Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of monensin sodium (Coxidin®) as a coccidiostat for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that Coxidin® remains safe for turkeys for fattening (up to 16 weeks) and extends this conclusion to turkeys reared for breeding (up to 16 weeks). The Panel was not in the position to confirm that the current maximum authorised level of 125 mg monensin sodium/kg complete feed remains safe for chickens for fattening and chickens reared for laying. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® at the corresponding maximum authorised/proposed use levels in the target species is safe for the consumer. The existing maximum residue levels (MRLs) for poultry tissues ensure consumer safety. No withdrawal time is necessary. Both formulations of Coxidin® pose a risk by inhalation. The formulation with wheat bran as a carrier was neither irritant to the skin nor a skin sensitiser but it was irritant to the eyes. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be made on the potential of the formulation containing calcium carbonate to be irritant to skin and eyes and to be a skin sensitiser. The use of monensin sodium from Coxidin® in complete feed for the target species poses no risk for the terrestrial compartments and for sediment. No risk for groundwater is expected. For chickens for fattening the risk for aquatic compartment cannot be excluded, but no risks are expected for the other animal categories. There is no risk of secondary poisoning. Coxidin® is efficacious in controlling coccidiosis at a level of 100 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening and at 60 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening. These conclusions are extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding. The Panel noted that there are signs of development of resistance of Eimeria spp. to monensin sodium.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Enterococcus lactis DSM 22502 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions regarding the safety and efficacy of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that E. lactis remains safe for all animal species, consumers and environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, the Panel concluded that the additive is not irritating to the skin or eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut‐flora stabiliser) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for turkeys for fattening and turkeys reared for breeding. The applicant is also requesting to modify the target species in the current authorisations to ‘all growing poultry’, the increase of the recommended use level in chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species except minor poultry for laying from 1 × 107 to 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed and the compatibility of the additive with halofuginone. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There was no new evidence that would lead to reconsider previous conclusions. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding, the consumers and the environment under the current authorised conditions of use. The additive is not irritant to the skin and eyes, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel could not conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious as a zootechnical additive for poultry for fattening and reared for laying/breeding under the proposed conditions of use.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Cylactin® as a zootechnical feed additive for cats and dogs. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415 and the micro‐encapsulated formulation, Cylactin® LBC ME5 PET, was assessed. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for cats and dogs. Regarding user safety, the additive was not shown to be skin and eye irritant, but it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process CeltiPak (EU register number RECYC318), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, for example, bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for their use as food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety reached in the previous opinions for microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications apply to the microcrystalline cellulose and carboxymethyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the products, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on proper identification and characterisation as required for a feed additive. The occurrence of potential toxic impurities could also not be assessed. Based on the new data provided, the feed additives hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose were properly identified and characterised and were shown to meet the specifications set for the food additives. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessments reached in the previous opinions for hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose and methyl cellulose under assessment as feed additives. The additives are considered safe for all animal species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety for the user.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process ENPLATER (EU register number RECYC316), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process GTX Hanex (EU register number RECYC317), which uses the Kreyenborg IR Clean+ technology. The input material is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a continuous IR dryer (step 2) before being processed in a finisher reactor (step 3). Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 and step 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, air/PET ratio and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 and 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants and toddlers, respectively, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not considered to be of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The applicant Arysta Life Science Great Britain Limited submitted a request to the competent national authority in Croatia to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl in the framework of the maximum residue level (MRL) review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available. Since Article 12 data gaps were also set for the two other quizalofop‐P variants sharing the same residue definitions for risk assessment and monitoring, EFSA included in the present assessment all quizalofop‐P variants: quizalofop‐P‐ethyl, quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl and propaquizafop. Moreover, in the application submitted to Croatia, the applicant also included a request to modify the existing MRLs for quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl in grapes, sunflower seeds and soyabeans in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. To address the data gaps, new data on hydrolysis efficiency of quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl, quizalofop acid, quizalofop‐pentanoic acid and quizalofop‐P‐glycerate in different matrices of animal origin in accordance with the guidance document SANTE/2020/12830 Rev.1 were submitted, along with a validated analytical method for animal commodities. EFSA concluded that the data gap on validation of the efficiency of the extraction and hydrolysis included in the enforcement method of residues in livestock animal commodities was only fully addressed for muscle, poultry liver and eggs. Regarding plant commodities, the remaining data gaps were not addressed. EFSA also considered data gaps for quizalofop‐p‐ethyl in caraway as sufficiently addressed in the context of a previous MRL application. In general, the new information provided required a revision of the existing MRLs for several commodities of plant and animal origin. Further risk management considerations are required. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of quizalofop‐P‐tefuryl according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23689 as a technological additive, silage additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation, and skin and eye irritancy potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Pediococcus pentosaceus DSM 23688, a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers, and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive was shown not to be irritant to skin or eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on skin sensitisation potential of the additive, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive (gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The additive is available in two formulations: Lactiferm WS200 and Lactiferm Basic 50. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the additive is safe for chickens for fattening or reared for laying, other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying, and ornamental birds. The Panel also concluded that the use of the feed additive is safe for consumers, and the environment. Lactiferm WS200 is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It was not possible, however, to conclude on the irritancy potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both formulations of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. The efficacy studies submitted did not allow to draw a conclusion on the efficacy of the additive for the target species. Lactiferm® is considered compatible with the coccidiostats monensin sodium and decoquinate.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Bacillus velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) in regard to the renewal of the authorisation for weaned piglets, weaned minor porcine species, sows and minor reproductive Suidae species, and its extension of use for all Suidae. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel concluded that there is no new evidence that would lead it to reconsider the previous conclusions; the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species/categories for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that B. velezensis ATCC PTA‐6737 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The Panel concluded that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all growing Suidae (suckling, weaned and fattening Suidae) at the minimum inclusion level of 1 × 107 CFU/kg of complete feed and in sows and minor reproductive Suidae species at 1 × 108 CFU/kg complete feed.
Read our press statement on the Council ignoring farmers' concerns regarding Ukraine ATMs; it is now imperative for the European Parliament to take action. The post Press statement - The Council has chosen to ignore farmers' concerns regarding Ukraine ATMs, it is now imperative for the European Parliament to take action appeared first on CEFS.
In compliance with Article 43 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA received from the European Commission in 2020 a mandate to provide its reasoned opinion on the toxicological properties and maximum residue levels (MRLs) for the benzimidazole substances carbendazim and thiophanate‐methyl. Specifically, EFSA was asked to assess whether thiophanate‐methyl or carbendazim has clastogenic potential and, in case clastogenic potential can be excluded, to derive toxicological reference values necessary for consumer risk assessment and assessment of maximum residue levels (MRLs). Although these active substances are no longer authorised within the European Union, MRLs were established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (codex maximum residue limits; CXLs), and import tolerances are in place. Based on the assessment of the available data, toxicological reference values and MRL proposals were derived and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Some information required by the regulatory framework was found to be missing and a possible acute risk to consumers was identified. Hence, the consumer risk assessment was considered indicative only and all MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers. In October 2022, to ensure that MRLs derived by EFSA in its assessment of 2021 are safe for consumers also in view of endocrine‐disrupting properties, EFSA was requested to carry out a follow‐up assessment taking into account the scientific criteria for identifying endocrine disruptors (ED). Based on the outcome of the assessment, the experts agreed that the reference values are also covering the concern related to the identified hazards indicative of endocrine disruption for thiophanate‐methyl. No further considerations on the impact of the ED assessment on the current reference values were needed for carbendazim since the ED criteria are not met for this substance. Therefore, the risk assessment and the MRL recommendations derived in 2021 are confirmed.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the proposed modification of the terms of the authorisation regarding the maximum inclusion level of a feed additive consisting of nonanoic acid for all pigs and poultry species. Nonanoic acid is currently authorised for use as a sensory additive (functional group: flavouring compounds) for all animal species at a recommended maximum content of 5 mg/kg complete feed. The applicant is requesting a modification of the authorisation to increase the recommended maximum content of the active substance from 5 to 100 mg/kg complete feed for all poultry and pig species. In support of the safety of the additive at the new proposed level, the applicant provided tolerance trials in the target species. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that nonanoic acid is safe for all growing poultry species and Suidae at 100 mg/kg feed. The Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the new proposed level (100 mg/kg complete feed) for laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and reproductive Suidae. However, FEEDAP Panel considered that nonanoic acid is safe at 10 mg/kg complete feed in laying hens, turkeys for breeding, minor poultry species for laying/breeding and 20 mg/kg complete feed for reproductive Suidae. The use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for the consumer and the environment. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant neither a dermal nor respiratory sensitiser. No further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of a feed additive consisting of endo‐1,4‐β‐d‐mannanase produced by Thermothelomyces thermophilus DSM 33149, intended for use as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for chickens for fattening, turkeys for fattening, minor poultry species for fattening and ornamental birds. The safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously; however, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species, consumers and the users due to lack of reliable data on the potential genotoxicity of the additive. In the present assessment, the applicant submitted a new in vitro mammalian cell micronucleus test. After the assessment of the data newly submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for target species and consumer safety. The additive is not irritant to the eyes or skin. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase produced by Komagataella phaffii ATCC PTA‐127053 (Xygest™ HT) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: digestibility enhancers) for all Suidae at a recommended minimum level of 90,000 U/kg complete feed for pigs in the growing period and 45,000 U/kg complete feed for sows. The production strain is considered suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe at the minimum recommended use level for all growing Suidae and all sows in the lactating phase. Xygest™ HT was considered safe for the consumers and for the environment when used in feed for all Suidae. The additive was considered not to be irritant to eyes and skin, but was considered as a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Xygest™ HT for all Suidae.
