The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has released an update on its Qualified Presumption of Safety (QPS) list, confirming its ongoing mission to provide a streamlined safety assessment for microbiological agents added intentionally to food and feed. This January 22, 2026 statement addresses which microorganisms remain on the safe list and evaluates new candidates, stirring interest among industry producers, national regulators, consumers, and the panel of scientific assessors.
Published by EFSA and available in the EFSA Journal, the document titled "Update of the list of qualified presumption of safety (QPS) recommended microbiological agents intentionally added to food or feed as notified to EFSA 23" was adopted on December 3, 2025. The update is issued as a statement, reflecting assessed knowledge rather than new legislation.
This policy document reiterates the QPS approach which harmonizes safety assessment by focusing on taxonomic identity and accumulated scientific knowledge. The statement evaluates 47 microorganism notifications received by EFSA from April to September 2025 across feed additives, food enzymes, novel foods, and food contact materials. Among them, three new taxonomic units were assessed for QPS suitability: Microchloropsis gaditana, Bacillus thermoamylovorans, and Aurantiochytrium acetophilum.
EFSA updates the QPS list by confirming that Microchloropsis gaditana qualifies for QPS status but only with the qualification 'for production purpose only'. Meanwhile, Bacillus thermoamylovorans and Aurantiochytrium acetophilum were not granted QPS status due to insufficient body of knowledge. The update also excludes filamentous fungi and Escherichia coli from QPS evaluation, maintaining a cautious approach. This demonstrates EFSA's prioritization of safety and assurance over expanding the QPS list without robust evidence.
The impact of this update affects several stakeholders. Feed and food industry producers gain clarity on which microorganisms are presumed safe, thus potentially lowering compliance costs for approved strains such as M. gaditana. Conversely, businesses interested in using B. thermoamylovorans and A. acetophilum face additional scientific review burdens and possibly delayed market access. National authorities benefit from harmonized guidelines reinforcing consumer safety, while consumers receive continued protection backed by scientific rigor. EFSA's scientific panels retain their role in detailed strain-level risk assessments, emphasizing balanced oversight.
This statement represents a continuation of EFSA's ongoing QPS safety assessment cycle rather than introducing new regulatory frameworks. Future institutional follow-up is expected to come from EFSA’s scientific panels, which will assess strain-level safety qualifications and from ongoing notifications of new microorganisms. The scientific community and industry will likely monitor further updates as microbiological innovation progresses.
← Atlas › News › Agri-Food