Pasar al contenido principal

Safety evaluation of the food enzyme α‐amylase from the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzb52

on the Wiley Online Library


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.

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


The food enzyme α‐amylase (1,4‐α‐d‐glucan glucanohydrolase; EC is produced with the genetically modified Bacillus licheniformis strain DP‐Dzb52 by Danisco US Inc. The production strain contains multiple copies of an antimicrobial resistance gene. However, based on the absence of viable cells and DNA from the production organism in the food enzyme, this is not considered to be a risk. The α‐amylase is intended to be used in starch processing for the production of glucose syrups, brewing processes and distilled alcohol production. Since residual amounts of the food enzyme are removed by the purification steps applied during the production of glucose syrups and distillation, no dietary exposure was calculated. Based on the maximum use levels recommended for the brewing processes and individual data from the EFSA Comprehensive European Food Consumption Database, dietary exposure to the enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 0.145 TOS/kg body weight per day in European populations. The toxicity studies were carried out with another α‐amylase from B. licheniformis strain DP‐Dzb54, considered by the Panel as a suitable substitute. Toxicological tests indicated that there was no concern with respect to genotoxicity or systemic toxicity. A no observed adverse effect level was identified in rats which, compared with the dietary exposure, results in a margin of exposure of at least 750. A search for similarity of the amino acid sequence to known allergens was made and one match was found. The Panel considered that, under the intended conditions of use, the risk of allergic sensitisation and elicitation reactions can be excluded in distilled alcohol production and is considered low when the enzyme is used in starch processing and brewing. 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.