The food enzyme protein–glutamine γ‐glutamyltransferase (protein–glutamine: amine γ‐glutamyltransferase; EC 2.3.2.13) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Streptomyces mobaraensis strain M2020197 by Taixing Dongsheng Bio‐Tech Co. Ltd. The identity of the production strain and the absence of viable cells could not be established. The food enzyme is intended to be used in eight food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of (1) baked products, (2) cereal‐based products other than baked; processing of dairy products for the production of (3) fermented dairy products, (4) cheese, (5) dairy desserts; processing of plant‐ and fungal‐derived products for the production of (6) meat analogues, (7) plant‐based analogues of milk and milk products; processing of meat and fish products for the production of (8) modified meat and fish products. Dietary exposure to the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) was estimated to be up to 3.498 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Genotoxicity tests did not indicate a safety concern. The systemic toxicity was assessed by a repeated dose 90‐day oral toxicity study in rats. The Panel identified a no observed adverse effect level of 91 mg TOS/kg bw per day. The calculated margin of exposure for each age group was 36 (infants), 26 (toddlers), 50 (children), 99 (adolescents), 115 (adults) and 133 (the elderly). A search for the similarity of the amino acid sequence of the food enzyme to known allergens was made and no match was found. The Panel considered that a risk of allergic reactions upon dietary exposure to this food enzyme cannot be excluded, but the likelihood is low. The safety of the food enzyme could not be established given the derived margins of exposure. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the food enzyme could not be considered safe under the intended conditions of use.
This reporting manual provides guidance to European Union Member States for reporting on zoonoses and zoonotic agents in animals, food and feed under Directive 2003/99/EC, Regulation (EU) 2017/625, Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2019/627 and Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2018/772 and also on reporting other pathogenic microbiological agents or contaminants in food. The objective of this manual is to harmonise and streamline reporting by Member States to ensure that the data collected are relevant and comparable for analysis at the EU level. This manual covers all the zoonoses and zoonotic agents included under the current data collection system run by the European Food Safety Authority. Detailed instructions are provided for reporting data in tables and information in free‐text forms. They cover the description of the sampling and monitoring schemes applied by the Member States, as well as the monitoring results. Special reference is made to data elements which enable trends to be identified and the analysis of sources of zoonotic agents at the EU level. This manual is specifically aimed at guiding the reporting of information derived from the year 2023.
A notification from WhatIF F&I Pte Ltd (Singapore) has been submitted to the European Commission under Article 14 of Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 to place on the market dried seeds and flour thereof of Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. as a traditional food from a third country (TF). In line with Article 15(2) of that Regulation, EFSA was asked by the European Commission whether there are duly reasoned safety objections to the placing on the market of the TF within the European Union (EU). The TF consists of dried seeds and flour thereof of Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc. (bambara groundnut) that have been consumed for more than 25 years in Africa. The TF is proposed to be marketed in the EU as dried seeds and flour thereof. EFSA considers that the available data on composition and history of use of the TF do not raise safety concerns. Considering the available data, EFSA does not raise safety objections to the placing on the market of the TF (dried seeds and flour thereof of Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.) within the EU.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive consisting of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 22501 as a technological feed additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is not irritant to skin and eye, but owing to its proteinaceous nature it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Genetically modified maize DP23211 was developed to confer control of certain coleopteran pests and tolerance to glufosinate‐containing herbicide. These properties were achieved by introducing the pmi, mo‐pat, ipd072Aa and DvSSJ1 expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP23211 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for those in levels of histidine, phenylalanine, magnesium, phosphorus and folic acid in grain, which do not raise safety and nutritional concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD072Aa, PAT and PMI proteins and the DvSSJ1 dsRNA and derived siRNAs newly expressed in maize DP23211, and finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP23211. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP23211 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. Therefore, no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP23211 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post‐market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP23211. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP23211 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM reference varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
The future of risk assessment cannot neglect to consider the vast literature produced through the application of new approach methodologies (NAMs). This, however, constitutes a challenge for the risk assessor, as the availability of data in this context is huge and heterogeneous both for the methods applied and the standardisation and quality of the results. The integration of results generated from NAMs is hence only feasible under some degree of automation of the risk assessment workflow, specifically for searching, extracting and integrating such results in “AOP‐like” knowledge networks (AOP – Adverse Outcome Pathway). Artificial intelligence (AI) with its state‐of‐the‐art methods and tools is one of the most promising sources to support automation of manual tasks among modern technologies. The present paper illustrates the results of the exploration of possible applications of AI to achieve this goal. After the introduction of an evaluation framework to quantitatively assess these tools and methods, the results of the implementation of six selected case studies with the support of a selection of such tools in a dedicated workflow are presented. A qualitative survey of the state‐of‐the‐art tools and methods, which also incorporates the experience gathered during the case study implementation, is then presented. Finally, recommendations are formulated which address the main aspects identified through the case study implementation that should, in the opinion of the authors, be pursued by EFSA in the context of its SPIDO NAMs and AI roadmaps. In summary, potentials for AI tool support could be identified throughout the workflow. Although many of the tasks can be supported by (semi‐)automation, experience showed that subject matter experts need to be involved in all workflow steps.
A systematic literature review (SR) registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023412241) and compliant with EFSA guidelines and the PRISMA statement on systematic reviews, was performed for the retrieval of relevant studies on adverse outcome pathways for the capacity of proteins to trigger celiac disease (CD). Search queries, together with grey literature search, resulted in the identification of relevant documents that were used to collect original data by means of data extraction, categorisation, risk of bias appraisal and data synthesis of high‐level information. A summary table was used to propose AOPs for CD. The investigation revealed that gluten, non‐gluten proteins, bacterial peptides, viral peptides, and a 55 kDa autoantigen played a role in various molecular initiating events (MIEs), with gluten proteins being the most common initiators. Furthermore, several shared characteristics were identified in the resulting AOPs across various MIEs, with structural mimicry emerging as a prominent recurring pattern, i.e., when foreign proteins or peptides have a similar structure to gluten. The studies emphasized the resemblance between the TFIIA protein and gliadin, the ability of gluten‐reactive T cells to react to bacterial peptides, and the identification of viral proteins by anti‐transglutaminase IgA antibodies in individuals with CD. These observations emphasize that CD is an intricate interaction between genetic and environmental factors, where structural mimicry connects these components and contributes to the autoimmune response in individuals with CD. This work aims to facilitate the path towards the development of a consolidated AOP pertinent to proteins triggering CD consistently to the principles defined by the OECD, in particular for the assessment of the risk of bias and for the data reporting.
Genetically modified maize DP915635 was developed to confer tolerance to glufosinate herbicide and resistance to corn rootworm pests. These properties were achieved by introducing the ipd079Ea, mo‐pat and pmi expression cassettes. The molecular characterisation data and bioinformatic analyses do not identify issues requiring food/feed safety assessment. None of the identified differences in the agronomic/phenotypic and compositional characteristics tested between maize DP915635 and its conventional counterpart needs further assessment, except for the levels of crude protein in forage, which does not raise nutritional and safety concerns. The GMO Panel does not identify safety concerns regarding the toxicity and allergenicity of the IPD079Ea, PAT and PMI proteins expressed in maize DP915635. The GMO Panel finds no evidence that the genetic modification impacts the overall safety of maize DP915635. In the context of this application, the consumption of food and feed from maize DP915635 does not represent a nutritional concern in humans and animals. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as the conventional counterpart and non‐GM maize varieties tested, and no post‐market monitoring of food/feed is considered necessary. In the case of accidental release of viable maize DP915635 grains into the environment, this would not raise environmental safety concerns. The post market environmental monitoring plan and reporting intervals are in line with the intended uses of maize DP915635. The GMO Panel concludes that maize DP915635 is as safe as its conventional counterpart and the tested non‐GM maize varieties with respect to potential effects on human and animal health and the environment.
It is said âwe eat first with our eyesâ. The colour of food and drink can have a major influence over what we choose to consume, so which pigments are expected to whet appetites in 2024?
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) strives to develop new methodologies (quantitative and qualitative) for assessing animal welfare of food‐producing animals by 2027 and start collecting standardised and good quality animal welfare (AW) data by 2030. In light of its vision, EFSA identified the need to develop an action Roadmap for the More Welfare project: towards new risk assessment methodologies and harmonised animal welfare data in the EU. This Roadmap maps existing animal welfare assessment methods, tools, and data collection activities for different species of food‐producing animals through literature review, desk research, online surveys, and workshops. It identifies data and knowledge gaps as well as challenges and blockers prevalent in AW assessment. In doing so, the roadmap points towards research areas that require further development (i.e., working areas), but also highlights collaboration opportunities and priority strategies (actions and project proposals) necessary for achieving EFSA's vision. Seven working areas for animal welfare assessment were identified and discussed with EFSA and external AW experts during virtual workshops, touching upon the definition of animal welfare, indicators and tools for welfare assessment, and the development of frameworks to assess and/or prioritise animal welfare issues. Finally, the Roadmap formulates five project proposals, each of them presenting high‐level recommendations on multi‐annual and multi‐partner projects that were identified in collaboration with EFSA and AW experts, each supported by a SWOT analysis.
The qualified presumption of safety (QPS) process was developed to provide a safety assessment approach for microorganisms intended for use in food or feed chains. The QPS approach is based on an assessment of published data for each taxonomic unit (TU), with respect to its taxonomic identity, the body of relevant knowledge and safety concerns. Safety concerns identified for a TU are, where possible, confirmed at the species/strain or product level and reflected by ‘qualifications’. In the period covered by this Statement, no new information was found that would change the status of previously recommended QPS TUs. Of 71 microorganisms notified to EFSA between April and September 2023 (30 as feed additives, 22 as food enzymes or additives, 7 as novel foods and 12 from plant protection products [PPP]), 61 were not evaluated because: 26 were filamentous fungi, 1 was Enterococcus faecium, 5 were Escherichia coli, 1 was a bacteriophage (all excluded from the QPS evaluation) and 28 were TUs that already have a QPS status. The other 10 notifications belonged to 9 TUs which were evaluated for a possible QPS status: Ensifer adhaerens and Heyndrickxia faecalis did not get the QPS recommendation due to the limited body of knowledge about their occurrence in the food and/or feed chains and Burkholderia ubonensis also due to its ability to generate biologically active compounds with antimicrobial activity; Klebsiella pneumoniae, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas putida due to safety concerns. K. pneumoniae is excluded from future QPS evaluations. Chlamydomonas reinhardtii is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’; Clostridium tyrobutyricum is recommended for QPS status with the qualification ‘absence of genetic determinants for toxigenic activity’; Candida oleophila has been added as a synonym of Yarrowia lipolytica. The Panel clarifies the extension of the QPS status for genetically modified strains.
