‐C18‐alkyl, oxidised, renamed by the Panel as amines, di‐C14‐C20‐alkyl, oxidised, from hydrogenated vegetable oil. The substance amines, bis(hydrogenated tallow alkyl) oxidised, consisting of the same components, but originating from tallow, is currently authorised as FCM substance No 768. The vegetable‐sourced substance is intended to be used at up to 0.1% w/w as antioxidant and/or stabiliser in the manufacture of polyolefin food contact materials (FCM) and articles intended for contact with dry, aqueous and acidic foods. The substance is a mixture consisting of linear N,N‐dialkyl hydroxylamines and their corresponding amine, nitrone and oxime derivatives, as well as further components: tert‐N‐oxides, secondary amides and carboxylic acids. Specific migration was tested from polyethylene samples in 10% ethanol and 3% acetic acid for 2 h at 100°C followed by 10 days at 60°C. None of the non‐authorised components were detected to migrate at detection limits (LoD) in the range 0.003–0.029 mg/kg. The LoD of authorised carboxylic acids was 0.35 mg/kg. The Panel reassessed the genotoxicity studies carried out on FCM No 768 and evaluated two new bacterial reverse mutation tests on the nitrone and oxime derivatives as well as new (qualitative/quantitative) structure–activity relationship (Q)SAR analyses on other components. The Panel concluded that the substance did not raise a concern for genotoxicity. The Panel concluded that the substance is not of safety concern for the consumers if it is used as an additive at 0.1% w/w in the manufacture of polyolefin FCM intended to be in contact with foods simulated by food simulants A, B, C and E, except for infant formula and human milk, for storage above 6 months at room temperature and below, including hot‐fill conditions and heating up to 100°C for 2 h. [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]

The food enzyme AMP deaminase (AMP aminohydrolase; EC 3.5.4.6) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Aspergillus sp. strain DEA 56‐111 by Shin Nihon Chemical Co., Ltd. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.005 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1984 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 396,800. 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 leucyl aminopeptidase (EC 3.4.11.1) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae strain NZYM‐BU 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 its DNA. It is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme TOS was estimated to be up to 1.508 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 4,928 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 3,268. 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 the food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme phosphodiesterase I (oligonucleotide 5′‐nucleotidohydrolase; EC 3.1.4.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Leptographium procerum strain FDA by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.171 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 1000 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 5848. 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]

The food enzyme subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM‐CB by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated to be up to 0.722 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The production strain of the food enzyme fulfils the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety approach to safety assessment. As no other concerns arising from the manufacturing process were identified, the Panel considered that toxicological tests were not required for the assessment of this food enzyme. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and 20 matches were found, including two food allergens (melon and pomegranate). The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, particularly in individuals sensitised to melon and pomegranate, but would not exceed the risk from consumption of melon or pomegranate. 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 oryzin (EC 3.4.21.63) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus ochraceus strain AE‐P by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.1 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 1862 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 18,620. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and 31 matches were found, including one food allergen (melon). The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to melon, cannot be excluded, but would not exceed the risk from consumption of this food. 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 EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the substance 'phosphorous acid, triphenyl ester, polymer with 1,4‐cyclohexanedimethanol and polypropylene glycol, C10–16 alkyl esters', when used as an additive in all types of polyolefins. The substance is a polymer containing ≤ 13% w/w of a low molecular weight fraction (LMWF, < 1000 Da). A polyethylene sample with 0.15% w/w of the substance was used in a comprehensive set of migration tests with food simulants. The specific migration was up to 0.014 and 0.023 mg/kg in 4% acetic acid and 10% ethanol, respectively. Migration into olive oil was estimated by the Panel to be up to 5.3 mg/kg under worst‐case conditions of use. The migrating LMWF species were comprehensively identified. Those without phosphorous were either without alerts for genotoxicity or listed in Regulation (EU) 10/2011 with worst‐case migrations well below their respective specific migration limits. Toxicological studies were performed using phosphite and phosphate versions of the substance enriched in its LMWF. The substance does not raise a concern for genotoxicity. From a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats with a 50:50 phosphite:phosphate blend, the Panel identified a NOAEL of 250 mg/kg bw per day for each component of the blend. No delayed neurotoxicity in hens was observed. The CEP Panel concluded that the substance does not raise a safety concern for the consumer if its LMWF is not higher than 13% w/w, if it is used at up to 0.15% w/w in polyolefin materials and articles intended for contact with all food types, except for infant formula and human milk, for long‐term storage at room temperature and below, after hot‐fill and/or heating up to 100°C for up to 2 h, and if its migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM‐JQ by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS). The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The enzyme under assessment is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.148 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of concern resulting from the food enzyme manufacturing process, toxicological studies were not considered necessary. A search was made for the similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens and one match with a pollen allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, particularly for individuals sensitised to birch and oak pollen. 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 bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐NP by Amano Enzyme Inc. The production strain meets the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in 14 food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in three manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining 11 food manufacturing processes in which the food enzyme‐TOS is retained. It was estimated to be up to 35.251 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. 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]

