The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a safety assessment approach for microorganisms intended for use in food or feed chains. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each taxonomic unit (TU), with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns identified for a 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 71 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2023 (30 as feed additives, 22 as food enzymes or additives, 7 as novel foods and 12 from plant protection products [PPP]), 61 were not evaluated because: 26 were filamentous fungi, 1 was Enterococcus faecium, 5 were Escherichia coli, 1 was a bacteriophage (all excluded from the QPS evaluation) and 28 were TUs that already have a QPS status. The other 10 notifications belonged to 9 TUs which were evaluated for a possible QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens and Heyndrickxia faecalis did not get the QPS recommendation due to the limited body of knowledge about their occurrence in the food and/or feed chains and Burkholderia ubonensis also due to its ability to generate biologically active compounds with antimicrobial activity; Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas putida due to safety concerns. K. pneumoniae is excluded from future QPS evaluations. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'for production purposes only'; Clostridium tyrobutyricum is recommended for QPS status with the qualification 'absence of genetic determinants for toxigenic activity'; Candida oleophila has been added as a synonym of Yarrowia lipolytica. The Panel clarifies the extension of the QPS status for genetically modified strains.
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. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by 'qualifications' which should be assessed at strain and/or product level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The generic qualification 'the strains should not harbour any acquired antimicrobial resistance (AMR) genes to clinically relevant antimicrobials' applies to all QPS bacterial TUs. The different EFSA risk assessment areas use the same approach to assess the qualification related to AMR genes. In this statement, the terms 'intrinsic' and 'acquired' AMR genes were defined for the purpose of EFSA's risk assessments, and they apply to bacteria used in the food and feed chains. A bioinformatic approach is proposed for demonstrating the 'intrinsic'/'acquired' nature of an AMR gene. All AMR genes that confer resistance towards 'critically important', 'highly important' and 'important' antimicrobials, as defined by the World Health Organisation (WHO), found as hits, need to be considered as hazards (for humans, animals and environment) and need further assessment. Genes identified as responsible for 'intrinsic' resistance could be considered as being of no concern in the frame of the EFSA risk assessment. 'Acquired' AMR genes resulting in a resistant phenotype should be considered as a concern. If the presence of the 'acquired' AMR gene is not leading to phenotypic resistance, further case-by-case assessment is necessary.
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.
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 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.
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. 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. Schizochytrium limacinum, which is a synonym for Aurantiochytrium limacinum, was added to the QPS list. Of the 78 microorganisms notified to EFSA between October 2020 and March 2021, 71 were excluded; 16 filamentous fungi, 1 Dyella spp., 1 Enterococcus faecium, 7 Escherichia coli, 1 Streptomyces spp., 1 Schizochytrium spp. and 44 TUs that had been previously evaluated. Seven TUs were evaluated: Corynebacterium stationis and Kodamaea ohmeri were re-assessed because an update was requested for the current mandate. Anoxybacillus caldiproteolyticus, Bacillus paralicheniformis, Enterobacter hormaechei, Eremothecium ashbyi and Lactococcus garvieae were assessed for the first time. The following TUs were not recommended for QPS status: A. caldiproteolyticus due to the lack of a body of knowledge in relation to its use in the food or feed chain, E. hormaechei, L. garvieae and K. ohmeri due to their pathogenic potential, E. ashbyi and C. stationis due to a lack of body of knowledge on their occurrence in the food and feed chain and to their pathogenic potential. B. paralicheniformis was recommended for the QPS status with the qualification 'absence of toxigenic activity' and 'absence of genetic information to synthesize bacitracin'.
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 coli, 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'.
