Search

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 The qualification ‘absence of aminoglycoside production ability’ was withdrawn for Bacillus velezensis.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

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of microorganisms intended for use in the food or feed chains. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at strain and/or product level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The generic qualification ‘the strains should not harbour any acquired antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes to clinically relevant antimicrobials’ applies to all QPS bacterial TUs. The different EFSA risk assessment areas use the same approach to assess the qualification related to AMR genes. In this statement, the terms ‘intrinsic’ and ‘acquired’ AMR genes were defined for the purpose of EFSA's risk assessments, and they apply to bacteria used in the food and feed chains. A bioinformatic approach is proposed for demonstrating the ‘intrinsic’/’acquired’ nature of an AMR gene. All AMR genes that confer resistance towards ‘critically important’, ‘highly important’ and ‘important’ antimicrobials, as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found as hits, need to be considered as hazards (for humans, animals and environment) and need further assessment. Genes identified as responsible for ‘intrinsic’ resistance could be considered as being of no concern in the frame of the EFSA risk assessment. ‘Acquired’ AMR genes resulting in a resistant phenotype should be considered as a concern. If the presence of the ‘acquired’ AMR gene is not leading to phenotypic resistance, further case-by-case assessment is necessary.

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of microorganisms, intended for use in the food or feed chains, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. In the period covered by this Statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of 38 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2022 and March 2023 (inclusive) (28 as feed additives, 5 as food enzymes, food additives and flavourings, 5 as novel foods), 34 were not evaluated because: 8 were filamentous fungi, 4 were Enterococcus faecium and 2 were Escherichia coli (taxonomic units that are excluded from the QPS evaluation) and 20 were taxonomic units (TUs) that already have a QPS status. Three of the other four TUs notified within this period were evaluated for the first time for a possible QPS status: Anaerobutyricum soehngenii, Stutzerimonas stutzeri (former Pseudomonas stutzeri) and Nannochloropsis oculata. Microorganism strain DSM 11798 has also been notified in 2015 and as its taxonomic unit is notified as a strain not a species, it is not suitable for the QPS approach. A. soehngenii and N. oculata are not recommended for the QPS status due to a limited body of knowledge of its use in the food and feed chains. S. stutzeri is not recommended for inclusion in the QPS list based on safety concerns and limited information about the exposure of animals and humans through the food and feed chains.

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

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) procedure was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The taxonomic identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected by ‘qualifications’ which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's Scientific Panels. During the current assessment, no new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs and their qualifications. The list of microorganisms notified to EFSA from applications for market authorisation was updated with 47 biological agents, received between October 2018 and March 2019. Of these, 19 already had QPS status, 20 were excluded from the QPS exercise by the previous QPS mandate (11 filamentous fungi) or from further evaluations within the current mandate (9 notifications of Escherichia coli). Sphingomonas elodea, Gluconobacter frateurii, Corynebacterium ammoniagenes, Corynebacterium casei, Burkholderia ubonensis, Phaeodactylum tricornutum, Microbacterium foliorum and Euglena gracilis were evaluated for the first time. Sphingomonas elodea cannot be assessed for a possible QPS recommendation because it is not a valid species. Corynebacterium ammoniagenes and Euglena gracilis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’. The following TUs cannot be recommended for the QPS list: Burkholderia ubonensis, due to its potential and confirmed ability to generate biologically active compounds and limited of body of knowledge; Corynebacterium casei, Gluconobacter frateurii and Microbacterium foliorum, due to lack of body of knowledge; Phaeodactylum tricornutum, based on the lack of a safe history of use in the food chain and limited knowledge on its potential production of bioactive compounds

Parasites are important food‐borne pathogens. Their complex lifecycles, varied transmission routes, and prolonged periods between infection and symptoms mean that the public health burden and relative importance of different transmission routes are often difficult to assess. Furthermore, there are challenges in detection and diagnostics, and variations in reporting. A Europe‐focused ranking exercise, using multicriteria decision analysis, identified potentially food‐borne parasites of importance, and that are currently not routinely controlled in food. These are Cryptosporidium spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Echinococcus spp. Infection with these parasites in humans and animals, or their occurrence in food, is not notifiable in all Member States. This Opinion reviews current methods for detection, identification and tracing of these parasites in relevant foods, reviews literature on food‐borne pathways, examines information on their occurrence and persistence in foods, and investigates possible control measures along the food chain. The differences between these three parasites are substantial, but for all there is a paucity of well‐established, standardised, validated methods that can be applied across the range of relevant foods. Furthermore, the prolonged period between infection and clinical symptoms (from several days for Cryptosporidium to years for Echinococcus spp.) means that source attribution studies are very difficult. Nevertheless, our knowledge of the domestic animal lifecycle (involving dogs and livestock) for Echinoccocus granulosus means that this parasite is controllable. For Echinococcus multilocularis, for which the lifecycle involves wildlife (foxes and rodents), control would be expensive and complicated, but could be achieved in targeted areas with sufficient commitment and resources. Quantitative risk assessments have been described for Toxoplasma in meat. However, for T. gondii and Cryptosporidium as faecal contaminants, development of validate