The applicant Detia Freyberg GmbH submitted to the competent national authority in Germany two requests to evaluate the confirmatory data that were identified for tree nuts, oilseeds, cereals and commodities of animal origin in the framework of the maximum residue level (MRL) review under Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 as not available and two requests in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005 to increase the existing MRL for the active substance aluminium phosphide in peanuts, barley, oat, rye, rice and wheat, roots of herbal infusions, cocoa beans and seed spices and for the active substance magnesium phosphide in oilseeds (except peanuts) and pistachios. The four applications were combined by EFSA under the current assessment. To address the data gaps, validation data for the method of analysis for enforcement of phosphide in high‐oil content commodities and new residue trials were submitted. The data gaps on additional residue trials supporting authorisations on oilseeds and cereal grains, on clarifications regarding the discrepancies observed in the residue trial results for pistachios, and on data confirming the negligible occurrence of phosphane and its oxidation products in livestock products were considered addressed. The data gap on independent laboratory validation (ILV) and a confirmatory method for monitoring of phosphide in high‐oil content commodities was considered not fully addressed. The information provided justified a lowering of the current tentative MRLs for the whole group of cereals (except rice and ‘others’), an increase of the current tentative MRLs for pistachios, the whole group of oilseeds, rice and ‘other’ cereals, herbal infusions from roots, cocoa beans and seed spices, and a revision of the risk assessment performed for phosphane and its phosphide salts. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of AlP and Mg3P2 according to the reported agricultural practices is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health. Further risk management considerations are required.
The food enzyme containing cellulase (EC 3.2.1.4), endo‐1,3(4)‐β‐glucanase (EC 3.2.1.6) and endo‐1,4‐β‐xylanase (EC 3.2.1.8) is produced with the non‐genetically modified Trichoderma reesei strain AR‐256 by AB‐Enzymes GmbH. A safety evaluation of this food enzyme was made previously,* in which EFSA concluded that this food enzyme did not give rise to safety concerns when used in seven food manufacturing processes. Subsequently, the applicant requested to extend its use to include two additional processes. In this assessment, EFSA updated the safety evaluation of this food enzyme when used in a total of nine food manufacturing processes: processing of cereals and other grains for the production of 1) baked products, 2) cereal‐based products other than baked, 3) brewed products, 4) starch and gluten fractions, 5) distilled alcohol; processing of fruits and vegetables for the production of 6) wine and wine vinegar, 7) juices, 8) fruit and vegetable products other than juices and 9) fruit‐derived distilled alcoholic beverages other than from grape. As the food enzyme–total organic solids (TOS) is removed from or not carried into the final foods in three food manufacturing processes, the dietary exposure to the food enzyme–TOS was estimated only for the remaining six processes. It was up to 4.049 mg TOS/kg body weight (bw) per day in European populations. Using the no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL) reported in the previous opinion (939 mg TOS/kg bw per day), the Panel derived a revised margin of exposure of at least 232. Based on the revised exposure calculation and the outcome of the previous evaluation, the Panel concluded that this food enzyme does not give rise to safety concerns under the revised intended conditions of use.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the risk assessment for an active substance in light of confirmatory data requested following approval in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In this context EFSA's scientific views on the specific points raised during the commenting phase conducted with Member States, the applicant and EFSA on the confirmatory data and their use in the risk assessment for difenoconazole are presented. The current report summarises the outcome of the consultation process organised by the rapporteur Member State Spain and presents EFSA's scientific views and conclusions on the individual comments received.
PERSAM is a software tool for predicting environmental concentrations of plant protection products (PPPs) in soil commissioned by EFSA. The PERSAM tool was first launched in 2013. In support of the EFSA Guidance Document for predicting environmental concentrations of PPPs in soil (2017), the PERSAM software tool was updated for calculating the predicted environment concentration of PPPs in soil.The computerized tools will be released for use by applicants and risk assessors for the evaluation of PPPs and transformation products according to Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1107/2009.The software application assists the user in performing calculations using the analytical model, as described in the guidance document for predicting environmental concentrations of PPPs in soil (2017). More specifically, the software will be able to calculate:✓Tier‐1 Predicted Environmental concentrations✓Tier‐2 95th‐percentile PECs✓Selection of the grid cell including the scenario properties corresponding to the 95th‐percentile PEC as needed for the scenario development at Tier 3A and generation of a so‐called transfer file that can be read by the numerical models described in the Guidance Document.PERSAM generates reports intended for regulatory submissions. Based on these reports the authorities need to be able to check or reproduce the model results.This report describes the issues addressed and the solutions implemented in PERSAM 3.0.2 to 3.0.8.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the mixture of Sepiolite and Kieselguhr (diatomaceous earth) (Anpro) as a technological feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive Anpro for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and therefore no concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin or eyes but should be considered as skin sensitiser. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles could not be assessed for the target species, the consumer and the user. The additive is safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive for all terrestrial animal species.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri) NCIMB 30139 as a technological additive for use in easy to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser. The additive is not skin irritant, but no conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation or eye irritation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of natrolite–phonolite obtained from volcanic rock from Kaiserstuhl as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species under the proposed conditions of use. However, from the tolerance studies in cattle for fattening and weaned piglets, effects observed in animal performance and blood clinical biochemistry suggest adverse effects on the animals supplemented with the additive. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin and eye irritant. The additive is considered a respiratory and dermal sensitiser. In the absence of suitable data, the presence of small/nanoparticles cannot be excluded. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. Due to the lack of sufficient data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the risk assessment for an active substance in light of confirmatory data requested following approval in accordance with Article 6(1) of Directive 91/414/EEC and Article 6(f) of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. In this context EFSA's scientific views on the specific points raised during the commenting phase conducted with Member States, the applicant and EFSA on the confirmatory data and their use in the risk assessment for the aqueous extract from the germinated seeds of sweet Lupinus albus are presented. The current report summarises the outcome of the consultation process organised by the rapporteur Member State the Netherlands and presents EFSA's scientific views and conclusions on the individual comments received.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) commissioned RPA Europe and FoBiG to carry out the study ‘Mapping of data requirements and assessment methodologies linked to the regulatory frameworks and remits of the relevant EU Agencies (ECHA, EFSA and EMA) and EC Scientific Committees (Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety, SCCS, and Scientific Committee on Health, Environmental and Emerging Risks, SCHEER)’ (service contract OC/EFSA/FIP/2022/01 managed by the EFSA Unit on Food Ingredients and Packaging). The general objective was to collect and analyse data requirements (DRs) and risk assessment methodologies (RAMs) applied within the regulatory frameworks of EFSA, the European Chemicals Agency (ECHA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), SCCS and SCHEER. For comparative analysis, a digital data inventory containing 230 records on legal acts, guidance and other documents related to DRs and RAMs was developed. Based on a comparative analysis methodology, the database of DRs and RAMs across different regulatory frameworks was created by extracting information on DRs (with respect to substance identity, physico‐chemical and environmental fate properties as well as ecotoxicity and toxicity and target organism safety) and RAMs (for the environment, human health and target organisms) from relevant documents. The study identified inconsistencies within regulatory areas in some cases, e.g. between legal acts and guidance documents. Furthermore, it found differences between regulatory frameworks in the DRs and RAMs with respect to terminology, general and detailed DRs and RAMs, the quality standards for experimental studies and other issues. Based on the identified differences and the potential for harmonisation across the regulatory frameworks, several recommendations were outlined in the study that involve addressing specific as well as more principal and structural differences.