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.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a safety pre-assessment within EFSA for microorganisms. Strains belonging to QPS taxonomic units (TUs) still require an assessment based on a specific data package, but QPS status facilitates fast track evaluation. QPS TUs are unambiguously defined biological agents assessed for the body of knowledge, their safety and their end use. Safety concerns are, where possible, to be confirmed at strain or product level, and reflected as 'qualifications'. Qualifications need to be evaluated at strain level by the respective EFSA units. The lowest QPS TU is the species level for bacteria, yeasts and protists/algae, and the family for viruses. The QPS concept is also applicable to genetically modified microorganisms used for production purposes if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Based on the actual body of knowledge and/or an ambiguous taxonomic position, the following TUs were excluded from the QPS assessment: filamentous fungi, oomycetes, streptomycetes, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli and bacteriophages. The list of QPS-recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore now becomes the valid list. For this update, reports on the safety of previously assessed microorganisms, including bacteria, yeasts and viruses (the latter only when used for plant protection purposes) were reviewed, following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. All TUs previously recommended for 2016 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well as their qualifications. The TUs related to the new notifications received since the 2016 QPS opinion was periodically evaluated for QPS status in the Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel, and the QPS list was also periodically updated. In total, 14 new TUs received a QPS status between 2017 and 2019: three yeasts, eight bacteria and three algae/protists.
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 'qualifications'. 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 'for production purposes only') and of Komagataella pastoris (with the qualification 'for enzyme production') 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.
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.
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.
Microorganisms are intentionally added at different stages of the food and feed chain (food or feed additive, novel food or plant protection product) and are subjected to regulation and safety assessment by the European Food Safety Authority. Safety evaluation is based on application dossiers for market authorisation to the European Commission. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed in 20031 to provide a harmonised generic safety pre-appraisal of the above microorganisms. Unambiguously defined biological taxonomic units (TUs) are assessed for their body of knowledge, their safety and their end use. Identified safety concerns for a certain TU can be, where reasonable in number and not universally present, reflected as 'qualifications.' Strains belonging to TUs having QPS status may benefit of a fast track evaluation. The lowest TU for which the QPS status is granted is the species level for bacteria and yeasts and the family for viruses. The QPS concept is also applicable to genetically modified microorganisms used for production purposes. Based on the current body of knowledge and/or the ambiguous taxonomic position, some TUs, such as filamentous fungi, bacteriophages, Enterococcus faecium, Escherichia coli, Streptomyces spp. and Oomycetes, are not considered liable for QPS status.
Food Microbiology/standards , Risk Assessment , Animal Feed/microbiology , Animal Feed/standards , Animal Feed/virology , Animals , Europe , Food/standards , Food/virology , Food Microbiology/trends , Humans
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, considered to be 'qualifications' which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. The BIOHAZ Panel confirms that the QPS approach can be extended to a genetically modified production strain if the recipient strain qualifies for the QPS status, and if the genetic modification does not indicate a concern. Between April and September 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 46 applications for market authorisation. From these, 14 biological agents already had QPS status and 16 were not included as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. One notification of Streptomyces K-61 (notified as former S. griseoviridis) and four of Escherichia coli were not considered for the assessment as they belong to taxonomic units that were excluded from further evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Eight notifications of Bacillus thuringiensis and one of an oomycete are pending the reception of the complete application. Two taxonomic units were evaluated: Kitasatospora paracochleata, which had not been evaluated before, and Komagataella phaffii, previously notified as Pichia pastoris included due to a change in the taxonomic identity. Kitasatospora paracochleata cannot be granted QPS status due to lack of information on its biology and to its possible production of toxic secondary metabolites. The species Komagataella phaffii can be recommended for the QPS list when used for enzyme production.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-evaluation procedure to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units 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. The Panel clarified that the qualification 'for production purpose only' implies the absence of viable cells of the production organism in the final product and can also be applied for food and feed products based on microbial biomass. Between September 2017 and March 2018, the QPS notification list was updated with 46 microorganisms from applications for market authorisation. From these, 28 biological agents already had QPS status, 15 were excluded of the QPS exercise from the previous QPS mandate (10 filamentous fungi and one bacteriophage) or from further evaluations within the current mandate (two notifications of Streptomyces spp. and one of Escherichia coli), and one was excluded where confirmatory data for the risk assessment of a plant protection product (PPP) was requested (Pseudomonas sp.). Three taxonomic units were (re)evaluated: Paracoccus carotinifaciens and Paenibacillus lentus had been previously evaluated in 2008 and 2014, respectively, and were now re-evaluated within this mandate, and Yarrowia lipolytica, which was evaluated for the first time. P. carotinifaciens and P. lentus cannot be granted QPS status due to lack of scientific knowledge. Y. lipolytica is recommended for QPS status, but only for production purpose.
