Search

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

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

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

The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐NP by Amano Enzyme Inc. The production strain meets the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in 14 food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in three manufacturing processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining 11 food manufacturing processes in which the food enzyme‐TOS is retained. It was estimated to be up to 35.251 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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

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

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

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the substance 'phosphorous acid, triphenyl ester, polymer with 1,4‐cyclohexanedimethanol and polypropylene glycol, C10–16 alkyl esters', when used as an additive in all types of polyolefins. The substance is a polymer containing ≤ 13% w/w of a low molecular weight fraction (LMWF, < 1000 Da). A polyethylene sample with 0.15% w/w of the substance was used in a comprehensive set of migration tests with food simulants. The specific migration was up to 0.014 and 0.023 mg/kg in 4% acetic acid and 10% ethanol, respectively. Migration into olive oil was estimated by the Panel to be up to 5.3 mg/kg under worst‐case conditions of use. The migrating LMWF species were comprehensively identified. Those without phosphorous were either without alerts for genotoxicity or listed in Regulation (EU) 10/2011 with worst‐case migrations well below their respective specific migration limits. Toxicological studies were performed using phosphite and phosphate versions of the substance enriched in its LMWF. The substance does not raise a concern for genotoxicity. From a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats with a 50:50 phosphite:phosphate blend, the Panel identified a NOAEL of 250 mg/kg bw per day for each component of the blend. No delayed neurotoxicity in hens was observed. The CEP Panel concluded that the substance does not raise a safety concern for the consumer if its LMWF is not higher than 13% w/w, if it is used at up to 0.15% w/w in polyolefin materials and articles intended for contact with all food types, except for infant formula and human milk, for long‐term storage at room temperature and below, after hot‐fill and/or heating up to 100°C for up to 2 h, and if its migration does not exceed 5 mg/kg food. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme α‐galactosidase (α‐d‐galactoside galactohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.22) is produced with the genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain CBS 615.94 by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. 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. As no other concerns arising from the genetically modified microbial source or from the manufacturing process have been identified, the Panel considered that toxicological tests were not needed for the assessment of this food enzyme. The food enzyme is intended to be used in guar gum processing. The dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.828 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monensin sodium (Coxidin®) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Coxidin® remains safe for turkeys for fattening (up to 16 weeks) and extends this conclusion to turkeys reared for breeding (up to 16 weeks). The Panel was not in the position to confirm that the current maximum authorised level of 125 mg monensin sodium/kg complete feed remains safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® at the corresponding maximum authorised/proposed use levels in the target species is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for poultry tissues ensure consumer safety. No withdrawal time is necessary. Both formulations of Coxidin® pose a risk by inhalation. The formulation with wheat bran as a carrier was neither irritant to the skin nor a skin sensitiser but it was irritant to the eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be made on the potential of the formulation containing calcium carbonate to be irritant to skin and eyes and to be a skin sensitiser. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® in complete feed for the target species poses no risk for the terrestrial compartments and for sediment. No risk for groundwater is expected. For chickens for fattening the risk for aquatic compartment cannot be excluded, but no risks are expected for the other animal categories. There is no risk of secondary poisoning. Coxidin® is efficacious in controlling coccidiosis at a level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and at 60 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening. These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding. The Panel noted that there are signs of development of resistance of Eimeria spp. to monensin sodium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme mucorpepsin (EC 3.4.23.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizomucor miehei strain LP‐N836 by Meito Sangyo Co., Ltd. The native enzyme can be chemically modified to produce a more thermolabile form. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of dairy products for the production of cheese and fermented dairy products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.108 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 95 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the mid‐dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 880. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches with respiratory allergens and one with a food allergen (mustard) were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to mustard proteins, cannot be excluded. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that both the native and thermolabile forms of this food enzyme do not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process CeltiPak (EU register number RECYC318), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, for example, bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme mucorpepsin (EC 3.4.23.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizomucor miehei strain M19‐21 by Meito Sangyo Co., Ltd. The enzyme is chemically modified to produce a thermolabile form. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the processing of dairy products for the production of cheese and fermented dairy products. Based on the maximum use levels, dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.108 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 226 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 2093. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and four matches to respiratory allergens and one match to a food allergen (mustard) were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to mustard proteins, cannot be excluded. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Shinkong (EU register number RECYC320), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous reactor ■■■■■ before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the continuous decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food derived from the exposure scenario for infants, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme thermolysin (EC. 3.4.24.27) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus strain AE‐TP by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.973 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 700 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the mid‐dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 719. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme glutaminase (l‐glutamine amidohydrolase; EC 3.5.1.2) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain AE‐GT by Amano Enzyme Inc. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme‐total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.462 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the absence of concerns resulting from the food enzyme's manufacturing process, toxicity tests were considered unnecessary by the Panel. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme microbial collagenase (EC 3.4.24.3) is produced with the genetically modified Streptomyces violaceoruber strain pCol by Nagase (Europa) GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in two food manufacturing processes: the production of modified meat and fish products and the production of protein hydrolysates from meat and fish proteins. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 1.098 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 940 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 856. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Reliance Industries (EU register number RECYC315), which uses the ProTec technology. The input material consists of washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes, mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are extruded into pellets (step 1), crystallised (step 2) and treated in a solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the extrusion and the decontamination in the ■■■■■ SSP reactor (steps 1 and 3) are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process GTX Hanex (EU register number RECYC317), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process ENPLATER (EU register number RECYC316), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NZYM‐NB by Novozymes A/S. The production strain meets the requirements for qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eleven food manufacturing processes. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, dietary exposure was estimated only for the remaining nine food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 1.327 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme was identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme β‐fructofuranosidase (β‐d‐fructofuranoside fructohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.26) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Saccharomyces cerevisiae strain NCYC R693 by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. The production strain meets the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in four food manufacturing processes. The dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 2.485 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach of safety assessment and no issue of concern arising from the production process of the food enzyme were identified, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a tomato allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme, particularly in individuals sensitised to tomato, cannot be excluded. However, the likelihood of allergic reactions is expected not to exceed the likelihood of allergic reactions to tomato. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme bacillolysin (EC 3.4.24.28) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain DP‐Cyb74 by Genencor International B.V. The production strain met all requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in six food manufacturing processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 1.536 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualifies for the QPS approach and no issue of concern arose from the production process of the food enzyme, the Panel considered that no toxicological studies other than the assessment of allergenicity were necessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme containing chymosin (EC 3.4.23.4) and pepsin (EC 3.4.23.1) is prepared from the abomasum of suckling calves, goats, lambs and buffaloes by Caglificio Clerici S.p.A. It is intended to be used in the production of cheese. As no concerns arise from the source of the food enzyme, from its manufacture and based on the history of safe use and consumption, the Panel considered that toxicological data were not required and no exposure assessment was necessary. The similarity of the amino acid sequences of the two proteins (chymosin and pepsin A) to those of known allergens was searched and two matches were found with respiratory allergens. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Novatex (EU register number RECYC313), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the continuous decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food derived from the exposure scenario for infants when such recycled PET is used at up to 95% in mixtures with virgin PET, and of 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for toddlers when used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 95% in mixtures with virgin PET for manufacturing of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water bottles, and at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs except drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme glucan 1,4‐α‐maltohydrolase (4‐α‐d‐glucan α‐maltohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.133) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus subtilis strain BABSC by Advanced Enzyme Technologies Ltd. The requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach have not been met. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in baking processes and starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed, dietary exposure was not calculated for starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates. For baking processes, the dietary exposure was estimated to be up to 0.101 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. No toxicological studies were provided by the applicant. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a respiratory allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. In the absence of appropriate data to fully characterise the production strain, the Panel was unable to conclude on the safety of the food enzyme under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme containing cellulase (EC 3.2.1.4), endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6) and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐256 by AB‐Enzymes GmbH. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously,* in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in seven food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of 1) baked products, 2) cereal‐based products other than baked, 3) brewed products, 4) starch and gluten fractions, 5) distilled alcohol; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of 6) wine and wine vinegar, 7) juices, 8) fruit and vegetable products other than juices and 9) fruit‐derived distilled alcoholic beverages other than from grape. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from or not carried into the final foods in three food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining six processes. It was up to 4.049 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) reported in the previous opinion (939 mg TOS/kg bw per day), the Panel derived a revised margin of exposure of at least 232. Based on the revised exposure calculation and the outcome of the previous evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a safety assessment approach for microorganisms intended for use in food or feed chains. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each taxonomic unit (TU), with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns identified for a TU are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications'. In the period covered by this Statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of 71 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2023 (30 as feed additives, 22 as food enzymes or additives, 7 as novel foods and 12 from plant protection products [PPP]), 61 were not evaluated because: 26 were filamentous fungi, 1 was Enterococcus faecium, 5 were Escherichia coli, 1 was a bacteriophage (all excluded from the QPS evaluation) and 28 were TUs that already have a QPS status. The other 10 notifications belonged to 9 TUs which were evaluated for a possible QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens and Heyndrickxia faecalis did not get the QPS recommendation due to the limited body of knowledge about their occurrence in the food and/or feed chains and Burkholderia ubonensis also due to its ability to generate biologically active compounds with antimicrobial activity; Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas putida due to safety concerns. K. pneumoniae is excluded from future QPS evaluations. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'for production purposes only'; Clostridium tyrobutyricum is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'absence of genetic determinants for toxigenic activity'; Candida oleophila has been added as a synonym of Yarrowia lipolytica. The Panel clarifies the extension of the QPS status for genetically modified strains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Reciclar (EU register number RECYC314), which uses the EREMA Basic technology. The input material is ■■■■■ washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, including no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous reactor under vacuum before being extruded. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the continuous decontamination (step 2), for which a challenge test was provided, is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of this step are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants, when such recycled PET is used at up to 95% in mixtures with virgin PET, and of 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for toddlers, when used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 95% in mixtures with virgin PET for manufacturing of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water bottles, and at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, except drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave or conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (4‐β‐d‐xylan xylanohydrolase, EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus velezensis strain AR‐112 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in baking processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.024 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. As the production strain B. velezensis strain AR‐112 meets the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment and no issue of concern arose from the production process, no toxicological data are required. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme protein–glutamine γ‐glutamyltransferase (protein–glutamine: amine γ‐glutamyltransferase; EC 2.3.2.13) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Streptomyces mobaraensis strain M2020197 by Taixing Dongsheng Bio‐Tech Co. Ltd. The identity of the production strain and the absence of viable cells could not be established. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of (1) baked products, (2) cereal‐based products other than baked; processing of dairy products for the production of (3) fermented dairy products, (4) cheese, (5) dairy desserts; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (6) meat analogues, (7) plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products; processing of meat and fish products for the production of (8) modified meat and fish products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 3.498 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 a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 91 mg TOS/kg bw per day. The calculated margin of exposure for each age group was 36 (infants), 26 (toddlers), 50 (children), 99 (adolescents), 115 (adults) and 133 (the elderly). A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. The safety of the food enzyme could not be established given the derived margins of exposure. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme could not be considered safe under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme β‐galactosidase (β‐d‐galactoside galactohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Papiliotrema terrestris strain AE‐BLC by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in the production of galacto‐oligosaccharides (GOS) from lactose. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.441 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 1800 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 4082. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme 3‐phytase (myo‐inositol‐hexakisphosphate 3‐phosphohydrolase EC 3.1.3.8) is produced with the genetically modified Aspergillus niger strain NPH by DSM Food Specialties. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in three food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of (1) baked products and (2) distilled alcohol, and the processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (3) plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products. Since no residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are carried over into distilled alcohol, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining two food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.553 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 833 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which, when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure of at least 1506. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme phosphoinositide phospholipase C (1‐phosphatidyl‐1D‐myo‐inositol‐4,5‐bisphosphate inositoltrisphosphohydrolase EC 3.1.4.11.) is produced with the genetically modified Pseudomonas fluorescens strain PIC by DSM Food specialties B.V. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in the processing of fats and oils for the production of refined edible fats and oils by degumming. Since residual amounts of the total organic solids are removed by the washing and purification steps applied during degumming, dietary exposure estimation and toxicity testing were considered unnecessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme mucorpepsin (EC 3.4.23.23) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Rhizomucor miehei strain FRO by DSM Food Specialties B.V. The enzyme can be chemically modified to produce a thermolabile form. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in three food manufacturing processes: processing of dairy products for the production of (1) cheese, (2) edible rennet casein, (3) fermented dairy products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to about 0.072 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 2000 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 27,778. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and five matches were found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but is considered low, except for individuals sensitised to mustard proteins, for whom the risk will not exceed that of mustard consumption. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme leucyl aminopeptidase (EC 3.4.11.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus sp. strain AE‐MB by Amano Enzyme Inc. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes: processing of dairy products for the production of (1) flavouring preparations; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (2) protein hydrolysates; processing of meat and fish products for the production of (3) protein hydrolysates, (4) modified meat and fish products and processing of (5) yeast and yeast products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 2.273 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 183 mg TOS/kg bw per day. The calculated margin of exposure for each age group was 135 (infants), 81 (toddlers), 83 (children), 109 (adolescents), 160 (adults) and 184 (the elderly). A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no matches were found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. The safety of the food enzyme could not be established given the derived margins of exposure. Therefore, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme could not be considered safe under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]