According to Article 12 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, EFSA has reviewed the maximum residue levels (MRLs) currently established at European level for the pesticide active substance zoxamide. To assess the occurrence of zoxamide residues in plants, processed commodities, rotational crops and livestock, EFSA considered the conclusions derived in the framework of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009, the MRLs established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission and the European authorisations reported by Member States and the UK (including the supporting residues data). Based on the assessment of the available data, MRL proposals were derived, and a consumer risk assessment was carried out. Although no apparent risk to consumers was identified, some information required by the regulatory framework was missing. Hence, the consumer risk assessment is considered indicative only and some MRL proposals derived by EFSA still require further consideration by risk managers. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 6 of Regulation (EC) No 396/2005, the Applicant Gowan Crop Protection Ltd, submitted a request to the competent national authority in Latvia to set an import tolerance for zoxamide in onions (extrapolated to garlic and shallots) based on the use authorised in USA. The data submitted in support of the request were found to be sufficient to derive MRL proposals for all crops under assessment. Based on the risk assessment results, EFSA concluded that the short‐term and long‐term intake of residues resulting from the use of zoxamide according to the agricultural practices on onions, garlic and shallots is unlikely to present a risk to consumer health.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of zinc chloride hydroxide monohydrate as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species (3b609). The applicant reported changes in the production process and requested a change in the specification of the additive. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) confirms that the use of the additive under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species and the consumers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition at the proposed use levels for the terrestrial species and land‐based aquaculture systems is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for marine sediment compartment, when it is used in sea cages. The additive is an eye irritant, but not irritant to the skin and not a skin sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely, but in the absence of data, the Panel is not in a position to conclude on the risk of exposure by inhalation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a new preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine, with selenium content of 4%, as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Zinc‐l‐selenomethionine is already authorised for use in all animal species (3b818). Current authorisation defines the additive as ‘Solid preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine with a selenium content of 1–2 g/kg’. The applicant developed a new preparation of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine containing a minimum of 40 g Se/kg and seeks to modify the current authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the newly proposed preparation is considered safe for all animal species. The FEEDAP Panel recommends adding, to the currently existing authorisation, a new preparation (40–46 g Se/kg) and not the range proposed by the applicant (1–46 g Se/kg), since no characterisation data on the intermediate preparation range (from 2 to 40 g Se/kg) have been provided. The use of the new preparation (minimum 40 g Se/kg) of zinc‐l‐selenomethionine in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. The newly proposed preparation presents a risk by inhalation; it is not irritant to eyes or skin. No conclusion can be reached regarding dermal sensitisation. The previous conclusion by the Panel on the safety for the environment remains unchanged. The Panel concluded that the modification request has no impact on efficacy.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the feed additive containing Enterococcus faecium DSM 21913, Bifidobacterium animalis ssp. animalis DSM 16284 and Ligilactobacillus salivarius (formerly Lactobacillus salivarius) DSM 16351 (Biomin® C3) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species other than laying. In addition, the applicant requested the extension of use in all poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the Panel to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for an extension of use is made. The Panel concluded that Biomin® C3 is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered as a respiratory sensitiser due to its proteinaceous nature. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The evaluation of the efficacy is not needed in those species for which an authorisation exists. The Panel considered that the additive is efficacious in all growing poultry species at the same inclusion level of 1 × 108 CFU/kg feed and the equivalent level in water of 5 × 107 CFU/L.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of zeolites (≥ 50%) obtained from Neapolitan Yellow Tufa as a technological additive (functional group: anticaking) for all animal species. The additive is specified to contain not less than 50% of zeolites, namely phillipsite, chabazite and analcime. Neapolitan Yellow Tufa originates from the volcanic activity of Campi Flegrei, Italy. According to the conventional risk assessment, due to a lack of adequate data, the safety of the additive for the target species cannot be established. Based on current knowledge, there is no indication of substantial absorption of the components of the additive and, therefore, of concern for the consumer. The additive poses a risk by inhalation. It is not irritant to the skin. The Panel cannot conclude on the eye irritancy and on the dermal and respiratory sensitisation potential of the additive. As no suitable data in line with the requirements of the Guidance on risk assessment of nanomaterials were provided by the applicant, the potential risks associated with the presence of nanoparticles for the target species, the consumer and the user could not be assessed. The additive is safe for the environment. The additive is considered to be efficacious in feedingstuffs for all animal species at 20,000 mg/kg complete feed.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Levilactobacillus brevis (formerly Lactobacillus brevis) DSM 23231 as a technological feed additive for all animal species. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that evidence has been provided that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. The Panel also concluded that L. brevis DSM 23231 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. Based on the studies submitted regarding user safety, the preparation of the additive tested was shown not to be a skin or eye irritant. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of copper(II)‐betaine as a nutritional additive for all animal species and on the safety for the marine sediment when the additive is used in sea cages. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the risk to the marine sediment is acceptable when the additive is used in sea cages. The additional statistical analysis of the results of the efficacy study already assessed in the previous opinion did not allow the Panel to conclude on the efficacy of the additive.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of benzoic acid (Kalama®) as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets at a level of 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at a minimum content of 5000 mg/kg and a maximum content of 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that benzoic acid is safe for weaned piglets at 5000 mg/kg complete feed and for pigs for fattening at 10,000 mg/kg complete feed. The Panel considered the use of benzoic acid under the proposed conditions of use to be of no concern for consumer safety and the environment. Benzoic acid poses a risk by inhalation, it is irritant to skin and corrosive to eyes, but no conclusions can be drawn on dermal sensitisation. The additive, benzoic acid, is efficacious as a zootechnical feed additive for weaned piglets and for pigs for fattening at the proposed conditions of use.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of folic acid as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in feed and water for drinking for all animal species. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation and the production process has not been modified. The FEEDAP Panel considers that there is no evidence to revise the conclusions reached in the previous assessment for the safety for the terrestrial species, consumers and for the environment. The use of folic acid in aquatic animal species to cover their nutritional needs is considered safe. However, the Panel is not in a position to set a maximum safe level for all fish and crustacean species. Considering the narrow margin between the requirement and the tolerated levels seen in some aquatic animal species, the FEEDAP Panel considers that supplementation should not exceed the requirements of the different aquatic animal species. The additive is neither a skin irritant nor a dermal sensitiser. The exposure through inhalation is likely. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential of folic acid to be harmful to the respiratory system and irritant to eyes. The Panel retains that the previously made conclusion on the efficacy remains valid.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of Schizochytrium sp. (strain CABIO-A-2) oil as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. S. sp. is a single-cell microalga. The NF is a mixture of triglycerides in which docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) represents 38%–44% of fatty acids. The applicant proposed to use the NF in infant formulae (IF) and followon formulae (FOF). The use levels proposed by the applicant were derived from Regulation (EU) 2016/127, which states the mandatory addition of DHA to IF and FOF at the level of 20–50 mg/100 kcal. The evidence provided demonstrated that the strain S. sp. CABIO-A-2 is phylogenetically closely related to the strain S. sp. ATCC 20888. The assessment of some already authorised S. sp. oils in the Union list were also based on similarities with the strain ATCC 20888. The applicant provided a 90-day repeated dose toxicity study in rats with the NF. No adverse effects were observed up to the highest dose tested, i.e. 10.2 g/kg body weight (bw) per day. Taking into account the toxicity studies performed with the NF and with DHA-oils derived from strains belonging to the genus Schizochytrium, its phylogenetical profile, the production process, the composition of the NF and the absence of marine biotoxins and viable cells in the NF, the Panel considers that there are no concerns with regard to the toxicity of the NF. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed conditions of use.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of Schizochytrium sp. (TKD-1) oil as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. Schizochytrium sp. is a single-cell microalga. The strain TKD-1, used by the applicant (ATK Biotech Co. Ltd.), belongs to the species Schizochytrium limacinum. The NF is a mixture of triglycerides in which docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) represents 53%–61% of fatty acids. The applicant proposed to use the NF in infant formulae (IF) and follow-on formulae (FOF). The use levels proposed by the applicant were derived from Regulation (EU) 2016/127, which states the mandatory addition of DHA to IF and FOF at the level of 20–50 mg/100 kcal. S. limacinum was attributed the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) status with the qualification ‘for production purposes only’. Data provided by the applicant demonstrated the absence of viable cells in the NF. No toxicological studies were performed with the NF. However, based on the available toxicological data on oils derived from Schizochytrium sp., the QPS status of the source of the NF, the production process, the composition of the NF and the absence of marine biotoxins and viable cells in the NF, the Panel considers there are no concerns with regard to toxicity of the NF. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed conditions of use.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 11181 (Lactiferm®) as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets, calves for fattening and calves for rearing. The product under assessment is based on a strain originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the active agent has been reclassified as Enterococcus lactis. The additive currently authorised is marketed in two formulations: Lactiferm Basic 50 (a solid formulation to be used in feed), and Lactiferm WS200 (a solid ‘water-soluble’ formulation to be used in water for drinking). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The Panel concludes that the use of Lactiferm® under the authorised conditions of use remains safe for the target species (calves up to 6 months and weaned piglets up to 35 kg), consumers and the environment. The Lactiferm WS200 formulation of the additive is not irritant to skin or eyes. Owing to the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, both formulations of the additive are considered respiratory sensitisers. It is not possible to conclude on the irritating potential for skin and eyes of the Lactiferm Basic 50 formulation or on the potential of both forms of the additive to cause skin sensitisation. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
In the frame of the European Food Risk Assessment (EU-FORA) fellowship programme, two studies on chemical contaminants in food matrices were carried out in Warsaw, Poland, at the Department of Food Safety and Chemical Analysis, Institute of Agricultural and Food Biotechnology. The first study addressed health concerns about the dietary exposure to bisphenol A (BPA) contamination due to consumption of soft drink by Polish population. BPA is an organic additive used in the production of epoxy resins and polycarbonate plastics and because of this it is used in the internal coating of cans and in plastic bottle production. Depending on several factors, BPA can migrate from these materials to the soft drink and so, it can be ingested by consumers causing hormonal and reproductive disorders. To estimate the Polish population exposure to BPA, several soft drinks belonging to different brands were purchased from a supermarket in the city of Warsaw and analysed. The result of the analysis highlight that mean BPA exposure in the Polish population exceeds the tolerable daily intake proposed by the EFSA scientific opinion, raising health concerns. On the other hand, the second study, focused on cadmium exposure due to chocolate consumption by Polish population, did not raise any health concern. Cadmium is a heavy metal that naturally occurs in its inorganic form in the environment and its presence in chocolate derives only from the cocoa beans and not from contamination during processing. Its accumulation in the human body can create several adverse effects, including renal dysfunction and failure. To estimate the Polish population exposure to cadmium, several chocolate bars were purchased from a supermarket in the city of Warsaw and analysed. The results of the analysis show that cadmium exposure in the Polish population does not exceed the tolerable weekly intake proposed by the EFSA scientific opinion.
Human pathogenic Salmonella enterica strains have been infecting people since historical times. The original human pathogens, typhoid Salmonella strains (e.g. S. Typhi) played a huge role in the previous centuries but nowadays in the developed world the number of cases or outbreaks caused by these serotypes deceased due to the development of personal and public hygiene. Nowadays in these regions the animal-borne zoonotic serotypes (e.g. S. Enteritidis) became more important because of their high prevalence in intensive animal husbandry. But these bacteria can also appear in fruits and vegetables. The fellow joined the scientific work of the Polytechnic University of Cartagena, Spain about the safety of plant-based products, where he could gain experience in microbiological laboratory exercises and theoretical calculations of statistics and modelling. The activities in the laboratory were part of the research lines already established at the host institution, being based on the protocols they have already implemented. Nonetheless, the fellow had the opportunity to design his own experiment, do the experimental work required and analysed the data within the context of a qualitative microbiological risk assessment. The main focus was on the heat resistance of two strains of zoonotic Salmonella spp. at different temperatures. Experiments were done using a reference strain and an extremely resistant variant to evaluate this rare phenotype. The experiments were executed using a Mastia thermoresistometer, a device patented by the host institution that provides more control when studying thermal treatments than traditional methods. The data was analysed using the principles of predictive microbiology, using the D-value as an estimate of heat resistance that provides insight into the bacterial behaviour. For this, the fellow used the bioinactivation software, developed within the host group. Through the work and results the fellow learned the principles of quantitative microbiological risk assessment (QMRA) and predictive microbiology, which was the aim for the EU-FORA programme.