EFSA was requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notifications for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's Scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended) and the completeness of the body of knowledge were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. A total of 57 biological agents were notified to EFSA between the end of April 2016 and the beginning of September 2016. From these, 34 biological agents already had a QPS status and did not require further evaluation, and 10 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci, biological groups which have been excluded from QPS evaluation since 2014. Three notifications for Streptomyces violaceoruber, one for Streptomyces albus, one for Bacillus circulans and four for Escherichia coli were not evaluated for QPS status because these species were recently assessed and considered not suitable for QPS status. Therefore, only four notifications related to three taxonomic units were evaluated for QPS status. Of these, Arthrobacter ramosus and Pseudomonas fluorescens are not recommended for the QPS list. Bacillus smithii is recommended for the QPS status.
EFSA is requested to assess the safety of a broad range of biological agents in the context of notification for market authorisation as sources of food and feed additives, food enzymes and plant protection products. The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) assessment was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-assessment to support safety risk assessments performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The safety of unambiguously defined biological agents (at the highest taxonomic unit appropriate for the purpose for which an application is intended), and the completeness of the body of knowledge are assessed. Identified safety concerns for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' in connection with a recommendation for a QPS status. The list of QPS recommended biological agents was reviewed and updated in the current opinion and therefore becomes the valid list. The 2016 update reviews previously assessed microorganisms including bacteria, yeasts and viruses used for plant protection purposes following an Extensive Literature Search strategy. The taxonomic units related to the new notifications received since the 2013 QPS opinion, were periodically evaluated for a QPS status and the results published as Statements of the BIOHAZ Panel. Carnobacterium divergens, Lactobacillus diolivorans, Microbacterium imperiale, Pasteuria nishizawae, Pediococcus parvulus, Bacillus flexus, Bacillus smithii, Xanthomonas campestris and Candida cylindracea were recommended for the QPS list. All taxonomic units previously recommended for the 2013 QPS list had their status reconfirmed as well their qualifications with the exception of Pasteuria nishizawae for which the qualification was removed. The exclusion of filamentous fungi and enterococci from the QPS evaluations was reconsidered but monitoring will be maintained and the status will be re-evaluated in the next QPS Opinion update. Evaluation of bacteriophages should remain as a case-by-case procedure and should not be considered for QPS status.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) concept was developed to provide a harmonised generic pre-evaluation to support safety risk assessments of biological agents performed by EFSA's scientific Panels. The identity, body of knowledge, safety concerns and antimicrobial resistance of valid taxonomic units were assessed. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit are, where possible and reasonable in number, reflected as 'qualifications' which should be assessed at the strain level by the EFSA's scientific Panels. No new information was found that would change the previously recommended QPS taxonomic units and their qualifications. Between the end of September 2016 and March 2017, the QPS notification list was updated with 87 applications for market authorisation. From these, 32 biological agents already had a QPS status, and 37 were not included in the evaluation as they are filamentous fungi or enterococci. Streptomyces species (Streptomyces cinnamonensis, Streptomyces mobaraensis and Streptomyces violaceoruber), Bacillus circulans (three notifications) and Escherichia coli (seven notifications) were re-confirmed not suitable for QPS. Streptomyces rubiginosus and Streptomyces netropsis, not evaluated within the previous mandate, were also not recommended for QPS. Streptomyces spp. and E. coli will be excluded from further QPS evaluations within the current QPS mandate. Hyphomicrobium denitrificans, which has never been evaluated before, was not recommended for the QPS list and for Pseudomonas amyloderamosa, the QPS assessment was not applicable because it is not a validated species. Lactobacillus animalis was a new taxonomic unit recommended to have the QPS status.