The food enzyme 4‐α‐glucanotransferase (1,4‐α‐d‐glucan:1,4‐α‐d‐glucan 4‐α‐d‐glycosyltransferase, EC 2.4.1.25) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aeribacillus pallidus strain AE‐SAS by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in two food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for use in a total of four food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from the final foods in one food manufacturing process, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining three processes. Dietary exposure was up to 0.040 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level reported in the previous opinion (900 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 22,500. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This assessment addresses a food enzyme preparation consisting of the immobilised non‐viable cells of the non‐genetically modified bacterium identified by the applicant (Samyang Corporation) as Microbacterium foliorum strain SYG27B. This strain produces the enzyme D‐psicose 3‐epimerase (EC 5.1.3.30). The food enzyme preparation is used for the isomerisation of fructose to produce the speciality carbohydrate D‐allulose (synonym D‐psicose). Since the hazard identification and characterisation could not be made and the identity of the production organism could not be established, the Panel was unable to complete the assessment of this food enzyme preparation containing D‐psicose 3‐epimerase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme peroxidase (phenolic donor: hydrogen‐peroxide oxidoreductase, EC 1.11.1.7) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain MOX by DSM Food Specialties B.V. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in one food manufacturing process. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include an additional process. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of two food manufacturing processes: processing of dairy products for the production of modified milk proteins and the production of plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.091 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (2162 mg TOS/kg bw per day), the Panel derived a margin of exposure (MoE) of at least 23,758. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised MoE, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme endo‐polygalacturonase ((1 → 4)‐α‐d‐galacturonan glycanohydrolase EC 3.2.1.15) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae strain AR‐183 by AB ENZYMES GmbH. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in five food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for use in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) is removed from the final foods in three food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐TOS was estimated only for the remaining four processes. Dietary exposure was up to 0.087 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the NOAEL reported in the previous opinion (1000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 11,494. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids assessed the safety of calcium tert‐butylphosphonate, which is intended to be used as a nucleating agent up to 0.15% w/w for the manufacture of polyolefin food contact materials (FCM) and articles for single and repeated use, in contact with all types of food, including infant formula and human milk. Specific migration was tested using polyethylene samples in 10% ethanol, 3% acetic acid and 95% ethanol for 2 h at 100°C, followed by 238 h at 40°C. Results for all three simulants were near or below the limit of detection of 10 μg/kg. As the solubility of the substance is far above the reported migration and above 60 mg/kg food, no assessment of the particle fraction was needed, and the conventional risk assessment was followed. The substance did not induce gene mutations in bacterial cells and structural chromosomal aberrations in mammalian cells, thus, did not raise concern for genotoxicity. The Panel considered that the use of the substance did not give rise to safety concern related to neurotoxicity for the general population, but this conclusion could not be applied to infants below 16 weeks of age, due to their specific sensitivity and the absence of dedicated data. The Panel concluded that calcium tert‐butylphosphonate does not raise a safety concern for the consumer if it is used as a nucleating agent up to 0.15% w/w in the manufacture of polyolefin FCM that are intended to be in contact with all types of food for storage above 6 months at room temperature and below, including temperatures up to 100°C for maximum 2 h and up to 130°C for short durations. The Panel could not evaluate the safety of use to manufacture FCM for contact with infant formula and human milk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids assessed the safety of the recycling process Martogg Group (EU register number RECYC321), which uses the EREMA Advanced technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in continuous reactors ■■■■■ before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the continuous decontamination steps (Steps 2 and 3), for which a challenge test was provided, are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food derived from the exposure scenario for infants when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of mixtures of 1,9‐nonanediamine (NMDA) and 2‐methyl‐1,8‐octanediamine (MODA) when used to produce polyamide food contact materials for contact with all food types for long‐term storage at room temperature and below, including heating up to 121°C for up to 2 h. The polyamide material is also intended to be used for repeated use up to 121°C with short contact (up to 30 min). The polymer typically contains ■■■■■ of a low molecular weight fraction (LMWF, < 1000 Da). The specific migration was measured with polyamide samples in a set of migration tests with 3% acetic acid and 10% ethanol. NMDA and MODA were not detected at ■■■■■, respectively. The specific migration of the LMWF consisting of NMDA/MODA‐related species was up to ■■■■■. The overall migration in olive oil was below the detection limit (3 mg/dm2). The most abundant migrating LMWF oligomers were identified. Toxicological studies were performed with NMDA, MODA and with polyamide formulations enriched in the LMWF. The results of genotoxicity assays did not raise a concern. From a repeated‐dose oral 90‐day toxicity study in rats, the Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of 1000 mg/kg body weight per day for the migrating LMWF. The CEP Panel concluded that NMDA/MODA mixtures do not raise a safety concern for the consumer when used as comonomer with terephthalic acid to manufacture polyamide articles intended for contact with all food types, except for infant formula and human milk, if the migration of NMDA and MODA does not exceed 0.05 mg/kg food (as a sum of the two substances) and if the migration of the LMWF consisting of NMDA/MODA‐related species does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme α‐glucosidase (α‐d‐glucoside glucohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.20) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain AE‐TGU by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in four food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include three additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.693 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (1062 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 1532. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme pectinesterase (pectin pectylhydrolase; EC 3.1.1.11) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus oryzae strain AR‐962 by AB Enzymes GmbH. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in five food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme for uses in a total of seven food manufacturing processes. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from the final foods in three food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining four processes. Dietary exposure was up to 0.575 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the NOAEL reported in the previous opinion (1000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 1739. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Mucor circinelloides strain AE‐LMH by Amano Enzyme Inc. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously, in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in three food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of five food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.845 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. When combined with the no observed adverse effect level previously reported (784 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested), the Panel derived a margin of exposure of at least 928. Based on the data provided for the previous evaluation and the revised margin of exposure, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]