The prevention and control of bacterial contamination on ready-to-eat (RTE) fresh produce is an essential task to ensure food safety. Therefore, the development of novel and effective decontamination technologies to ensure microbiological safety of fruits and vegetables has gained considerable attention and new sanitisation methods are needed. The antimicrobial activity of essential oils (EOs) is well documented, but their application in fresh produce remains a challenge due to their hydrophobic nature. Thus, nanoemulsions efficiently contribute to support the use of EOs in foods by enhancing their dispersibility, their contact area and facilitating the introduction into bacterial cells. The combination of these factors ultimately increases their antimicrobial activity. Quantitative microbial risk assessment (QMRA) is gaining more attention as an effective tool to assess and prevent potential risks associated with food-borne pathogens. In this context, the current project aims to study the effectiveness of different washing methods based on nanoemulsified EOs, comparing them against traditional methods, using a QMRA model for Escherichia coli O157:H7 on cherry tomatoes. Different simulations within a stochastic risk assessment model were implemented using the biorisk package for R, aiming to describe microbial behaviour and biological risk along the Romanian and Spanish food supply chains of RTE fresh produce. Nanoemulsions were prepared using oregano and rosemary EOs, each from Romania and Spain. The four nanoemulsions were evaluated as decontamination treatments to control the growth of E. coli O157:H7 on artificially contaminated cherry tomatoes. The decontamination treatments showed encouraging results, comparable to commonly used chlorine solutions. Therefore, oregano and rosemary nanoemulsions are promising and could be a feasible alternative for chlorine solutions in the reduction of microbiological contaminants.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of a feed additive consisting of Duddingtonia flagrans NCIMB 30336 (BioWorma®) for all grazing animals. The safety and efficacy of the additive have been already assessed previously, however the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the target species and the consumers due to the limitations in the dataset provided. For the current assessment, the applicant submitted a new tolerance trial in dairy cows and new toxicological studies. After the assessment of the new data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition under the conditions of use proposed is of no concern for dairy cows. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all dairy bovines, ovines and caprines, but not to fattening and rearing animals of those species. Due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of the additive for other grazing species/categories. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for the consumers.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on mono-sodium salt of l-5-methyltetrahydrofolic acid (5-MTHF) as a novel food (NF) pursu-ant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283 and to address the bioavailability of folate from this source in the context of Directive 2002/46/EC, Regulation (EU) No 609/2013 and Regulation (EC) No 1925/2006. The NF is produced by chemical synthesis and consists of at least 95% (w/w) of 5-MTHF and 4%–5% (w/w) of sodium. It is pro-posed to be used as a partial or complete substitute to folic acid and other sources of added folate in a number of food categories. The production process, composi-tion, specifications and stability of the NF do not raise safety concerns. When used as an ingredient in different food matrices, proper processing/storage conditions need to be considered to preserve the stability of the NF. Regarding bioavailability, the Panel considers that the NF readily dissociates into Na and l-methylfolate ions, which subsequently are absorbed and enter the circulation. Thus, the bioavailabil-ity of 5-MTHF from the NF is comparable to that of other currently authorised salts of 5-MTHF. The Panel considers that the consumption of the NF is not nutrition-ally disadvantageous as long as the combined intake of the NF and the other sup-plemental forms of folate under their authorised conditions of use is below the ULs established for the different age groups of the general population. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed conditions of use. The Panel also concludes that the NF is a source from which folate is bioavailable.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process INCOM RESOURCES RECOVERY (TIANJIN) (EU register number RECYC312), which uses the Buhler technology. The input material consists of hot washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, e.g. bottles, including no more than 5% PET from non-food consumer applications. Washed and dried flakes are extruded into pellets, which are dried and crystallised in a reactor and then preheated and further treated in a solid-state polymerisation (SSP) reactor.The recycled pellets are intended to be used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long-term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The Panel concluded that the information submitted to EFSA is inadequate to demonstrate that this recycling process is able to reduce potential unknown contamination of the input PET flakes to a concentration that does not pose a risk to human health.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Intco Malaysia (EU register number RECYC309), which uses the VACUNITE (EREMA basic and Polymetrix SSP V-leaN) technology. The input consists of hot caustic washed and dried pol(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non-food consumer applications. The flakes are pre-decontaminated in the ■■■■■ at ■■■■■ under ■■■■■ (step 2), then extruded and pelletised. The ■■■■■ pellets are then ■■■■■ and submitted to solid-state polycondensation (SSP) at ■■■■■ under ■■■■■ and ■■■■■. Having examined the challenge tests provided, the Panel concluded that the step 2 (flake reactor) and steps 4 and 5 (preheating and SSP) are critical for determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance are temperature, pressure and residence time for steps 2, 4 and 5 as well as the ■■■■■ for steps 4 and 5. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long-term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Guangxi Wuzhou Guolong Recyclable (EU register number RECYC310), which uses the VACUNITE (EREMA basic and Polymetrix SSP V-leaN) technology. The input consists of hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes, mainly originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non-food consumer applications. The flakes are pre-decontaminated in the ■■■■■ at ■■■■■ under ■■■■■ (step 2) before being extruded, pelletised and crystallised (step 3). The ■■■■■ pellets are then ■■■■■ (step 4) and submitted to solid-state polycondensation (SSP) (step 5) at high temperature under ■■■■■ and ■■■■■. Having examined the challenge tests provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 as well as steps 4 and 5 are critical for determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance are temperature, pressure and residence time for steps 2, 4 and 5 as well as the ■■■■■ for steps 4 and 5. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long-term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. Articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Rekis (EU register number RECYC311), which uses the VACUNITE (EREMA basic and Polymetrix SSP V-leaN) technology. The input is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post-consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non-food consumer applications. The flakes are pre-decontaminated in the ■■■■■ at ■■■■■ under ■■■■■ (step 2) before being extruded, pelletised and ■■■■■ (step 3). The crystallised pellets are then ■■■■■ (step 4) and submitted to solid-state polycondensation (SSP) (step 5) at ■■■■■, under ■■■■■ and ■■■■■. Having examined the challenge tests provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 as well as steps 4 and 5 are critical for determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance are temperature, pressure and residence time for steps 2, 4 and 5 as well as the gas velocity for steps 4 and 5. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long-term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the evaluation of applications received in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning basic substances. This evaluation was requested by way of a specific mandate from the European Commission following the submission of an application for approval of grape seed extract as a basic substance to be used in plant protection as a fungicide on grapevines, apples and potatoes (field spray application) and on lettuce (field and greenhouse applications). This report summarises the outcome of the consultations with Member States and EFSA, and presents EFSA's scientific views on the individual comments received including the overall conclusions with the main findings on the application.
The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) was asked by the European Commission to provide scientific assistance with respect to the evaluation of applications received in accordance with Article 23 of Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009 concerning basic substances. This evaluation was requested by way of a specific mandate from the European Commission following the submission of an application for approval of eggshell powder as a basic substance to be used in plant protection as a fungifuge on grapevines. This report summarises the outcome of the consultations with Member States and EFSA, and presents EFSA's scientific views on the individual comments received including the overall conclusions with the main findings on the application.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on 2′‐fucosyllactose (2’‐FL) as a novel food (NF) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The NF is mainly composed of the human‐identical milk oligosaccharide (HiMO) 2’‐FL, but it also contains d‐lactose, l‐fucose, fucosylgalactose, difucosyllactose, d‐glucose and d‐galactose, and a small fraction of other related saccharides. The NF is produced by fermentation by a genetically modified strain (Escherichia coli SGR5) of E. coli W (ATCC 9637). The information provided on the identity, manufacturing process, composition and specifications of the NF does not raise safety concerns. The applicant applies for the same use and use levels as already authorised for 2’‐FL and included in the Union list of NFs, with the general population as target population. The Panel noted that the available intake estimate is not recent (2015) and based on a different database (2008–2010 UK data) than that used by EFSA. For this reason, the Panel decided to perform a new intake estimate according to the current EFSA approach. The Panel notes that the highest P95 daily intake of the NF from the use as food ingredient is higher than the estimated natural highest mean daily intake in breastfed infants and marginally higher in young children. The applicant also proposes to extend the use of 2’‐FL in food supplements (FS) for infants at the use level of 1.2 g/day. The resulting estimated intake in infants from the proposed use in FS is within the natural intake of 2’‐FL in breastfed infants. FS are not intended to be used if other foods with added 2’‐FL or human milk are consumed on the same day. The Panel concludes that the NF is safe under the proposed conditions of use.
This technical report provides a user guide for the TKPlate 1.0 platform which allows to implement New Approach Methodologies in the chemical risk assessment process by means of toxicokinetic and toxicodynamic modelling of chemicals in humans, laboratory animals, farm animals and species of ecological relevance. TKPlate 1.0 is available as an open access webbased tool or a downloadable application. The platform is built as a workflow of 7 modules: 1. Input module for which the user can select the species, kinetic or physiologically-based kinetic model, the chemical to be modelled, exposure scenarios and simulation times, 2. Forward dosimetry allowing the user to simulate kinetic parameters, body fluid and organ concentrations, 3. Reverse dosimetry for the reconstruction of exposure distributions using internal dose such as biomonitoring data, 4. Benchmark dose modelling using model averaging on an internal dose basis, 5. Dynamic energy budget modelling, 6. Mixture risk characterisation using the methods available from EFSA’s Scientific committee guidance document, 7. Automated report where the user can access input and output data in a technical report, graphs and datasets. For each module, the structure and applications are described with examples. The technical development of TKPlate 1.0 is described in an external scientific report which is associated with an EFSA editorial and two technical reports namely a user guide and case studies illustrating applications of TKPlate 1.0. Finally, all models and associated files are also available published in Zenodo (https://zenodo.org/record/7494936).
EFSA along with several national agencies and academic partners have developed an open-access platform: ‘TKPlate 1.0’ that integrates a number of physiologically-based kinetic models and toxicokinetic-toxicodynamic models used in human health, animal health and ecological risk assessment. These models allow the derivation of quantitative metrics related to toxicokinetic (TK) processes (what the body does to the chemical) and toxicodynamic (TD) processes (what the chemical does to the body) for hazard and risk characterisation. Such in silico new approach methodologies (NAMs) support the integration of mechanism-based understanding of chemical toxicity and the reduction of animal testing in risk assessment. Among NAM-based approaches, biologically-based models are increasingly applied in chemical risk assessment.This editorial describes EFSA's TKPlate platform and its suite of models for humans, test species (rat, mouse, rabbit, dog), farm animals (cattle, sheep, pig, chicken) and species of ecological relevance. TKPlate 1.0 consists of a workflow with seven modules: (1) input module to set the model, the chemical-specific data, exposure patterns and related time scales, (2) forward dosimetry module to predict kinetic parameters and concentrations in blood plasma and organs of interests, (3) reverse dosimetry module to back-calculate exposure from an internal dose profile using, for example, blood and urine biomonitoring data, (4) toxicodynamic module for benchmark dose modelling on an internal dose basis, (5) dynamic energy budget module to assess the impact of chemicals on the life cycle of individuals and populations of species of ecological relevance, (6) MIXTOX module for deterministic risk characterisation from exposure to multiple chemicals, (7) an automated report summarising inputs provided by the user and outputs, graphs and datasets. We conclude with perspectives on current and future development of TKPlate.
