Search

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

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

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

The 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, safety concerns and occurrence of antimicrobial resistance. 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 the 50 microorganisms notified to EFSA in October 2021 to March 2022 (inclusive), 41 were not evaluated: 10 filamentous fungi, 1 Enterococcus faecium, 1 Clostridium butyricum, 3 Escherichia coli and 1 Streptomyces spp. because are excluded from QPS evaluation, and 25 TUs that have already a QPS status. Nine notifications, corresponding to seven TUs were evaluated: four of these, Streptococcus salivarius, Companilactobacillus formosensis, Pseudonocardia autotrophica and Papiliotrema terrestris, being evaluated for the first time. The other three, Microbacterium foliorum, Pseudomonas fluorescens and Ensifer adhaerens were re-assessed. None of these TUs were recommended for QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens, Microbacterium foliorum, Companilactobacillus formosensis and Papiliotrema terrestris due to a limited body of knowledge, Streptococcus salivarius due to its ability to cause bacteraemia and systemic infection that results in a variety of morbidities, Pseudonocardia autotrophica due to lack of body of knowledge and uncertainty on the safety of biologically active compounds which can be produced, and Pseudomonas fluorescens due to possible safety concerns. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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

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

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

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

The transmission of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) between food-producing animals (poultry, cattle and pigs) during short journeys ( 8 h) directed to other farms or to the slaughterhouse lairage (directly or with intermediate stops at assembly centres or control posts, mainly transported by road) was assessed. Among the identified risk factors contributing to the probability of transmission of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria (ARB) and antimicrobial resistance genes (ARGs), the ones considered more important are the resistance status (presence of ARB/ARGs) of the animals pre-transport, increased faecal shedding, hygiene of the areas and vehicles, exposure to other animals carrying and/or shedding ARB/ARGs (especially between animals of different AMR loads and/or ARB/ARG types), exposure to contaminated lairage areas and duration of transport. There are nevertheless no data whereby differences between journeys shorter or longer than 8 h can be assessed. Strategies that would reduce the probability of AMR transmission, for all animal categories include minimising the duration of transport, proper cleaning and disinfection, appropriate transport planning, organising the transport in relation to AMR criteria (transport logistics), improving animal health and welfare and/or biosecurity immediately prior to and during transport, ensuring the thermal comfort of the animals and animal segregation. Most of the aforementioned measures have similar validity if applied at lairage, assembly centres and control posts. Data gaps relating to the risk factors and the effectiveness of mitigation measures have been identified, with consequent research needs in both the short and longer term listed. Quantification of the impact of animal transportation compared to the contribution of other stages of the food-production chain, and the interplay of duration with all risk factors on the transmission of ARB/ARGs during transport and journey breaks, were identified as urgent research needs. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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

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

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents. 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 are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. The QPS list was updated in relation to the revised taxonomy of the genus Bacillus, to synonyms of yeast species and for the qualifications ‘absence of resistance to antimycotics’ and ‘only for production purposes’. Lactobacillus cellobiosus has been reclassified as Limosilactobacillus fermentum. In the period covered by this statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS taxonomic units (TU)s. Of the 70 microorganisms notified to EFSA, 64 were not evaluated: 11 filamentous fungi, one oomycete, one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, five Escherichia coli, one Streptomyces sp., one Bacillus nakamurai and 43 TUs that already had a QPS status. Six notifications, corresponding to six TUs were evaluated: Paenibacillus lentus was reassessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Enterococcus lactis synonym Enterococcus xinjiangensis, Aurantiochytrium mangrovei synonym Schizochytrium mangrovei, Schizochytrium aggregatum, Chlamydomonas reinhardtii synonym Chlamydomonas smithii and Haematococcus lacustris synonym Haematococcus pluvialis were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: P. lentus due to a limited body of knowledge, E. lactis synonym E. xinjiangensis due to potential safety concerns, A. mangrovei synonym S. mangrovei, S. aggregatum and C. reinhardtii synonym C. smithii, due to lack of a body of knowledge on its occurrence in the food and feed chain. H. lacustris synonym H. pluvialis is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

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

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

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