Search

ABSTRACT Objectives Helicobacter pylori gastric infection strongly correlates with gastric diseases such as chronic gastritis, functional dyspepsia, and complications such as peptic ulcers and gastric cancer. In developing countries, systemic therapies are not usually successful due to elevated antibiotic resistance. Additionally, oral H. pylori infection and periodontal disease correlate with gastric treatment failures. This study aimed to explore the effect of an integral therapy, comprising oral hygiene and concomitant systemic treatment, to increase the eradication of gastric infection and recurrences. Materials and Methods A prospective, randomized, four‐arm, parallel‐group, open‐label clinical trial was conducted to investigate the efficacy of integral therapy to eradicate gastric H. pylori infection and avoid recurrences in double‐positive (real‐time PCR oral and gastric infection) patients. Oral hygiene involved mouthwash with neutral electrolyzed water (NEW), with or without periodontal treatment. One hundred patients were equally distributed into four groups: NS, NS‐PT, NEW, and NEW‐PT. All patients had concomitant systemic therapy and additionally, the following oral treatments: mouthwash with normal saline (NS), periodontal treatment and mouthwash with normal saline (NS‐PT), mouthwash with NEW (NEW), and periodontal treatment and mouthwash with NEW (NEW‐PT). Gastric and oral infection and symptoms were evaluated one and four months after treatments. Results Integral therapy with NEW‐PT increased gastric eradication rates compared with NS or NS‐PT (84%−96% vs. 20%−56%; p

Abstract Domestication is an excellent case study for understanding adaptation and multiple fungal lineages have been domesticated for fermenting food products. Studying domestication in fungi has thus both fundamental and applied interest. Genomic studies have revealed the existence of four populations within the blue‐cheese‐making fungus Penicillium roqueforti. The two cheese populations show footprints of domestication, but the adaptation of the two non‐cheese populations to their ecological niches (i.e., silage/spoiled food and lumber/spoiled food) has not been investigated yet. Here, we reveal the existence of a new P. roqueforti population, specific to French Termignon cheeses, produced using small‐scale traditional practices, with spontaneous blue mould colonisation. This Termignon population is genetically differentiated from the four previously identified populations, providing a novel source of genetic diversity for cheese making. The Termignon population indeed displayed substantial genetic diversity, both mating types, horizontally transferred regions previously detected in the non‐Roquefort population, and intermediate phenotypes between cheese and non‐cheese populations. Phenotypically, the non‐Roquefort cheese population was the most differentiated, with specific traits beneficial for cheese making, in particular higher tolerance to salt, to acidic pH and to lactic acid. Our results support the view that this clonal population, used for many cheese types in multiple countries, is a domesticated lineage on which humans exerted strong selection. The lumber/spoiled food and silage/spoiled food populations were not more tolerant to crop fungicides but showed faster growth in various carbon sources (e.g., dextrose, pectin, sucrose, xylose and/or lactose), which can be beneficial in their ecological niches. Such contrasted phenotypes between P. roqueforti populations, with beneficial traits for cheese‐making in the cheese populations and enhanced ability to metabolise sugars in the lumber/spoiled food population, support the inference of domestication in cheese fungi and more generally of adaptation to anthropized environments.

Abstract Introduction Although Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) of young people with a chronic condition (YPCC) is receiving increasing attention, evidence of impact is lacking. This is partly due to inadequate understanding of what meaningful impact entails. This study aimed to gain an in‐depth understanding of researchers’ and YPCC's perspectives on meaningful impact. Methods We conducted a Q methodology study in a group of 26 researchers and a group of 20 YPCC with experience in PPI. Participants ranked statements about impact (e.g., ‘YPCC acquire new knowledge and skills’) based on their agreement with them. During interviews, they reflected on their rankings (Q sorts). Factor analysis was conducted to identify similar patterns in the individual Q sorts. The interviews were used to determine and interpret the final factor solution. The resulting factors represented distinct perspectives on meaningful impact. Results Four distinct perspectives on meaningful impact of PPI were identified. Two were predominantly based on the Q sorts of researchers, for example improving research quality and facilitating dialogue and understanding, and two on the Q sorts of YPCC, for example achieving equality and inclusivity and doing justice to YPCC's rights. The factors were defined by 37 Q sorts (80%); 9 Q sorts did not load significantly on any of the factors. Conclusion The results indicate that researchers and YPCC can have different views about the meaningful impact of PPI. The perspectives identified here can serve as an aid when discussing these different views and formulating operational indicators of impact. Patient or Public Contribution An adolescent with a chronic condition was involved in the early phases of this study. She helped in formulating the statements and recruiting YPCC.