The present project aimed to improve our understanding of potential effect of nanocellulose (NC) ingestion on human health, addressing some key objectives set by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). In particular, the use and improvement of not yet validated advanced in vitro models of human gut, both static and in tubular microfluidic format, was explored for assessing the interaction of the intestinal epithelium with nanocelluloses. NCs (nanofibers and nanocrystals) were examined as pristine material and upon exposure to digestive fluids and interaction with oro‐gastro‐intestinal enzymes. The NC local effects on the intestinal epithelium were assessed in terms of cytotoxicity, inflammation, and intestinal barrier integrity. Assessment of NC uptake and crossing of intestinal barrier was also explored. A specific focus was on immune reactivity at intestinal barrier site; the complex in vitro models were refined by complementation with primary innate immune cells. Exposure of intestinal tissues to inflammatory cytokines allowed to mimic the effect associated with disease condition and to address inflammation‐induced secondary toxicity.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Nutrition, Novel Foods and Food Allergens (NDA) was asked to deliver an opinion on the safety of a change of specifications of the novel food (NF) oleoresin from Haematococcus pluvialis containing astaxanthin (ATX) pursuant to Regulation (EU) 2015/2283. The NF is already authorised as ingredient for the use in food supplements as defined in Directive 2002/46EC in accordance to Regulation (EU) 2017/2470. The NF concerns an oleoresin which contains ~ 10% ATX, obtained by supercritical CO2 extraction of the homogenised and dried biomass of cultivated H. pluvialis. This NF has been assessed by the Panel in 2014. With the present dossier, the applicant proposed to lower the minimum specification limits for protein and ATX monoesters for the NF, and to increase the maximum specification limit for the relative amount of ATX diesters in total ATX. An increase of the maximum specification limit for the 9‐cis isomer is also applied for. Although the data are limited regarding bioavailability and distribution in humans of these three naturally occurring ATX isomers, the available in vitro and in vivo data suggest that the 13‐cis rather than the 9‐cis ATX is selectively absorbed, i.e. has a higher bioavailability and/or possibly emerges from isomerisation of all‐trans ATX. The Panel notes that the toxicity of the individual ATX isomers has not been studied individually. However, the ADI of 0.2 mg/kg, which was established for synthetic ATX and ATX from H. pluvialis, applies also for ATX in the oleoresin from H. pluvialis with the proposed changes of specifications. The Panel concludes that the NF, oleoresin from H. pluvialis containing ATX, is safe with the proposed specification limits.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Bacillus subtilis FERM BP‐07462, Enterococcus lactis FERM BP‐10867 and Clostridium butyricum FERM BP‐10866 (BIO‐THREE®) as a zootechnical feed additive to be used as a gut flora stabiliser for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of BIO‐THREE® for the target species at the proposed conditions of use. The applicant has provided a new study in chickens for fattening as supplementary information to support the efficacy of BIO‐THREE® for the target species. Considering the previously submitted studies and the new submitted trial, the Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious for chickens for fattening and reared for laying, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, and all avian species for rearing/fattening or reared for laying/breeding under the proposed conditions of use.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Weizmannia faecalis (formerly identified as Bacillus coagulans) DSM 32016 (TechnoSpore50®) as a zootechnical feed additive for poultry reared for breeding/laying/fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. The additive is authorised for use in feed for poultry for fattening, ornamental birds and suckling and weaned Suidae piglets. This application sought the extension of use in feed for poultry reared for breeding/laying and the new authorisation in water for drinking for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets, poultry for fattening, reared for breeding/laying and ornamental birds. Moreover, the applicant requested the authorisation of simultaneous use in feed for poultry reared for breeding and laying with coccidiostats. The identity and the lack of toxigenic activity of the active agent was confirmed, and it did not show resistance to relevant antibiotics; therefore, the strain was presumed safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. Since other components did not introduce concerns, TechnoSpore50® was also considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not a skin/eye irritant but is a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. TechnoSpore50® was considered to be efficacious in feed for poultry reared for laying/breeding at 1 × 109 CFU/kg and in water for drinking for poultry reared for fattening, poultry reared for laying/breeding, ornamental birds and for suckling and weaned Suidae piglets at 5 × 108 CFU/L. TechnoSpore50® is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, monensin sodium, robenidine hydrochloride, salinomycin sodium and monensin sodium + nicarbazin, but not with narasin or narasin + nicarbazin. No conclusions could be drawn on the compatibility of TechnoSpore50® with decoquinate, lasalocid A sodium, semduramicin sodium, nicarbazin or amprolium hydrochloride.
The contamination of water used in post‐harvest handling and processing operations of fresh and frozen fruit, vegetables and herbs (ffFVHs) is a global concern. The most relevant microbial hazards associated with this water are: Listeria monocytogenes, Salmonella spp., human pathogenic Escherichia coli and enteric viruses, which have been linked to multiple outbreaks associated with ffFVHs in the European Union (EU). Contamination (i.e. the accumulation of microbiological hazards) of the process water during post‐harvest handling and processing operations is affected by several factors including: the type and contamination of the FVHs being processed, duration of the operation and transfer of microorganisms from the product to the water and vice versa, etc. For food business operators (FBOp), it is important to maintain the microbiological quality of the process water to assure the safety of ffFVHs. Good manufacturing practices (GMP) and good hygienic practices (GHP) related to a water management plan and the implementation of a water management system are critical to maintain the microbiological quality of the process water. Identified hygienic practices include technical maintenance of infrastructure, training of staff and cooling of post‐harvest process water. Intervention strategies (e.g. use of water disinfection treatments and water replenishment) have been suggested to maintain the microbiological quality of process water. Chlorine‐based disinfectants and peroxyacetic acid have been reported as common water disinfection treatments. However, given current practices in the EU, evidence of their efficacy under industrial conditions is only available for chlorine‐based disinfectants. The use of water disinfection treatments must be undertaken following an appropriate water management strategy including validation, operational monitoring and verification. During operational monitoring, real‐time information on process parameters related to the process and product, as well as the water and water disinfection treatment(s) are necessary. More specific guidance for FBOp on the validation, operational monitoring and verification is needed.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of 6‐phytase produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.19 (Nutrase P) as a zootechnical feed additive for chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded on the efficacy of Nutrase P for the target species at the level of 1,500 phytase units (FTU)/kg but could not conclude at the minimum recommended use level of 500 FTU/kg complete feed. The applicant has provided supplementary information, consisting in the statistical re‐analysis of the long‐term study assessed in the original opinion, in order to support the efficacy of the additive at the minimum recommended level of 500 FTU/kg complete feed. Considering the previously submitted studies and the re‐analysis of the long‐term study, the Panel concluded that the additive has a potential to be efficacious for chickens for fattening, other poultry for fattening or reared for laying and ornamental birds under the proposed conditions of use.
Infection with salmonid alphavirus (SAV) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with SAV. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment, it was uncertain whether infection with salmonid alphavirus can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (50–80% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that infection with salmonid alphavirus does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5–10% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 50–90%, probability of meeting the criteria). The animal species to be listed for infection with SAV according to Article 8 criteria are provided.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8324/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8326/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8325/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.4783full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8028/full
Infection with Gyrodactylus salaris was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular, the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid down in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to infection with G. salaris. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment here performed, it is uncertain whether infection with G. salaris can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (33–70% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that Infection with G. salaris does not meet the criteria in Section 1 and 3 (Category A and C; 1–5% and 10–33% probability of fulfilling the criteria, respectively) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 4 and 5 (Categories B, D and E; 33–80%, 33–66% and 33–80% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for infection with G. salaris according to Article 8 criteria are provided.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8324/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8326/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8327/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.4783full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8028/full
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of Cylactin® as zootechnical additive. The active agent of the additive is Enterococcus lactis NCIMB 10415, and three additive formulations currently authorised: Cylactin® LBC G35, Cylactin® LBC ME10 and Cylactin® LBC ME20 plus. The additive is currently authorised in the EU for use in poultry (chickens and minor poultry species for fattening, chickens and minor species reared for laying), calves and kids for rearing and for fattening, sows, suckling and weaned piglets and pigs for fattening. The applicant is now seeking the renewal of its authorisation and the extension of use for chickens and minor poultry species reared for breeding, turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, ornamental birds, lambs for rearing and for fattening, minor or other ruminants' species for rearing and fattening, minor suckling and weaned Suidae species, pigs and minor Suidae species for fattening, rearing or reproduction. In addition, the applicant is seeking authorisation for use in water for drinking for all above‐mentioned target species and categories. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the conditions of authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additive is safe for the target animals, consumers and the environment under the authorised/new proposed conditions of use. The Cylactin® LBC ME10 and LBC ME20 plus are not skin and eye irritants, but no conclusion could be drawn on the potential of Cylactin® LBC G35 to be skin and eye irritant. Moreover, no conclusions could be drawn on the additive skin sensitisation potential. The additive is considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. The efficacy for the new target species/categories as well its use in water was extrapolated from the previous efficacy studies.
Bacterial kidney disease (BKD) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as laid out in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to BKD. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method on data collection and assessment developed by AHAW Panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to this assessment, BKD can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (66–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that BKD does not meet the criteria in Sections 1, 2 and 3 (Categories A, B and C; 1–5%, 33–66% and 33–66% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively) but meets the criteria in Sections 4 and 5 (Categories D and E; 66–90% and 66–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for BKD according to Article 8 criteria are provided.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8324/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8325/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8327/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.4783full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8028/full
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of essential oils from fruit and stems of Foeniculum vulgare Mill. (bitter fennel oil and sweet fennel oil), when used as sensory additives (flavourings). For long‐living and reproductive animals, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered of low concern the use of bitter fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 6.1%) at the proposed use level in complete feed: 0.6 mg/kg for laying hens and rabbits, 1.0 mg/kg for sows and dairy cows, 1.5 mg/kg for sheep/goats, horses and cats, 1.9 mg/kg for dogs and 7.1 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For short‐living animals (animals for fattening), the Panel had no safety concern when bitter fennel oil is used at the proposed use level in complete feed of 18.2 mg/kg for chickens for fattening, 24.3 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening and 25 mg/kg for piglets, pigs for fattening, veal calves, cattle for fattening, sheep/goats, horses, rabbits and salmon. These conclusions were extrapolated to other physiologically related species. The use of sweet fennel oil (with a content of estragole up to 5.0%) was considered of low concern at the proposed use level in complete feed of 2.3 mg/kg for dogs and 1.9 mg/kg cats. The use of bitter fennel oil in animal feed is expected to be of no concern for consumers and the environment. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes, and as dermal and respiratory sensitisers. Due to the high concentration of estragole (> 1%), fennel oils are classified as suspected of causing genetic defects and of causing cancer and should be handled accordingly. Since the fruit of F. vulgare Mill. ssp. vulgare and its preparations are recognised to flavour food, no further demonstration of efficacy was necessary.
Spring Viraemia of Carp (SVC) was assessed according to the criteria of the Animal Health Law (AHL), in particular the criteria of Article 7 on disease profile and impacts, Article 5 on its eligibility to be listed, Annex IV for its categorisation according to disease prevention and control rules as in Article 9 and Article 8 for listing animal species related to SVC. The assessment was performed following the ad hoc method for data collection and assessment previously developed by the AHAW panel and already published. The outcome reported is the median of the probability ranges provided by the experts, which indicates whether each criterion is fulfilled (lower bound ≥ 66%) or not (upper bound ≤ 33%), or whether there is uncertainty about fulfilment. Reasoning points are reported for criteria with an uncertain outcome. According to the assessment performed here, it is uncertain whether SVC can be considered eligible to be listed for Union intervention according to Article 5 of the AHL (45–90% probability). According to the criteria in Annex IV, for the purpose of categorisation related to the level of prevention and control as in Article 9 of the AHL, the AHAW Panel concluded that SVC does not meet the criteria in Section 1 (Category A; 5–33% probability of meeting the criteria) and it is uncertain whether it meets the criteria in Sections 2, 3, 4 and 5 (Categories B, C, D and E; 33–66%, 10–66%, 45–90% and 45–90% probability of meeting the criteria, respectively). The animal species to be listed for SVC according to Article 8 criteria are provided.This publication is linked to the following EFSA Journal articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8325/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8326/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8327/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.4783full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.8028/full
PERSAM is a software tool for predicting environmental concentrations of plant protection products (PPPs) in soil commissioned by EFSA. The PERSAM tool was first launched in 2013. In support of the EFSA Guidance Document for predicting environmental concentrations of PPPs in soil (2017), the PERSAM software tool was updated for calculating the predicted environment concentration of PPPs in soil. The computerized tools will be released for use by applicants and risk assessors for the evaluation of PPPs and transformation products according to Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) 1107/2009. The software application assists the user in performing calculations using the analytical model, as described in the guidance document for predicting environmental concentrations of PPPs in soil (2017). More specifically, the software will be able to calculate: (1) Tier‐1 Predicted Environmental concentrations, (2) Tier‐2 95th‐percentile PECs and (3) Selection of the grid cell including the scenario properties corresponding to the 95th‐percentile PEC as needed for the scenario development at Tier 3A and generation of a so‐called transfer file that can be read by the numerical models described in the Guidance Document. PERSAM generates reports intended for regulatory submissions. Based on these reports the authorities need to be able to check or reproduce the model results. This report describes the issues addressed and the solutions implemented in PERSAM 3.0.2 to 3.0.9.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Lentilactobacillus buchneri DSM 19455 as a technological feed additive for use in easy and moderately difficult to ensile fresh material for all animal species. The Panel concluded that L. buchneri DSM 19455 remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, L. buchneri DSM 19455 was considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. The additive with inulin as a carrier tested is not irritant to skin and eyes. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
There is widespread public support for a universal eco-label to be introduced for food products, with more than two-thirds of consumers across Europe saying they would use such a tool to help them make more sustainable choices, according to a new pan-European study released by the EIT Food Consumer Observatory at the 2023 Future of Food Conference in Brussels.
EIT Food, a body of the European Union supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), is demanding a universal standard for eco-labels on food products as new research shows most people would embrace such a tool.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the application for renewal of orthophosphoric acid as a technological additive (functional group: preservatives) for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species provided that the optimal Ca:P ratio is maintained. Additionally, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that orthophosphoric acid remains safe for the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the user safety, orthophosphoric acid is corrosive to the skin and eyes and should be considered as hazardous to the respiratory tract. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Having just become the majority shareholder of Paboco (otherwise known as The Paper Bottle Company), ALPLA sets out plans to produce a fully recyclable paper bottle made from FCS-certified fibers from a new state-of-the-art manufacturing site in Denmark in 2024.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of manganese(II)‐betaine complex as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species and categories. Based on the tolerance study performed in chickens, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening when used up to the maximum proposed level of manganese in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories at the corresponding maximum manganese levels in complete feed (100 mg Mn/kg feed for fish and 150 mg Mn/kg feed for all other animal species). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of additive in animal nutrition does not represent a concern for consumer safety or for the environment. The additive is irritant to the eyes, but not irritant to skin. Owing to the presence of nickel the additive is considered to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The Panel concluded that the additive is efficacious as a nutritional additive for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use.
Bonvital® is the trade name for a feed additive currently authorised for use in piglets, pigs for fattening, sows, chickens for fattening, laying hens, chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species (other than those used for laying). This opinion concerns the renewal of the authorisation of Bonvital® as a zootechnical additive for chickens reared for laying and minor poultry species other than those used for laying. The active agent of Bonvital® was originally identified as Enterococcus faecium. During the current assessment, the strain was reassigned to Enterococcus lactis. The applicant provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for the target species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Bonvital® was found to be non‐irritant to skin and eyes, but a potential respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. There is no need to assess the efficacy of Bonvital® in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for the renewal of the authorisation of dicopper chloride trihydroxide as a nutritional feed additive. The additive is currently authorised for use in all animal species (3b409). The applicant is requesting a modification in the current authorising specification: (i) replacing the alpha crystal form paratacamite with clinoatacamite; (ii) removing the ratio between crystal polymorphs from the authorising specification; (iii) changing the minimum for particles below 50 μm from 1% to 5%. The FEEDAP Panel considers that the proposed modifications do not introduce concern for the safety for the target species and that the additive remains safe for the target species and the consumers when used up to the maximum authorised levels. Regarding the safety for the environment, the use of the additive in feed for terrestrial animals and land‐based aquaculture is considered safe under the proposed conditions of use. The data available do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to reach a conclusion on the safety of the additive for marine sediment when it is used in sea cages. The additive is not corrosive to skin, but is an eye and skin irritant. Due to the nickel presence, it is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of 41 compounds to provide a Herbal flavour and belonging to different chemical groups, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. Fourteen out of the 41 compounds were tested in tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, piglets, cattle for fattening and Atlantic salmon. No adverse effects were observed in the tolerance studies at 10‐fold the intended level. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the 14 tested compounds were safe for these species at the proposed use level and conclusions were extrapolated to all animal species. For the remaining 27 compounds, read‐across from structurally similar compounds tested in tolerance trials and belonging to the same chemical group was applied. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that these 27 compounds were safe for all animal species at the proposed use level. No safety concern would arise for the consumer and the environment from the use of the 41 compounds up to the maximum proposed use level in feed.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum LMG P‐21295, a technological additive to improve ensiling of fresh material for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no new evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concludes that the additive remains safe for all animal species, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the skin and eye irritation potential of the additive. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to cause skin sensitisation, but it is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a fraction of the essential oil from the fruit and leaves of Illicium verum Hook.f. (star anise terpenes), when used as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive contains up to 25% estragole by specification and is obtained by a manufacturing process which results in the enrichment of this genotoxic carcinogen. This is not in line with the principles outlined in the general approach to assess the safety for the target species of botanical preparations which contain compounds that are genotoxic and/or carcinogenic when used as feed additives. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel considered it was inappropriate to perform an assessment of the safety and efficacy of star anise terpenes for its use as a feed additive.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a feed additive consisting of viable cells of Enterococcus faecium DSM 33761, Pediococcus acidilactici DSM 33758, Bifidobacterium animalis DSM 16284, Limosilactobacillus reuteri DSM 33751 and Ligilactobacillus salivarius DSM 16351 (Biomin® C5) as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) for chickens for fattening, chickens reared for laying, turkeys for fattening, turkeys reared for breeding and minor poultry species for fattening and reared for laying/breeding. Biomin® C5 is marketed in two formulations: a coated and a non‐coated formulation with a total minimum microbial count of 1 × 1011 and 4 × 1010 colony forming unit (CFU)/g product, respectively. The Panel considered that the use of Biomin® C5 in feed at the proposed conditions of use raises no risk for the target species, consumers and the environment. Both coated and non‐coated formulations of Biomin® C5 are considered respiratory and skin sensitisers, but not skin irritants. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the eye irritation potential of any formulation. Due to lack of sufficient data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in the target species at the proposed conditions of use. Biomin® C5 is compatible with nicarbazin, diclazuril, decoquinate and halofuginone. No conclusions can be drawn on the compatibility of Biomin® C5 with monensin sodium, robenidine hydrochloride, maduramicin ammonium and lasalocid A sodium.
The additive RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) contains endo‐1,4‐beta‐xylanase produced with a genetically modified strain of the filamentous fungus Aspergillus oryzae; the additive is currently authorised for poultry for fattening, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening, lactating sows and laying hens. The applicant has requested to change the production strain, substituting strain A. oryzae DSM 26372 with A. oryzae DSM 33700, and to extend the use of the additive to all poultry species and all Suidae. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L), manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700, did not give rise to safety concerns with regard to the genetic modification of the production strain. No viable cells of the production strain nor its DNA were detected in an intermediate product representative of both final formulations of the additive. RONOZYME® WX (CT/L) was considered safe for all poultry species and all Suidae at the recommended inclusion levels. The use of RONOZYME® WX CT and L manufactured with the production strain A. oryzae DSM 33700 raised no concerns for consumers. RONOZYME® WX L is not an eye irritant; however, no conclusions could be drawn on the potential of RONOZYME® WX CT to be an eye irritant. Both formulations are not irritant to the skin, but due to the lack of data, the FEEDAP Panel was not able to conclude on the potential of both formulations of the additive to be skin sensitisers. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive manufactured by A. oryzae DSM 33700 raises no safety concerns for the environment. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species and all Suidae at 100 and 200 FXU/kg complete feed, respectively.
