Update of the list of QPS‐recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 10: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2019

摘要

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 with possible toxic effects.