Search

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of microorganisms, intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. 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 identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this Statement, new information was found leading to the withdrawal of the qualification 'absence of aminoglycoside production ability' for Bacillus velezensis. The qualification for Bacillus paralicheniformis was changed to 'absence of bacitracin production ability'. For the other TUs, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of 52 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2022 (inclusive), 48 were not evaluated because: 7 were filamentous fungi, 3 were Enterococcus faecium, 2 were Escherichia coli, 1 was Streptomyces spp., and 35 were taxonomic units (TUs) that already have a QPS status. The other four TUs notified within this period, and one notified previously as a different species, which was recently reclassified, were evaluated for the first time for a possible QPS status: Xanthobacter spp. could not be assessed because it was not identified to the species level; Geobacillus thermodenitrificans is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'absence of toxigenic activity'. Streptoccus oralis is not recommended for QPS status. Ogataea polymorpha is proposed for QPS status with the qualification 'for production purposes only'. Lactiplantibacillus argentoratensis (new species) is included in the QPS list.

The European Commission requested an analysis of the Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) monitoring programme in Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland (9 January 2017–28 February 2022). Thirteen cases were detected in reindeer, 15 in moose and 3 in red deer. They showed two phenotypes, distinguished by the presence or absence of detectable disease-associated normal cellular prion protein (PrP) in lymphoreticular tissues. CWD was detected for the first time in Finland, Sweden and in other areas of Norway. In countries where the disease was not detected, the evidence was insufficient to rule out its presence altogether. Where cases were detected, the prevalence was below 1%. The data also suggest that the high-risk target groups for surveillance should be revised, and ‘road kill’ removed. Data show that, in addition to differences in age and sex, there are differences in the prion protein gene (PRNP) genotypes between positive and negative wild reindeer. A stepwise framework has been proposed with expanded minimum background surveillance to be implemented in European countries with relevant cervid species. Additional surveillance may include ad hoc surveys for four different objectives, specific to countries with/without cases, focusing on parallel testing of obex and lymph nodes from adult cervids in high-risk target groups, sustained over time, using sampling units and a data-driven design prevalence. Criteria for assessing the probability of CWD presence have been outlined, based on the definition of the geographical area, an annual assessment of risk of introduction, sustained minimum background surveillance, training and engagement of stakeholders and a surveillance programme based on data-driven parameters. All positive cases should be genotyped. Sample sizes for negative samples have been proposed to detect and estimate the frequency of PRNP polymorphisms. Double-strand sequencing of the entire PRNP open reading frame should be undertaken for all selected samples, with data collated in a centralised collection system at EU level. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

An alternative method for the production of renewable fuels from rendered animal fats (pretreated using methods 1–5 or method 7 as described in Annex IV of Commission Regulation (EC) No 2011/142) and used cooking oils, derived from Category 3 animal by-products, was assessed. The method is based on a catalytic co-processing hydrotreatment using a middle distillate followed by a stripping step. The materials must be submitted to a pressure of at least 60 bars and a temperature of at least 270°C for at least 4.7 min. The application focuses on the demonstration of the level of reduction of spores from non-pathogenic spore-forming indicator bacterial species (Bacillus subtilis and Desulfotomaculum kuznetsovii), based on a non-systematic review of published data and additional extrapolation analyses. The EFSA BIOHAZ Panel considers that the application and supporting literature contain sufficient evidence that the proposed alternative method can achieve a reduction of at least 5 log10 in the spores of B. subtilis and a 12 log10 reduction in the spores of C. botulinum. The alternative method under evaluation is considered at least equivalent to the processing methods currently approved in the Commission Regulation (EU) No 2011/142. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The aim of the Extensive Literature Search (ELS) carried out in response to the terms of reference set out in the EFSA mandate on the Qualified Presumption of safety (QPS), i.e. review of the recommendations for the QPS list and specific qualifications, was to identify any publicly available studies reporting on safety concerns for humans, animals or the environment caused by organisms that have QPS status, since the publication of the previous QPS review in 2016 (i.e. publications from June 2016 to June 2019). The details on the search strategy, search keys and approach are presented here. Notes to the versions: - 27 January 2022 and 25 July 2022: The search strategy has been updated to reflect additions to the QPS list and changes in taxonomy. - 25 January 2023 version is linked to QPS part 17, ON-7746. -10 July 2023 version is linked to QPS part 18, ON-8092, EU; PDF; biohaz@efsa.europa.eu

