# data[].attributes.body
Um zu bearbeiten, muss nan die Datei herunterladen und später neu Einfügen.  :)

# data[].attributes.headline
Vergleichstabellen  (Zusammensetzung) von Pflanzen- und Tierproteinen

# data[].attributes.subject
Vergleichstabellen  (Zusammensetzung) von Pflanzen- und Tierproteinen

# data[].attributes.body
The Role of the Anabolic Properties of Plant- versus Animal-Based Protein Sources in Supporting Muscle Mass Maintenance: A Critical Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Role of the Anabolic Properties of Plant- versus Animal-Based Protein Sources in Supporting Muscle Mass Maintenance: A Critical Review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Plant-sourced proteins offer environmental and health benefits, and research increasingly includes them in study formulas. However, plant-based proteins have less of an anabolic effect than animal proteins due to their lower digestibility, lower essential amino acid content (especially leucine), and deficiency in other essential amino acids, such as sulfur amino acids or lysine.

# data[].attributes.headline
Safety of Novel Protein Sources (Insects,Microalgae, Seaweed, Duckweed, and Rapeseed)and Legislative Aspects for Their Applicationin Food and Feed Production

# data[].attributes.subject
Safety of Novel Protein Sources (Insects,Microalgae, Seaweed, Duckweed, and Rapeseed)and Legislative Aspects for Their Applicationin Food and Feed Production

# data[].attributes.body
1. Introduction to novel proteins (feed and food production)

2. Description of novel proteins (insects. algae, rapeseed, duckweeds)

3. EU requirements for novel proteins

4. Potenital hazzards of novel proteins

5. Novel food legislation (Kategorien, Voraussetzungen, Gefahren

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Novel protein sources (like insects, algae, duckweed, and rapeseed) are expected to enter the European feed and food market as replacers for animal‐derived proteins. However, food safety aspects of these novel protein sources are not well‐known. The aim of this article is to review the state of the art on the safety of major novel protein sources for feed and food production, in particular insects, algae (microalgae and seaweed), duckweed, and rapeseed. Potential hazards for these protein sources are described and EU legislative requirements as regard to food and feed safety are explained. Potential hazards may include a range of contaminants, like heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues, as well as pathogens. Some safety aspects of novel protein sources are intrinsic to the product, but many potential hazards can also be due to production methods and processing conditions. These aspects should be considered in advance during product development. European law is unclear on several issues regarding the use of novel protein sources in food and feed products. For food product applications, the most important question for food producers is whether or not the product is considered a novel food. One of the major unclarities for feed applications is whether or not products with insects are considered animal‐derived products or not. Due to the unclarities in European law, it is not always clear which Regulation and maximum levels for contaminants apply. For market introduction, European legislation should be adjusted and clarified.

Introduction

In response to the Kyoto Protocol on the global climate, the European Union (EU) made agreements on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Major sources of these gas emissions are cattle breeding and related meat consumption (Steinfeld and others 2006; Van Beukering and others 2008).

In the last decades, the global consumption of animal proteins has increased continuously. Between 1950 and 2000, the global human population more than doubled from 2.7 to 6 billion people. Meat production, however, increased by a factor of 5 from 45 to 233 billion kg per year. For 2050, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) expects a world population of 9 billion and meat production of 410 billion kg per year (Boland and others 2013; FAO 2006). Animal‐derived protein accounts currently for almost 40% of humanity's total protein consumption, and FAO expects a substantial increase by 2050 if the trend goes on uninterrupted (Boland and others 2013). Several global developments, such as the increasing demand on animal products in China and India, necessitates to use animal proteins in a more responsible manner than currently (Vereijken and Aiking 2006).

Animal proteins are produced inefficiently. Depending on the animal species and various conditions, 2 to 15 kg plant material is needed to produce 1 kg of animal products. Currently, 40% to 50% of the global grain harvest is used for feed production (Profetas 2008). To reduce the use of area and energy, people should eat less beef and more pork or chicken, reduce their portions, or change the meat portion in the diet by meat substitutes, such as legumes or eggs (Gerbens‐Leenes 2000; Aiking and De Boer 2006). Other studies also concluded that reduction of both meat consumption and production will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Stehfest and others 2008; Van Beukering and others 2008).

Novel protein sources (like insects, algae, duckweed, and rapeseed) are expected to enter the European feed and food market. For instance, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) supports, by the Acceleration agenda "Protein innovations," various possibilities to make current production and consumption of proteins more sustainable by modifying the production of animal proteins, development of new (plant) protein products, and biorefinery and valorization of protein‐rich waste streams (Bleker 2012).

Currently, research on novel proteins is conducted on the functionality, processing, and industrial application of novel proteins, and the valorization of by‐products or waste streams obtained in other processes. However, food safety aspects of these novel proteins are not well‐known. Especially the use of waste streams may introduce multiple food safety hazards. The presence of contaminants, antinutritional factors (ANFs), allergens, and accumulation and modification of substances in protein matrices during processing can have effects on public health.

The objective of this article is to review the state of the art on the safety of major novel protein sources for feed and food production, and on EU requirements for their safety. Unclarities to fulfill safety requirements for the introduction of novel proteins on the EU market are elucidated. First, novel protein sources will be described, as well as the potential hazards for proteins from insects, algae (microalgae and seaweed), duckweed, and rapeseed. Second, the EU requirements for novel protein sources will be explained in general and specifically for the selected protein sources.

Novel Proteins

Major animal protein sources for human consumption include meat, fish, milk, and eggs. Developments in the production of animal protein sources are directed toward the use of cheaper raw materials, increased health characteristics, and higher sustainability by using existing and novel protein sources and production methods. For this purpose, the use of novel protein sources, waste streams of processing, and by‐products of biofuel production are investigated (Krijne and Essink 2011). Various novel protein sources can be used for replacing current animal proteins in feed and food production (see Figure 1), but with different estimated time to enter the protein sources on the market.

Current plant protein sources that are widely consumed are proteins derived from soy, wheat, vegetables, and potatoes. Soy is the most important protein source for the production of animal proteins. Wheat is the largest group of plant protein sources in the Western diet and is often used for feed products (Krijne and Essink 2011).

Legumes (lupine), grains (rice, maize), mushrooms, and potatoes are sources that have already been used in food and feed. The availability and functionality of their proteins will be further improved by new technologies and valorization of waste streams (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011).

Another group of protein sources that is currently used for feed and biofuel products includes rapeseed, algae, grass, duckweed, and by‐products from agricultural processing and waste streams from biofuel chains (Stegeman and others 2010). Rapeseed is more or less ready now for market introduction for food use (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011). The other protein sources mentioned are still in early development stages. The same applies to insect proteins that are now used for petfood and (fish) feed. New processing technologies (such as extraction procedures) and valorization of waste streams, in order to apply insect proteins in feed and food, are being developed (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011). Processing insect cells opens up new possibilities for the application of this novel protein source (Verkerk and others 2007). The major novel protein sources are detailed below.

Insects

Insects consist of many species. Potential insects for application in food in the EU are Gryllodus sigillatus and Acheta domesticus (crickets), Alphitobius diaperinus (lesser mealworm), and Tenebrio molitor (yellow mealworm). Potential insects for use in feed products in the EU are Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly), larvae of Musca domestica (common housefly), and T. molitor (yellow mealworm).

During the rearing of insects, a metamorphosis occurs from egg via larva and pupa to mature adult. The modification path varies depending on the subspecies. Feed used for these insects are, for example, chicken feed, vegetables, and waste streams. Whole insects can be eaten raw, dried, crushed, textured, pulverized, or ground, or they are heated (such as cooked, boiled, fried, roasted, toasted, extruded, and canned) or preserved by freeze‐drying or cryovacking after degutting or fasting. Insect proteins can also be isolated by extraction before use in food products.

Most edible insects in non‐European countries are harvested from the wild (DeFoliart 1995). According to Schabel ( 2008), some insects may be considered as edible in some regions but not in others; some normally safe insects may be unhealthy if they feed on certain plants or originate from a polluted and pesticide‐treated area; some may be safe for some consumers but less (or not at all) for others due to the presence of allergens; and some may require special capture, preparation, storage, or transportation methods to render and keep them safe (Schabel 2008).

In 2010, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) reported that food safety of edible insects has not been studied extensively, which may be due to the fact that these insects are often treated as traditional foods of indigenous populations and rarely recognized as tradable food items. CAC describes that insects are rich in nutrients providing a medium for growth of unwanted microorganisms under certain conditions, especially making uncooked insects susceptible for microbiological hazards unless proper heat treatment or storage conditions are applied. Some people have or may develop (food) allergies against certain species of insects. Some insects may require other treatments before they are rendered edible (CAC 2010). Insect proteins may display a cross‐allergenicity with shrimps and house dust mites (Witteman and others 1994; Leung and others 1996; Reese and others 1999; Houben 2012; Verhoeckx and others 2013).

Studies on food safety of cultivated European insects are very limited. Vijver and others ( 2003) reported upon the uptake and accumulation of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc from soils by larvae of T. molitor (Vijver and others 2003). Zagrobelny and others ( 2009) described that species of Zygaena contained low quantities of cyanogenic glucosides (Zagrobelny and others 2009). Goumperis ( 2012) presented potential hazards of insects for food and feed application: the presence of pathogens, contaminants (such as pesticides, natural toxins, heavy metals, neoformed substances due to processing, and veterinary residues), allergenicity, and the introduction of pests, and animal and plant diseases into the EU (Goumperis 2012). Recently, Belluco and others ( 2013) published a review on food safety of European and non‐European insects, demonstrating the safety of some insects with no additional hazards in comparison with usually consumed animal products.

Food safety of non‐European insects has been studied more widely (Table 1). Reported food safety hazards of non‐European insects include allergens (Baldo and Panzani 1988; Blum 1994; Phillips and Burkholder 1995; Vetter 1995; Freye 1996; MacEvilly 2000; Arlian 2002; Lian and Liu 2006; Ji and others 2008; Ji and others 2009), ANFs (Wirtz 1984; Nishimune and others 2000; Adeduntan 2005; El Hassan and others 2008), mycotoxins (Simpanya and others 2000; Braide and others 2011), pesticides (Saeed and others 1993; DeFoliart 1999), heavy metals and alkali (Green and others 2001; Handley and others 2007; Zhuang and others 2009; Banjo and others 2010), natural toxins (Duffey 1980; Wirtz 1984; DeFoliart 1992; Berenbaum 1993; Blum 1994; Nishimune and others 2000; Zagrobelny and others 2009), and the presence of pathogenic microorganisms (Simpanya and others 2000; Amadi and others 2005; Giaccone 2005; Banjo and others 2006; Templeton and others 2006; Braide and others 2011; Klunder and others 2012). Examples of bacteria found in insects are species from the genera Staphylococcus and Bacillus (Amadi and others 2005; Banjo and others 2006; Braide and others 2011), Campylobacter (Templeton and others 2006), Pseudomonas (Banjo and others 2006), Micrococcus and Acinetobacter (Amadi and others 2005), Proteus and Escherichia (Braide and others 2011), Enterobacteriaceae, and certain sporeforming bacteria (Klunder and others 2012). Examples of fungi found in insects are Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium (Simpanya and others 2000; Braide and others 2011), Chaetomium, Mucor, Mucorales, Alternaria, Drechslera, and Phoma (Simpanya and others 2000). Insects may also contain pathogens as a result of improper processing or handling (Banjo and others 2006).

Insect species

Country of origin

Production method

Processing

Hazards

References

T. molitor (mealworm) and Zophobas morio (superworm)

United States

-

-

Allergens

(Freye 1996)

Silkworm pupa of Bombyx mori and B. mandarina, and their silk

China

*

*

Allergens (sericin)

(Lian and Liu 2006)

Larvae of Rhynchophorus phoenicis (beetle), Anapleptes trifasciata (beetle)

Markets in Epe, Itokin, Abigi, Ologbun and Ibiade. Wild: Lagos, Ogun, Oyo and Ondo state, Nigeria

From markets and wild

Preserved in 70% alcohol or oven dried at 60 to 70 °C

Nickel, lead, cadmium, zinc, sodium

(Banjo and others 2010)

Pupae of Anaphe spp. ( A. infracta or A. panda) (silk worm)

Suburb of Kampala, Uganda

Wild

Dry pupae: extracted, ground, centrifuged

Thiaminase

(Nishimune and others 2000)

Caterpillar of the emperor moth Bunaea alcinoe

Eastern and Southern part of Nigeria

Wild from leaves of Cananga odorata plant

Degutted, washed, spiced, salted, wrapped, roasted, sun dried

Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Proteus, Escherichia, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, mycotoxins

(Braide and others 2011)

Larvae of the cabbage tree emperor moth Bunaea alcinoe Stoll

Niger delta, Nigeria

Gmelina tree within the premises of the university

-

Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Micrococcus and Acinetobacter

(Amadi and others 2005)

Larvae of Oryctes monocerus ( African Rhinoceros beetle)

Itokin, Nigeria

Wild

Culturing

Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus cereus

(Banjo and others 2006)

Phane worm (larval stage) of the emperor moth Imbrasia belina Westwood

Francistown, Botswana

Wild

-

Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, Chaetomium, Mucor, Mucorales, Alternaria, Drechslera, and Phoma, mycotoxins. Contaminated with fungi from leaves and soil

(Simpanya and others 2000)

Based on these studies on food safety of non‐European insects, food safety issues should be identified and assessed before insects can enter the market in Europe. Both chemical and microbiological hazards can be introduced or formed in concentrations that may be harmful for public health. Feed for insects (feed, vegetables, and waste products) can be contaminated with mycotoxins, natural toxins, heavy metals, veterinary residues (including antibiotics), pesticides, and pathogens. Potential hazards of the insects themselves can be allergens, pesticides, contaminants, and pathogens. During rearing, insects may be able to convert or accumulate contaminants present in their feed, which can result in degradation or increase of the concentration of substances. The particular safety hazards depend on the insect species, their feed and environment, and production methods. Therefore, more attention should be directed toward the effects of these environmental and management conditions on the safety of insects destined for human or animal consumption.

Algae

Algae belong to a large and diverse group of organisms using photosynthesis, which do not belong to the group of terrestrial plants (Cazaux and others 2010). Algae can be distinguished as microalgae and seaweed (Kerkvliet 2001; Stegeman and others 2010). Microalgae are single‐celled organisms that can grow over a wide range of environmental conditions, whereas seaweeds are complex multicellular organisms growing in salt water or a marine environment (Cazaux and others 2010).

About 30% of the current worldwide algal production is sold for animal feeding purposes (Becker 2004). Algae are approved in several countries as chicken feed and do not require new testing or approval for feed use (Becker 1994). With regard to food use, the marine diatom Odontella aurita by Innovalg (France) has been approved since 9 December 2002 as a novel food (Gouveia and others 2008).

Microalgae

Several microalgae (for example, species from the genera Chlorella, Tetraselmis, Spirulina, Nannochloropsis, Nitzchia, Navicula, Chaetoceros, Scenedesmus, Haematococcus, and Crypthecodinium) can be used in feed for both terrestrial and aquatic animals (Harel and Clayton 2004).

Microalgae used for human consumption are Arthrospira (spirulina, namely, cyanobacteria), Chlorella spp., Dunaliella salina, and Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua (Kerkvliet 2001; Spolaore and others 2006). They originate from several countries: Spirulina from, for instance, China, India, Japan, and United States (US) (Spolaore and others 2006; Small 2011), chlorella from, for instance, Taiwan, Germany, and Japan, Dunaliella salina from Australia, Israel, US, China, and Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua from the US (Spolaore and others 2006). The green algae (Chlorophycea) Chlorella vulgaris, Haematococcus pluvialis, Dunaliella salina, and the cyanobacteria Spirulina maxima are widely commercialized and used, mainly as nutritional supplements for humans and as animal feed additives (Kerkvliet 2001; Gouveia and others 2008; Stegeman and others 2010).

Several studies show that safety hazards related to algae may include allergens, toxins, pathogens, heavy metals, and pesticides.

Allergenicity has been reported for airborne cyanobacteria Phormidium fragile and Nostoc muscorum (Sharma and Rai 2008), and the green algal genus Chlorella (Tiberg and Einarsson 1989). However, a high‐lipid product, Whole Algalin Flour, composed of dried milled Chlorella protothecoides showed little potential for food allergy (Szabo and others 2012).

No toxins have been found in spirulina and chlorella. However, in Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua, toxic microcystines have been detected (Kerkvliet 2001; Heussner and others 2012). Extracts from products consisting of Aphanizomenon flos‐aquae, Spirulina, and Chlorella, or mixtures thereof, were cytotoxic (Heussner and others 2012). Under favorable conditions, pheophorbides are formed in chlorella, which give rise to photosensibilization in some humans (Kerkvliet 2001).

Another safety aspect is the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Spirulina and chlorella are cultivated in open bassins, which may result in microbiological contamination from birds, insects, and rodents (Kerkvliet 2001).

Algae may accumulate heavy metals. Since algae are at the bottom of the aquatic food chain pyramid, they are the most important vector for transfer of pollution to upper levels of the trophic chain in aquatic environments (Souza and others 2012). Sludge‐grown algae contain a rather substantial amount of heavy metals that may impose adverse effects to higher trophic organisms (Hung and others 1996; Wong and others 1996). Spirulina accumulates more heavy metals than chlorella (Kerkvliet 2001). Other authors found no exceedance of legal maximum levels of heavy metals as established in their own jurisprudence (Hsu and others 2001; Kolb and others 2004; Marles and others 2011).

