Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 17: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2022

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

Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 18: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until March 2023

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

Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microorganisms intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA

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'

Why has the authorization of microbial biological control agents been slower in the EU than in comparable jurisdictions?

The aim of this study was to identify reasons why the authorization of microbial pest control agents is lengthier under regulatory frameworks of the European Union (EU) than in comparable jurisdictions. A main conclusion is that although the EU and apos;s regulatory processes have strong scientific foundations, the most appropriate scientific concepts, knowledge and expertise have not been applied in the safety assessment of microorganisms and biological control. Tradition and conceptual legacies from assessments of conventional chemical pesticides have likely contributed to this by steering the evaluations of microorganisms in less appropriate directions. According to our investigation, the current framework for microbial plant protection products complies poorly with the principles that legislation should have legal predictability, proportionality, and that it should be non-discriminative, for instance in comparison to corresponding regulations in comparable jurisdictions. We also found that existing possibilities to take non-safety and ethical considerations into account can probably be used more. To rationalize the EU and apos;s authorization of microbial control products, both the basic legislation and the evaluations of agents and products need stronger rooting in fundamental microbiological science. (c) 2020 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry

Reaping the Benefits of Microorganisms in Cropping Systems: Is the Regulatory Policy Adequate?

Within food plant cropping systems, microorganisms provide vital functions and ecosystem services, such as biological pest and disease control, promotion of plant growth and crop quality, and biodegradation of organic matter and pollutants. The beneficial effects of microorganisms can be achieved and/or enhanced by agricultural management measures that target the resident microbial biodiversity or by augmentation with domesticated and propagated microbial strains. This study presents a critical review of the current legislation and regulatory policies pertaining to the utilization of plant-beneficial microorganisms in the European Union (EU). For augmentative approaches, the nature of the intended effect and the product claim determine how a microbiological product is categorized and regulated, and pre-market authorization may be mandatory. Typically, microbial products have been incorporated into frameworks that were designed for evaluating non-living substances, and are therefore not well suited to the specific properties of live microorganisms. We suggest that regulatory harmonization across the sector could stimulate technical development and facilitate implementation of crop management methods employing microorganisms. Possible scenarios for regulatory reform in the longer term are discussed, but more investigation into their feasibility is needed. The findings of this study should serve as a catalyst for more efficient future use of plant-beneficial microorganisms, to the benefit of agriculture as well as the environment

Land-use intensification and agroforestry in the Kenyan highland: impacts on soil microbial community composition and functional capacity

This study investigates microbial communities in soil from sites under different land use in Kenya. We sampled natural forest, forest plantations, agricultural fields of agroforestry farms,agricultural fields with traditional farming and eroded soil on the slopes of Mount Elgon,Kenya. We hypothesised that microbial decomposition capacity, biomass and diversity 1)decreases with intensified cultivation; and 2)can be restored by soil and land management in agroforestry. Functional capacity of soil microbial communities was estimated by degradation of 31 substrates on Biolog EcoPlates™. Microbial community composition and biomass were characterised by phospholipid fatty acid (PLFA)and microbial C and N analyses. All 31 substrates were metabolised in all studied soil types, i.e. functional diversity did not differ. However,both the substrate utilisation rates and the microbial biomass decreased with intensification of land use, and the biomass was positively correlated with organic matter content. Multivariate analysis of PLFA and Biolog EcoPlate™ data showed clear differences 25 between land uses, also indicated by different relative abundance of PLFA markers for certain microorganism groups. In conclusion, our results show that vegetation and land use control the substrate utilisation capacity and microbial community composition and that functional capacity of depleted soils can be restored by active soil management, e.g. forest plantation. However, although 20 to 30 years of agroforestry farming practises did result in improved soil microbiological and chemical conditions of agricultural soil as compared to traditional agricultural fields, the change was not statistically significant

When is it biological control? A framework of definitions, mechanisms, and classifications

Biological control, or biocontrol, is the exploitation of living agents (incl. viruses) to combat pestilential organisms (incl. pathogens, pests, and weeds) for diverse purposes to provide human benefits. Thus, during the last century the practices and concepts involved have evolved in separate streams associated with distinct scientific and taxonomic disciplines. In parallel developments, there have been increasing references to biological control in industrial contexts and legislation, resulting in conceptual and terminological disintegration. The aim of this paper is to provide a global conceptual and terminological platform that facilitates future development of the field. We review use of previously suggested terms in key fields (e.g., phytopathology, entomology, and weed science), eliminate redundant terminology, identify three principles that should underpin the concept, and then present a new framework for biological control, rooted in seminal publications. The three principles establish that (1) only living agents can mediate biological control, (2) biological control always targets a pest, directly or indirectly, and (3) all biocontrol methods can be classified in four main categories depending on whether resident agents are utilized, with or without targeted human intervention (conservation biological control and natural biological control, respectively) or agents are added for permanent or temporary establishment (classical biological control and augmentative biological control, respectively). Correct identification of what is, and is not, biological control can help efforts to understand and optimize biological pest control for human and environmental benefits. The new conceptual framework may contribute to more uniform and appropriate regulatory approaches to biological control, and more efficient authorization and application of biocontrol products

Update of the list of QPS‐recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 15: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2021

[EN]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’.S

Update of the list of QPS-recommended biological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 13: suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2020

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach was developed to provide a regularly updated generic pre-evaluation of the safety of biological agents, intended for addition to food or feed, to support the work of EFSA's Scientific Panels. It is based on an assessment of published data for each agent, with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at 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 36 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2020, 33 were excluded; seven filamentous fungi (including Aureobasidium pullulans based on recent taxonomic insights), one Clostridium butyricum, one Enterococcus faecium, three Escherichia coil, one Streptomyces spp. and 20 TUs that had been previously evaluated. Three TUs were evaluated; Methylorubrum extorquens and Mycobacterium aurum for the first time and Bacillus circulans was re-assessed because an update was requested in relation to a new mandate. M. extorquens and M. aurum are not recommended for QPS status due to the lack of a body of knowledge in relation to use in the food or feed chain and M. aurum, due to uncertainty concerning its pathogenicity potential. B. circulans was recommended for QPS status with the qualifications for 'production purposes only' and 'absence of cytotoxic activity'. (C) 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority

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