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of microorganisms, intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. 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 identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. In the period covered by this Statement, new information was found leading to the withdrawal of the qualification ‘absence of aminoglycoside production ability’ for Bacillus velezensis. The qualification for Bacillus paralicheniformis was changed to ‘absence of bacitracin production ability’. For the other TUs, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of 52 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2022 (inclusive), 48 were not evaluated because: 7 were filamentous fungi, 3 were Enterococcus faecium, 2 were Escherichia coli, 1 was Streptomyces spp., and 35 were taxonomic units (TUs) that already have a QPS status. The other four TUs notified within this period, and one notified previously as a different species, which was recently reclassified, were evaluated for the first time for a possible QPS status: Xanthobacter spp. could not be assessed because it was not identified to the species level; Geobacillus thermodenitrificans is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic activity’. Streptoccus oralis is not recommended for QPS status. Ogataea polymorpha is proposed for QPS status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’. Lactiplantibacillus argentoratensis (new species) is included in the QPS list. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) provides a generic pre-assessment of the safety of microorganisms intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA’s Scientific Panels. QPS assessment allows a fast track evaluation of strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs): species for bacteria, yeast, fungi, protists/microalgae and families for viruses. QPS TUs are assessed for their body of knowledge and safety. Safety concerns related to a QPS TU are reflected, when possible, as ‘qualifications’, which should be tested at strain and/or product level. Based on the possession of potentially harmful traits by some strains, filamentous fungi, bacteriophages, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and Clostridium butyricum are excluded from the QPS assessment. Between October 2019 and September 2022, 323 notifications of TUs were received, 217 related to feed additives, 54 to food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 14 to plant protection products and 38 to novel foods. The list of QPS-recommended TUs is reviewed every 6 months following an extensive literature search strategy. Only sporadic infections with a few QPS status TUs in immunosuppressed individuals were identified and the assessment did not change the QPS status of these TUs. The QPS list has been updated in relation to the most recent taxonomic insights and the qualifications were revised and streamlined. The qualification ‘absence of aminoglycoside production ability’ was withdrawn for Bacillus velezensis. Six new TUs received the QPS status: Bacillus paralicheniformis with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic activity’ and ‘absence of bacitracin production ability’; Bacillus circulans with the qualifications for ‘production purposes only’ and ‘absence of cytotoxic activity’; Haematococcus lacustris (synonym Haematococcus pluvialis) and Ogataea polymorpha, both with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’; Lactiplantibacillus argentoratensis; Geobacillus thermodenitrificans with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic activity’. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The impact of dry-ageing of beef and wet-ageing of beef, pork and lamb on microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria was examined and current practices are described. As ‘standard fresh’ and wet-aged meat use similar processes these were differentiated based on duration. In addition to a description of the different stages, data were collated on key parameters (time, temperature, pH and aw) using a literature survey and questionnaires. The microbiological hazards that may be present in all aged meats included Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli (STEC), Salmonella spp., Staphylococcus aureus, Listeria monocytogenes, enterotoxigenic Yersinia spp., Campylobacter spp. and Clostridium spp. Moulds, such as Aspergillus spp. and Penicillium spp., may produce mycotoxins when conditions are favourable but may be prevented by ensuring a meat surface temperature of −0.5 to 3.0°C, with a relative humidity (RH) of 75–85% and an airflow of 0.2–0.5 m/s for up to 35 days. The main meat spoilage bacteria include Pseudomonas spp., Lactobacillus spp. Enterococcus spp., Weissella spp., Brochothrix spp., Leuconostoc spp., Lactobacillus spp., Shewanella spp. and Clostridium spp. Under current practices, the ageing of meat may have an impact on the load of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria as compared to standard fresh meat preparation. Ageing under defined and controlled conditions can achieve the same or lower loads of microbiological hazards and spoilage bacteria than the variable log10 increases predicted during standard fresh meat preparation. An approach was used to establish the conditions of time and temperature that would achieve similar or lower levels of L. monocytogenes and Yersinia enterocolitica (pork only) and lactic acid bacteria (representing spoilage bacteria) as compared to standard fresh meat. Finally, additional control activities were identified that would further assure the microbial safety of dry-aged beef, based on recommended best practice and the outputs of the equivalence assessment. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

