Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on dried yellow mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) ...as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The term yellow mealworm refers to the larval form of the insect species Tenebrio molitor. The NF is the thermally dried yellow mealworm, either as whole dried insect or in the form of powder. The main components of the NF are protein, fat and fibre (chitin). The Panel notes that the levels of contaminants in the NF depend on the occurrence levels of these substances in the insect feed. The Panel notes that there are no safety concerns regarding the stability of the NF if the NF complies with the proposed specification limits during its entire shelf life. The NF has a high protein content, although the true protein levels in the NF are overestimated when using the nitrogen‐to‐protein conversion factor of 6.25, due to the presence of non‐protein nitrogen from chitin. The applicant proposed to use the NF as whole, dried insect in the form of snacks, and as a food ingredient in a number of food products. The target population proposed by the applicant is the general population. The Panel notes that considering the composition of the NF and the proposed conditions of use, the consumption of the NF is not nutritionally disadvantageous. The submitted toxicity studies from the literature did not raise safety concerns. The Panel considers that the consumption of the NF may induce primary sensitisation and allergic reactions to yellow mealworm proteins and may cause allergic reactions in subjects with allergy to crustaceans and dust mites. Additionally, allergens from the feed may end up in the NF. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed uses and use levels.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a safety pre‐assessment within EFSA for microorganisms. Strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs) still require an assessment ...based on a specific data package, but QPS status facilitates fast track evaluation. QPS TUs are unambiguously defined biological agents assessed for the body of knowledge, their safety and their end use. Safety concerns are, where possible, to be confirmed at strain or product level, and reflected as ‘qualifications’. Qualifications need to be evaluated at strain level by the respective EFSA units. The lowest QPS TU is the species level for bacteria, yeasts and protists/algae, and the family for viruses. The QPS concept is also applicable to genetically modified microorganisms used for production purposes if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Based on the actual body of knowledge and/or an ambiguous taxonomic position, the following TUs were excluded from the QPS assessment: filamentous fungi, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and bacteriophages. The list of QPS‐recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore now becomes the valid list. For this update, reports on the safety of previously assessed microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and viruses (the latter only when used for plant protection purposes) were reviewed, following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. All TUs previously recommended for 2016 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well as their qualifications. The TUs related to the new notifications received since the 2016 QPS opinion was periodically evaluated for QPS status in the Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel, and the QPS list was also periodically updated. In total, 14 new TUs received a QPS status between 2017 and 2019: three yeasts, eight bacteria and three algae/protists.
Qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a generic safety evaluation for biological agents to support EFSA's Scientific Panels. The taxonomic identity, body of knowledge, safety ...concerns and antimicrobial resistance are assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are where possible to be confirmed at strain or product level, reflected by ‘qualifications’. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs and their qualifications. The list of microorganisms notified to EFSA was updated with 54 biological agents, received between April and September 2019; 23 already had QPS status, 14 were excluded from the QPS exercise (7 filamentous fungi, 6 Escherichia coli, Sphingomonas paucimobilis which was already evaluated). Seventeen, corresponding to 16 TUs, were evaluated for possible QPS status, fourteen of these for the first time, and Protaminobacter rubrum, evaluated previously, was excluded because it is not a valid species. Eight TUs are recommended for QPS status. Lactobacillus parafarraginis and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii are recommended to be included in the QPS list. Parageobacillus thermoglucosidasius and Paenibacillus illinoisensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’ and absence of toxigenic potential. Bacillus velezensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualifications; the absence of toxigenic potential and the absence of aminoglycoside production, including the genes encoding this. Cupriavidus necator, Aurantiochytrium limacinum and Tetraselmis chuii can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification; for production purposes only. Pantoea ananatis is not recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge in relation to its pathogenicity potential for plants. Corynebacterium stationis, Hamamotoa singularis, Rhodococcus aetherivorans and Rhodococcus ruber cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge. Kodamaea ohmeri cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Food and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of frozen and dried formulations from ...house crickets (Acheta domesticus) as a novel food pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The NF is proposed in three formulations: (i) frozen, (ii) dried, (iii) ground. The main components of the NF are protein, fat and fibre (chitin) in the dried form of the NF, and water, protein, fat and fibre (chitin) in the frozen form of the NF. The Panel notes that the concentrations of contaminants in the NF depend on the occurrence levels of these substances in the insect feed. The Panel further notes that there are no safety concerns regarding the stability of the NF if the NF complies with the proposed specification limits during its entire shelf‐life. The NF has a high‐protein content, although the true protein levels in the NF are overestimated when using the nitrogen‐to‐protein conversion factor of 6.25, due to the presence of non‐protein nitrogen from chitin. The applicant proposed to use the NF in the form of a snack, and as a food ingredient in a number of food products. The target population proposed by the applicant is the general population. The Panel notes that, considering the composition of the NF and the proposed conditions of use, the consumption of the NF is not nutritionally disadvantageous. The Panel notes that no genotoxicity and no subchronic toxicity studies with the NF were provided by the applicant. Considering that no safety concerns arise from the history of use of A. domesticus or from the compositional data of the NF, the Panel identified no other safety concerns than allergenicity. The Panel considers that the consumption of the NF might trigger primary sensitisation to A. domesticus proteins and may cause allergic reactions in subjects allergic to crustaceans, mites and molluscs. Additionally, allergens from the feed may end up in the NF. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed uses and use levels.