To guide and assist applicants for the preparation and presentation of genetically modified (GM) plant market authorization applications, the GMO Panel of EFSA has developed guidance for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed, which describes principles, concepts, data requirements and issues to be considered when performing the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The objective of this framework contract is to provide statistical support to the EFSA GMO Panel for the evaluation of GMO application dossiers with respect to the statistical analysis of collected data from field trials carried out for the comparative assessment according to the requirements described in the EFSA guidance on statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs and EFSA guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. This annual report describes the different tasks performed in 2020 under the framework contract and summarizes their outcome. The evaluations of the statistical analysis of applications during 2020 met to a large extent the requirements reported in the guidance documents. Only a few minor non‐compliances were recurrently reported in most of the applications.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® when used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: gut flora stabilisers) for dogs. The product under assessment is based on viable cells of Lacticaseibacillus casei IDAC 210415‐01, Limosilactobacillus fermentum IDAC 210415‐02, Levilactobacillus brevis IDAC 051120‐02 and Enterococcus faecium IDAC 181218‐03. The FEEDAP Panel was not in the position to conclude on the identification of the strains and, therefore, the safety of the product cannot be based on the presumption of safety of the active agents. The Panel notes that the use of E. faecium IDAC 181218‐03 represents a safety concern because it harbours an acquired antimicrobial resistance gene. Moreover, the hazard related to the presence of additional antimicrobial resistance genes in the active agents cannot be excluded. No tolerance trials on the target animals have been provided. Therefore, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the safety of the additive for dogs. Regarding the user safety, the Panel cannot conclude on the irritant potential of the additive for skin or eyes due to the absence of data. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions could be drawn on its potential to be a skin sensitiser. The use of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® in animal nutrition represents a safety concern for the environment due to the potential carryover of at least an antimicrobial resistance gene. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of K‐9 Heritage Probiotic Blend® for the target species.
To guide and assist applicants for the preparation and presentation of genetically modified (GM) plant market authorization applications, the GMO Panel of EFSA has developed guidance for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed, which describes principles, concepts, data requirements and issues to be considered when performing the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The objective of this framework contract is to provide statistical support to the EFSA GMO Panel for the evaluation of GMO application dossiers with respect to the statistical analysis of collected data from field trials carried out for the comparative assessment according to the requirements described in the EFSA guidance on statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs and EFSA guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. This annual report describes the different tasks performed in 2022 and 2023 under the framework contract and summarizes their outcome. The majority of the applications received during 2022, for the evaluation of the statistical analysis, contained a few minor non‐compliances and met to a large extent the requirements described in the EFSA guidance documents.
To guide and assist applicants for the preparation and presentation of genetically modified (GM) plant market authorization applications, the GMO Panel of EFSA has developed guidance for the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed, which describes principles, concepts, data requirements and issues to be considered when performing the risk assessment of GM plants and derived food and feed. The objective of this framework contract is to provide statistical support to the EFSA GMO Panel for the evaluation of GMO application dossiers with respect to the statistical analysis of collected data from field trials carried out for the comparative assessment according to the requirements described in the EFSA guidance on statistical considerations for the safety evaluation of GMOs and EFSA guidance on the risk assessment of food and feed from genetically modified plants. This annual report describes the different tasks performed in 2021 under the framework contract and summarises their outcome. The evaluations of the statistical analysis of applications during 2021 met to a large extent the requirements reported in the guidance documents. Only a few minor non‐compliances were recurrently reported in most of the applications.
Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of the authorisation of the additive Provita LE for calves for rearing, consisting of Enterococcus lactis DSM 7134 (formerly identified as Enterococcus faecium) and Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus DSM 7133 (formerly identified as Lactobacillus rhamnosus) as a zootechnical feed additive. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing terms of the authorisation. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for calves for rearing, consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive is not irritant to skin or eyes but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. It was not possible to draw conclusions on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive under assessment. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process ENVICCO (EU register number RECYC301), which uses the EREMA basic and Polymetrix SSP leaN technology. The input consists of hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are pre‐decontaminated in the EREMA reactor at high temperature under vacuum (step 2) before being extruded, pelletised and crystallised (step 3). The crystallised pellets are then preheated (step 4) and submitted to solid‐state polycondensation (SSP) (step 5) at ■■■■■ temperature and under nitrogen flow. Having examined the challenge tests provided, the Panel concluded that step 2 as well as steps 4 and 5 are critical for determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature, pressure and residence time for step 2 and temperature, residence time and gas velocity for steps 4 and 5. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern, when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
Following a request of the European Commission, the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) reviewed the scientific arguments raised by the non‐governmental organisation Pesticide Action Network Europe (‘PAN Europe’) requesting the review of Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/515 renewing the approval of the active substance abamectin in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 1107/2009. EFSA's assessment focuses on relevant scientific elements and does not cover legal aspects, as they are not in EFSA's remit and not in the frame of the mandate received from the European Commission. The current report summarises the outcome of the assessment of the scientific arguments raised by PAN Europe.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Arcoplastica (EU register number RECYC308), which uses the Bandera PURe15 technology. The input consists of hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are ■■■■■. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ are critical for the decontamination efficiency. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens, and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Shangrao Bisource Technology (EU register number RECYC306), which uses the Vacurema Prime technology. The input is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a batch reactor (Step 2) under vacuum and then treated at higher temperature in a continuous reactor (Step 3) under vacuum before being extruded into pellets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that Steps 2 and 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these steps are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, soft drinks, juices, tea, milk, oil, alcoholic beverages and other food products, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hot fill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Poly Recycling (EU register number RECYC307), which uses the Vacurema Prime technology. The input is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a batch reactor (Step 2) under vacuum and then treated at higher temperature in a continuous reactor (Step 3) under vacuum before being extruded into pellets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that Steps 2 and 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these steps are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, soft drinks, juices, tea, milk, oil, alcoholic beverages and other food products, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Ambiental de Plasticos Recyclapet (EU register number RECYC304), which uses the Vacurema Prime technology. The input is hot caustic washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated in a batch reactor (Step 2) under vacuum and then treated at higher temperature in a continuous reactor (Step 3) under vacuum before being extruded into pellets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that Steps 2 and 3 are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these steps are temperature, pressure and residence time. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.1 μg/kg food. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used at up to 100% for the manufacture of materials and articles for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, soft drinks, juices, tea, milk, oil, alcoholic beverages and other food products, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hot fill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Battenfeld‐Cincinnati Germany (EU register number RECYC303), which uses the Battenfeld technology. The input consists of washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are heated and pre‐decontaminated in an ■■■■■, then further decontaminated by extrusion to sheets ■■■■■. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the ■■■■■ drying (step 2) and extrusion (step 3) are critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance of these critical steps are temperature and residence time for step 2, temperature, throughput and pressure for step 3. The Panel concluded that this recycling process is able to ensure that the level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food is below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.15 μg/kg food, exposure scenario for toddlers, under the following conditions of use of the recycled PET: (a) 45% in mixtures with virgin PET to produce trays for storage of fruits and vegetables up to 30 days at room temperature or below, (b) 100% to produce cups for storage of soft drinks and beers up to 1 day at room temperature or below, (c) 100% to produce trays for meat storage up to 30 days at 6°C. Hotfill is not included. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET produced by this process is not of safety concern when used under the evaluated conditions. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
The EFSA Panel on Food Contact Materials, Enzymes and Processing Aids (CEP) assessed the safety of the recycling process Concept Plastics Packaging (EU register number RECYC300), which uses the Gneuss 2 technology. The input consists of washed and dried poly(ethylene terephthalate) (PET) flakes mainly originating from collected post‐consumer PET containers, with no more than 5% PET from non‐food consumer applications. The flakes are extruded ■■■■■ into sheets. Having examined the challenge test provided, the Panel concluded that the decontamination in the extruder ■■■■■ is critical in determining the decontamination efficiency of the process. The operating parameters to control the performance are the pressure, the temperature, the throughput, the rotor speed and the satellite screws speed. It was demonstrated that this recycling process is able to ensure a level of migration of potential unknown contaminants into food below the conservatively modelled migration of 0.10 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for infants, when such recycled PET is used at up to 90% in mixtures with virgin PET, and of 0.15 μg/kg food, derived from the exposure scenario for toddlers, when such recycled PET is used at up to 100%. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the recycled PET obtained from this process is not of safety concern when used for the manufacture of materials and articles at up to (a) 100% for contact with all types of foodstuffs except drinking water and (b) 90% in mixtures with virgin PET for contact with all types of foodstuffs, including drinking water, for long‐term storage at room temperature or below, with or without hotfill. The final articles made of this recycled PET are not intended to be used in microwave and conventional ovens and such uses are not covered by this evaluation.
Following a request from the European Commission, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the assessment of the application for renewal of authorisation of sodium hydroxide as a technological additive (acidity regulator) for dogs, cats and ornamental fish. The applicants have provided evidence that the additive currently on the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There is no evidence that would lead the FEEDAP Panel to reconsider its previous conclusions. Thus, the Panel concluded that the additive remains safe for all animal species and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding user safety, the additive is corrosive and therefore the provision of the authorisation that ‘breathing protection, eye protection, gloves and protective clothing shall be used during handling’ should be confirmed. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation.
Following a request from the European Commission, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of iron(II)‐betaine complex as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on the results of a tolerance study carried out in chickens the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening when used up to the current maximum authorised levels of iron in feed; this conclusion was extrapolated to all animal species and categories at the respective maximum iron levels in complete feed authorised in the European Union. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of the iron(II)‐betaine complex in animal nutrition at the maximum iron levels authorised for the animal species poses no concern to the safety of consumers. The additive is not a skin irritant, but it is an irritant to the eyes. Due to the traces of nickel, the additive is considered to be a respiratory and skin sensitiser. Regarding the safety for the environment, the use of the additive in feed for terrestrial animals, land‐based and sea cages aquaculture is considered safe under the proposed conditions of use. Based on the deposition of iron in edible tissues/organs in chickens for fattening, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is a source of bioavailable iron, comparable to the standard inorganic iron source, and therefore, the additive is efficacious in meeting the birds iron requirements. This conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species and categories.