Maximum levels of cross-contamination for 24 antimicrobial active substances in non-target feed. Part 11: Sulfonamides

The specific concentrations of sulfonamides 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 are available. 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 identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. 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/publishedVersio

‘Next-Generation’ surveillance: an epidemiologists’ perspective on the use of molecular information in food safety and animal health decision-making

Advances in the availability and affordability of molecular and genomic data are transforming human health care. Surveillance aimed at supporting and improving food safety and animal health is likely to undergo a similar transformation. We propose a definition of ‘molecular surveillance’ in this context and argue that molecular data are an adjunct to rather than a substitute for sound epidemiological study and surveillance design. Specific considerations with regard to sample collection are raised, as is the importance of the relation between the molecular clock speed of genetic markers and the spatiotemporal scale of the surveillance activity, which can be control- or strategy-focused. Development of standards for study design and assessment of molecular surveillance system attributes is needed, together with development of an interdisciplinary skills base covering both molecular and epidemiological principles

Evaluation of the application for new alternative biodiesel production process for rendered fat including Category 1 animal by-products (BDI-RepCat® process, AT)

A new alternative method for the production of biodiesel from rendered fat, including animal by‐product (ABP) Category 1 tallow, was evaluated. The method consists of a conversion phase, based on esterification and transesterification in a single step (at temperature ≥ 200°C, pressure ≥ 70 bar with a retention time ≥ 15 min), using MgO as a catalyst and in the presence of methanol (10–15%), followed by vacuum distillation (at ≥ 150°C, ≤ 10 mbar) of the end‐product, biodiesel and the co‐product, glycerine. Prions (PrPSc), which are abnormal isoforms of the prion protein, were considered by the applicant to be the most resistant hazard. In accordance with previous EFSA Opinions and current expert evaluation, a reduction in prion infectivity, or detectable PrPSc, of at least 6 log10 should be achieved for the process to be considered equivalent to the processing method laid down in the Regulation (EU) No 142/2011. Published data from an experimental replication of the conversion step of the biodiesel production process under consideration were provided, which showed an at least 6 log10 reduction in detectable PrPSc, by Western blot, in tallow that had been spiked with murine and human prion strains. In addition, it was demonstrated that the presence of methanol does not affect the recovery or detection of PrPSc from a biodiesel substrate. Based on scientific literature, the vacuum distillation step has been shown to be capable of achieving an additional 3 log10 reduction in PrPSc. Therefore, the proposed alternative method is considered to be at least equivalent to the processing method laid down in the legislation for the production of biodiesel from raw materials including Category 1 ABP.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 12: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2020

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a generic safety evaluation for biological agents to support EFSA's Scientific Panels. It is based on an assessment of the taxonomic identity, the body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are where possible to be confirmed at strain or product level, reflected by \u2018qualifications\u2019. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs of the 39 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2019 and March 2020, 33 were excluded, including five filamentous fungi, five Escherichia coli, two Enterococcus faecium, two Streptomyces spp. and 19 TUs already evaluated. Six TUs were evaluated. Akkermansia muciniphila was not recommended for QPS status due to safety concerns. Clostridium butyricum was not recommended because some strains contain pathogenicity factors. This TU was excluded for further QPS evaluation. Galdieria sulphuraria and Pseudomonas chlororaphis were also rejected due to a lack of body of knowledge. The QPS status of Corynebacterium ammoniagenes (with the qualification \u2018for production purposes only\u2019) and of Komagataella pastoris (with the qualification \u2018for enzyme production\u2019) was confirmed. In relation to the taxonomic revision of the Lactobacillus genus, previously designated Lactobacillus species will be reassigned to the new species and both the old and new names will be retained in the QPS list

Update of the list of QPS‐recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 11: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2019

Qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a generic safety evaluation for biological agents to support EFSA's Scientific Panels. The taxonomic identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance are assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are where possible to be confirmed at strain or product level, reflected by ‘qualifications’. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS TUs and their qualifications. The list of microorganisms notified to EFSA was updated with 54 biological agents, received between April and September 2019; 23 already had QPS status, 14 were excluded from the QPS exercise (7 filamentous fungi, 6 Escherichia coli, Sphingomonas paucimobilis which was already evaluated). Seventeen, corresponding to 16 TUs, were evaluated for possible QPS status, fourteen of these for the first time, and Protaminobacter rubrum, evaluated previously, was excluded because it is not a valid species. Eight TUs are recommended for QPS status. Lactobacillus parafarraginis and Zygosaccharomyces rouxii are recommended to be included in the QPS list. Parageobacillus thermoglucosidasius and Paenibacillus illinoisensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’ and absence of toxigenic potential. Bacillus velezensis can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘absence of toxigenic potential and the absence of aminoglycoside production ability’. Cupriavidus necator, Aurantiochytrium limacinum and Tetraselmis chuii can be recommended for the QPS list with the qualification ‘production purposes only’. Pantoea ananatis is not recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge in relation to its pathogenicity potential for plants. Corynebacterium stationis, Hamamotoa singularis, Rhodococcus aetherivorans and Rhodococcus ruber cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to lack of body of knowledge. Kodamaea ohmeri cannot be recommended for the QPS list due to safety concerns.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 9: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2018

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 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 taxonomic units and their qualifications. Between April and September 2018, the QPS notification list was updated with 48 microorganisms from applications for market authorisation. Of these, 30 biological agents already had QPS status, 15 were excluded from the QPS exercise by the previous QPS mandate (five filamentous fungi) or from further evaluations within the current mandate (two notifications of Enterococcus faecium, one of Streptomyces spp. and seven of Escherichia coli). One taxonomic unit was (re)evaluated: Pseudomonas fluorescens had been previously evaluated in 2016, and was now re‐evaluated within this mandate. The revision of the literature supports the previously identified safety concerns (e.g. production of biocompounds with antimicrobial activity and virulence features), preventing the inclusion of P. fluorescens in the QPS list. Mycobacterium setense and Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans were evaluated for the first time. M. setense cannot be considered for the QPS assessment because there are significant safety concerns. K. sucrofermentans (Acetobacter xylinus subsp. sucrofermentans) can be proposed for the QPS list but only for production purposes. The QPS status of Corynebacterium glutamicum is confirmed with the qualification extended to other production purposes.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio