Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel
*
18 May 2017
Submitted for public consultation
15 June 2017
End of public consultation
15 September 2017
Adopted by the FEEDAP Panel
21 February 2018
...Implementation date
1 September 2018
* Sections 3.1 and 3.2 were also endorsed by the EFSA Panel on Genetically Modified Organisms (GMO), EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes, Flavourings and Processing Aids (CEF) and EFSA Panel on Food Additives and Nutrient Sources Added to Food (ANS) on 18 May (GMO) and 7 June (CEF and ANS) 2017.
This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. It specifically covers the characterisation of microorganisms used as feed additives or as production organisms.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2018.EN-1389/full
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.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-6850/full
The food enzyme rennet paste containing chymosin (EC 3.4.23.4), pepsin A (EC 3.4.23.1) and triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.3) is prepared from the abomasum of suckling ...goats, lambs and calves by Caglificio Clerici S.p.A. The food enzyme is intended to be used in milk processing for cheese production. As no concerns arise from the animal source of the food enzyme, from its manufacture, and based on the history of safe use and consumption, the Panel considers that toxicological data were not required and no exposure assessment was necessary. On the basis of literature data, the Panel considers that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure could not be excluded, but the likelihood is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concludes that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.
This document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 17.3 of Regulation (EC) No 1332/2008, for the authorisation of food ...enzymes. It specifically covers the characterisation of microorganisms used as production organisms.
The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain HPN 131 by ENMEX SA de CV. The production strain qualifies for the ...qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme under assessment is intended to be used in seven food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products, brewed products and distilled alcohol; processing of dairy products for the production of modified milk proteins; processing of meat and fish products for the production of protein hydrolysates; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of protein hydrolysates; processing of yeasts and yeast products. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are not carried over to distilled alcohol, a dietary exposure was estimated only for the remaining six food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 8.302 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS status and no issue of concern arose from the production process of the food enzyme, 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 matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), 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.
The food enzyme subtilisin (EC 3.4.21.62) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM‐CX by Novozymes A/S. The production strain met the requirements for the ...qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of brewed products; processing of dairy products for the production of modified milk proteins and flavouring preparations; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products, protein hydrolysates and edible oils from algae; processing of meat and fish products for the production of protein hydrolysates; processing of yeast and yeast products. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in the production of edible oils from algae, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 2.393 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualified for the QPS approach and no issues of concern arose from the production process of the food enzyme, the Panel considered that toxicological studies were unnecessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was performed, and a total of 20 matches were found, 17 to respiratory allergens, two to food allergens (found in muskmelon and pomegranate) and one to a contact allergen. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, especially in individuals sensitised to muskmelon or pomegranate, but would not exceed the risk of consuming these foods. 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.
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.
The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain GNP by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The production strain qualifies for the ...qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products, cereal‐based products other than baked, brewed products and distilled alcohol; processing of dairy products for the production of flavouring preparation and modified milk proteins; processing of meat and fish products for the production of protein hydrolysates; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of protein hydrolysates and plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products. Since the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is not carried into distilled alcohols, dietary exposure was estimated only to the remaining eight food processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 17.934 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach to safety assessment and no issue of concern arose from the production process, no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were required. 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 (except for distilled alcohol production), 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.
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.
The food enzyme asparaginase (l‐asparagine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain AGN by DSM Food Specialties B.V. 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 to prevent acrylamide formation in food processing. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 1.434 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The toxicity studies were carried out with an asparaginase from A. niger (strain ASP). The Panel considered this food enzyme as a suitable substitute for the asparaginase to be used in the toxicological studies, because the genetic differences between the production strains are not expected to result in a different toxigenic potential, and the raw materials and manufacturing processes of both food enzymes are comparable. 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 1038 mg TOS/kg bw per day, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 724. 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.
PDF