Search

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 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 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 α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NZYM‐WR by Novozymes A/S. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products, cereal‐based products other than baked, glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates, distilled alcohol and brewed products; production of refined and unrefined sugar, production of plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices and fruit and vegetable products other than juices. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, a dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 0.450 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualified for the QPS approach and no issues of concern arose from the production process of the food enzyme, the Panel considered that toxicological studies were unnecessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a respiratory allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme 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 endo‐polygalacturonase ((1→4)‐α‐D‐galacturonan glycanohydrolase (endo‐cleaving); EC 3.2.1.15)) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Aspergillus tubingensis strain MUCL 55013 by Soufflet Biotechnologies. The food enzyme is free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in 10 food manufacturing processes: processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices, other fruit and vegetable products, wine, distilled spirits from wine, alcoholic beverages other than grape wine; processing of plant‐derived products for the production of refined and unrefined sugar, edible oils from plants, green coffee beans by demucilation, coffee extracts and tea and other herbal and fruit infusions. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed in three processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 7.834 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 2,097 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, resulting in a margin of exposure of at least 268. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens found 14 matches, one of which was to a food allergen. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, in particular for individuals sensitised to papaya, but that the risk will not exceed that of consumption of papaya. In addition, oral allergy reactions cannot be excluded in pollen‐sensitised individuals. 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 AGS 430 by Kerry Ingredients & Flavours Ltd. The production strain qualifies for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The food enzyme is intended to be used in 11 food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products; cereal‐based products other than baked; brewed products; starch and gluten fractions; distilled alcohol; processing of dairy products for the production of flavouring preparations and modified milk proteins; processing of meat and fish products for the production of protein hydrolysates; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of protein hydrolysates and plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products; processing of yeast and yeast products. Since residual amounts of the total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, dietary exposure was estimated only for the remaining nine food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated up to 3.482 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 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 upon dietary exposure cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme α‐amylase (1,4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain NZYM‐AC by Novozymes A/S. The genetic modifications do not give rise to safety concerns and the production strain meets the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme was considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. It is intended to be used in seven food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates, cereal‐based products other than baked, brewed products and distilled alcohol; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices and products other than juices; production of refined and unrefined sugars. Since the residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining five food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 0.167 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Given the QPS status of the production strain and the lack of concerns resulting from the food enzyme manufacturing process, toxicological studies were not considered necessary. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match was found with a respiratory allergen. 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 α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain BA by HBI Enzymes Inc. The enzyme under assessment is intended to be used in six food processes: baking processes, brewing processes, distilled alcohol production, starch processing for the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates, production of dairy analogues and production of rice‐based meals. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during distillation and during the production of glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates, dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining four food manufacturing processes. It was estimated to be up to 4.805 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. The applicant did not provide sufficient data to demonstrate that the production strain meets the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) criteria, or proof of absence of viable cells and DNA from the production organism in the food enzyme. Therefore, the Panel was not able to conclude on the safety of the microbial source. A margin of exposure could not be calculated in the absence of toxicological studies. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and two matches with respiratory allergens were found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use (other than distilled alcohol production), the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of this food enzyme, under the intended conditions of use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme subtilisin (serine endopeptidase, EC 3.4.21.62) is produced with the non‐genetically modified microorganism Bacillus paralicheniformis strain LMG S‐30155 by ENMEX SA de CV, now part of Kerry Food Ingredients (Cork) Ltd. The food enzyme is intended to be used in oil production, hydrolysis of vegetable/microbial/animal proteins, yeast processing and production of flavouring preparations. The production strain of the food enzyme contains known antimicrobial resistance genes and genes involved in bacitracin biosynthesis. Consequently, it does not fulfil the requirements for the QPS approach to safety assessment. Bacitracin was detected in the food enzyme and the ■■■■■ The presence of bacitracin, a medically important antimicrobial, in the food enzyme represents a risk for the development of resistance in bacteria. Due to the presence of bacitracin, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme subtilisin produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus paralicheniformis strain LMG S‐30155 cannot be considered safe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The food enzyme containing chymosin (EC 3.4.23.4) and pepsin A (EC 3.4.23.1) is prepared from the abomasum of suckling goats, lambs and calves by Laboratoires Abia. The food enzyme is intended to be used in milk processing for cheese production. As no concerns arise from the animal source of the food enzyme or from its manufacture, and based on the history of safe use and consumption, the Panel considered that toxicological data and the estimation of dietary exposure were not required. On the basis of literature data, the Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure could not be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur was 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 FROM AUTHOR]