The pesticide fenamiphos and its metabolites can be transformed and accumulated by Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Chlorococcum spp. Therefore, contamination of natural environments can have adverse impacts on the food chain and associated biota (Caceres and others 2008).

Seaweed

Seaweed species that are used for direct consumption include, among others: Ulva rigida, Monostroma sp., Enteromorpha sp., Laminaria sp., Undaria pinnatifida, Hizikia fusiforme, Himanthalia elongata, Eisenia bicyclis, Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosis, Porphyra sp., Cladophora glomerata, Microspora floccosa, and Palmaria palmata (Kerkvliet 2001; Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Murphy 2007; Akköz and others 2011). Seaweeds can be harvested from the sea, but they are also increasingly cultivated (Cazaux and others 2010). Seaweed products in fresh and dried form are imported from Japan and France. Laminaria sp. (kelp weed) originating from the Arctic Ocean, Iceland, and Norway are mainly used in food supplements (Kerkvliet 2001). No research has been performed on the extraction of proteins of seaweeds for human consumption (Stegeman and others 2010). Several seaweed species, such as U. rigida, Ascophyllum, Laminaria, Undaria, Porphyra, Cystoseira barbata, and C. glomerata have been evaluated as feed additives in meal to fish diets (Appler and Jauncey 1983; Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Kut Güroy and others 2007).

The use of C. glomerata, M. floccosa, and P. palmata in daily meals has been safe for humans (Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Mouritsen and others 2013). Several studies show that safety hazards for seaweed may include iodine, ANFs, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, ammonium, dioxins, and pesticides.

In Laminaria, high levels of iodine were found (Van Netten and others 2000; Kerkvliet 2001). A broad diversity of seaweed species (red, green, and brown) contains ANFs, such as low levels of lectins, tannins, and phytic acid, and high levels of trypsin inhibitors and amylase inhibitors (de Oliveira and others 2009).

Seaweeds can accumulate heavy metals depending on the growing time in the sea and the levels of heavy metals in the water (Ortega‐Calvo and others 1993; Murphy 2007; Smith and others 2010). The types and concentration of metals found in seaweed vary with species, collection time, growth phase, and collection site (Houa and Yanb 1998; Brown and others 1999; Van Netten and others 2000; Murphy 2007; Smith and others 2010). Reported accumulation of heavy metals includes arsenic (Van Netten and others 2000; Kerkvliet 2001; Almela and others 2002; Rose and others 2007; Besada and others 2009; ), copper (Prasher and others 2004; Murphy 2007; Murphy and others 2007, 2009; Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010; Akköz and others 2011), cadmium (Prasher and others 2004; Besada and others 2009; de Oliveira and others 2009; Akköz and others 2011), chromium (Murphy 2007; Murphy and others 2008, 2009; de Oliveira and others 2009), nickel (Prasher and others 2004; de Oliveira and others 2009; Akköz and others 2011), vanadium (de Oliveira and others 2009), iron, magnesium (Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010), mercury (Van Netten and others 2000), lead ( Van Netten and others 2000; Prasher and others 2004; Akköz and others 2011), cesium‐137, and radium‐226 (Van Netten and others 2000). The uptake of heavy metals for P. palmata was found to decrease in the order: lead > cadmium > copper > nickel (Prasher and others 2004). Iron, copper, and magnesium were the most significant metals found in red and green algae (Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010). In general, brown algae have higher arsenic levels than red or green algae (Almela and others 2002). Other studies found no harmful quantities of heavy metals (Hwang and others 2010; Smith and others 2010; Dhaneesh and others 2012). Little is known about the process of metal bioaccumulation in marine food chains because data on metal concentrations at different trophic levels and their temporal or spatial variation are sparse (Van Netten and others 2000; Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010; Akköz and others 2011).

Seaweeds also accumulate ammonium due to a combination of the size of the plant and the spatially and temporally variable concentration of ammonium in the seawater (Rees 2003).

Other contaminants found in seaweeds are dioxins and pesticides. Seaweeds were contaminated by polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) of industrial origin, such as combustion source (Hashimoto and Morita 1995). Pesticides that could be present in seaweeds are, for example, azametiphos, diflubenzuron, teflubenzuron, propoxur (Lorenzo and others 2012), and organic micropollutants (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) (Pavoni and others 2003). Further studies regarding the presence of chemotherapeutic agents in seaweeds are required, because of the lack of data on some currently used compounds, and to elucidate the transformation and biodegradation processes (Lorenzo and others 2012).

Duckweed

Duckweed species are small floating aquatic plants. They are monocotyledons of the botanical family Lemnaceae and are higher plants or macrophytes (Leng and others 1995). Duckweed family comprises of 4 genera ( Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia, and Wolfiella) and 34 species (Rahman and Hasegawa 2011). Duckweed species are found worldwide; they are adapted to a wide variety of geographic areas and climatic zones. They are found in all areas except waterless deserts and those permanently frozen. They grow best in tropical and temperate zones, but many species can survive extreme temperatures (Leng and others 1995).

Besides a component of animal and bird diets, duckweed is already a human food resource in traditional/small farmer systems in South Asia (Leng 1999; Adeduntan 2005; Derksen and Zwart 2010); Wolffia arrhiza has traditionally been eaten as "khai‐nam," in Burma, Laos, and northern Thailand. Khai‐nam is generally regarded as a poor people's food and so far has attracted little attention as a potentially significant source of human food (Bhanthumnavin and McGarry 1971).

Safety hazards for duckweed may include the presence of heavy metals, phenols, pesticides, dioxins, and pathogens.

Limited work has been done to characterize secondary metabolites in specific species of duckweed. So far, oxalic acid is the only identified compound produced by duckweed that is toxic to animals at high levels (Adeduntan 2005).

Holshof and others ( 2009) found dioxins in harvested duckweed, probably due to the presence of animal proteins of diving beetles or snakes (Holshof and others 2009).

Pathogens like Escherichia coli or Clostridium botulinum could contaminate duckweed (Hoving and others 2011). Islam and others ( 2004) studied the fecal coliform contamination of duckweed grown on hospital‐based wastewater. They found that wastewater‐treated duckweed may be safely used as fish feed (Islam and others 2004). Moyo and others ( 2003) concluded that the use of duckweed for chicken feed was microbiologically safe with respect to E. coli and Salmonella spp. provided that caution is taken during the processing of duckweed. Chickens may get contaminated, especially during wet weather due to poor environmental sanitation at the plant (Moyo and others 2003). Duckweed production in open greenhouse pools would be expected to produce biomass with an associated microflora of bacteria, viruses, fungi, algae, and possibly, microscopic invertebrates (Adeduntan 2005).

For using duckweed protein products for food or animal feed, methods would need to be developed to insure that heavy metals, phenols, pesticides, and pathogens would not contaminate the protein products (Stomp 2005; Hoving and others 2011).

Rapeseed

Rapeseed ( Brassica napus) is a bright yellow flowering member of the Brassicaceae. In 1986, the definition of canola was introduced to refer to B. napus and B. campestris (now Brassica rapa) lines containing less than 2% erucic acid in the oil and less than 30 μmol/g glucosinolates in the air‐dried, oil‐free meal (OECD 2011).

In the US, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notifications on canola protein ingredients have been received (ADM 2010; Keller‐and‐Heckman 2011). Mejia and others ( 2009a, b) found, in specific canola/rapeseed protein isolates, that potential natural toxicants such as glucosinolates and erucic acid, as well as potential contaminants such as pesticide residues, solvent residues, heavy metals, dioxins, aflatoxins, PAHs, and acrylamides, were either nondetected or below toxicological and regulatory allowed limits (Mejia and others 2009). However, in the EU, an application for a protein preparation isolated from B. napus and B. rapa was not accepted as a novel food due to the lack of limit values for relevant undesirable compounds, identification of the starting material, and studies on allergic reactions (CBG‐MEB 2012).

Heavy metals from the soil can accumulate in the roots, plant, and seeds of rapeseeds. Based on pot experiments, lead and zinc from the soil can accumulate in the roots of Brassica napus L., and small amounts of them move through the conductive system to the seeds. Cadmium moves relatively easily from root to stem and is accumulated in higher concentrations in the top of the plant (Angelova and others 2008). Rossi and others ( 2004) also showed that B. napus accumulated zinc and copper and translocated these elements in different ways in the harvestable parts of the plants (Rossi and others 2004). Ahmad and others ( 2011) found that lead, cadmium, and chromium concentrations in soil, forage, and seed of Brassica napus L. increased after treatment with sewage water (Ahmad and others 2011). Brunetti and others ( 2011) found that B. napus was able to accumulate high amount of metals in greenhouse conditions, in the order: chromium > zinc > copper > lead.

For use of rapeseed protein products for food production, methods would need to be developed to insure that heavy metals would not contaminate the protein products. The effects of ANFs and allergens should also be taken into account.

Overview of potential hazards in novel protein sources

Table 2 shows an overview of the potential hazards in the 5 novel protein sources considered. Heavy metals and processing contaminants are potential hazards for all 5 protein sources. Pesticides, pathogens, and allergens can be present in most protein sources. In addition, insects and seaweed have also other potential hazards like ANFs, mycotoxins, and dioxins.

Potential hazard

Insects

Microalgae

Seaweed

Duckweed

Rapeseed

Legislation

Food and feed business operators (FBOs) that wish to put novel food and feed protein products on the market have to comply with European and national rules for food and feed. For the novel products discussed in the previous sections below, some comments will be made on the general legal requirements as regard to market introduction and food and feed safety legislation.

General legislation

All FBOs in the EU should comply with the requirements established in EU and national law. Requirements are set for the producer (including transporters), the food and feed products, and the presentation of these products. Most of the requirements apply to all FBOs and food and feed products (horizontal law), some only to specific products (vertical law).

The General Food Law (Regulation (EC) 178/2002, 1 GFL) sets the framework for EU legislation on food and feed, and applies to all stages of food and feed production. First of all, this Regulation gives the definition of what is considered to be food and feed. Both definitions are very broad. Food or foodstuff is defined as "any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans" (art. 1). Feed or feedingstuff is defined as "any substance or product, including additives, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be used for oral feeding to animals" (art. 2). According to the GFL, the FBO is responsible for compliance of products, processes, and premises with all requirements of food law (art. 17). Foods (and feeds) should not be placed on the market if they are unsafe (art. 14 and 15) and must be traceable by the FBO (art. 18). Furthermore, in case a FBO has reasons to believe that a product is unsafe, it should immediately withdraw the product from the market and inform the competent authorities (art. 19 and 20). The presentation of the product should not mislead consumers (art. 16). The GFL as such defines the general rules for FBOs.

Food and feed hygiene legislation

The Food Hygiene Regulations, Regulation (EC) 852/2003 and (EC) 853/2004 contain general rules on hygiene of foodstuffs for all manufactures of food, including those involved in primary production. Only production for private domestic consumption or handling, and the direct supply of small quantities of primary products to consumers or local retail establishments are excluded from the scope of this Regulation. According to the Hygiene regulations, the FBO is obliged to notify the competent authorities of its existence (art. 6, 852/2004). When FBOs are handling certain products of animal origin, they should be approved before start of operations (art. 4, 853/2004). Also, FBO involved in feed production should be either registered or approved (art. 9 and 10, Feed Hygiene Regulation (EC) 183/2005) by the competent authorities of a member state. For registration, a FBO should inform the competent authority (CA) on the establishment and/or activities. For an approval, the CA must visit and give an approval prior to the upstart of the business.

Requirements for FBOs in primary production are laid down in Annex I, and for FBOs in other stages of production in Annex II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004. FBOs in primary production are required to take measures to control contamination of their products (Annex I, Part A. Regulation (EC) 852/2003), such as the requirement to use potable or clean water whenever necessary to prevent contamination, to use biocides, plant protection products, veterinary medicinal products, and feed additives correctly, and to keep records of measures taken to control hazards. Those FBOs producing primary products of animal origin should also keep records on, among others, the nature and the origin of feed fed to animals (Annex I Part A., III 8). FBOs involved in the production, processing, and distribution of food after the stage of primary production should have food safety programs and procedures based on HACCP principles (art. 5 Regulation (EC) 852/2004). National and Community guides on good hygiene practices for control of hazards, including those in primary production, are (being) developed to help FBOs in this respect. Member states should assess these guidances to confirm that they assure compliance with hygiene regulations. National guides on good hygiene practice are compiled in a register of the EU Commission (Belluco and others 2013). For nonprimary producers and transporters, Annex II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004 contains general requirements for premises (like adequate number of lavatories), equipment and personnel, cleaning and maintenance, rooms where foodstuffs are handled, for transport, food waste, foodstuffs, and water supply. For FBOs involved in the production of food of animal origin, more elaborate hygiene requirements are laid down in Regulation (EC) 853/2004. However, the most extensive requirements in this regulation are only applicable to those animals that are specifically mentioned in Annex I. For a number of pathogenic microorganisms in specified foodstuffs, microbiological criteria are laid down in Regulation (EC) 2073/2005, for novel food products not included in the categories in this regulation, no microbiological criteria have been established yet.

For FBOs producing feed, Regulation (EC) 183/2005 applies. Annex I of this regulation contains, among others, hygiene provisions and the obligation of record keeping for those involved in the primary production of feed. For FBOs involved in feed after the stage of primary production, requirements on facilities and equipment, personnel, production, quality control, storage and transport, record‐keeping and complaints, and product recall are laid down in Annex II. An obligation for the latter FBOs is that they shall monitor for the presence of prohibited and undesirable substances and other contaminants. Furthermore, feed FBOs should, like food FBOs, have procedures in place based on hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) principles. For assistance in the application of HACCP principles, community and national guides to good practice have been developed and made available (Aider and Barbana 2011).

Novel food legislation

Novel food and novel food ingredients that were not consumed "to a significant degree" in the EU prior to 15 May 1997 have to be authorized before market introduction according to Regulation (EC) 258/97, the Novel Food Regulation (NFR). At the time of drafting of the NFR, no EU definition of "food" existed in the EU (Jones 2012); therefore, 4 categories of novel food and food ingredients to which the NFR applies were identified in art. 1 (2) c-f (a and b concerning genetically modified organisms were later moved to separate regulations) (see our italics):

c.
Foods and food ingredients with a new or intentionally modified primary molecular structure.

d.
Foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from microorganisms, fungi, or algae.

e.
Foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from plants and food ingredients isolated from animals, except for foods and food ingredients obtained by traditional propagating or breeding practices and having a history of safe food use.

f.
Foods and food ingredients to which has been applied a production process not currently used, where the process gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the foods or food ingredients which affect their nutritional value, metabolism, or level of undesirable substances.

Most novel protein products mentioned in this publication will fall within category d or e. Although it is not always clear to what category a new food product belongs in reality, this does not make a huge difference in the data that have to be provided by the applicant for the safety assessment (Jones 2012).

The producer of a novel food has to notify a member state of the EU its intention to place a novel product on its market for the first time. The CA of a member state then checks if the food is a novel food and if the dossier is complete, and if so, makes a first assessment of the product. This assessment is forwarded to the European Commission (EC) which forwards the assessment to the CAs in all member states. If no objections are made by member states, an authorization is granted; if reasonable objections are made, then the dossier is forwarded to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Based on the EFSA opinion, a decision on authorization is taken under the EU committee procedure involving, among others, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH). An authorization is granted to the applicant of the novel food, and not to all FBO wishing to put a similar new product on the market of the EU. For "substantially equivalent" novel products, however, the applicant can and should notify the EC. In practice, for a substantially equivalent product, a statement of the CA of a member state confirming the equivalence should accompany this notification. The outline of and explanations on both procedures are given in a recently published decision tree on the internet (WageningenUR 2013).

The assessment aims to establish whether the novel food, or novel food ingredient, is safe for the consumer, does not mislead the consumer, or when it replaces another ingredient, is not nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer (art. 3.1). For the assessment, the applicant has to provide all the necessary data; data requirements are further specified in Recommendation 97/618/EC.

Since the entering into force of Regulation (EC) 258/97, experience has revealed that the procedures and requirements are not fully transparent for applicants of novel foods and novel food ingredients. Main uncertainties concern definitions and data requirements. The regulation applies to placing on the market any novel food and food ingredient, in which novel is defined as "which have not hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community..." "Not hitherto" means before May 15, 1997. Both the date and the borders of the EU were arbitrarily chosen, resulting in some products not being "novel," while other similar products had to be assessed for safety (Verhagen and others 2009). CAs from member states interpreted "the Community" as all member states of the EU, irrespective of their date of entry. This interpretation was confirmed in the recently published Information and Guidance document (see below). The expression "used for consumption to a significant degree" is also not clear, since nowhere in the regulation is explained what is meant by "to a significant degree." The SCFCAH decided that presence in food supplements prior to May 15, 1997, would not be considered to constitute consumption to a significant degree (SCFCAH 2005). An example of use of this guidance is the ruling on chromium picolinate by the SCFCAH (SCFCAH 2011). Just recently, the Directorate General for Health & Consumers of the European Commission (DG SANCO) published an "Information and Guidance Document on Human Consumption to a Significant Degree" (Naidu and others 1999). In this document, a decision tree is presented and a questionnaire, to be filled in by the applicant, on consumption aspects to help applicants to identify and justify significant consumption. The United Kingdom (UK) and Belgium also provide some advice on how to prove that a food is not novel on its Internet site (ANCFP 2005). Examples of proof of nonnovelty are invoices, legal import documents, lists of prices of food products dated before May 15, 1997, literature data, dated labels, FAO statistics, certificates or declarations of other member states on the status of a food, and so on. It is pointed out that the provided evidence should clearly demonstrate oral consumption of the food product by humans in the EU. The "Novel Food Catalogue" (EC 2013), a searchable database that lists products that have already been assessed before, as to being novel or not, could also help FBOs to determine the status of a product.