High-pressure processing (HPP) is a non-thermal treatment in which, for microbial inactivation, foods are subjected to isostatic pressures (P) of 400–600 MPa with common holding times (t) from 1.5 to 6 min. The main factors that influence the efficacy (log10 reduction of vegetative microorganisms) of HPP when applied to foodstuffs are intrinsic (e.g. water activity and pH), extrinsic (P and t) and microorganism-related (type, taxonomic unit, strain and physiological state). It was concluded that HPP of food will not present any additional microbial or chemical food safety concerns when compared to other routinely applied treatments (e.g. pasteurisation). Pathogen reductions in milk/colostrum caused by the current HPP conditions applied by the industry are lower than those achieved by the legal requirements for thermal pasteurisation. However, HPP minimum requirements (P/t combinations) could be identified to achieve specific log10 reductions of relevant hazards based on performance criteria (PC) proposed by international standard agencies (5–8 log10 reductions). The most stringent HPP conditions used industrially (600 MPa, 6 min) would achieve the above-mentioned PC, except for Staphylococcus aureus. Alkaline phosphatase (ALP), the endogenous milk enzyme that is widely used to verify adequate thermal pasteurisation of cows’ milk, is relatively pressure resistant and its use would be limited to that of an overprocessing indicator. Current data are not robust enough to support the proposal of an appropriate indicator to verify the efficacy of HPP under the current HPP conditions applied by the industry. Minimum HPP requirements to reduce Listeria monocytogenes levels by specific log10 reductions could be identified when HPP is applied to ready-to-eat (RTE) cooked meat products, but not for other types of RTE foods. These identified minimum requirements would result in the inactivation of other relevant pathogens (Salmonella and Escherichia coli) in these RTE foods to a similar or higher extent. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Protocol for Extensive literature search (ELS), relevance screening and article evaluation for the maintenance and update of list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food an feed An ELS of studies related to safety concerns for humans, animals, plants and/or the environment of microorganisms recommended for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) 2019 list will be performed. The process will be performed according to the following main steps:  ELS for potentially relevant citations;  Relevance screening to select the citations identified by the literature search, based on titles and abstract and then full text;  Evaluation of articles according to pre-specified categories of possible safety concerns;  Discussion between experts to come to collective expert evaluation of the outcome, reflected in the QPS Opinion and Panel Statements. Considering the purpose of the QPS approach, a broad search will be performed. The review questions will be broken down into key elements using the PECO conceptual model:  Population of interest (P)  Exposure of interest (E)  Comparator (C)  Outcomes of interest (O). Notes: - to 27 January 2022 version: The protocol has been updated to reflect additions to the QPS list and changes in taxonomy. - to 25 Jan. 2023 version: protocol related to QPS Part 17, ON-7746. - to 10 July 2023 version: protocol related to QPS Part 18, ON-8092., EU; PDF; biohaz@efsa.europa.eu

The specific concentrations of colistin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of colistin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of trimethoprim in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for trimethoprim was estimated. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for trimethoprim. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of flumequine and oxolinic acid in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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 qualification 'absence of toxigenic potential and the absence of aminoglycoside production ability'. Cupriavidus necator, Aurantiochytrium limacinum and Tetraselmis chuii can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification '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.

