EFSA Journal (Dec 2023)

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NZYM‐WR

  • EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP),
  • Claude Lambré,
  • José Manuel Barat Baviera,
  • Claudia Bolognesi,
  • Pier Sandro Cocconcelli,
  • Riccardo Crebelli,
  • David Michael Gott,
  • Konrad Grob,
  • Evgenia Lampi,
  • Marcel Mengelers,
  • Alicja Mortensen,
  • Gilles Rivière,
  • Inger‐Lise Steffensen,
  • Christina Tlustos,
  • Henk Van Loveren,
  • Laurence Vernis,
  • Holger Zorn,
  • Yrjö Roos,
  • Magdalena Andryszkiewicz,
  • Kyriaki Apergi,
  • Cristina Fernàndez‐Fraguas,
  • Silvia Peluso,
  • Giulio diPiazza,
  • Yi Liu,
  • Andrew Chesson

DOI
https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8394
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 21, no. 12
pp. n/a – n/a

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The food enzyme α‐amylase (4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.1) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NZYM‐WR by Novozymes A/S. The production strain met the requirements for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The food enzyme is intended to be used in nine food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of baked products, cereal‐based products other than baked, glucose syrups and other starch hydrolysates, distilled alcohol and brewed products; production of refined and unrefined sugar, production of plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of juices and fruit and vegetable products other than juices. Since residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during two processes, a dietary exposure was calculated only for the remaining seven food manufacturing processes. Exposure was estimated to be up to 0.450 mg TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. As the production strain qualified for the QPS approach and no issues of concern arose from the production process of the food enzyme, the Panel considered that toxicological studies were unnecessary. A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and one match with a respiratory allergen was found. The Panel considered that the risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded (except for distilled alcohol production), but the likelihood is low. Based on the data provided, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the intended conditions of use.

Keywords