Besides administrative information, extensive data on composition, nutritional value and metabolism, intended use, and intake of and levels of hazardous substances in the novel food are essential. Furthermore, microbiological and toxicological (including allergenicity) information on the novel food should be provided by the applicant. For new products like insect proteins, the data requirements on composition, like analyses of a number of representative batches regarding nutrients, micronutrients, and known and potential contaminants, might be problematic if only pilot studies have been performed with breeding and harvesting of insects. Especially for proteins, the allergenic potential should be considered. For new proteins expressed in genetically modified crops, an EFSA opinion has been published for the assessment allergenicity (EFSA 2010a). This opinion could be used as a starting point in the assessment of non‐GM new proteins. Opinions of EFSA on novel protein products like "alfalfa protein concentrate" (EFSA 2009), "sardine peptide product" (EFSA 2010b), and bovine lactoferrin (EFSA 2012) further illustrate data requirements for novel proteins.

(Novel) Feed legislation

Feed materials are defined as "products of vegetable or animal origin, whose principal purpose is to meet animals" nutritional needs, in their state, fresh or preserved, and products derived from industrial processing thereof, and organic and inorganic substances, whether or not containing feed additives, which are intended for use in oral animal‐feeding either directly as such, or after processing, or in the preparation of compound feed, or as carrier of premixtures' (art. 3 (2g) Regulation (EC) 767/2009). The term "feed material" is further explained in a Recommendation (2011/25/EU) that was published with guidelines to clarify the distinction between feed materials, feed additives, and other feed products. In a quality control system for feed producers, a decision tree was developed to guide producers in definitions used in feed legislation (GMPplus 2011). Annex III of Regulation (EC) 767/2009 lists materials prohibited for feed use.

There is no premarket authorization procedure for novel feed products. A FBO just has to notify appropriate representatives of the European feed business sectors that the intention is to place a novel feed product on the EU market for the first time, that is, from 1 September 2010 onwards (art. 26(1) Regulation (EC) 767/2009), and for products that were on the market before September 1, 2010, but not listed in the catalogue (see further). This notifying FBO has to be registered as a FBO (art. 11, Regulation (EC) 183/2005). The representatives should publish the notifications on the Internet and update the register of feed materials with each notified novel feed material (art. 24(6) Regulation (EC) 767/2009). This Feed Materials Register (Feedmaterialsregister 2010) was set up solely for information purposes. The safety of the notified novel feed material is not assessed, neither by the representatives nor competent authorities. Thus, in the first instance, it is the FBO that is responsible for the safety of the new product. In the register, feed names are not unique, so the same name may be used for feed materials with different characteristics. However, products mentioned in the Feed Catalogue (Regulation (EU) 68/2013) are only allowed to be marketed with the name in the catalogue, provided they are compliant with the descriptions of the product and labeling requirements to the catalogue. The representatives can make amendments of the catalogue, to include products from the register, on a voluntary basis. Once taken up in the catalogue, the products with the same name in the register will be removed. The fact that a product is mentioned in the register or catalogue does not imply that it can be used in the feed of all animals. Animal proteins, for instance, are, with some exceptions, not allowed to be used in the feed of food‐producing animals as a result of the "extended feed ban" (see further under insects).

Legislation on chemical food and feed safety

For certain hazardous chemicals, like pesticides and veterinary drugs, an application for authorization must be filed with the competent authorities prior to use. If necessary, legal maximum limits will be set for residues of these chemicals in foods. Other chemicals occur naturally, are formed during processing, or are present in food and feed due to their presence in the environment. For some of these chemicals, maximum limits are also set by law, and there are limits for "undesirable substances" in feed. This legislation is listed in Table 3.

EU legislation

Substances

Food / feed products

Regulation (EC) 396/2005

Residues of plant protection products

Primary agricultural products that are used as food and feed and are listed in Annex I

Regulation (EU) 37/2010

Residues of veterinary medicinal products

Muscle meat, liver, kidney, fat (or skin and fat), milk, egg, and honey used as food

Regulation (EC) 1881/2006

Contaminants ( heavy metals, mycotoxins, processing contaminants, environmental contaminants, endogenous substances)

General or specified food products

Directive 2002/32/EC

Contaminants ( heavy metals, mycotoxins, environmental contaminants, persistent pesticides, endogenous substances, toxic weeds)

General or specified feed products

For plant protection products, the maximum residue limits (MRLs) set apply to the products listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005 (Regulation (EU) 212/2013), whether they are used as food or as feed. In general, the products listed in Annex I are primary agricultural products. It is foreseen that for some processed products, "specific concentration or dilution factors" will be laid down in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, but no factors have been established yet. For products not listed in Annex I, no EU MRLs for pesticide residues exist. This is also the case for the product groups "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs and other marine, and fresh water food products" and "crops or parts of crops exclusively used for animal feed" in Annex I. For the latter groups, MRLs are not applicable until individual products in these groups have been listed, but no individual products have been listed up till now. Seaweeds and "other terrestrial animal products" are included in Annex I. Thus, also for food and feed derived from insects, pesticide MRLs apply, although in most cases, no specific MRLs will have been set and the default MRL of 10 ppb or limits of quantification will apply.

According to the veterinary drug residues legislation (Regulation (EC) 470/2009), food‐producing animals are animals that are bred, raised, kept, slaughtered, or harvested for the purpose of producing food for humans. The only product of an insect that is included in the list of animal products is honey from bees. In Volume 8, the guidance note for applicants of MRLs for veterinary drugs, the other animal products mentioned are: liver, kidney, fat (fat and skin for pigs), and (injection site) muscle from mammals; liver, kidney, fat and skin, and muscle of poultry; and muscle and skin from fish (CVMP 2005). The animal products mentioned are the only products of animals for which MRLs are set thus far in the MRL regulation, Regulation (EU) 37/2010.

For contaminants, legal maximum levels (MLs) are only set for those food products that are contributing to human exposure. Levels are set as low as reasonably achievable (Regulation (EEC) 315/93). New food products (not on the market yet) do not contribute yet to human exposure. Thus, the regulation on contaminants in food, Regulation (EC) 1881/2006, does not yet contain MLs for the 5 novel protein foods considered. For oils and fats derived from plants and animals, also novel fats and oils, there are MLs for lead, and the sum of 3 PAHs, and benzo(a)pyrene. For oils of marine organisms and vegetable oils and animal fats, there are MLs for dioxins, dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs. Also, for "food supplements" that may contain new food products, MLs have been set for a limited number of contaminants.

For new products used as or in feed, Directive 2002/32/EC does contain maximum levels for a rather high, compared to food, number of undesirable substances. This is because feed products in this directive are not specified in as much detail as in the food contaminants regulation. Most new products will fall in the broad category "feed materials" of this directive. This means that for use as feed, there are maximum levels for arsenic, cadmium, fluorine, lead, mercury, nitrite, melamine, aflatoxin B1, several inherent plant toxins, the persistent pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers), dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs for all new products that are used as feed material. Furthermore, harmful botanical impurities (among others, several mustards) that should not be present in feed are listed in this directive.

In the next section, more specific remarks will be made on legislation applying to novel proteins derived from animal sources (insects) and plant sources.

Specific legislation for novel protein sources

Insects

When farmed insects or products derived from farmed insects are produced to be used as food for humans, or as feed for food‐producing animals, a FBO has to comply with rather complex legal requirements. These requirements are related to the insects themselves, the feed or substrate fed to the insects, the firm producing the insects, and the ultimate marketing for use as food or feed.

In the Netherlands, it is forbidden to keep animals for agricultural production that are not listed in the Dutch Decision on the indication of animals that are allowed to be kept for production purposes (Overheid 1997). Several insects, including those proposed to be used in food or feed, are listed in this decision. The regulation on protection of animals at the time of killing, Regulation (EC) 1099/2009, does not mention insects. Reptiles and amphibians are excluded from this regulation, because these "are not animals commonly farmed in the Community," so maybe insects will be excluded also in future.

It is not clear if food products consisting of or derived from insects are considered to be "products of animal origin" as defined in the Hygiene Regulations (EC) 852/2004 and (EC) 853/2004. No specific requirements are laid down for the production and processing of insects in these regulations. As no requirements for insects are laid down in Annex III of Regulation (EC) 853/2004, establishments handling insects do not need approval prior to the start of operation (but they should be registered). The breeding of insects is part of "primary production," the processing of insects into food is not. Thus, FBOs breeding and converting insects into food should comply with Annex I and II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004.

Whether feed, sometimes called substrate, fed to insects that are bred for consumption by humans or food‐producing and nonfood‐producing animals, should comply with Regulation (EC) 767/2009 is not clear. A "food‐producing animal" in this regulation is defined as "any animal that is fed, bred, or kept for the production of food for human consumption, including animals that are not used for human consumption, but that belong to a species that is normally used for human consumption in the Community" (art. 3 (2c)). Insects are "not normally" used for human consumption in the EU. Annex III of this regulation lists a number of materials that are prohibited for use as feed, such as feces and "household waste," materials that could be used to feed insects. On the opposite, feed or substrates for insects probably do have to comply with EU regulations on animal proteins, Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 (and the implementing Regulation (EU) 142/2011) as the definition of "farmed animals" in this regulation does not exclude insects: "any animal that is kept, fattened, or bred by humans and used for the production of food, wool, fur, feathers, hides, and skins or any other product obtained from animals or for other farming purposes." These regulations prohibit the use of some (animal protein) sources that might be suitable as feed for insects, like those mentioned under Category 2 materials: manure and gut content, dead‐in‐shell poultry, and fallen stock (art. 9). Also, the use of "catering waste" as feed for farmed animals (apart from fur animals) is prohibited (art. 11b). Of special concern when feeding insects are genetically modified (GM) plants with built‐in insecticides, like the crops in which insecticidal proteins of the microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are expressed. These GM crops may be detrimental to the growth of insects. All GM crops should be labeled according to EU legislation, however; thus, in principle, use of Bt‐derived ingredients could be avoided.

Although insects are already sold as food in the EU, mostly in specialty shops, the discussion as to whether insects and insect‐derived products are novel foods in the EU is still ongoing. Furthermore, it is not clear if the NFR applies to whole insects used as food, since in the definition only "food ingredients isolated from animals" are considered to be novel (Belluco and others 2013). The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK launched a survey in August 2011 on the consumption of insects in the UK, to determine if consumption "in a significant degree" before May 15, 1997, could be substantiated with data. This would obviate the need for a market application under the NFR for those insects for which a significant degree of consumption could be proven. The results of this survey are not published yet.

The legislation on the use of insects and insect‐derived products as feed for food‐producing animals is complicated. In the past, the use of animal proteins in feed for food‐producing animals was banned for safety reasons, for example, the prevention of transmission of TSE/BSE. The initial ban on use of mammalian proteins in feed for ruminants was later extended to the use of all animal proteins, also from nonmammalian sources, in feeds of all food‐producing animals (with some minor exceptions). The question is thus whether insect‐derived proteins are animal proteins. The fact that insect meal and insects are included in category 9.16.1. in the Catalogue of Feed materials does not imply that these products are therefore allowed to be used in feed for food‐producing animals. According to an answer given March 25, 2010, by Commissioner Dalli on a question from the European Parliament, insect meal is a "processed animal protein" as referred to in Annex IV of the Regulation (EC) 999/2001 and is therefore prohibited to be fed to farmed animals. Annex IV of this regulation contains details concerning the prohibitions (part I) and derogations (part II) on the feeding of animal proteins to categories of food‐producing animals, and as such give details for the prohibitions in art. 7.1. (ruminants) and art. 7.2 (other animals). There is neither explicit prohibition of, nor derogation for, the use of proteins from terrestrial invertebrates in Annex IV. Contrary to the answer by Dalli in a subsequent communication of the EU Commission, "TSE road map 2" (EC 2010), it is indicated that animal proteins not specifically excluded are allowed to be used in feeds of all nonruminants. In the table in this Roadmap, insect proteins are not specifically excluded.

Regulation (EC) 142/2011 (implementing Regulation (EC) 1069/2009) gives a definition for "processed animal protein" (PAP). In this definition, PAP is a product derived from "Category 3 material" treated in a certain way. Some specific products are excluded from the definition, such as milk, eggs, and products derived thereof. In article 10 of Regulation (EC) 1069/2011, a description of Category 3 material is given. This category includes, among others, all by‐products that are the result of the production of food products derived from animals fit for human consumption, but also products from terrestrial invertebrates (not pathogenic to humans and animals, art. 10(l)). Thus, it is here that insect‐derived proteins are included in PAP. Proper processing of insects to convert them to "processed animal proteins" is a basic requirement for use of these proteins in feed. Possible processing strategies are listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 142/2011. If just grinding and drying of whole insects or insect larvae, part of primary production, will be considered as proper processing by competent authorities is not clear, although the CA has sometimes some room to interpret.

Nowadays, new analytical control tools have been developed and a relaxation of the ban, allowing proteins from nonruminants to be used in feed again, was recently published. Regulation (EU) 56/2013 allows the use of nonruminant proteins in feed for fish in aquaculture. As transmission of BSE from nonruminants, also nonruminants like insects, to other nonruminants is negligible (Regulation (EU) 56/2013, recital 6), a lifting of the ban on use of insect proteins in the feed of food‐producing pigs and poultry should be on the agenda of the Commission in the near future.

Foods consisting of or derived from insects fall under the group "other terrestrial animal products" of the pesticide residue legislation (Annex I, Regulation (EC) 396/2005). This means that either specific MRLs will have been set, or the default MRL or limits of quantification are applicable. It might be necessary to treat insects raised for food use for diseases like infestation with other insects, fungi, bacteria, or viruses. Pesticides that are used to treat animals, and thus insects fall under the veterinary drugs legislation. A pharmacologically active substance of a veterinary drug must be listed in Table 1 of the Annex of Regulation (EU) 37/2010 and, if necessary, MRL must have been set in food products before a veterinary drug can be registered in a member state. No products derived from insects, apart from honey, are present in this regulation, so there are no MRLs for such products. If substances contained in Table 1 of the Annex are found in the official control in matrices for which no MRLs have been set, member states are expected to make a scientific assessment of the risk, and forward this assessment to the Commission. The registration procedure for the use of veterinary drugs on/in insects will probably be complicated and of a long duration, as no data requirements have been formulated yet. For insects raised solely for feed, the veterinary residue regulations do not apply. But, of course, products of animals fed with insects or insect‐derived products should comply with the veterinary drug residue legislation. Insect products used as feed should also comply with MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Microalgae

Foods consisting of or derived from algae are included in the definition of novel foods in the NFR. Thus, prior to market introduction of novel algae, an application should be filed for authorization of the product. Some products of algae might have been used as food prior to May 15, 1997. The Novel Food Catalogue should provide some insight as to whether an alga is novel or not. Several substances derived from algae are used as food additive. For food additives, Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 applies. In the past, prior to market access, a FBO was obliged to apply for authorization for the use of proteins derived from algae in feed under Directive 82/471/EEC. Assessment of safety and nutritional value was done according to the guidelines in Directive 83/228/EEC. To assist applicants, EFSA published a "Guidance for the assessment of biomasses for use in animal nutrition" in 2011. Regulation (EC) 767/2009 repealed both directives, and to date, no formal authorization and safety assessment is required anymore. But the Guidance of EFSA might still be useful for FBOs to assess their products.

Algae are likely to belong to the product group "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs, and other marine and fresh water food products " in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. MRLs for residues of plant protection products will be set as soon as individual products of this group are defined, which is not the case yet. Algae or their products used as feed should comply with all the MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Seaweed

Seaweeds are macroalgae, and thus the NFR will apply if the seaweed is novel. Whether a certain variety of seaweeds is considered to be novel or not can be verified to a certain extent in the Novel Food Catalogue. For instance, the brown seaweed Fucus vesiculosus is not a novel food according to this catalogue, but the red seaweed Rhodymenia palmata L ( P. palmata) is, as this seaweed has only been used before in food supplements. For proteins isolated from these algae, however, a novel food application might be necessary (art. 1(2f)). For use in feed no authorization is needed. Seaweeds are mentioned in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. MRLs for residues of plant protection products only apply if seaweeds are used for human consumption, not if they are used as feed for animals. For parts of seaweeds or seaweeds used exclusively for animal feed, separate MRLs will be set in the future. Only for food supplements consisting exclusively, or mainly, of dried seaweed, and products derived from seaweed, a ML for cadmium has been set in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006. Fresh seaweed is explicitly excluded in this regulation as a category of food for which the MLs of lead and cadmium are applicable. For seaweed meal and feed materials derived from seaweed, a separate ML for arsenic is set in Directive 2002/32/EC. All other products of seaweed used as feed should comply with the other MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Duckweed

Common duckweed, Lemna minor, was considered to be a novel food when an application was filed under the NFR (Novel Food Catalogue). Also, other subspecies of duckweed are likely to be novel foods and should be authorized prior to marketing as a food. For use in feed, no authorization is required. Duckweed is likely to belong to the product group "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs, and other marine and fresh water food products " in Annex I of pesticide residue Regulation (EC) 396/2005. Like for algae, no MRLs for residues of plant production products have been set, as no individual products have been defined yet for this group. Duckweed products used as feed should comply with all the MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Rapeseed

Oil from rapeseed, or canola, has been used as food for humans for some time now and is thus not a novel food. For this oil use, special rapeseed varieties are grown with low levels of the toxic fatty acid erucic acid (Directive 80/891/EEC) and glucosinolates. This is different for proteins derived from rapeseed seeds. Although leftovers from rapeseed processing have been used in animal feed, no use of products other than oil is common in food for humans. For rapeseed proteins, the NFR applies. The oilseeds of rapeseed are included in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. Thus, MRLs for plant protection product residues have been laid down in the other annexes of this regulation. For parts of rapeseed other than the seeds, the MRLs are not applicable. For oil from rapeseed, MLs have been set in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 for the contaminants lead, benzo(a)pyrene, dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs. For the feed material called rapeseed cakes, a specific ML has been set in 2002/32 for allyliosthiocyanate (an indicator of the presence of volatile mustard oil). All other products of rapeseed should comply with the other MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Unclarities in EU legislation

Table 4 shows an overview of the unclarities in EU legislation for the novel protein sources. Most unclarities in EU legislation were found for insects as novel protein source. For algae, seeweed, and duckweed, some MRLs are not yet set. No unclarities were found for rapeseed.