Abstract Background The involvement of young people with a chronic condition in research and implementation projects in health and social care receives growing attention. Yet, there is a lack of conceptual clarity of this so‐called ‘Patient and Public Involvement’ (PPI) and methods to systematically evaluate it are absent. This scoping review aimed to gain insight into developments in the existing literature on PPI of young people with a chronic condition by mapping reported definitions, goals, activities, experiences and impact. Methods We conducted searches in Cinahl, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed and Scopus. Included articles described involvement of young people with a chronic condition in research and implementation projects, contained empirical data, were written in English and were published after 1990. Two researchers independently carried out the data extraction. Results Twenty‐three studies out of 4993 initial hits met the inclusion criteria. We found great variation in definitions and operationalizations of PPI. Reflections of authors on the process of PPI and its impact were similar and did not change over the years. Discussion and conclusion Limited progress in the evidence base of the impact of PPI with young people with a chronic condition was found. Over the years, studies continue to report similar experiences and challenges. In order to move forward, we suggest future research to make connections to existing work instead, to include thorough descriptions of what is understood by PPI and how this is translated into activities, and to use systematic and objective, but also flexible, methods to measure its impact.

Abstract The food enzyme endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (3(or 4)‐β‐d‐glucan 3(4)‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.6) is produced with a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain DP‐Ezm28 by Danisco US Inc. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The production strain of the food enzyme contains multiple copies of a known antimicrobial resistance gene. However, based on the absence of viable cells and DNA from the production organism in the food enzyme, this is not considered to be a risk. The food enzyme is intended to be used in distilled alcohol production and brewing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation, dietary exposure was only calculated for brewing processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids was estimated to be up to 0.183 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 1,000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 5464. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and two matches were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is considered low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Background Current electrocardiographic algorithms lack sensitivity to diagnose acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the presence of left bundle branch block. Methods and Results A multicenter retrospective cohort study including consecutive patients with suspected AMI and left bundle branch block, referred for primary percutaneous coronary intervention between 2009 and 2018. Pre‐2015 patients formed the derivation cohort (n=163, 61 with AMI); patients between 2015 and 2018 formed the validation cohort (n=107, 40 with AMI). A control group of patients without suspected AMI was also studied (n=214). Different electrocardiographic criteria were tested. A total of 484 patients were studied. A new electrocardiographic algorithm (BARCELONA algorithm) was derived and validated. The algorithm is positive in the presence of ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) concordant with QRS polarity, in any lead, or ST deviation ≥1 mm (0.1 mV) discordant with the QRS, in leads with max (R|S) voltage (the voltage of the largest deflection of the QRS, ie, R or S wave) ≤6 mm (0.6 mV). In both the derivation and the validation cohort, the BARCELONA algorithm achieved the highest sensitivity (93%–95%), negative predictive value (96%–97%), efficiency (91%–94%) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (0.92–0.93), significantly higher than previous electrocardiographic rules (P

Abstract The food enzyme with β‐glucanase and β‐xylanase (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.8) activities is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma reesei (strain DP‐Nya67) by DuPont. The food enzyme is intended to be used in brewing processes, grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, and distilled alcohol production. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation and during grain treatment, dietary exposure was only calculated for brewing processes. Based on the maximum recommended use levels for brewing processes, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 4.585 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Since the compositional data provided was insufficient to characterise the food enzyme batches used for toxicological testing, their suitability for use in the toxicological tests could not be established. As result, the toxicological studies provided were not further considered by the Panel. Similarities of the amino acid sequences to those of known allergens were searched and no matches were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. In the absence of compositional data sufficient to characterise the food enzyme batches used for toxicological testing, the Panel is unable to complete its assessment of the safety of the food enzyme.