The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

A risk-based approach was developed to be followed by food business operators (FBO) when deciding on the type of date marking (i.e. 'best before' date or 'use by' date), setting of shelf-life (i.e. time) and the related information on the label to ensure food safety. The decision on the type of date marking needs to be taken on a product-by-product basis, considering the relevant hazards, product characteristics, processing and storage conditions. The hazard identification is food product-specific and should consider pathogenic microorganisms capable of growing in prepacked temperature-controlled foods under reasonably foreseeable conditions. The intrinsic (e.g. pH and a(w)), extrinsic (e.g. temperature and gas atmosphere) and implicit (e.g. interactions with competing background microbiota) factors of the food determine which pathogenic and spoilage microorganisms can grow in the food during storage until consumption. A decision tree was developed to assist FBOs in deciding the type of date marking for a certain food product. When setting the shelf-life, the FBO needs to consider reasonably foreseeable conditions of distribution, storage and use of the food. Key steps of a case-by-case procedure to determine and validate the shelf-life period are: (i) identification of the relevant pathogenic/spoilage microorganism and its initial level, (ii) characterisation of the factors of the food affecting the growth behaviour and (iii) assessment of the growth behaviour of the pathogenic/spoilage microorganism in the food product during storage until consumption. Due to the variability between food products and consumer habits, it was not appropriate to present indicative time limits for food donated or marketed past the 'best before' date. Recommendations were provided relating to training activities and support, using 'reasonably foreseeable conditions' collecting time-temperature data during distribution, retail and domestic storage of foods and developing Appropriate Levels of Protection and/or Food Safety Objectives for food-pathogen combinations. (C) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.

Shiny Proxy files to reproduce the model outputs of the C&G opinion. To be opened using the Monte Carlo tool (risk assessment using Monte Carlo) of the EFSA’s Shiny proxy open source platform. &nbsp

Two alternative methods for the production of compost from certain category 3 animal by‐products (catering waste and processed foodstuffs of animal origin) were assessed. The first proposed a minimum temperature of 55°C for 72 h; the second 60°C for 48 h, each with a maximum particle size of 200 mm. The proposed composting processes were assessed by the BIOHAZ Panel for their efficacy to achieve a reduction of 5 log10 of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg (775W, H2S negative) and a 3 log10 reduction of the infectivity titre of thermoresistant viruses, such as parvovirus, in the composted material, as set out in Annex V, Chapter 3, Section 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. The assessment of the BIOHAZ Panel exclusively focused on the ABP raw materials (catering waste and processed foodstuffs) intended for human consumption. The applicant did not provide any validation experiments with direct measurement of the reduction of viability of endogenous indicators or spiked surrogate bacteria. However, from thermal inactivation parameters reported in the literature, it can be concluded that the proposed composting standards can achieve at least a 5 log10 reduction of Enterococcus faecalis or Salmonella Senftenberg 775W. The applicant did not consider thermoresistant viruses as a relevant hazard and therefore did not provide any data from direct measurements of the reduction of infectivity of spiked thermoresistant viruses, nor provide data from validation studies undertaken at national level or data from literature supporting the efficacy of the proposed composting standards on thermoresistant viruses. However, thermoresistant viruses should be considered to be a relevant hazard in this context and validation data should have been provided accordingly. The BIOHAZ Panel considers that the evidence provided by the applicant does not demonstrate that the requirements of Annex V, Chapter 3, Section 2 of Commission Regulation (EU) No 142/2011 are achieved. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The aim of the Extensive Literature Search (ELS) carried out in response to the terms of reference set out in the EFSA mandate on the Qualified Presumption of safety (QPS), i.e.review of the recommendations for the QPS list and specific qualifications,was to identify any publicly available studies reporting on safety concerns for humans, animals or the environment caused by organisms that have QPS status, since the publication of the previous QPS review in 2016 (i.e. publications from June 2016 to June 2019). The details on the search strategy, search keys andapproach are presented here.

Protocol for Extensive literature search (ELS), relevance screening and article evaluation for the maintenance and update of list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food an feed An ELS of studies related to safety concerns for humans, animals, plants and/or the environment of microorganisms recommended for the Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) 2019 list will be performed. The process will be performed according to the following main steps:  ELS for potentially relevant citations;  Relevance screening to select the citations identified by the literature search, based on titles and abstract and then full text;  Evaluation of articles according to pre-specified categories of possible safety concerns;  Discussion between experts to come to collective expert evaluation of the outcome, reflected in the QPS Opinion and Panel Statements. Considering the purpose of the QPS approach, a broad search will be performed. The review questions will be broken down into key elements using the PECO conceptual model:  Population of interest (P)  Exposure of interest (E)  Comparator (C)  Outcomes of interest (O).

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. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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

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. (c) 2020 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.