Protein source

Unclarity in EU legislation

EU legislation

Control of Safety Hazards

Producers of novel proteins are responsible for the application of a novel food dossier or for risk assessment of their new products. They are obliged to prove that their products are safe. Although some safety aspects of novel proteins are intrinsic to the product, many potential hazards can be controlled by production methods and by production and processing conditions. The selection of a species or a variety of the protein source can affect safety due to differences in allergenicity, metabolism, and composition. This has already been applied to rapeseed, currently containing less erucic acid and glucosinolates than before. As feed of insects may contain several contaminants that insects may accumulate and metabolize, the selection of feed is important to prevent contaminants in the human and animal diet. For example, the composition of waste streams from industry is variable and can therefore introduce contaminants in the production chain. The same applies for microalgae, seaweed, duckweed, and rapeseed, all are able to accumulate heavy metals from the environment. These plants have to be produced using controlled conditions. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)+ requirements can be used to develop a controlled production system. Processing conditions of novel protein products (as an ingredient or as a product as such) can also affect the safety of novel proteins. Heating of products containing novel proteins can result in the formation of new components (neoformed components), like acrylamide. Also, the application of solvents for the extraction of proteins can affect safety of the novel protein products. During product development, these aspects should be considered in advance.

Conclusion

Novel protein sources, like insects and algae, are expected to be increasingly used in Europe as replacers for animal‐derived proteins. Technical and processing properties are being investigated but, to date, possible food safety hazards associated with the use of novel proteins in feed and food applications are hardly known. These hazards may include a range of contaminants, like heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues, as well as pathogens. Food business operators that wish to put on the European market products derived from novel proteins should comply with European legislation and possibly additional national legislation. To date, European law is not conclusive on several issues regarding the use of novel protein sources in feed and food products. One of the major unclarities for feed applications is whether or not products with insects are considered animal‐derived products or not. If so, it seems to be possible to put on the markets feed material using novel protein sources. For food product applications, the most important question for food producers is whether or not the product is considered a novel food. If so, the producer has to provide a Novel Food Dossier, among others, proving the product is safe for the consumer. In all cases, the producer is responsible for the safety of the product, but due to the unclarities in European law, it is not always clear which Regulation and maximum levels for contaminants apply. In order to stimulate the use of novel protein sources in Europe, it is therefore advised to adjust and clarify the European legislation. Future research should focus on effects of raw materials and the environment on the safety of novel proteins in food and feed products, the degradation and accumulation of several substances during processing of these products, and the transmission of substances to feed and food products.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) for financial support of this study (KB‐15‐007‐003).

Author Contributions

M. van der Spiegel drafted the part of novel protein sources as well as their potential hazards, M.Y. Noordam described the legislation in general and specific for novel protein sources, and H.J. van der Fels‐Klerx stated the conclusions and critically reviewed the manuscript.

1 The legal acts quoted in this section refer, where applicable, to the latest amended version.

Abstract

Novel protein sources (like insects, algae, duckweed, and rapeseed) are expected to enter the European feed and food market as replacers for animal‐derived proteins. However, food safety aspects of these novel protein sources are not well‐known. The aim of this article is to review the state of the art on the safety of major novel protein sources for feed and food production, in particular insects, algae (microalgae and seaweed), duckweed, and rapeseed. Potential hazards for these protein sources are described and EU legislative requirements as regard to food and feed safety are explained. Potential hazards may include a range of contaminants, like heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues, as well as pathogens. Some safety aspects of novel protein sources are intrinsic to the product, but many potential hazards can also be due to production methods and processing conditions. These aspects should be considered in advance during product development. European law is unclear on several issues regarding the use of novel protein sources in food and feed products. For food product applications, the most important question for food producers is whether or not the product is considered a novel food. One of the major unclarities for feed applications is whether or not products with insects are considered animal‐derived products or not. Due to the unclarities in European law, it is not always clear which Regulation and maximum levels for contaminants apply. For market introduction, European legislation should be adjusted and clarified.

Introduction

In response to the Kyoto Protocol on the global climate, the European Union (EU) made agreements on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Major sources of these gas emissions are cattle breeding and related meat consumption (Steinfeld and others 2006; Van Beukering and others 2008).

In the last decades, the global consumption of animal proteins has increased continuously. Between 1950 and 2000, the global human population more than doubled from 2.7 to 6 billion people. Meat production, however, increased by a factor of 5 from 45 to 233 billion kg per year. For 2050, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) expects a world population of 9 billion and meat production of 410 billion kg per year (Boland and others 2013; FAO 2006). Animal‐derived protein accounts currently for almost 40% of humanity's total protein consumption, and FAO expects a substantial increase by 2050 if the trend goes on uninterrupted (Boland and others 2013). Several global developments, such as the increasing demand on animal products in China and India, necessitates to use animal proteins in a more responsible manner than currently (Vereijken and Aiking 2006).

Animal proteins are produced inefficiently. Depending on the animal species and various conditions, 2 to 15 kg plant material is needed to produce 1 kg of animal products. Currently, 40% to 50% of the global grain harvest is used for feed production (Profetas 2008). To reduce the use of area and energy, people should eat less beef and more pork or chicken, reduce their portions, or change the meat portion in the diet by meat substitutes, such as legumes or eggs (Gerbens‐Leenes 2000; Aiking and De Boer 2006). Other studies also concluded that reduction of both meat consumption and production will reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Stehfest and others 2008; Van Beukering and others 2008).

Novel protein sources (like insects, algae, duckweed, and rapeseed) are expected to enter the European feed and food market. For instance, the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) supports, by the Acceleration agenda "Protein innovations," various possibilities to make current production and consumption of proteins more sustainable by modifying the production of animal proteins, development of new (plant) protein products, and biorefinery and valorization of protein‐rich waste streams (Bleker 2012).

Currently, research on novel proteins is conducted on the functionality, processing, and industrial application of novel proteins, and the valorization of by‐products or waste streams obtained in other processes. However, food safety aspects of these novel proteins are not well‐known. Especially the use of waste streams may introduce multiple food safety hazards. The presence of contaminants, antinutritional factors (ANFs), allergens, and accumulation and modification of substances in protein matrices during processing can have effects on public health.

The objective of this article is to review the state of the art on the safety of major novel protein sources for feed and food production, and on EU requirements for their safety. Unclarities to fulfill safety requirements for the introduction of novel proteins on the EU market are elucidated. First, novel protein sources will be described, as well as the potential hazards for proteins from insects, algae (microalgae and seaweed), duckweed, and rapeseed. Second, the EU requirements for novel protein sources will be explained in general and specifically for the selected protein sources.

Novel Proteins

Major animal protein sources for human consumption include meat, fish, milk, and eggs. Developments in the production of animal protein sources are directed toward the use of cheaper raw materials, increased health characteristics, and higher sustainability by using existing and novel protein sources and production methods. For this purpose, the use of novel protein sources, waste streams of processing, and by‐products of biofuel production are investigated (Krijne and Essink 2011). Various novel protein sources can be used for replacing current animal proteins in feed and food production (see Figure 1), but with different estimated time to enter the protein sources on the market.

Current plant protein sources that are widely consumed are proteins derived from soy, wheat, vegetables, and potatoes. Soy is the most important protein source for the production of animal proteins. Wheat is the largest group of plant protein sources in the Western diet and is often used for feed products (Krijne and Essink 2011).

Legumes (lupine), grains (rice, maize), mushrooms, and potatoes are sources that have already been used in food and feed. The availability and functionality of their proteins will be further improved by new technologies and valorization of waste streams (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011).

Another group of protein sources that is currently used for feed and biofuel products includes rapeseed, algae, grass, duckweed, and by‐products from agricultural processing and waste streams from biofuel chains (Stegeman and others 2010). Rapeseed is more or less ready now for market introduction for food use (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011). The other protein sources mentioned are still in early development stages. The same applies to insect proteins that are now used for petfood and (fish) feed. New processing technologies (such as extraction procedures) and valorization of waste streams, in order to apply insect proteins in feed and food, are being developed (Stegeman and others 2010; Krijne and Essink 2011). Processing insect cells opens up new possibilities for the application of this novel protein source (Verkerk and others 2007). The major novel protein sources are detailed below.

Insects

Insects consist of many species. Potential insects for application in food in the EU are Gryllodus sigillatus and Acheta domesticus (crickets), Alphitobius diaperinus (lesser mealworm), and Tenebrio molitor (yellow mealworm). Potential insects for use in feed products in the EU are Hermetia illucens (black soldier fly), larvae of Musca domestica (common housefly), and T. molitor (yellow mealworm).

During the rearing of insects, a metamorphosis occurs from egg via larva and pupa to mature adult. The modification path varies depending on the subspecies. Feed used for these insects are, for example, chicken feed, vegetables, and waste streams. Whole insects can be eaten raw, dried, crushed, textured, pulverized, or ground, or they are heated (such as cooked, boiled, fried, roasted, toasted, extruded, and canned) or preserved by freeze‐drying or cryovacking after degutting or fasting. Insect proteins can also be isolated by extraction before use in food products.

Most edible insects in non‐European countries are harvested from the wild (DeFoliart 1995). According to Schabel ( 2008), some insects may be considered as edible in some regions but not in others; some normally safe insects may be unhealthy if they feed on certain plants or originate from a polluted and pesticide‐treated area; some may be safe for some consumers but less (or not at all) for others due to the presence of allergens; and some may require special capture, preparation, storage, or transportation methods to render and keep them safe (Schabel 2008).

In 2010, the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) reported that food safety of edible insects has not been studied extensively, which may be due to the fact that these insects are often treated as traditional foods of indigenous populations and rarely recognized as tradable food items. CAC describes that insects are rich in nutrients providing a medium for growth of unwanted microorganisms under certain conditions, especially making uncooked insects susceptible for microbiological hazards unless proper heat treatment or storage conditions are applied. Some people have or may develop (food) allergies against certain species of insects. Some insects may require other treatments before they are rendered edible (CAC 2010). Insect proteins may display a cross‐allergenicity with shrimps and house dust mites (Witteman and others 1994; Leung and others 1996; Reese and others 1999; Houben 2012; Verhoeckx and others 2013).

Studies on food safety of cultivated European insects are very limited. Vijver and others ( 2003) reported upon the uptake and accumulation of heavy metals such as cadmium, copper, lead, and zinc from soils by larvae of T. molitor (Vijver and others 2003). Zagrobelny and others ( 2009) described that species of Zygaena contained low quantities of cyanogenic glucosides (Zagrobelny and others 2009). Goumperis ( 2012) presented potential hazards of insects for food and feed application: the presence of pathogens, contaminants (such as pesticides, natural toxins, heavy metals, neoformed substances due to processing, and veterinary residues), allergenicity, and the introduction of pests, and animal and plant diseases into the EU (Goumperis 2012). Recently, Belluco and others ( 2013) published a review on food safety of European and non‐European insects, demonstrating the safety of some insects with no additional hazards in comparison with usually consumed animal products.

Food safety of non‐European insects has been studied more widely (Table 1). Reported food safety hazards of non‐European insects include allergens (Baldo and Panzani 1988; Blum 1994; Phillips and Burkholder 1995; Vetter 1995; Freye 1996; MacEvilly 2000; Arlian 2002; Lian and Liu 2006; Ji and others 2008; Ji and others 2009), ANFs (Wirtz 1984; Nishimune and others 2000; Adeduntan 2005; El Hassan and others 2008), mycotoxins (Simpanya and others 2000; Braide and others 2011), pesticides (Saeed and others 1993; DeFoliart 1999), heavy metals and alkali (Green and others 2001; Handley and others 2007; Zhuang and others 2009; Banjo and others 2010), natural toxins (Duffey 1980; Wirtz 1984; DeFoliart 1992; Berenbaum 1993; Blum 1994; Nishimune and others 2000; Zagrobelny and others 2009), and the presence of pathogenic microorganisms (Simpanya and others 2000; Amadi and others 2005; Giaccone 2005; Banjo and others 2006; Templeton and others 2006; Braide and others 2011; Klunder and others 2012). Examples of bacteria found in insects are species from the genera Staphylococcus and Bacillus (Amadi and others 2005; Banjo and others 2006; Braide and others 2011), Campylobacter (Templeton and others 2006), Pseudomonas (Banjo and others 2006), Micrococcus and Acinetobacter (Amadi and others 2005), Proteus and Escherichia (Braide and others 2011), Enterobacteriaceae, and certain sporeforming bacteria (Klunder and others 2012). Examples of fungi found in insects are Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium (Simpanya and others 2000; Braide and others 2011), Chaetomium, Mucor, Mucorales, Alternaria, Drechslera, and Phoma (Simpanya and others 2000). Insects may also contain pathogens as a result of improper processing or handling (Banjo and others 2006).

Insect species

Country of origin

Production method

Processing

Hazards

References

T. molitor (mealworm) and Zophobas morio (superworm)

United States

-

-

Allergens

(Freye 1996)

Silkworm pupa of Bombyx mori and B. mandarina, and their silk

China

*

*

Allergens (sericin)

(Lian and Liu 2006)

Larvae of Rhynchophorus phoenicis (beetle), Anapleptes trifasciata (beetle)

Markets in Epe, Itokin, Abigi, Ologbun and Ibiade. Wild: Lagos, Ogun, Oyo and Ondo state, Nigeria

From markets and wild

Preserved in 70% alcohol or oven dried at 60 to 70 °C

Nickel, lead, cadmium, zinc, sodium

(Banjo and others 2010)

Pupae of Anaphe spp. ( A. infracta or A. panda) (silk worm)

Suburb of Kampala, Uganda

Wild

Dry pupae: extracted, ground, centrifuged

Thiaminase

(Nishimune and others 2000)

Caterpillar of the emperor moth Bunaea alcinoe

Eastern and Southern part of Nigeria

Wild from leaves of Cananga odorata plant

Degutted, washed, spiced, salted, wrapped, roasted, sun dried

Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Proteus, Escherichia, Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, mycotoxins

(Braide and others 2011)

Larvae of the cabbage tree emperor moth Bunaea alcinoe Stoll

Niger delta, Nigeria

Gmelina tree within the premises of the university

-

Staphylococcus, Bacillus, Micrococcus and Acinetobacter

(Amadi and others 2005)

Larvae of Oryctes monocerus ( African Rhinoceros beetle)

Itokin, Nigeria

Wild

Culturing

Staphylococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and Bacillus cereus

(Banjo and others 2006)

Phane worm (larval stage) of the emperor moth Imbrasia belina Westwood

Francistown, Botswana

Wild

-

Aspergillus, Penicillium, Fusarium, Chaetomium, Mucor, Mucorales, Alternaria, Drechslera, and Phoma, mycotoxins. Contaminated with fungi from leaves and soil

(Simpanya and others 2000)

Based on these studies on food safety of non‐European insects, food safety issues should be identified and assessed before insects can enter the market in Europe. Both chemical and microbiological hazards can be introduced or formed in concentrations that may be harmful for public health. Feed for insects (feed, vegetables, and waste products) can be contaminated with mycotoxins, natural toxins, heavy metals, veterinary residues (including antibiotics), pesticides, and pathogens. Potential hazards of the insects themselves can be allergens, pesticides, contaminants, and pathogens. During rearing, insects may be able to convert or accumulate contaminants present in their feed, which can result in degradation or increase of the concentration of substances. The particular safety hazards depend on the insect species, their feed and environment, and production methods. Therefore, more attention should be directed toward the effects of these environmental and management conditions on the safety of insects destined for human or animal consumption.

Algae

Algae belong to a large and diverse group of organisms using photosynthesis, which do not belong to the group of terrestrial plants (Cazaux and others 2010). Algae can be distinguished as microalgae and seaweed (Kerkvliet 2001; Stegeman and others 2010). Microalgae are single‐celled organisms that can grow over a wide range of environmental conditions, whereas seaweeds are complex multicellular organisms growing in salt water or a marine environment (Cazaux and others 2010).

About 30% of the current worldwide algal production is sold for animal feeding purposes (Becker 2004). Algae are approved in several countries as chicken feed and do not require new testing or approval for feed use (Becker 1994). With regard to food use, the marine diatom Odontella aurita by Innovalg (France) has been approved since 9 December 2002 as a novel food (Gouveia and others 2008).

Microalgae

Several microalgae (for example, species from the genera Chlorella, Tetraselmis, Spirulina, Nannochloropsis, Nitzchia, Navicula, Chaetoceros, Scenedesmus, Haematococcus, and Crypthecodinium) can be used in feed for both terrestrial and aquatic animals (Harel and Clayton 2004).

