Skip to main content

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme cellulase from the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐852

on the Wiley Online Library

Metadata

Panel members at the time of adoption

José Manuel Barat Baviera, Claudia Bolognesi, Andrew Chesson, Pier Sandro Cocconcelli, Riccardo Crebelli, David Michael Gott, Konrad Grob, Claude Lambré, Evgenia Lampi, Marcel Mengelers, Alicja Mortensen, Gilles Rivière, Vittorio Silano (until 21 December 2020 †), Inger‐Lise Steffensen, Christina Tlustos, Henk Van Loveren, Laurence Vernis and Holger Zorn.

Legal notice: The full opinion will be published in accordance with Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 1331/2008 once the decision on confidentiality will be received from the European Commission.

Abstract

The food enzyme cellulase (4‐(1,3;1,4)‐β‐d‐glucan 4‐glucanohydrolase; EC 3.2.1.4) is produced with the genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐852 by AB Enzymes GmbH. The genetic modifications did not give rise to safety concerns. The food enzyme is considered free from viable cells of the production organism and its DNA. The food enzyme is intended to be used in five food manufacturing processes: baking processes, brewing processes, distilled alcohol production, wine and wine vinegar production, and fruit and vegetable processing for juice production. As residual amounts of total organic solids (TOS) are removed by distillation, dietary exposure was only calculated for the other four food processes. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme TOS was estimated to be up to 0.1 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by means of a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 1,000 mg TOS/kg bw per day, the highest dose tested, which when compared with the estimated dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 10,000. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use (other than distilled alcohol production) the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions by dietary exposure cannot be excluded, but the likelihood for this to occur is considered to be 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.