Safety evaluation of the food enzyme containing cellulase, endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase activities from the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐256
Enzymes and Processing Aids EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials,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,Boet Glandorf,Lieve Herman,Yrjö Roos,Natália Kovalkovičová,Yi Liu,Simone Lunardi,Giulio Di Piazza,Rita Ferreira Sousa,Andrew Chesson,EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP),Rita Ferreira de Sousa
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2022.7676
2022-12-11
EFSA Journal
Abstract:The food enzyme containing cellulase (EC 3.2.1.4), endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6) and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐256 by AB‐Enzymes GmbH. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism. It is intended to be used in seven food manufacturing processes: baking processes, cereal‐based processes, brewing processes, fruit and vegetable processing for juice production, wine and wine vinegar production, distilled alcohol production and grain treatment for production of starch and gluten fractions. Since the residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed during grain treatment and distilled alcohol production, dietary exposure was estimated for the remaining five processes and amounted up to 3.92 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day. The toxicity studies were carried out with an endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase from T. reesei ■■■■■, considered by the Panel as a suitable substitute, because the genetic differences between the strains are well characterised and of no concern. Additionally, several strains derived from the production strain are considered safe by EFSA and the manufacturing of both food enzymes is similar. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity rat study. The no observed adverse effect level of 939 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, compared with the estimated dietary exposure, resulted in a margin of exposure above 239. In the search for the similarity of the amino acid sequences to known allergens, one match (salmon) was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use (except distilled alcohol production), the risk of allergic reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, in particular for individuals sensitised to salmon. The Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns, under the intended conditions of use.
food science & technology