Abstract The food enzyme 1,4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase (EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified strain Bacillus pumilus (strain BLXSC) by Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. The food enzyme is intended to be used in baking processes, grain treatment for the production of starch and gluten fractions, and distilled alcohol production. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by distillation and during grain treatment, dietary exposure was only calculated for baking processes. Based on the maximum recommended use levels for baking processes, and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.138 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. As the production strain of B. pumilus meets the requirements for a Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) approach, no toxicological data are required. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that under the intended conditions of use (other than distilled alcohol production), the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but is considered to be low. Based on the QPS status of the production strain and the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme β‐d‐galactosidase galactohydrolase (EC 3.2.1.23) is produced with Bacillus sp. strain M3‐1 by GenoFocus Inc. The food enzyme β‐galactosidase is intended to be used in the manufacture of galactooligosaccharides (GOS). Since residual amounts of total organic solids are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of GOS, toxicological studies were considered not necessary and no dietary exposure was calculated. Similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme, a maltogenic amylase (glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.133), is produced with a genetically modified Escherichia coli strain BLASC by Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and recombinant DNA. This maltogenic amylase is intended to be used in baking and brewing processes and starch processing for the production of glucose syrups. Residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups; consequently, dietary exposure was not calculated for this food process. For baking and brewing processes, based on the maximum use levels recommended for food processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be up to 0.107 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level at the highest dose tested of 838 mg TOS/kg bw per day that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a sufficiently high margin of exposure (at least 7,800). Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found with respiratory allergen produced by Aspergillus oryzae. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk for allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reaction to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not raise safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme alpha‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with a non‐genetically modified Aspergillus niger (strain DP‐Azb60) by Danisco US Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. The α‐amylase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.503 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. Genotoxicity tests with the food enzyme did not indicate a genotoxic concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 1,000 mg TOS/kg bw per day that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure (of at least 1,988). Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found to Asp o 21, an alpha‐amylase from Aspergillus oryzae. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is considered low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme glucose oxidase (β‐d‐glucose:oxygen 1‐oxidoreductase; EC 1.1.3.4) is produced with a genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain ZGL 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 recombinant DNA. The glucose oxidase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.004 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. The toxicity studies were carried out with an asparaginase from A. niger (strain ASP). The Panel considered this enzyme as a suitable substitute to be used in the toxicological studies, because they derive from the same recipient strain, the location of the inserts are comparable, no partial inserts were present and the production methods are essentially the same. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 1,038 and 1,194 mg TOS/kg bw per day (for males and females, respectively) that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure (MoE) (of at least 260,000). Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme triacylglycerol lipase (triacylglycerol acylhydrolase, EC 3.1.1.3) is produced with a genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain LFS 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 recombinant DNA. The triacylglycerol lipase food enzyme is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.020 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. The toxicity studies were carried out with an asparaginase from A. niger (strain ASP). The Panel considered this enzyme as a suitable substitute to be used in the toxicological studies, because they derive from the same recipient strain, the location of the inserts are comparable, no partial inserts were present and the production methods are essentially the same. Genotoxicity tests did not raise a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 1,038 and 1,194 mg TOS/kg bw per day (for males and females, respectively) that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure (MoE) (of at least 51,900). Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme is an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.8) produced with the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain XAS. Antibiotic resistance genes are present in the production organism on a self‐replicative vector. The endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.014 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 (NOAEL) of 55 mg TOS/kg bw per day that, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure (MOE) (of at least 3,600). Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood to occur is considered to be low. Since the absence of viable cells in the food enzyme has not been adequately demonstrated, the Panel cannot conclude on the risks associated with the possible spread of a genetically modified bacterial strain carrying antimicrobial resistance determinants.

