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
Koutsoumanis, Kostas ; Allende, Ana ; Álvarez-Ordóñz, Avelino ; Bolton, Declan ; Bover-Cid, Sara ; Chemaly, Marianne ; Davies, Robert ; Hilbert, Friederike ; Lindqvist, Roland ; Nauta, Maarten ; Peixe, Luisa ; Ru, Giuseppe ; Simmons, Marion ; Skandamis, Panagiotis ; Suffredini, Elisabetta ; Cocconcelli, Pier Sandro ; Escámez, Pablo Salvador Fernández ; Maradona, Miguel Prieto ; Querol, Amparo ; Suarez, Juan Evaristo ; Sundh, Ingvar ; Vlak, Just ; Barizzone, Fulvio ; Correia, Sandra ; Herman, Lieve - \ 2019
EFSA Journal 17 (2019)1. - ISSN 1831-4732
Bacteria - Corynebacterium glutamicum - Komagataeibacter sucrofermentans - Mycobacterium setense - Pseudomonas fluorescens - QPS - Safety - Yeast
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.
Implementation of PROMETHEUS 4‐step approach for evidence use in EFSA scientific assessments: benefits, issues, needs and solutions
Aiassa, Elisa ; Martino, Laura ; Barizzone, Fulvio ; Ciccolallo, Laura ; Garcia, Ana ; Georgiadis, Marios ; Guajardo, Irene Muñoz ; Tomcikova, Daniela ; Alexander, Jan ; Calistri, Paolo ; Gundert‐remy, Ursula ; Hart, Andrew David ; Hoogenboom, Ron Laurentius ; Messean, Antoine ; Naska, Androniki ; Navarro, Maria Navajas ; Noerrung, Birgit ; Ockleford, Colin ; Wallace, Robert John ; Younes, Maged ; Abuntori, Blaize ; Alvarez, Fernando ; Aryeetey, Monica ; Baldinelli, Francesca ; Barrucci, Federica ; Bau, Andrea ; Binaglia, Marco ; Broglia, Alessandro ; Castoldi, Anna Federica ; Christoph, Eugen ; Sesmaisons‐Lecarré, Agnes De; Georgiadis, Nikolaos ; Gervelmeyer, Andrea ; Istace, Frederique ; López‐Gálvez, Gloria ; Manini, Paola ; Maurici, Daniela ; Merten, Caroline ; Messens, Winy ; Mosbach‐Schulz, Olaf ; Putzu, Claudio ; Bordajandi, Luisa Ramos ; Smeraldi, Camilla ; Tiramani, Manuela ; Martínez, Silvia Valtueña ; Sybren, Vos ; Hardy, Anthony Richard ; Hugas, Marta ; Kleiner, Juliane ; Seze, Guilhem De - \ 2018
EFSA Supporting Publications 15 (2018)4. - ISSN 2397-8325
In 2014, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) started the PROMETHEUS (PROmoting METHods for Evidence Use in Scientific assessments) project to improve further and increase the consistency of the methods it uses in its scientific assessments. The project defined a set of principles for the scientific assessment process and a 4‐step approach (plan/carry out/verify/report) for their fulfilment, which was tested in ten case studies, one from each EFSA panel. The present report describes the benefits, issues, needs and solutions related to the implementation of the 4‐step approach in EFSA, identified in a dedicated workshop in October 2017. The key benefits of the approach, which was deemed applicable to all types of EFSA scientific assessment including assessments of regulated products, are: 1) increased ‘scientific value’ of EFSA outputs, i.e. the extent of impartiality, methodological rigour, transparency and engagement; 2) guarantee of fitness‐for‐purpose, as it implies tailoring the methods to the specificities of each assessment; 3) efficiency gain, since preparing a protocol for the assessment upfront helps more streamlined processes throughout the implementation phase; 4) innovation, as the approach promotes the pioneering practice of ‘planning before doing’ (well established in primary research) for broad scientific assessments in regulatory science; and 5) increased harmonisation and consistency of EFSA assessments. The 4‐step approach was also considered an effective system for detecting additional methodological and/or expertise needs and a useful basis for further defining a quality management system for EFSA's scientific processes. The identified issues and solutions related to the implementation of the approach are: a) lack of engagement and need for effective communication on benefits and added value; b) need for further advances especially in the field of problem formulation/protocol development, evidence appraisal and evidence integration; c) need for specialised expertise in the previous aspects; and specific needs for d) assessments of regulated products and e) outsourced projects.