The autochthonous microbiota is the community of microorganisms that colonizes the skin and mucosal surfaces. The symbiosis is, generally, mutualistic but it can become parasitic due to immune response alterations. The skin microbiota includes bacteria (95%), lipophilic fungi and mites. In the digestive apparatus, each cavity presents its own microbiota, which reaches its target organ during the perinatal period, originating complex and stable communities (homeostasis). The vaginal microbiota varies with the endocrine activity, significantly increasing during the fertile and pregnancy periods, when lactobacilli are the most abundant organisms. Four are the main benefits of the autochthonous microbiota: i) delivery of essential nutrients, such as vitamins and some amino acids; ii) utilization of undigestible diet components, the colonic microbiota degrades complex glycans and fulfils almost 20% of the calories present in a normal diet; iii) development of the immune system: the continuous contact with the immune system maintains it alert and in good shape to repel pathogens efficaciously and iv) microbial antagonism, hinders colonization of our mucosal surfaces by alochthonous, potentially pathogenic, organisms. This works through three mechanisms: colonization interference, production of antimicrobials and co-aggregation with the potential pathogens. The microbiota can, sporadically, produce damages: opportunistic endogenous infections and generation of carcinogenic compounds. Probiotics are "live microorganisms that when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the consumer". Prebiotics are undigestible glycans that enhance the growth or activity of the intestinal microbiota, thus generating a health benefit. Synbiotics are mixes of probiotics and prebiotics that exert a synergistic health effect.
La microbiota autóctona es el conjunto de microorganismos que colonizan la piel y las mucosas. La simbiosis es habitualmente mutualista pero puede hacerse parasitaria debido a disfunciones de la respuesta inmune. La microbiota de la piel incluye bacterias (95%), hongos lipofílicos y ácaros. En el aparato digestivo cada cavidad tiene su microbiota característica que alcanza su órgano diana en el periodo perinatal, dando lugar a comunidades complejas y muy estables (homeostasis). La microbiota vaginal varía con la actividad endocrina, aumentando muy significativamente durante el periodo fértil y, sobre todo, durante el embarazo, en los que suele estar dominada por Lactobacillus spp. Los efectos beneficiosos de la microbiota autóctona pueden resumirse en cuatro: a) suministro de nutrientes esenciales, como vitaminas y algunos aminoácidos, b) aprovechamiento de nutrientes no digeribles, la microbiota colónica degrada glúcidos complejos que no podemos digerir, proporcionándonos casi el 20% de las calorías de la ingesta diaria, c) desarrollo del sistema inmunitario: el contacto continuo con el sistema inmune sirve de entrenamiento que lo mantiene en forma para repeler con eficacia a los agentes infecciosos y d) antagonismo microbiano: impide el asentamiento de microorganismos patógenos sobre nuestras mucosas. Se manifiesta de tres maneras: interferencia con la colonización, producción de compuestos antimicrobianos y coagregación con los patógenos potenciales. La microbiota también puede producir perjuicios, principalmente, infecciones endógenas, de carácter claramente oportunista y generación de compuestos carcinogénicos. Los probióticos son "microorganismos vivos que, cuando se administran en cantidades adecuadas, confieren un beneficio a la salud del consumidor". Los prebióticos son glúcidos no digeribles, que estimulan el crecimiento o la actividad de los microorganismos autóctonos, resultando en un beneficio para la salud. Los simbióticos son mezclas de probióticos y prebióticos que generan una acción saludable sinérgica.