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on frozen and dried formulations from whole yellow ...mealworm (Tenebrio molitor larva) as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The term yellow mealworm refers to the larval form of the insect species Tenebrio molitor. The NF comprises the frozen and freeze‐dried formulations of the yellow mealworm, whole or in the form of powder. The frozen formulation consists mainly of water, crude protein and fat whereas the freeze‐dried formulations of crude protein, fat, digestible carbohydrates and fibre (chitin). The Panel notes that the levels of contaminants in the NF depend on the occurrence levels of these substances in the insect feed. The Panel notes furthermore that there are no safety concerns regarding the stability of the NF if the NF complies with the proposed specification limits during its entire shelf‐life. The dried formulations of the NF have a high protein content, although the true protein levels in the NF are overestimated when using the nitrogen‐to‐protein conversion factor of 6.25, due to the presence of non‐protein nitrogen from chitin. The applicant proposed to use the NF as whole frozen or whole dried insect, or in the form of powder, added as an ingredient to various food products such as cereal bars, pasta, meat imitates and bakery products. The target population is the general population. The Panel notes that, considering that the NF will not be the sole source of dietary protein, and the composition of the NF and the proposed conditions of use, the consumption of the NF is not nutritionally disadvantageous. The submitted toxicity studies from the literature did not raise safety concerns. The Panel considers that the consumption of the NF may induce primary sensitisation and allergic reactions to yellow mealworm proteins and may cause allergic reactions in subjects with allergy to crustaceans and dust mites. Additionally, allergens from the feed may end up in the NF. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed uses and use levels.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a generic pre‐evaluation of the safety of biological agents. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data ...for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. The QPS list was updated in relation to the revised taxonomy of the genus Bacillus, to synonyms of yeast species and for the qualifications ‘absence of resistance to antimycotics’ and ‘only for production purposes’. Lactobacillus cellobiosus has been reclassified as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS taxonomic units (TU)s. Of the 70 microorganisms notified to EFSA, 64 were not evaluated: 11 filamentous fungi, one oomycete, one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, five Escherichia coli, one Streptomyces sp., one Bacillus nakamurai and 43 TUs that already had a QPS status. Six notifications, corresponding to six TUs were evaluated: Paenibacillus lentus was reassessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Enterococcus lactis synonym Enterococcus xinjiangensis, Aurantiochytrium mangrovei synonym Schizochytrium mangrovei, Schizochytrium aggregatum, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii synonym Chlamydomonas smithii and Haematococcus lacustris synonym Haematococcus pluvialis were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: P. lentus due to a limited body of knowledge, E. lactis synonym E. xinjiangensis due to potential safety concerns, A. mangrovei synonym S. mangrovei, S. aggregatum and C. reinhardtii synonym C. smithii, due to lack of a body of knowledge on its occurrence in the food and feed chain. H. lacustris synonym H. pluvialis is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre‐evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's scientific ...Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. Between the end of September 2016 and March 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 87 applications for market authorisation. From these, 32 biological agents already had a QPS status, and 37 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. Streptomyces species (Streptomyces cinnamonensis, Streptomyces mobaraensis and Streptomyces violaceoruber), Bacillus circulans (three notifications) and Escherichia coli (seven notifications) were re‐confirmed not suitable for QPS. Streptomyces rubiginosus and Streptomyces netropsis, not evaluated within the previous mandate, were also not recommended for QPS. Streptomyces spp. and E. coli will be excluded from further QPS evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, which has never been evaluated before, was not recommended for the QPS list and for Pseudomonas amyloderamosa, the QPS assessment was not applicable because it is not a validated species. Lactobacillus animalis was a new taxonomic unit recommended to have the QPS status.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a generic safety evaluation for biological agents to support EFSA's Scientific Panels. It is based on an assessment of the taxonomic ...identity, the body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are where possible to be confirmed at strain or product level, reflected by ‘qualifications’. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs of the 39 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2019 and March 2020, 33 were excluded, including five filamentous fungi, five Escherichia coli, two Enterococcus faecium, two Streptomyces spp. and 19 TUs already evaluated. Six TUs were evaluated. Akkermansia muciniphila was not recommended for QPS status due to safety concerns. Clostridium butyricum was not recommended because some strains contain pathogenicity factors. This TU was excluded for further QPS evaluation. Galdieria sulphuraria and Pseudomonas chlororaphis were also rejected due to a lack of body of knowledge. The QPS status of Corynebacterium ammoniagenes (with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’) and of Komagataella pastoris (with the qualification ‘for enzyme production’) was confirmed. In relation to the taxonomic revision of the Lactobacillus genus, previously designated Lactobacillus species will be reassigned to the new species and both the old and new names will be retained in the QPS list.
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.
This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.4663/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2017.e15031/full
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on pasteurised Akkermansia muciniphila as a novel ...food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. A. muciniphila is a well‐characterised non‐toxin producing, avirulent microorganism that has been reported as part of normal gut microbiota. The NF, pasteurised A. muciniphila, is proposed by the applicant to be used as a food supplement at max. 5 × 1010 cells/day by adults excluding pregnant and lactating women, and in foods for special medical purposes. The Panel considers that the production process of the NF is sufficiently described and that the information provided on the composition of the NF is sufficient for its characterisation. Taking into account the composition of the NF and the proposed conditions of use, the consumption of the NF is not nutritionally disadvantageous. Based on literature data, and by applying an uncertainty factor of 200 to the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) of a 90‐day repeated dose oral toxicity study in rats, the Panel concludes that the consumption of 3.4 × 1010 cells/day is safe for the target population under the provision that the number of viable cells in the NF is < 10 colony forming units (CFU)/g (i.e. limit of detection).
PDF