Microalgae used for human consumption are Arthrospira (spirulina, namely, cyanobacteria), Chlorella spp., Dunaliella salina, and Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua (Kerkvliet 2001; Spolaore and others 2006). They originate from several countries: Spirulina from, for instance, China, India, Japan, and United States (US) (Spolaore and others 2006; Small 2011), chlorella from, for instance, Taiwan, Germany, and Japan, Dunaliella salina from Australia, Israel, US, China, and Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua from the US (Spolaore and others 2006). The green algae (Chlorophycea) Chlorella vulgaris, Haematococcus pluvialis, Dunaliella salina, and the cyanobacteria Spirulina maxima are widely commercialized and used, mainly as nutritional supplements for humans and as animal feed additives (Kerkvliet 2001; Gouveia and others 2008; Stegeman and others 2010).

Several studies show that safety hazards related to algae may include allergens, toxins, pathogens, heavy metals, and pesticides.

Allergenicity has been reported for airborne cyanobacteria Phormidium fragile and Nostoc muscorum (Sharma and Rai 2008), and the green algal genus Chlorella (Tiberg and Einarsson 1989). However, a high‐lipid product, Whole Algalin Flour, composed of dried milled Chlorella protothecoides showed little potential for food allergy (Szabo and others 2012).

No toxins have been found in spirulina and chlorella. However, in Aphanizomenon flos‐aqua, toxic microcystines have been detected (Kerkvliet 2001; Heussner and others 2012). Extracts from products consisting of Aphanizomenon flos‐aquae, Spirulina, and Chlorella, or mixtures thereof, were cytotoxic (Heussner and others 2012). Under favorable conditions, pheophorbides are formed in chlorella, which give rise to photosensibilization in some humans (Kerkvliet 2001).

Another safety aspect is the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Spirulina and chlorella are cultivated in open bassins, which may result in microbiological contamination from birds, insects, and rodents (Kerkvliet 2001).

Algae may accumulate heavy metals. Since algae are at the bottom of the aquatic food chain pyramid, they are the most important vector for transfer of pollution to upper levels of the trophic chain in aquatic environments (Souza and others 2012). Sludge‐grown algae contain a rather substantial amount of heavy metals that may impose adverse effects to higher trophic organisms (Hung and others 1996; Wong and others 1996). Spirulina accumulates more heavy metals than chlorella (Kerkvliet 2001). Other authors found no exceedance of legal maximum levels of heavy metals as established in their own jurisprudence (Hsu and others 2001; Kolb and others 2004; Marles and others 2011).

The pesticide fenamiphos and its metabolites can be transformed and accumulated by Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata and Chlorococcum spp. Therefore, contamination of natural environments can have adverse impacts on the food chain and associated biota (Caceres and others 2008).

Seaweed

Seaweed species that are used for direct consumption include, among others: Ulva rigida, Monostroma sp., Enteromorpha sp., Laminaria sp., Undaria pinnatifida, Hizikia fusiforme, Himanthalia elongata, Eisenia bicyclis, Ascophyllum nodosum, Fucus vesiculosis, Porphyra sp., Cladophora glomerata, Microspora floccosa, and Palmaria palmata (Kerkvliet 2001; Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Murphy 2007; Akköz and others 2011). Seaweeds can be harvested from the sea, but they are also increasingly cultivated (Cazaux and others 2010). Seaweed products in fresh and dried form are imported from Japan and France. Laminaria sp. (kelp weed) originating from the Arctic Ocean, Iceland, and Norway are mainly used in food supplements (Kerkvliet 2001). No research has been performed on the extraction of proteins of seaweeds for human consumption (Stegeman and others 2010). Several seaweed species, such as U. rigida, Ascophyllum, Laminaria, Undaria, Porphyra, Cystoseira barbata, and C. glomerata have been evaluated as feed additives in meal to fish diets (Appler and Jauncey 1983; Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Kut Güroy and others 2007).

The use of C. glomerata, M. floccosa, and P. palmata in daily meals has been safe for humans (Fahprathanchai and others 2006; Mouritsen and others 2013). Several studies show that safety hazards for seaweed may include iodine, ANFs, heavy metals, radioactive isotopes, ammonium, dioxins, and pesticides.

In Laminaria, high levels of iodine were found (Van Netten and others 2000; Kerkvliet 2001). A broad diversity of seaweed species (red, green, and brown) contains ANFs, such as low levels of lectins, tannins, and phytic acid, and high levels of trypsin inhibitors and amylase inhibitors (de Oliveira and others 2009).

Seaweeds can accumulate heavy metals depending on the growing time in the sea and the levels of heavy metals in the water (Ortega‐Calvo and others 1993; Murphy 2007; Smith and others 2010). The types and concentration of metals found in seaweed vary with species, collection time, growth phase, and collection site (Houa and Yanb 1998; Brown and others 1999; Van Netten and others 2000; Murphy 2007; Smith and others 2010). Reported accumulation of heavy metals includes arsenic (Van Netten and others 2000; Kerkvliet 2001; Almela and others 2002; Rose and others 2007; Besada and others 2009; ), copper (Prasher and others 2004; Murphy 2007; Murphy and others 2007, 2009; Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010; Akköz and others 2011), cadmium (Prasher and others 2004; Besada and others 2009; de Oliveira and others 2009; Akköz and others 2011), chromium (Murphy 2007; Murphy and others 2008, 2009; de Oliveira and others 2009), nickel (Prasher and others 2004; de Oliveira and others 2009; Akköz and others 2011), vanadium (de Oliveira and others 2009), iron, magnesium (Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010), mercury (Van Netten and others 2000), lead ( Van Netten and others 2000; Prasher and others 2004; Akköz and others 2011), cesium‐137, and radium‐226 (Van Netten and others 2000). The uptake of heavy metals for P. palmata was found to decrease in the order: lead > cadmium > copper > nickel (Prasher and others 2004). Iron, copper, and magnesium were the most significant metals found in red and green algae (Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010). In general, brown algae have higher arsenic levels than red or green algae (Almela and others 2002). Other studies found no harmful quantities of heavy metals (Hwang and others 2010; Smith and others 2010; Dhaneesh and others 2012). Little is known about the process of metal bioaccumulation in marine food chains because data on metal concentrations at different trophic levels and their temporal or spatial variation are sparse (Van Netten and others 2000; Riosmena‐Rodriguez and others 2010; Akköz and others 2011).

Seaweeds also accumulate ammonium due to a combination of the size of the plant and the spatially and temporally variable concentration of ammonium in the seawater (Rees 2003).

Other contaminants found in seaweeds are dioxins and pesticides. Seaweeds were contaminated by polychlorinated dibenzo‐p‐dioxins (PCDDs) and polychlorinated dibenzofurans (PCDFs) of industrial origin, such as combustion source (Hashimoto and Morita 1995). Pesticides that could be present in seaweeds are, for example, azametiphos, diflubenzuron, teflubenzuron, propoxur (Lorenzo and others 2012), and organic micropollutants (polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), chlorinated pesticides, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs)) (Pavoni and others 2003). Further studies regarding the presence of chemotherapeutic agents in seaweeds are required, because of the lack of data on some currently used compounds, and to elucidate the transformation and biodegradation processes (Lorenzo and others 2012).

Duckweed

Duckweed species are small floating aquatic plants. They are monocotyledons of the botanical family Lemnaceae and are higher plants or macrophytes (Leng and others 1995). Duckweed family comprises of 4 genera ( Lemna, Spirodela, Wolffia, and Wolfiella) and 34 species (Rahman and Hasegawa 2011). Duckweed species are found worldwide; they are adapted to a wide variety of geographic areas and climatic zones. They are found in all areas except waterless deserts and those permanently frozen. They grow best in tropical and temperate zones, but many species can survive extreme temperatures (Leng and others 1995).

Besides a component of animal and bird diets, duckweed is already a human food resource in traditional/small farmer systems in South Asia (Leng 1999; Adeduntan 2005; Derksen and Zwart 2010); Wolffia arrhiza has traditionally been eaten as "khai‐nam," in Burma, Laos, and northern Thailand. Khai‐nam is generally regarded as a poor people's food and so far has attracted little attention as a potentially significant source of human food (Bhanthumnavin and McGarry 1971).

Safety hazards for duckweed may include the presence of heavy metals, phenols, pesticides, dioxins, and pathogens.

Limited work has been done to characterize secondary metabolites in specific species of duckweed. So far, oxalic acid is the only identified compound produced by duckweed that is toxic to animals at high levels (Adeduntan 2005).

Holshof and others ( 2009) found dioxins in harvested duckweed, probably due to the presence of animal proteins of diving beetles or snakes (Holshof and others 2009).

Pathogens like Escherichia coli or Clostridium botulinum could contaminate duckweed (Hoving and others 2011). Islam and others ( 2004) studied the fecal coliform contamination of duckweed grown on hospital‐based wastewater. They found that wastewater‐treated duckweed may be safely used as fish feed (Islam and others 2004). Moyo and others ( 2003) concluded that the use of duckweed for chicken feed was microbiologically safe with respect to E. coli and Salmonella spp. provided that caution is taken during the processing of duckweed. Chickens may get contaminated, especially during wet weather due to poor environmental sanitation at the plant (Moyo and others 2003). Duckweed production in open greenhouse pools would be expected to produce biomass with an associated microflora of bacteria, viruses, fungi, algae, and possibly, microscopic invertebrates (Adeduntan 2005).

For using duckweed protein products for food or animal feed, methods would need to be developed to insure that heavy metals, phenols, pesticides, and pathogens would not contaminate the protein products (Stomp 2005; Hoving and others 2011).

Rapeseed

Rapeseed ( Brassica napus) is a bright yellow flowering member of the Brassicaceae. In 1986, the definition of canola was introduced to refer to B. napus and B. campestris (now Brassica rapa) lines containing less than 2% erucic acid in the oil and less than 30 μmol/g glucosinolates in the air‐dried, oil‐free meal (OECD 2011).

In the US, generally recognized as safe (GRAS) notifications on canola protein ingredients have been received (ADM 2010; Keller‐and‐Heckman 2011). Mejia and others ( 2009a, b) found, in specific canola/rapeseed protein isolates, that potential natural toxicants such as glucosinolates and erucic acid, as well as potential contaminants such as pesticide residues, solvent residues, heavy metals, dioxins, aflatoxins, PAHs, and acrylamides, were either nondetected or below toxicological and regulatory allowed limits (Mejia and others 2009). However, in the EU, an application for a protein preparation isolated from B. napus and B. rapa was not accepted as a novel food due to the lack of limit values for relevant undesirable compounds, identification of the starting material, and studies on allergic reactions (CBG‐MEB 2012).

Heavy metals from the soil can accumulate in the roots, plant, and seeds of rapeseeds. Based on pot experiments, lead and zinc from the soil can accumulate in the roots of Brassica napus L., and small amounts of them move through the conductive system to the seeds. Cadmium moves relatively easily from root to stem and is accumulated in higher concentrations in the top of the plant (Angelova and others 2008). Rossi and others ( 2004) also showed that B. napus accumulated zinc and copper and translocated these elements in different ways in the harvestable parts of the plants (Rossi and others 2004). Ahmad and others ( 2011) found that lead, cadmium, and chromium concentrations in soil, forage, and seed of Brassica napus L. increased after treatment with sewage water (Ahmad and others 2011). Brunetti and others ( 2011) found that B. napus was able to accumulate high amount of metals in greenhouse conditions, in the order: chromium > zinc > copper > lead.

For use of rapeseed protein products for food production, methods would need to be developed to insure that heavy metals would not contaminate the protein products. The effects of ANFs and allergens should also be taken into account.

Overview of potential hazards in novel protein sources

Table 2 shows an overview of the potential hazards in the 5 novel protein sources considered. Heavy metals and processing contaminants are potential hazards for all 5 protein sources. Pesticides, pathogens, and allergens can be present in most protein sources. In addition, insects and seaweed have also other potential hazards like ANFs, mycotoxins, and dioxins.

Potential hazard

Insects

Microalgae

Seaweed

Duckweed

Rapeseed

Legislation

Food and feed business operators (FBOs) that wish to put novel food and feed protein products on the market have to comply with European and national rules for food and feed. For the novel products discussed in the previous sections below, some comments will be made on the general legal requirements as regard to market introduction and food and feed safety legislation.

General legislation

All FBOs in the EU should comply with the requirements established in EU and national law. Requirements are set for the producer (including transporters), the food and feed products, and the presentation of these products. Most of the requirements apply to all FBOs and food and feed products (horizontal law), some only to specific products (vertical law).

The General Food Law (Regulation (EC) 178/2002, 1 GFL) sets the framework for EU legislation on food and feed, and applies to all stages of food and feed production. First of all, this Regulation gives the definition of what is considered to be food and feed. Both definitions are very broad. Food or foodstuff is defined as "any substance or product, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be, or reasonably expected to be ingested by humans" (art. 1). Feed or feedingstuff is defined as "any substance or product, including additives, whether processed, partially processed or unprocessed, intended to be used for oral feeding to animals" (art. 2). According to the GFL, the FBO is responsible for compliance of products, processes, and premises with all requirements of food law (art. 17). Foods (and feeds) should not be placed on the market if they are unsafe (art. 14 and 15) and must be traceable by the FBO (art. 18). Furthermore, in case a FBO has reasons to believe that a product is unsafe, it should immediately withdraw the product from the market and inform the competent authorities (art. 19 and 20). The presentation of the product should not mislead consumers (art. 16). The GFL as such defines the general rules for FBOs.

Food and feed hygiene legislation

The Food Hygiene Regulations, Regulation (EC) 852/2003 and (EC) 853/2004 contain general rules on hygiene of foodstuffs for all manufactures of food, including those involved in primary production. Only production for private domestic consumption or handling, and the direct supply of small quantities of primary products to consumers or local retail establishments are excluded from the scope of this Regulation. According to the Hygiene regulations, the FBO is obliged to notify the competent authorities of its existence (art. 6, 852/2004). When FBOs are handling certain products of animal origin, they should be approved before start of operations (art. 4, 853/2004). Also, FBO involved in feed production should be either registered or approved (art. 9 and 10, Feed Hygiene Regulation (EC) 183/2005) by the competent authorities of a member state. For registration, a FBO should inform the competent authority (CA) on the establishment and/or activities. For an approval, the CA must visit and give an approval prior to the upstart of the business.

Requirements for FBOs in primary production are laid down in Annex I, and for FBOs in other stages of production in Annex II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004. FBOs in primary production are required to take measures to control contamination of their products (Annex I, Part A. Regulation (EC) 852/2003), such as the requirement to use potable or clean water whenever necessary to prevent contamination, to use biocides, plant protection products, veterinary medicinal products, and feed additives correctly, and to keep records of measures taken to control hazards. Those FBOs producing primary products of animal origin should also keep records on, among others, the nature and the origin of feed fed to animals (Annex I Part A., III 8). FBOs involved in the production, processing, and distribution of food after the stage of primary production should have food safety programs and procedures based on HACCP principles (art. 5 Regulation (EC) 852/2004). National and Community guides on good hygiene practices for control of hazards, including those in primary production, are (being) developed to help FBOs in this respect. Member states should assess these guidances to confirm that they assure compliance with hygiene regulations. National guides on good hygiene practice are compiled in a register of the EU Commission (Belluco and others 2013). For nonprimary producers and transporters, Annex II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004 contains general requirements for premises (like adequate number of lavatories), equipment and personnel, cleaning and maintenance, rooms where foodstuffs are handled, for transport, food waste, foodstuffs, and water supply. For FBOs involved in the production of food of animal origin, more elaborate hygiene requirements are laid down in Regulation (EC) 853/2004. However, the most extensive requirements in this regulation are only applicable to those animals that are specifically mentioned in Annex I. For a number of pathogenic microorganisms in specified foodstuffs, microbiological criteria are laid down in Regulation (EC) 2073/2005, for novel food products not included in the categories in this regulation, no microbiological criteria have been established yet.

For FBOs producing feed, Regulation (EC) 183/2005 applies. Annex I of this regulation contains, among others, hygiene provisions and the obligation of record keeping for those involved in the primary production of feed. For FBOs involved in feed after the stage of primary production, requirements on facilities and equipment, personnel, production, quality control, storage and transport, record‐keeping and complaints, and product recall are laid down in Annex II. An obligation for the latter FBOs is that they shall monitor for the presence of prohibited and undesirable substances and other contaminants. Furthermore, feed FBOs should, like food FBOs, have procedures in place based on hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) principles. For assistance in the application of HACCP principles, community and national guides to good practice have been developed and made available (Aider and Barbana 2011).

Novel food legislation

Novel food and novel food ingredients that were not consumed "to a significant degree" in the EU prior to 15 May 1997 have to be authorized before market introduction according to Regulation (EC) 258/97, the Novel Food Regulation (NFR). At the time of drafting of the NFR, no EU definition of "food" existed in the EU (Jones 2012); therefore, 4 categories of novel food and food ingredients to which the NFR applies were identified in art. 1 (2) c-f (a and b concerning genetically modified organisms were later moved to separate regulations) (see our italics):

c.
Foods and food ingredients with a new or intentionally modified primary molecular structure.

d.
Foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from microorganisms, fungi, or algae.

e.
Foods and food ingredients consisting of or isolated from plants and food ingredients isolated from animals, except for foods and food ingredients obtained by traditional propagating or breeding practices and having a history of safe food use.

f.
Foods and food ingredients to which has been applied a production process not currently used, where the process gives rise to significant changes in the composition or structure of the foods or food ingredients which affect their nutritional value, metabolism, or level of undesirable substances.

