Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 23: Suitability of taxonomic units notified to EFSA until September 2025

TL;DR

This paper updates a list of microorganisms considered safe for food and feed, evaluating new notifications and determining their safety status.

Contribution

The paper updates the QPS list with new notifications and evaluates the suitability of three new microorganisms for QPS status.

Findings

Heyndrickxia faecalis was recently assessed and is already on the QPS list.

Bacillus thermoamylovorans and Aurantiochytrium acetophilum were excluded from QPS due to insufficient knowledge.

Microchloropsis gaditana was granted QPS status with a qualification for production use only.

Abstract

The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a harmonised safety assessment approach to support EFSA Scientific Panels and Units. The QPS approach assesses the taxonomic identity, body of relevant knowledge and safety of microorganisms intentionally added to the food and feed chain. Safety concerns identified for a taxonomic unit (TU) are, where possible, reflected by ‘qualifications’ that should be assessed at the strain level by EFSA's Scientific Panels. During the period covered by this Statement, no new information warranted changes to the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. The QPS list was updated to verify the correctness of the names and the completeness of synonyms. Of the 47 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2025 (28 as feed additives, 11 as food enzymes or additives, 6 as novel foods, none as plant protection products and 2 as food contact materials), 43 were not evaluated. These latter included 9 filamentous fungi and 9 Escherichia coli (all excluded from the QPS evaluation), and 25 already present on the QPS list. One of the other four notifications, Heyndrickxia faecalis (previously known as Weizmannia faecalis), had been assessed recently within this 3‐years QPS cycle. The remaining 3 were assessed for a possible QPS status. Microchloropsis gaditana, Bacillus thermoamylovorans (both notified for the first time) and an additional TU, Aurantiochytrium acetophilum, not evaluated previously, which was included in response to an internal request. B. thermoamylovorans cannot be granted the QPS status due to the lack of body of knowledge. A. acetophilum cannot be granted the QPS status due to a limited body of knowledge. M. gaditana can be granted the QPS status with the qualification for ‘production purpose only’.