Abstract The food enzyme alpha‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with a genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei by Danisco US Inc. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and recombinant DNA. This α‐amylase is intended to be used in distilled alcohol production and brewing processes. Residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation; consequently, dietary exposure was not calculated for this use. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be up to 1.701 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests with the food enzyme did not indicate a genotoxic concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 230 mg TOS/kg bw per day. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended condition of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is considered low. Based on the removal of residues of the food enzyme during distillation, the Panel concluded that the use of this enzyme in the distilled alcohol production is safe. When used in brewing processes, the margin of exposure calculated from the data provided is only (at least) 135, but no safety issues were identified.

Abstract The food enzyme glucoamylase (glucan 1,4‐α‐glucosidase; EC 3.2.1.3) is produced with the genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and recombinant DNA. This glucoamylase is intended to be used in brewing processes and in starch processing for glucose syrups production. Residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups, consequently dietary exposure was not calculated. For brewing processes, based on the proposed maximum use levels, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated to be below 3.627 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 rodents. The Panel identified a no‐observed‐adverse‐effect level (NOAEL) at the highest dose of 1,360 mg TOS/kg bw per day. Similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens was searched and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended condition of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood of such reactions to occur is considered to be low. Based on the data provided, the removal of TOS during the production of glucose syrups and the derived margin of exposure for brewing processes, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not raise safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase (maltogenic α‐amylase; EC 3.2.1.133) produced with the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain MAM by the company DSM Food Specialties B. V. The food enzyme contains neither the production microorganism nor recombinant DNA; therefore, no environmental risk assessment is required. However, the Panel emphasises that this conclusion only covers the food enzyme recovered via filter press. The glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase is intended for use in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended and individual consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.175 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was derived (986 mg TOS/kg bw per day for both males and females), which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure. The allergenicity was evaluated by comparing the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens; one match was found. However, the Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to this glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase by dietary exposure. No safety concerns were identified in relation to the genetic modifications, the manufacturing process, the compositional data provided, as well as the exposure, allergenicity and systemic toxicity assessments. However, owing to the incompleteness of the genotoxicity data, the Panel is not able to conclude on the safety of the food enzyme.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.8) produced from the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain LMG S‐27588 by the company Puratos N. V. The production strain was not detected in the food enzyme. The endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended and individual consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.325 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests with the food enzyme indicated no genotoxic concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was derived (443 mg TOS/kg bw per day), which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure. The allergenicity was evaluated by comparing the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens; no match was found. The Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to this endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase by dietary exposure. Based on the genetic modifications, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data, the dietary exposure assessment, the findings in the toxicological studies and allergenicity assessment, the Panel concludes that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. The Panel noted that recombinant DNA was present in all batches of the food enzyme tested.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is aqualysin 1 (EC 3.4.21.111), produced from the genetically modified strain Bacillus subtilis LMGS 25520 by Puratos NV. The production strain was not detected in the food enzyme. Aqualysin 1 is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use level recommended and individual consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 2.13 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests indicated no genotoxic concerns. The allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens and 23 matches were found (20 respiratory and 3 dermal allergens). However, the Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to the food enzyme. The genetic modifications performed, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data, the allergenicity and the genotoxicity assessment did not raise safety concerns. The Panel considered the margin of exposure (MOE) calculated from the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) determined from the repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study and the estimated dietary exposure as insufficient to conclude that there is no safety concern for this food enzyme under the intended conditions of use. The Panel noted that recombinant DNA was present in all batches of the food enzyme tested.