Most novel protein products mentioned in this publication will fall within category d or e. Although it is not always clear to what category a new food product belongs in reality, this does not make a huge difference in the data that have to be provided by the applicant for the safety assessment (Jones 2012).

The producer of a novel food has to notify a member state of the EU its intention to place a novel product on its market for the first time. The CA of a member state then checks if the food is a novel food and if the dossier is complete, and if so, makes a first assessment of the product. This assessment is forwarded to the European Commission (EC) which forwards the assessment to the CAs in all member states. If no objections are made by member states, an authorization is granted; if reasonable objections are made, then the dossier is forwarded to European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). Based on the EFSA opinion, a decision on authorization is taken under the EU committee procedure involving, among others, the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCFCAH). An authorization is granted to the applicant of the novel food, and not to all FBO wishing to put a similar new product on the market of the EU. For "substantially equivalent" novel products, however, the applicant can and should notify the EC. In practice, for a substantially equivalent product, a statement of the CA of a member state confirming the equivalence should accompany this notification. The outline of and explanations on both procedures are given in a recently published decision tree on the internet (WageningenUR 2013).

The assessment aims to establish whether the novel food, or novel food ingredient, is safe for the consumer, does not mislead the consumer, or when it replaces another ingredient, is not nutritionally disadvantageous for the consumer (art. 3.1). For the assessment, the applicant has to provide all the necessary data; data requirements are further specified in Recommendation 97/618/EC.

Since the entering into force of Regulation (EC) 258/97, experience has revealed that the procedures and requirements are not fully transparent for applicants of novel foods and novel food ingredients. Main uncertainties concern definitions and data requirements. The regulation applies to placing on the market any novel food and food ingredient, in which novel is defined as "which have not hitherto been used for human consumption to a significant degree within the Community..." "Not hitherto" means before May 15, 1997. Both the date and the borders of the EU were arbitrarily chosen, resulting in some products not being "novel," while other similar products had to be assessed for safety (Verhagen and others 2009). CAs from member states interpreted "the Community" as all member states of the EU, irrespective of their date of entry. This interpretation was confirmed in the recently published Information and Guidance document (see below). The expression "used for consumption to a significant degree" is also not clear, since nowhere in the regulation is explained what is meant by "to a significant degree." The SCFCAH decided that presence in food supplements prior to May 15, 1997, would not be considered to constitute consumption to a significant degree (SCFCAH 2005). An example of use of this guidance is the ruling on chromium picolinate by the SCFCAH (SCFCAH 2011). Just recently, the Directorate General for Health & Consumers of the European Commission (DG SANCO) published an "Information and Guidance Document on Human Consumption to a Significant Degree" (Naidu and others 1999). In this document, a decision tree is presented and a questionnaire, to be filled in by the applicant, on consumption aspects to help applicants to identify and justify significant consumption. The United Kingdom (UK) and Belgium also provide some advice on how to prove that a food is not novel on its Internet site (ANCFP 2005). Examples of proof of nonnovelty are invoices, legal import documents, lists of prices of food products dated before May 15, 1997, literature data, dated labels, FAO statistics, certificates or declarations of other member states on the status of a food, and so on. It is pointed out that the provided evidence should clearly demonstrate oral consumption of the food product by humans in the EU. The "Novel Food Catalogue" (EC 2013), a searchable database that lists products that have already been assessed before, as to being novel or not, could also help FBOs to determine the status of a product.

Besides administrative information, extensive data on composition, nutritional value and metabolism, intended use, and intake of and levels of hazardous substances in the novel food are essential. Furthermore, microbiological and toxicological (including allergenicity) information on the novel food should be provided by the applicant. For new products like insect proteins, the data requirements on composition, like analyses of a number of representative batches regarding nutrients, micronutrients, and known and potential contaminants, might be problematic if only pilot studies have been performed with breeding and harvesting of insects. Especially for proteins, the allergenic potential should be considered. For new proteins expressed in genetically modified crops, an EFSA opinion has been published for the assessment allergenicity (EFSA 2010a). This opinion could be used as a starting point in the assessment of non‐GM new proteins. Opinions of EFSA on novel protein products like "alfalfa protein concentrate" (EFSA 2009), "sardine peptide product" (EFSA 2010b), and bovine lactoferrin (EFSA 2012) further illustrate data requirements for novel proteins.

(Novel) Feed legislation

Feed materials are defined as "products of vegetable or animal origin, whose principal purpose is to meet animals" nutritional needs, in their state, fresh or preserved, and products derived from industrial processing thereof, and organic and inorganic substances, whether or not containing feed additives, which are intended for use in oral animal‐feeding either directly as such, or after processing, or in the preparation of compound feed, or as carrier of premixtures' (art. 3 (2g) Regulation (EC) 767/2009). The term "feed material" is further explained in a Recommendation (2011/25/EU) that was published with guidelines to clarify the distinction between feed materials, feed additives, and other feed products. In a quality control system for feed producers, a decision tree was developed to guide producers in definitions used in feed legislation (GMPplus 2011). Annex III of Regulation (EC) 767/2009 lists materials prohibited for feed use.

There is no premarket authorization procedure for novel feed products. A FBO just has to notify appropriate representatives of the European feed business sectors that the intention is to place a novel feed product on the EU market for the first time, that is, from 1 September 2010 onwards (art. 26(1) Regulation (EC) 767/2009), and for products that were on the market before September 1, 2010, but not listed in the catalogue (see further). This notifying FBO has to be registered as a FBO (art. 11, Regulation (EC) 183/2005). The representatives should publish the notifications on the Internet and update the register of feed materials with each notified novel feed material (art. 24(6) Regulation (EC) 767/2009). This Feed Materials Register (Feedmaterialsregister 2010) was set up solely for information purposes. The safety of the notified novel feed material is not assessed, neither by the representatives nor competent authorities. Thus, in the first instance, it is the FBO that is responsible for the safety of the new product. In the register, feed names are not unique, so the same name may be used for feed materials with different characteristics. However, products mentioned in the Feed Catalogue (Regulation (EU) 68/2013) are only allowed to be marketed with the name in the catalogue, provided they are compliant with the descriptions of the product and labeling requirements to the catalogue. The representatives can make amendments of the catalogue, to include products from the register, on a voluntary basis. Once taken up in the catalogue, the products with the same name in the register will be removed. The fact that a product is mentioned in the register or catalogue does not imply that it can be used in the feed of all animals. Animal proteins, for instance, are, with some exceptions, not allowed to be used in the feed of food‐producing animals as a result of the "extended feed ban" (see further under insects).

Legislation on chemical food and feed safety

For certain hazardous chemicals, like pesticides and veterinary drugs, an application for authorization must be filed with the competent authorities prior to use. If necessary, legal maximum limits will be set for residues of these chemicals in foods. Other chemicals occur naturally, are formed during processing, or are present in food and feed due to their presence in the environment. For some of these chemicals, maximum limits are also set by law, and there are limits for "undesirable substances" in feed. This legislation is listed in Table 3.

EU legislation

Substances

Food / feed products

Regulation (EC) 396/2005

Residues of plant protection products

Primary agricultural products that are used as food and feed and are listed in Annex I

Regulation (EU) 37/2010

Residues of veterinary medicinal products

Muscle meat, liver, kidney, fat (or skin and fat), milk, egg, and honey used as food

Regulation (EC) 1881/2006

Contaminants ( heavy metals, mycotoxins, processing contaminants, environmental contaminants, endogenous substances)

General or specified food products

Directive 2002/32/EC

Contaminants ( heavy metals, mycotoxins, environmental contaminants, persistent pesticides, endogenous substances, toxic weeds)

General or specified feed products

For plant protection products, the maximum residue limits (MRLs) set apply to the products listed in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005 (Regulation (EU) 212/2013), whether they are used as food or as feed. In general, the products listed in Annex I are primary agricultural products. It is foreseen that for some processed products, "specific concentration or dilution factors" will be laid down in Annex VI of Regulation (EC) 396/2005, but no factors have been established yet. For products not listed in Annex I, no EU MRLs for pesticide residues exist. This is also the case for the product groups "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs and other marine, and fresh water food products" and "crops or parts of crops exclusively used for animal feed" in Annex I. For the latter groups, MRLs are not applicable until individual products in these groups have been listed, but no individual products have been listed up till now. Seaweeds and "other terrestrial animal products" are included in Annex I. Thus, also for food and feed derived from insects, pesticide MRLs apply, although in most cases, no specific MRLs will have been set and the default MRL of 10 ppb or limits of quantification will apply.

According to the veterinary drug residues legislation (Regulation (EC) 470/2009), food‐producing animals are animals that are bred, raised, kept, slaughtered, or harvested for the purpose of producing food for humans. The only product of an insect that is included in the list of animal products is honey from bees. In Volume 8, the guidance note for applicants of MRLs for veterinary drugs, the other animal products mentioned are: liver, kidney, fat (fat and skin for pigs), and (injection site) muscle from mammals; liver, kidney, fat and skin, and muscle of poultry; and muscle and skin from fish (CVMP 2005). The animal products mentioned are the only products of animals for which MRLs are set thus far in the MRL regulation, Regulation (EU) 37/2010.

For contaminants, legal maximum levels (MLs) are only set for those food products that are contributing to human exposure. Levels are set as low as reasonably achievable (Regulation (EEC) 315/93). New food products (not on the market yet) do not contribute yet to human exposure. Thus, the regulation on contaminants in food, Regulation (EC) 1881/2006, does not yet contain MLs for the 5 novel protein foods considered. For oils and fats derived from plants and animals, also novel fats and oils, there are MLs for lead, and the sum of 3 PAHs, and benzo(a)pyrene. For oils of marine organisms and vegetable oils and animal fats, there are MLs for dioxins, dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs. Also, for "food supplements" that may contain new food products, MLs have been set for a limited number of contaminants.

For new products used as or in feed, Directive 2002/32/EC does contain maximum levels for a rather high, compared to food, number of undesirable substances. This is because feed products in this directive are not specified in as much detail as in the food contaminants regulation. Most new products will fall in the broad category "feed materials" of this directive. This means that for use as feed, there are maximum levels for arsenic, cadmium, fluorine, lead, mercury, nitrite, melamine, aflatoxin B1, several inherent plant toxins, the persistent pesticides aldrin, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, endosulfan, endrin, heptachlor, hexachlorobenzene, hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha, beta, and gamma isomers), dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs for all new products that are used as feed material. Furthermore, harmful botanical impurities (among others, several mustards) that should not be present in feed are listed in this directive.

In the next section, more specific remarks will be made on legislation applying to novel proteins derived from animal sources (insects) and plant sources.

Specific legislation for novel protein sources

Insects

When farmed insects or products derived from farmed insects are produced to be used as food for humans, or as feed for food‐producing animals, a FBO has to comply with rather complex legal requirements. These requirements are related to the insects themselves, the feed or substrate fed to the insects, the firm producing the insects, and the ultimate marketing for use as food or feed.

In the Netherlands, it is forbidden to keep animals for agricultural production that are not listed in the Dutch Decision on the indication of animals that are allowed to be kept for production purposes (Overheid 1997). Several insects, including those proposed to be used in food or feed, are listed in this decision. The regulation on protection of animals at the time of killing, Regulation (EC) 1099/2009, does not mention insects. Reptiles and amphibians are excluded from this regulation, because these "are not animals commonly farmed in the Community," so maybe insects will be excluded also in future.

It is not clear if food products consisting of or derived from insects are considered to be "products of animal origin" as defined in the Hygiene Regulations (EC) 852/2004 and (EC) 853/2004. No specific requirements are laid down for the production and processing of insects in these regulations. As no requirements for insects are laid down in Annex III of Regulation (EC) 853/2004, establishments handling insects do not need approval prior to the start of operation (but they should be registered). The breeding of insects is part of "primary production," the processing of insects into food is not. Thus, FBOs breeding and converting insects into food should comply with Annex I and II of Regulation (EC) 852/2004.

Whether feed, sometimes called substrate, fed to insects that are bred for consumption by humans or food‐producing and nonfood‐producing animals, should comply with Regulation (EC) 767/2009 is not clear. A "food‐producing animal" in this regulation is defined as "any animal that is fed, bred, or kept for the production of food for human consumption, including animals that are not used for human consumption, but that belong to a species that is normally used for human consumption in the Community" (art. 3 (2c)). Insects are "not normally" used for human consumption in the EU. Annex III of this regulation lists a number of materials that are prohibited for use as feed, such as feces and "household waste," materials that could be used to feed insects. On the opposite, feed or substrates for insects probably do have to comply with EU regulations on animal proteins, Regulation (EC) 1069/2009 (and the implementing Regulation (EU) 142/2011) as the definition of "farmed animals" in this regulation does not exclude insects: "any animal that is kept, fattened, or bred by humans and used for the production of food, wool, fur, feathers, hides, and skins or any other product obtained from animals or for other farming purposes." These regulations prohibit the use of some (animal protein) sources that might be suitable as feed for insects, like those mentioned under Category 2 materials: manure and gut content, dead‐in‐shell poultry, and fallen stock (art. 9). Also, the use of "catering waste" as feed for farmed animals (apart from fur animals) is prohibited (art. 11b). Of special concern when feeding insects are genetically modified (GM) plants with built‐in insecticides, like the crops in which insecticidal proteins of the microorganism Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) are expressed. These GM crops may be detrimental to the growth of insects. All GM crops should be labeled according to EU legislation, however; thus, in principle, use of Bt‐derived ingredients could be avoided.

Although insects are already sold as food in the EU, mostly in specialty shops, the discussion as to whether insects and insect‐derived products are novel foods in the EU is still ongoing. Furthermore, it is not clear if the NFR applies to whole insects used as food, since in the definition only "food ingredients isolated from animals" are considered to be novel (Belluco and others 2013). The Food Standards Agency (FSA) in the UK launched a survey in August 2011 on the consumption of insects in the UK, to determine if consumption "in a significant degree" before May 15, 1997, could be substantiated with data. This would obviate the need for a market application under the NFR for those insects for which a significant degree of consumption could be proven. The results of this survey are not published yet.

The legislation on the use of insects and insect‐derived products as feed for food‐producing animals is complicated. In the past, the use of animal proteins in feed for food‐producing animals was banned for safety reasons, for example, the prevention of transmission of TSE/BSE. The initial ban on use of mammalian proteins in feed for ruminants was later extended to the use of all animal proteins, also from nonmammalian sources, in feeds of all food‐producing animals (with some minor exceptions). The question is thus whether insect‐derived proteins are animal proteins. The fact that insect meal and insects are included in category 9.16.1. in the Catalogue of Feed materials does not imply that these products are therefore allowed to be used in feed for food‐producing animals. According to an answer given March 25, 2010, by Commissioner Dalli on a question from the European Parliament, insect meal is a "processed animal protein" as referred to in Annex IV of the Regulation (EC) 999/2001 and is therefore prohibited to be fed to farmed animals. Annex IV of this regulation contains details concerning the prohibitions (part I) and derogations (part II) on the feeding of animal proteins to categories of food‐producing animals, and as such give details for the prohibitions in art. 7.1. (ruminants) and art. 7.2 (other animals). There is neither explicit prohibition of, nor derogation for, the use of proteins from terrestrial invertebrates in Annex IV. Contrary to the answer by Dalli in a subsequent communication of the EU Commission, "TSE road map 2" (EC 2010), it is indicated that animal proteins not specifically excluded are allowed to be used in feeds of all nonruminants. In the table in this Roadmap, insect proteins are not specifically excluded.

Regulation (EC) 142/2011 (implementing Regulation (EC) 1069/2009) gives a definition for "processed animal protein" (PAP). In this definition, PAP is a product derived from "Category 3 material" treated in a certain way. Some specific products are excluded from the definition, such as milk, eggs, and products derived thereof. In article 10 of Regulation (EC) 1069/2011, a description of Category 3 material is given. This category includes, among others, all by‐products that are the result of the production of food products derived from animals fit for human consumption, but also products from terrestrial invertebrates (not pathogenic to humans and animals, art. 10(l)). Thus, it is here that insect‐derived proteins are included in PAP. Proper processing of insects to convert them to "processed animal proteins" is a basic requirement for use of these proteins in feed. Possible processing strategies are listed in Annex IV of Regulation (EC) 142/2011. If just grinding and drying of whole insects or insect larvae, part of primary production, will be considered as proper processing by competent authorities is not clear, although the CA has sometimes some room to interpret.

Nowadays, new analytical control tools have been developed and a relaxation of the ban, allowing proteins from nonruminants to be used in feed again, was recently published. Regulation (EU) 56/2013 allows the use of nonruminant proteins in feed for fish in aquaculture. As transmission of BSE from nonruminants, also nonruminants like insects, to other nonruminants is negligible (Regulation (EU) 56/2013, recital 6), a lifting of the ban on use of insect proteins in the feed of food‐producing pigs and poultry should be on the agenda of the Commission in the near future.