Microbiota , Prebiotics , Probiotics/therapeutic use , Animals , Female , Humans , Intestines/microbiology , Mucous Membrane/microbiology , Pregnancy , Skin/microbiology
La microbiota autóctona es el conjunto de microorganismos que colonizan la piel y las mucosas. La simbiosis es habitualmente mutualista pero puede hacerse parasitaria debido a disfunciones de la respuesta inmune. La microbiota de la piel incluye bacterias (95%), hongos lipofílicos y ácaros. En el aparato digestivo cada cavidad tiene su microbiota característica que alcanza su órgano diana en el periodo perinatal, dando lugar a comunidades complejas y muy estables (homeostasis). La microbiota vaginal varía con la actividad endocrina, aumentando muy significativamente durante el periodo fértil y, sobre todo, durante el embarazo, en los que suele estar dominada por Lactobacillus spp. Los efectos beneficiosos de la microbiota autóctona pueden resumirse en cuatro: a) suministro de nutrientes esenciales, como vitaminas y algunos aminoácidos, b) aprovechamiento de nutrientes no digeribles, la microbiota colónica degrada glúcidos complejos que no podemos digerir, proporcionándonos casi el 20% de las calorías de la ingesta diaria, c) desarrollo del sistema inmunitario: el contacto continuo con el sistema inmune sirve de entrenamiento que lo mantiene en forma para repeler con eficacia a los agentes infecciosos y d) antagonismo microbiano: impide el asentamiento de microorganismos patógenos sobre nuestras mucosas. Se manifiesta de tres maneras: interferencia con la colonización, producción de compuestos antimicrobianos y coagregación con los patógenos potenciales. La microbiota también puede producir perjuicios, principalmente, infecciones endógenas, de carácter claramente oportunista y generación de compuestos carcinogénicos. Los probióticos son «microorganismos vivos que, cuando se administran en cantidades adecuadas, confieren un beneficio a la salud del consumidor». Los prebióticos son glúcidos no digeribles, que estimulan el crecimiento o la actividad de los microorganismos autóctonos, resultando en un beneficio para la salud. Los simbióticos son mezclas de probióticos y prebióticos que generan una acción saludable sinérgica (AU)
The autochthonous microbiota is the community of microorganisms that colonizes the skin and mucosal surfaces. The symbiosis is, generally, mutualistic but it can become parasitic due to immune response alterations. The skin microbiota includes bacteria (95%), lipophilic fungi and mites. In the digestive apparatus, each cavity presents its own microbiota, which reaches its target organ during the perinatal period, originating complex and stable communities (homeostasis). The vaginal microbiota varies with the endocrine activity, significantly increasing during the fertile and pregnancy periods, when lactobacilli are the most abundant organisms. Four are the main benefits of the autochthonous microbiota: i) delivery of essential nutrients, such as vitamins and some amino acids; ii) utilization of undigestible diet components, the colonic microbiota degrades complex glycans and fulfils almost 20% of the calories present in a normal diet; iii) development of the immune system: the continuous contact with the immune system maintains it alert and in good shape to repel pathogens efficaciously and iv) microbial antagonism, hinders colonization of our mucosal surfaces by alochthonous, potentially pathogenic, organisms. This works through three mechanisms: colonization interference, production of antimicrobials and co-aggregation with the potential pathogens. The microbiota can, sporadically, produce damages: opportunistic endogenous infections and generation of carcinogenic compounds. Probiotics are 'live microorganisms that when administered in adequate amounts, confer a health benefit to the consumer'. Prebiotics are undigestible glycans that enhance the growth or activity of the intestinal microbiota, thus generating a health benefit. Synbiotics are mixes of probiotics and prebiotics that exert a synergistic health effect (AU)
Humans , Prebiotics/analysis , Probiotics/analysis , Synbiotics/analysis , Microbiota , Intestinal Mucosa/microbiology , Whole Foods , Nutrigenomics/trends , Gastrointestinal Tract/microbiology , Immunity, Mucosal