Abstract The food enzyme considered is a maltogenic amylase (glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.133) produced with the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain NZYM‐SM by Novozymes A/S. The food enzyme contains neither the production organism nor recombinant DNA. The maltogenic amylase is intended for use in baking processes and starch processing for glucose syrups production. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the food processes and individual consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–Total Organic Solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.168 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The food enzyme did not induce gene mutations in bacteria or chromosomal aberrations in human lymphocytes. The subchronic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents. A no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) was derived (320 mg TOS/kg bw per day), which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure. The allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens. Three matches to occupational respiratory allergens were found, however, the Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to the food enzyme. Based on the genetic modifications performed, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided, the dietary exposure assessment, the findings in the toxicological studies and allergenicity assessment, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme maltogenic amylase from Bacillus subtilis strain NZYM‐SM does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme is an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced with a genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger (strain XEA), by DSM Food Specialities B.V. The food enzyme is intended to be used in baking and brewing processes. Based on maximum use levels recommended for the food processes and individual consumption data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.310 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests with the food enzyme did not indicate a genotoxic concern. A repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents, carried out with this endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase, showed no concern with respect to systemic toxicity. The allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens; no match was found. The Panel considers that there are no indications for allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure to the food enzyme endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase. Based on the microbial source, the genetic modifications performed, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided, the dietary exposure assessment, the findings in the toxicological studies and the allergenicity assessment, the Panel concludes that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced with a genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain from Puratos N.V. (Belgium). The genetic modifications do not raise safety concerns. The food enzyme contains neither the production organism nor recombinant DNA. The endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the baking processes, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated on the basis of individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. This exposure estimate is up to 0.008 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The food enzyme did not induce gene mutations in bacteria nor clastogenic activity in human lymphocytes. Therefore, there is no concern with respect to genotoxicity. The subchronic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents. A no observed adverse effect level was derived, which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure. The allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens; no matches were found. The Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to this xylanase. Based on the microbial source, genetic modifications performed, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided, the findings in the toxicological studies and allergenicity assessment, this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a peroxidase (hydrogen‐peroxide oxidoreductase; EC 1.11.1.7) obtained from hulls of soybeans (Glycine max) by the company Kerry Ingredients & Flavours. The compositional data provided were considered sufficient. The manufacturing process did not raise safety concerns. The enzyme is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum recommended use level, dietary exposure to the food enzyme total organic solids (TOS) was estimated on the basis of individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. This exposure estimate is lower than the exposure to the fraction of soybean comparable to the food enzyme TOS resulting from the consumption of whole soybean‐derived foods by roughly an order of magnitude. As the food enzyme is derived from edible parts of soybean, in line with the requirements of the guidance document on food enzyme assessment, the Panel concluded that the provision of toxicological data was unnecessary. The potential allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity between the amino acid sequence of soybean peroxidase retrieved from the database Uniprot and the sequences of known food allergens; no match was found. Peroxidase from soybean hulls is not listed as an allergen in allergen databases. However, several soybean‐ and soybean hull proteins are known to be respiratory or food allergens. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of soybean, the enzyme manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided, and the dietary exposure assessment, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. However, the Panel noted that this food enzyme may contain allergenic soybean proteins, thus, adverse reactions in susceptible soybean‐allergic individuals cannot be ruled out.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a pullulanase (pullulan 6‐α‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.41) produced with a non‐genetically modified Pullulanibacillus naganoensis (strain AE‐PL) by Amano Enzyme Inc. (Japan). The pullulanase food enzyme is intended to be used in starch processing for the production of glucose syrups. Since residual amounts of total organic solid (TOS) in glucose syrups are removed by filtration and purification during starch processing, dietary exposure assessment was not performed. Genotoxicity tests made with the food enzyme indicated no genotoxic potential. A repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents, carried out with the food enzyme, showed minor effects that were considered to be of no biological relevance. The allergenicity was evaluated by comparing the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens and no match was found. The Panel considered that there are no indications for food allergic reactions to dietary intake of this food enzyme. Based on the removal of residual amounts of TOS from glucose syrups, consumer exposure is not expected. In addition, the safety of the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data lead the Panel to conclude that the food enzyme pullulanase from P. naganoensis (strain AE‐PL) does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a 4‐α‐d‐glucan maltohydrolase (EC 3.2.1.2) obtained from grain of barley (Hordeum vulgare), by the companies Genencor International B.V. and Senson Oy. This β‐amylase is intended to be used in several food‐manufacturing processes: baking and brewing processes, distilled alcohol production, and starch processing for the production of glucose syrups. The compositional data provided for the food enzyme were considered sufficient. The manufacturing process did not raise safety concerns. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the respective food processes, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated on the basis of individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. This exposure estimate is similar to or lower than the exposure to a fraction of barley comparable to the food enzyme–TOS, resulting from the consumption of barley‐derived foods. As the food enzyme is derived from edible parts of barley, in line with the requirements of the guidance document on food enzyme assessment, the Panel accepted that there was no need for the provision of toxicological data for this food enzyme and the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. Considering the potential for allergenicity, the gluten content of the food enzyme was below the detection limit of the analytical method, which is well below the level of 20 mg/kg for ‘gluten‐free’ products. The amino acid sequence of the β‐amylase was compared to those of known allergens and no match was found. The food enzyme β‐amylase from barley is an occupational respiratory allergen and may contain low levels of other allergenic barley proteins that may trigger adverse reactions upon oral challenges in individuals with an oral sensitisation to cereals. The Panel considers that dietary exposure to the food enzyme β‐amylase from barley may result in incidental cases of food allergic reactions.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a β‐amylase (EC 3.2.1.2) from soybean submitted by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. This β‐amylase is intended to be used in the starch processing for maltose syrup production and the manufacture of a Japanese rice cake type. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the respective food processes, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated on the basis of Japanese consumption data. Conservative average infant formula consumption, as reported in the EFSA Draft Guidance on risk assessment of substances present in food intended for infants below 16 weeks of age, was used to estimate the exposure to a fraction of soybean comparable to the food enzyme–TOS, resulting from the consumption of soybean‐derived foods. The exposure estimate to the food enzyme–TOS was found to be lower than the comparable fraction from the source material. Potential allergenicity of the β‐amylase was evaluated by searching for similarity of the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens, and no match was found. The β‐amylase is produced from soybean, which is a known allergenic food. Japanese rice cake, consequently, may contain traces of soybean allergens, which may give rise to safety concerns in soybean‐allergic consumers. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of soybean, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided and the dietary intake estimates, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use, except that Japanese rice cake produced with this food enzyme may contain traces of soybean allergens.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) produced with a genetically modified strain of Aspergillus niger. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme contains neither the production organism nor recombinant DNA. The endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase is intended to be used in baking processes. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the respective food process, dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated on the basis of individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database. This exposure estimate is below 0.013 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. No safety concerns were identified in relation to the genetic modifications performed, the manufacturing process, the compositional and biochemical data provided, allergenicity and exposure assessments. The allergenicity was evaluated by comparing the amino acid sequence to those of known allergens; no match was found. The Panel considered that the likelihood of allergic reactions to dietary intake of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase is low and, therefore, does not give rise to safety concerns. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rodents. A no observed adverse effect level was derived (4,095 and 4,457 mg TOS/kg bw per day for males and females, respectively), which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a sufficiently high margin of exposure. However, the genotoxicity data were incomplete. Due to the absence of the recommended combination of microbial strains used in the Ames test (i.e. lack of Salmonella Typhimurium TA102 and Escherichia coli WP2), no conclusions can be drawn on potential DNA oxidising or cross‐linking mechanisms giving rise to gene mutations. Consequently, no final conclusions can be drawn on genotoxicity.

Abstract The food enzyme considered in this opinion is a β‐amylase (EC 3.2.1.2), obtained from the grain of wheat (Triticum spp.) by Roquette (France). The β‐amylase is intended to be used in starch processing for production of glucose syrups containing maltose to be used as a food ingredient. Since the presence of residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) in glucose syrups after filtration and purification during starch processing is negligible, no dietary exposure was calculated. As the food enzyme is derived from edible parts of wheat, no toxicological tests are required. Wheat is known as a gluten‐containing cereal. However, the gluten content of the food enzyme was shown to be below the limit of quantification of the applied analytical method and well below the threshold value of 20 mg/kg for ‘gluten‐free’ products. Furthermore, the potential allergenicity was evaluated by searching for similarity between the amino acid sequence of the β‐amylase and the sequences of known food allergens; no match was found. Although β‐amylase from wheat is described as a potential occupational respiratory allergen, and oral wheat challenges in wheat allergic patients may result in clinical symptoms, the enzyme and the low levels of other wheat proteins will be removed from the final food ingredients through a downstream purification process. Based on the origin of the food enzyme from edible parts of grain, the manufacturing process, and the compositional and biochemical data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.