Foods consisting of or derived from insects fall under the group "other terrestrial animal products" of the pesticide residue legislation (Annex I, Regulation (EC) 396/2005). This means that either specific MRLs will have been set, or the default MRL or limits of quantification are applicable. It might be necessary to treat insects raised for food use for diseases like infestation with other insects, fungi, bacteria, or viruses. Pesticides that are used to treat animals, and thus insects fall under the veterinary drugs legislation. A pharmacologically active substance of a veterinary drug must be listed in Table 1 of the Annex of Regulation (EU) 37/2010 and, if necessary, MRL must have been set in food products before a veterinary drug can be registered in a member state. No products derived from insects, apart from honey, are present in this regulation, so there are no MRLs for such products. If substances contained in Table 1 of the Annex are found in the official control in matrices for which no MRLs have been set, member states are expected to make a scientific assessment of the risk, and forward this assessment to the Commission. The registration procedure for the use of veterinary drugs on/in insects will probably be complicated and of a long duration, as no data requirements have been formulated yet. For insects raised solely for feed, the veterinary residue regulations do not apply. But, of course, products of animals fed with insects or insect‐derived products should comply with the veterinary drug residue legislation. Insect products used as feed should also comply with MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Microalgae

Foods consisting of or derived from algae are included in the definition of novel foods in the NFR. Thus, prior to market introduction of novel algae, an application should be filed for authorization of the product. Some products of algae might have been used as food prior to May 15, 1997. The Novel Food Catalogue should provide some insight as to whether an alga is novel or not. Several substances derived from algae are used as food additive. For food additives, Regulation (EC) 1333/2008 applies. In the past, prior to market access, a FBO was obliged to apply for authorization for the use of proteins derived from algae in feed under Directive 82/471/EEC. Assessment of safety and nutritional value was done according to the guidelines in Directive 83/228/EEC. To assist applicants, EFSA published a "Guidance for the assessment of biomasses for use in animal nutrition" in 2011. Regulation (EC) 767/2009 repealed both directives, and to date, no formal authorization and safety assessment is required anymore. But the Guidance of EFSA might still be useful for FBOs to assess their products.

Algae are likely to belong to the product group "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs, and other marine and fresh water food products " in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. MRLs for residues of plant protection products will be set as soon as individual products of this group are defined, which is not the case yet. Algae or their products used as feed should comply with all the MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Seaweed

Seaweeds are macroalgae, and thus the NFR will apply if the seaweed is novel. Whether a certain variety of seaweeds is considered to be novel or not can be verified to a certain extent in the Novel Food Catalogue. For instance, the brown seaweed Fucus vesiculosus is not a novel food according to this catalogue, but the red seaweed Rhodymenia palmata L ( P. palmata) is, as this seaweed has only been used before in food supplements. For proteins isolated from these algae, however, a novel food application might be necessary (art. 1(2f)). For use in feed no authorization is needed. Seaweeds are mentioned in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. MRLs for residues of plant protection products only apply if seaweeds are used for human consumption, not if they are used as feed for animals. For parts of seaweeds or seaweeds used exclusively for animal feed, separate MRLs will be set in the future. Only for food supplements consisting exclusively, or mainly, of dried seaweed, and products derived from seaweed, a ML for cadmium has been set in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006. Fresh seaweed is explicitly excluded in this regulation as a category of food for which the MLs of lead and cadmium are applicable. For seaweed meal and feed materials derived from seaweed, a separate ML for arsenic is set in Directive 2002/32/EC. All other products of seaweed used as feed should comply with the other MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Duckweed

Common duckweed, Lemna minor, was considered to be a novel food when an application was filed under the NFR (Novel Food Catalogue). Also, other subspecies of duckweed are likely to be novel foods and should be authorized prior to marketing as a food. For use in feed, no authorization is required. Duckweed is likely to belong to the product group "fish, fish products, shell fish, molluscs, and other marine and fresh water food products " in Annex I of pesticide residue Regulation (EC) 396/2005. Like for algae, no MRLs for residues of plant production products have been set, as no individual products have been defined yet for this group. Duckweed products used as feed should comply with all the MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Rapeseed

Oil from rapeseed, or canola, has been used as food for humans for some time now and is thus not a novel food. For this oil use, special rapeseed varieties are grown with low levels of the toxic fatty acid erucic acid (Directive 80/891/EEC) and glucosinolates. This is different for proteins derived from rapeseed seeds. Although leftovers from rapeseed processing have been used in animal feed, no use of products other than oil is common in food for humans. For rapeseed proteins, the NFR applies. The oilseeds of rapeseed are included in Annex I of Regulation (EC) 396/2005. Thus, MRLs for plant protection product residues have been laid down in the other annexes of this regulation. For parts of rapeseed other than the seeds, the MRLs are not applicable. For oil from rapeseed, MLs have been set in Regulation (EC) 1881/2006 for the contaminants lead, benzo(a)pyrene, dioxins and dioxin‐like PCBs, and PCBs. For the feed material called rapeseed cakes, a specific ML has been set in 2002/32 for allyliosthiocyanate (an indicator of the presence of volatile mustard oil). All other products of rapeseed should comply with the other MLs mentioned in Directive 2002/32/EC.

Unclarities in EU legislation

Table 4 shows an overview of the unclarities in EU legislation for the novel protein sources. Most unclarities in EU legislation were found for insects as novel protein source. For algae, seeweed, and duckweed, some MRLs are not yet set. No unclarities were found for rapeseed.

Protein source

Unclarity in EU legislation

EU legislation

Control of Safety Hazards

Producers of novel proteins are responsible for the application of a novel food dossier or for risk assessment of their new products. They are obliged to prove that their products are safe. Although some safety aspects of novel proteins are intrinsic to the product, many potential hazards can be controlled by production methods and by production and processing conditions. The selection of a species or a variety of the protein source can affect safety due to differences in allergenicity, metabolism, and composition. This has already been applied to rapeseed, currently containing less erucic acid and glucosinolates than before. As feed of insects may contain several contaminants that insects may accumulate and metabolize, the selection of feed is important to prevent contaminants in the human and animal diet. For example, the composition of waste streams from industry is variable and can therefore introduce contaminants in the production chain. The same applies for microalgae, seaweed, duckweed, and rapeseed, all are able to accumulate heavy metals from the environment. These plants have to be produced using controlled conditions. Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)+ requirements can be used to develop a controlled production system. Processing conditions of novel protein products (as an ingredient or as a product as such) can also affect the safety of novel proteins. Heating of products containing novel proteins can result in the formation of new components (neoformed components), like acrylamide. Also, the application of solvents for the extraction of proteins can affect safety of the novel protein products. During product development, these aspects should be considered in advance.

Conclusion

Novel protein sources, like insects and algae, are expected to be increasingly used in Europe as replacers for animal‐derived proteins. Technical and processing properties are being investigated but, to date, possible food safety hazards associated with the use of novel proteins in feed and food applications are hardly known. These hazards may include a range of contaminants, like heavy metals, mycotoxins, pesticide residues, as well as pathogens. Food business operators that wish to put on the European market products derived from novel proteins should comply with European legislation and possibly additional national legislation. To date, European law is not conclusive on several issues regarding the use of novel protein sources in feed and food products. One of the major unclarities for feed applications is whether or not products with insects are considered animal‐derived products or not. If so, it seems to be possible to put on the markets feed material using novel protein sources. For food product applications, the most important question for food producers is whether or not the product is considered a novel food. If so, the producer has to provide a Novel Food Dossier, among others, proving the product is safe for the consumer. In all cases, the producer is responsible for the safety of the product, but due to the unclarities in European law, it is not always clear which Regulation and maximum levels for contaminants apply. In order to stimulate the use of novel protein sources in Europe, it is therefore advised to adjust and clarify the European legislation. Future research should focus on effects of raw materials and the environment on the safety of novel proteins in food and feed products, the degradation and accumulation of several substances during processing of these products, and the transmission of substances to feed and food products.

Acknowledgment

The authors acknowledge the Ministry of Economic Affairs (EZ) for financial support of this study (KB‐15‐007‐003).

Author Contributions

M. van der Spiegel drafted the part of novel protein sources as well as their potential hazards, M.Y. Noordam described the legislation in general and specific for novel protein sources, and H.J. van der Fels‐Klerx stated the conclusions and critically reviewed the manuscript.

1 The legal acts quoted in this section refer, where applicable, to the latest amended version.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Safety of Novel Protein Sources (Insects, Microalgae, Seaweed, Duckweed, and Rapeseed) and Legislative Aspects for Their Application in Food and Feed Production

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Novel protein sources (like insects, algae, duckweed, and rapeseed) are expected to enter the European feed and food market as replacers for animal‐derived proteins. However, food safety aspects of these novel protein sources are not well‐known.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Protein-polysaccharide interactions find many applications in food engineering and new food formulations. This review article describes recent research on the effect of protein-polysaccharide interactions on the properties of air-water and oil-water interfaces, as affected by their behaviour in the bulk phase. The interfacial behaviour of protein-polysaccharide mixtures exhibiting associative (i.e., net attractive) interactions as well as their performance in food emulsions and foams has been the subject of several reviews in the last decade. Much less attention has been paid to the interfacial behaviour of protein-polysaccharide mixtures exhibiting unfavourable interactions. Thus we are concerned here with the interfacial behaviour of both kinds of mixtures.

Graphical abstract

The cartoon is of different mechanisms involved in the adsorption and/or interactions between biopolymers (proteins, surface-active polysaccharides (SA-PS), and non-surface-active polysaccharides (non-SA-PS).

Download : Download full-size image

Keywords

Protein-polysaccharide interactions

Recommended articles Citing articles (0)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Protein-polysaccharide interactions find many applications in food engineering and new food formulations. This review article describes recent research on the effect of protein-polysaccharide interactions on the properties of air-water and oil-water interfaces, as affected by their behaviour in the bulk phase.

# data[].attributes.body
Folie 20-24: Stabilisierung/Destabilisierung Schaum
Folie: 34-38: dynamische Tropfenkonturanalyse und Adsorption an der Grenzfläche

# data[].attributes.headline
Adsorption of chia proteins at interfaces: Kinetics of foam and emulsion formation and destabilization

# data[].attributes.subject
Adsorption of chia proteins at interfaces: Kinetics of foam and emulsion formation and destabilization

# data[].attributes.body
1. Method of receiving chia protein isolates (CPI) from partially defatted chia seeds via isoelectric precipitation at pH = 10 and 12

2. Foaming properties of CPI

3. Emulsifying properties of CPI

4. Protein solubility

5. Behavior at the air-water interface

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Chia proteins were isolated from defatted milled seeds at pH 10 (CPI10) or 12 (CPI12).

*

The interfacial behavior of these isolates was related to their extraction conditions.

*

Foams from CPI10 were more stable due to the formation of a thicker interfacial film.

*

CPI10 showed a greater ability to retard liquid drainage.

*

CPI12 showed better emulsifying properties whereas poorer foaming properties.

Abstract

Chia proteins were extracted by solubilisation at pH 10 or 12 and precipitated at pH 4.5. Isolates were named as CPI10 and CPI12, according to their extraction pH, 10 or 12, respectively. The surface properties of both isolates were studied at neutral conditions. Foams were formed by air bubbling and both the formation and destabilization processes were analysed by conductimetry. The extraction pH significantly affected the interfacial properties of chia proteins. The higher surface hydrophobicity in CPI10 led to more flexible proteins with improved foaming properties. Foams formed by CPI10 were more stable than those by CPI12 due to the formation of a thicker interfacial film, which meant a greater ability to retard liquid drainage. Freshly-made coarse emulsions stabilized with CPI12 showed a lower mean droplet size and a significantly lower degree of overall destabilization than those stabilized with CPI10. None of the two emulsions showed flocculating effect.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Adsorption of chia proteins at interfaces: Kinetics of foam and emulsion formation and destabilization

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chia proteins were isolated from defatted milled seeds at pH 10 (CPI10) or 12 (CPI12). * The interfacial behavior of these isolates was related to their extraction conditions. * Foams from CPI10 were more stable due to the formation of a thicker interfacial film. * CPI10 showed a greater ability to retard liquid drainage.

# data[].attributes.headline
Adsorption of protein and the stability of emulsions

# data[].attributes.subject
Adsorption of protein and the stability of emulsions

# data[].attributes.body
1. Factors that affect the stability of emulsions containing proteins

2. Mechanisms of instability

3. Adsorption of proteins and the structure of the interface

4. The kinetics of emulsion destabilization

5. Light scattering as a measuring method

# data[].attributes.headline
Comparison of functional properties of edible insects and protein preparations thereof

# data[].attributes.subject
Comparison of functional properties of edible insects and protein preparations thereof

# data[].attributes.body
Solubility. Foaming and Emulsion capacity of proteins from different insects

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Edible insects were found to have good protein solubility in a wide pH range.

*

The protein preparations had better properties than the whole ground insects.

*

In some cases the properties of insect flours and protein preparations were similar.

*

The Gryllodes sigillatus protein preparation had the best functional properties.

Abstract

This study investigated the functional properties of three species of edible insects: Gryllodes sigillatus, Schistocerca gregaria, and Tenebrio molitor. The water and oil holding capacity, solubility, and foaming and emulsion properties were evaluated. The protein solubility showed minimum values at pH 5. The highest water and oil holding capacity was noticeable for the T. molitor protein preparation (3.95 g/g) and for the G. sigilltus protein preparation (3.33 g/g), respectively. The G. sigillatus protein preparation also showed the highest foaming capacity, foam stability, and emulsion activity (99.0%, 92.0%, and 72.62%, respectively), while the protein preparation from S. gregaria exhibited the highest emulsion stability (51.31%). This study has shown that whole insects and protein preparations thereof can be suitable for development of new food formulations.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Comparison of functional properties of edible insects and protein preparations thereof

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Edible insects were found to have good protein solubility in a wide pH range. * The protein preparations had better properties than the whole ground insects. * In some cases the properties of insect flours and protein preparations were similar. * The Gryllodes sigillatus protein preparation had the best functional properties.

# data[].attributes.headline
35 - Plant Protein, Animal Protein, and Protein Quality

# data[].attributes.subject
35 - Plant Protein, Animal Protein, and Protein Quality

# data[].attributes.body
1. Evaluations of plant and animal protein quality

2. Amino Acid profiles and requirements

3. Digestibility

4. Limiting amino acids in plant protein sources

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Uncertainties persist as to how human metabolism may adapt to or accommodate lower intakes of some individual amino acids when compared to the set of amino acid and protein requirements, even when considering the theoretically simple criteria related to protein homeostasis. Amino acid metabolism is a much more dynamic and complex process that is still only assessed from fragmented information. Nonetheless, based on our current knowledge, proteins from plant sources are wholly adequate nutritionally in healthy adults, even if animal proteins are excluded, provided they are mixed and form part of a varied, good quality diet. This might not be the case in some elderly people, but this remains a research question that requires studies to assess the final functional impact. When plant protein sources are not mixed and mostly consist of cereals, in a diet associated with a low protein and energy intake, as in some developing countries, a low lysine intake remains a concern whose impact needs to be further characterized. More generally, the effect of plant/animal protein intake on the background metabolism of amino acids remains largely unexplored, even though this is expected to be the rationale regarding the impact of dietary protein sources on numerous functions and health outcomes. In Western countries, the standard view and classical concepts underlying "protein quality" are outdated. We need more direct study on the impact of plant and animal protein sources on metabolic pathways and final physiological endpoints.

Recommended articles Citing articles (0)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Plant Protein, Animal Protein, and Protein Quality

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Uncertainties persist as to how human metabolism may adapt to or accommodate lower intakes of some individual amino acids when compared to the set of amino acid and protein requirements, even when considering the theoretically simple criteria related to protein homeostasis.

# data[].attributes.body
Am besten nicht mehr als 3 Quellen für jedes Thema benutzen - für Thema 5. reicht auch nur eine Quelle.
Wir müssen ja nicht alles durchgelesen haben
Ich würde vorschlagen, die Quellen von Anja durchzublättern und vllt die Verknüpfungen zu aktualisieren

# data[].attributes.headline
Protein Stabilization of Emulsions and Foams

# data[].attributes.subject
Protein Stabilization of Emulsions and Foams

# data[].attributes.body
1. Emulsion/Foams physical challenges

2. Issues in Emulsion stability (creaming, flocculation, coalescence)

3. Issues in Foams stability (drainage, Ostwald-ripening

4. Attributes of protein to be a good surfactant (emulsion and foams)

5. Improvement of foaming ( e.x. due to partial denaturation ...

# data[].attributes.headline
Stabilization of foams and emulsions by mixtures of surface active food-grade particles and proteins

# data[].attributes.subject
Stabilization of foams and emulsions by mixtures of surface active food-grade particles and proteins

# data[].attributes.body
Biofilme

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Surface active biopolymers such as proteins can form films with particularly high interfacial elasticities and viscosities and these molecules are widely exploited as foaming and emulsifying agents in foods. Solid particles of the correct size and wetting characteristics can also be extremely effective stabilizers of foams and emulsions, although the underlying mechanism of stabilization is somewhat different. Relatively little is known about what happens when both surface active polymers and surface active particles are present together. This work presents recent findings on the effects of mixtures of proteins plus novel food-compatible surface active particles. The proteins include caseins and whey proteins. The surface active particles prepared include cellulose + ethyl cellulose complexes, hydrophobically-modified starch granule particles and stable (non-spreading) protein-stabilized oil droplets. Interfacial shear rheology of adsorbed films was measured via a biconical bob apparatus and interfacial dilatational rheology was measured via a Langmuir trough type apparatus. The corresponding stability of bubbles to coalescence and disproportionation was assessed in separate experiments. Stability of oil-in-water emulsions was assessed via measurement of particle size distributions as function of time and visual assessment of the tendency to creaming and oiling off. In general, it is shown that the surface active particles on their own exhibit much lower measures of interfacial elasticity and viscosity than the proteins, but in combination with the proteins they appear to enhance the interfacial viscoelasticity considerably, with concomitant increases in bubble and emulsion droplet stability. There is little evidence of attractive interactions between the particles and the proteins, so a possible explanation of the increased stability is that the proteins increase the accumulation of particles at the interface, giving rise to increased jamming of particles at the interface.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stabilization of foams and emulsions by mixtures of surface active food-grade particles and proteins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Surface active biopolymers such as proteins can form films with particularly high interfacial elasticities and viscosities and these molecules are widely exploited as foaming and emulsifying agents in foods. Solid particles of the correct size and wetting characteristics can also be extremely effective stabilizers of foams and emulsions, although the underlying mechanism of stabilization is somewhat different.

# data[].attributes.headline
Novel Proteins and their Interfacial Properties

# data[].attributes.subject
Novel Proteins and their Interfacial Properties

# data[].attributes.body
Rosa-Einträge sind von Anja
Gelb: Gruppe 4
Grün: Gruppe 3
Blau: Gruppe 2
Die Quellen sind mit dem TU-Login auf der jeweiligen Seite verfügbar (Fenster rechts oben "Login via other Institutions")

# data[].attributes.headline
5. Vom Rohstoff zur Grenzfläche am Beispiel erklärt (QI)

# data[].attributes.subject
5. Vom Rohstoff zur Grenzfläche am Beispiel erklärt (QI)

# data[].attributes.headline
4. Improving protein functionality for stabilizing emulsion and foams (SOYEOP)

# data[].attributes.subject
4. Improving protein functionality for stabilizing emulsion and foams (SOYEOP)

# data[].attributes.headline
3. Destabilisation of foam and emulsion (Wiederholung)

# data[].attributes.subject
3. Destabilisation of foam and emulsion (Wiederholung)

# data[].attributes.headline
2. Plant vs. animal proteins – differences, similarities 

# data[].attributes.subject
2. Plant vs. animal proteins – differences, similarities 

# data[].attributes.body
Sehr spezifisch über Biopolymeren (also außer Proteinen auch Polysaccharide) und Wechselwirkungen zwischen den beiden.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

Foods with novel or improved properties can be created by utilizing non-covalent interactions between proteins and polysaccharides. In solution, either attractive or repulsive interactions between proteins and polysaccharides can be used to create microstructures that give foods novel textural and sensory properties. At interfaces, attractive electrostatic interactions can be used to create food emulsions with improved stability to environmental stresses or with novel encapsulation-release characteristics.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Foods with novel or improved properties can be created by utilizing non-covalent interactions between proteins and polysaccharides. In solution, either attractive or repulsive interactions between proteins and polysaccharides can be used to create microstructures that give foods novel textural and sensory properties.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The interaction between proteins and polysaccharides, as can be observed in food related systems, is systematically discussed by separating biopolymer interactions into respectively enthalpy- and entropy-dominated types. We present examples of typically enthalpy driven phase separations, such as biopolymer incompatibility, described by the classical Flory-Huggins theory. This behavior is for instance observed for the system gelatin-dextran. In mixed systems where excluded volume or depletion interaction plays an important role the phase separation is mainly driven by entropy. Here the interaction of (random coil) polysaccharides and protein (covered) particles such as casein micelles and emulsion droplets in dairy systems may lead to phase separation as well.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The interaction between proteins and polysaccharides, as can be observed in food related systems, is systematically discussed by separating biopolymer interactions into respectively enthalpy- and entropy-dominated types. We present examples of typically enthalpy driven phase separations, such as biopolymer incompatibility, described by the classical Flory-Huggins theory.

# data[].attributes.headline
Some physico-chemical aspects of protein processing in foods. Multicomponent gels

# data[].attributes.subject
Some physico-chemical aspects of protein processing in foods. Multicomponent gels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

The food industry produces an increasing variety of formulated foods. Processed food systems usually contain proteins and polysaccharides performing both nutritional and structural functions. Interactions between these macromolecular substances may result both in their thermodynamic incompatibility and in complexing, thereby affecting the physico-chemical properties and structure of many foods. Elucidation of these interactions is of particular importance for understanding synergistic and antagonistic effects of food additives. This paper reviews the thermodynamic origin of food hydrocolloid functionality.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Some physico-chemical aspects of protein processing in foods. Multicomponent gels

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The food industry produces an increasing variety of formulated foods. Processed food systems usually contain proteins and polysaccharides performing both nutritional and structural functions. Interactions between these macromolecular substances may result both in their thermodynamic incompatibility and in complexing, thereby affecting the physico-chemical properties and structure of many foods.

# data[].attributes.headline
Alternative Sources of Protein forHuman Consumption

# data[].attributes.subject
Alternative Sources of Protein forHuman Consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Alternative Sources of Protein for Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.headline
Adsorption Kinetics and Rheological Interfacial Properties ofPlant Proteins at the Oil-Water Interface

# data[].attributes.subject
Adsorption Kinetics and Rheological Interfacial Properties ofPlant Proteins at the Oil-Water Interface

# data[].attributes.body
1. Comparing interfecial properties of wheat proteins (alpha gliadin), pea/soya globulins with those of gelatin by dynamic pendant drop technique

2. Benefits of some plant proteins (Reasons to use)

3. Wichtige Messmethode: Tropfenvolumen-Tensiometer

4. Adsorption kinetics of: different protiens (Equilibrium elasticity, viscoelastic behavior, relaxation time)

# data[].attributes.headline
Reconsidering the importance of interfacial properties in foam stability

# data[].attributes.subject
Reconsidering the importance of interfacial properties in foam stability

# data[].attributes.headline
Lipases at Interfaces: Unique Interfacial Properties as GlobularProteins

# data[].attributes.subject
Lipases at Interfaces: Unique Interfacial Properties as GlobularProteins

# data[].attributes.headline
Chemical Composition and Structure of Meat

# data[].attributes.subject
Chemical Composition and Structure of Meat

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Chemical Composition and Structure of Meat

# data[].attributes.headline
Technology of Reduced Additive Foods (Animal Proteins, Meat Science)

# data[].attributes.subject
Technology of Reduced Additive Foods (Animal Proteins, Meat Science)

# data[].attributes.headline
Optimization of Culture Parameters and Novel Strategies to Improve Protein Solubility

# data[].attributes.subject
Optimization of Culture Parameters and Novel Strategies to Improve Protein Solubility

# data[].attributes.headline
Novel Protein Foods: Alternative Sources of Protein for Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.subject
Novel Protein Foods: Alternative Sources of Protein for Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.body
Fokus liegt hier zwar auf der Ernährungssseite - nicht auf dem technologischen Aspekt, allerdings kann man daraus die Hauptzwecke der Proteinen und Vergleich der Aminosäureprofile zu ermitteln

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
(PDF) Novel Protein Foods: Alternative Sources of Protein for Human Consumption

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proteins are a major macronutrient of the human diet needed for survival. Its crucial function in nourishment is to provide sufficient amounts of amino acids to the body as these amino acids work as anaplerotic substrates in the building block of the body.

# data[].attributes.headline
Novel Proteins for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Agriculture: Sources, Applications and Advances

# data[].attributes.subject
Novel Proteins for Food, Pharmaceuticals and Agriculture: Sources, Applications and Advances

# data[].attributes.headline
Sunflower proteins (SP): overview of their physicochemical, structural and functional properties

# data[].attributes.subject
Sunflower proteins (SP): overview of their physicochemical, structural and functional properties

# data[].attributes.body
1. Source and Fractions of SP

2. Foam, emulsion and gelling properties of SP

3. Literature overweiv of foaming and emulsion properties

4. Methods to improve surface-active properties

# data[].attributes.headline
Influence of enzymatic hydrolysis on solubility, interfacial and emulsifying properties (air-water and oil-water interface) of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) seed protein isolate (PSPI)

# data[].attributes.subject
Influence of enzymatic hydrolysis on solubility, interfacial and emulsifying properties (air-water and oil-water interface) of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) seed protein isolate (PSPI)

# data[].attributes.body
1. Reasons for oilseeds beeing valuable protein source in comparison to cereals

2. Problems by Oilseeds

3. Functions of proteins in a diet

4. Definition of Hydrolysis

5. From Punpkin Seed Oil Cake to PSPI and PSPI Hydrolysates

6. Enzymatische Hydrolyse of PSPI with alcalase and pepsin

7. Protein characetristics of PSPI after enzymatic hydrolysis at different pH (3-8) and ionic strength (0-1mol/dm^3 NaCl)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Enzymatic hydrolysis increased solubility of protein isolate, especially at pI.

*

Protein isolate failed to stabilize emulsions at pI and at pH 3 when μ = 0.5 M NaCl.

*

Hydrolysates stabilized emulsion droplets at all pH and ionic strength tested.

Abstract

Pumpkin seed protein isolate (PSPI) was enzymatically hydrolyzed by alcalase and pepsin to obtain H1 and H2 hydrolysates, respectively. Influence of enzymatic hydrolysis on solubility, interfacial and emulsifying properties of PSPI was investigated as a function of pH (3-8) and ionic strength (0-1 mol/dm ³ NaCl). Solubility of PSPI was lowest at pI = 5. Solubility of both hydrolysates was higher than solubility of PSPI, especially at pH close to pI. Increase in ionic strength brings about salting-in or salting-out effect in PSPI, H1, and H2 solutions, depending on pH of the solutions. Tensiometric investigation showed that PSPI, H1 and H2 adsorb at both air/protein solution and oil/protein solution interfaces regardless of pH and ionic strength. 20% emulsions of sunflower oil in a continuous phase consisting of 1 g/100 cm ³ PSPI, H1 or H2 solutions at pH 3, 5 and 8, and ionic strengths of 0 and 0.5 mol/dm ³ NaCl were prepared. Emulsifying performance of proteins depended on pH and ionic strength. PSPI failed to stabilize emulsions against droplet coalescence at pI = 5 regardless of ionic strength, and at pH 3 with 0.5 mol/dm ³ NaCl, while both hydrolysates, H1 and H2, successfully stabilized emulsions no matter of pH and ionic strength. Smallest mean droplet diameter in emulsions of increased ionic strength (0.5 mol/dm ³) were obtained when they were stabilized with H2, H1, and both PSPI and H1 at pH 3, 5, and 8, respectively. All emulsions were susceptible to creaming instability.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Influence of enzymatic hydrolysis on solubility, interfacial and emulsifying properties of pumpkin (Cucurbita pepo) seed protein isolate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Enzymatic hydrolysis increased solubility of protein isolate, especially at pI. * Protein isolate failed to stabilize emulsions at pI and at pH 3 when μ = 0.5 M NaCl. * Hydrolysates stabilized emulsion droplets at all pH and ionic strength tested.

# data[].attributes.headline
Extruded soy protein as a novel emulsifier: Structure, interfacial activity and emulsifying property

# data[].attributes.subject
Extruded soy protein as a novel emulsifier: Structure, interfacial activity and emulsifying property

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0268005X18319416

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.cell.com/trends/biotechnology/fulltext/S0167-7799(01)01719-X

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition

Book * Second Edition * 2018

Edited by:

Rickey Y. Yada

A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition

Book * Second Edition * 2018

Edited by:

Rickey Y. Yada

Book description

Proteins in Food Processing, Second Edition, reviews how proteins may be used to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products. After two introductory chap ... read full description

Browse content

Table of contents

1. Book chapter Abstract only

E.C.Y. Li-Chan and I.M.E. Lacroix

2. Book chapter Abstract only

A.N.A. Aryee, D. Agyei and C.C. Udenigwe

3. Part One: Sources of proteins

4. Part Two: Analyzing and modifying protein

5. Part Three: Applications

Description

Proteins in Food Processing, Second Edition, reviews how proteins may be used to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products. After two introductory chapters, the book discusses sources of proteins, examining the caseins, whey, muscle and soy proteins, and proteins from oil-producing plants, cereals and seaweed. Part Two illustrates the analysis and modification of proteins, with chapters on testing protein functionality, modeling protein behavior, extracting and purifying proteins and reducing their allergenicity. A final group of chapters delves into the functional value of proteins and how they are used as additives in foods.

Show more

Proteins in Food Processing, Second Edition, reviews how proteins may be used to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products. After two introductory chapters, the book discusses sources of proteins, examining the caseins, whey, muscle and soy proteins, and proteins from oil-producing plants, cereals and seaweed. Part Two illustrates the analysis and modification of proteins, with chapters on testing protein functionality, modeling protein behavior, extracting and purifying proteins and reducing their allergenicity. A final group of chapters delves into the functional value of proteins and how they are used as additives in foods.

Key Features

Completely revised and updated with new developments on all food protein analysis and applications, such as alternative proteins sources, proteins as emulsifiers, proteins in nanotechnology and egg proteins

Reviews the wide range of protein sources available

Examines ways of modifying protein sources

Discusses the use of proteins to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products

Show more

Completely revised and updated with new developments on all food protein analysis and applications, such as alternative proteins sources, proteins as emulsifiers, proteins in nanotechnology and egg proteins

Reviews the wide range of protein sources available

Examines ways of modifying protein sources

Discusses the use of proteins to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products

Details

Copyright

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Imprint

Woodhead Publishing

You currently don't have access to this book, however you can purchase separate chapters directly from the table of contents or buy the full version.
Purchase the book

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A volume in Woodhead Publishing Series in Food Science, Technology and Nutrition Book * Second Edition * 2018 Edited by: Rickey Y. Yada Book * Second Edition * 2018 Edited by: Rickey Y. Yada Proteins in Food Processing, Second Edition, reviews how proteins may be used to enhance the nutritional, textural and other qualities of food products.

# data[].attributes.headline
Relevance of the Functional Properties of Enzymatic Plant Protein Hydrolysates in Food Systems

# data[].attributes.subject
Relevance of the Functional Properties of Enzymatic Plant Protein Hydrolysates in Food Systems

# data[].attributes.body
1. Main reasons for using plant proteins

2. Annual Plant and Animal food protein sources

3. Definition of Protein Hydrolysis

4. Functionality of Plant Protein Hydrolysates (solubility, water-holding, gelation, foaming, emulsificaiton)

# data[].attributes.headline
Complexation between flaxseed protein isolate and phenolic compounds: Effects on interfacial, emulsifying and antioxidant properties of emulsions

# data[].attributes.subject
Complexation between flaxseed protein isolate and phenolic compounds: Effects on interfacial, emulsifying and antioxidant properties of emulsions

# data[].attributes.body
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodhyd.2019.03.007

# data[].attributes.headline
The use of edible insect proteins in food:

# data[].attributes.subject
The use of edible insect proteins in food:

# data[].attributes.body
1. Functional properties (foaming/emulsion capacity, stability) in different proteins (milk, egg, legumes, insects)

2. Use of insect proteins in different food products

# data[].attributes.headline
Effect of pH on the inter-relationships between the physicochemical, interfacial and emulsifying properties for pea, soy, lentil and canola protein isolates

# data[].attributes.subject
Effect of pH on the inter-relationships between the physicochemical, interfacial and emulsifying properties for pea, soy, lentil and canola protein isolates

# data[].attributes.body
1. Definition of emulsion

2. Interfacial and emulsifying properties for pea, soy, lentil and canola PI at pH = 3, 5, 7

3. Globulin-type proteins of pea, soy, lentil and canola

4. Preparation of canola protein isolate from canola SEEDS

5. Measuring of zeta-potential, solubility, surface hydrophobicity, interfacial tension (Du Noüy Ring), interfacial rheology, droplet size distribution, emulsion stability

6. Three features of good emulsifying proteins

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Highlights

*

Proteins with high charge and low hydrophobicity associated best to the interface.

*

Proteins of high charge and hydrophobicity formed strong interfacial films.

*

Lentil protein isolate may be an effective alternative to soy, as an emulsifier.

Abstract

The inter-relationships between the physicochemical, interfacial and emulsifying properties for pea, soy, lentil and canola protein isolates as a function of pHs (3.0, 5.0, and 7.0) were investigated. Surface charge, hydrophobicity, solubility, interfacial tension, rheology, droplet size and emulsion stability were all studied. Conditions that favored the protein to have a high charge, low hydrophobicity and high solubility (pH 7.0) were better able to associate with the oil-water interface to lower interfacial tension. However, conditions that fostered the protein to have a high charge, high hydrophobicity and high solubility (pH 3.0) led to stronger interfacial viscoelastic films. Findings suggest that a balance of the surface active properties is most ideal for using plant protein emulsifiers in a food application. Overall, findings from this study indicated that all proteins could form stable emulsions away from its isoelectric point (pH 3.0 or pH 7.0), although the ones formed at pH 3.0 displayed much better interfacial rheology. Of the protein-types studied, the most promising alternative to soy protein isolate as an emulsifier was lentil protein isolate because it had high charge, solubility and hydrophobicity at pH 3.0. The low solubility of pea protein at acidic pH could cause sedimentation issues in products, whereas allergen concerns are still associated with the napin protein from canola.

View full text

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Effect of pH on the inter-relationships between the physicochemical, interfacial and emulsifying properties for pea, soy, lentil and canola protein isolates

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Proteins with high charge and low hydrophobicity associated best to the interface. * Proteins of high charge and hydrophobicity formed strong interfacial films. * Lentil protein isolate may be an effective alternative to soy, as an emulsifier.

# data[].attributes.body
1. Novel proteins (sources, production/isolation, functionalities)

2. Plant vs. animal proteins – differences, similarities

3. Destabilisation of foam and emulsion (Wiederholung)

4. Improving protein functionality for stabilizing emulsion and foams

5. Vom Rohstoff zur Grenzfläche am Beispiel erklärt