Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Sodium saccharin is intended to be used as a sweetener in feed and water for drinking for piglets, pigs for fattening and veal calves. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considers the proposed maximum use level of 150 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed as safe for calves and pigs for fattening. For piglets (sucking and weaned piglets), a lower level of 100 mg sodium saccharin/kg complete feed is considered safe. The corresponding maximum safe concentrations in water for drinking are 30 mg/L for piglets and 50 mg/L for pigs for fattening, respectively. The maximum safe concentrations of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking are derived under the premise that only one source, feed or water for drinking, contains the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that no concern for the consumer would result from the use of sodium saccharin in feed and water for drinking at the dose considered safe for the target species. The precautions for handling the product proposed by the applicant are considered to be sufficient to ensure user safety. The FEEDAP Panel concludes that the use of sodium saccharin at the dose considered safe for target species is unlikely to have detrimental effects on the terrestrial and freshwater compartments. The high mobility and relative persistence of saccharin and the high persistency of its degradation product 4‐hydroxysaccharin indicate that groundwater contamination above 0.1 μg/L is likely to occur. Since the function of sodium saccharin in feed for the target species is essentially the same as that in food, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that no demonstration of efficacy is necessary.

EFSA performs dietary exposure assessments for food‐producing and non‐food‐producing animals to deliver risk assessment for mandates on the presence of contaminants in feed. The CONTAM and FEEDAP Panels identified the need to update the animal dietary exposure assessment model used in those assessments in CONTAM Scientific Opinions since 2011 in cases where insufficient occurrence data are available on species specific compound feeds. The Panels proposed in this statement a series of model diets based on groups of feed materials with the possibility to use different feed materials in their formulation. The Panels considered that the currently proposed model diets cover the need of the CONTAM Panel to assess the dietary exposure of animals to contaminants in feed.

This guidance document is intended to assist the applicant in the preparation and the presentation of an application, as foreseen in Article 7.6 of Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003, for the renewal of the authorisation of additives for use in animal nutrition. Draft Endorsed by the FEEDAP Panel 14 November 2019 Submitted for public consultation 29 November 2019 End of public consultation 26 January 2020 Adoption by the FEEDAP Panel 19 November 2020 Implementation date 27 March 2021 This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications article: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2021.EN-1996/full

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 expressed lemon oil and distilled lemon oil from Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck and lime oil from Citrus aurantiifolia (Christm.) Swingle, when used as sensory additives in feed for all animal species. The use of the expressed lemon oil and its residual fraction and the use of lime oil in feed is not expected to increase the exposure to furocoumarins and methoxycoumarins and perillaldehyde of those target species that are already fed citrus by‐products a relevant extent (< 10%). For companion animals and ornamental fish not normally exposed to citrus by‐products, no conclusion can be drawn. For the other species and for the distilled fraction of expressed lemon oil, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that the additives under assessment are safe at the maximum proposed or at reduced use levels in complete feed. The Panel considers that the use in water for drinking is safe provided that the total daily intake of the additive does not exceed the daily amount that is considered safe when consumed via feed. No concerns for consumer safety were identified following the use of the additives at the maximum proposed use level in feed. The additives under assessment should be considered as irritants to skin and eyes and the respiratory tract and as skin sensitisers. Since expressed lemon oil and its fractions contain furocoumarins, they may cause phototoxicity. The use of the additives under the proposed conditions of use in animal feed is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Since C. limon and C. aurantiifolia and their preparations are recognised to flavour food and its function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy is considered necessary.

The European Commission asked EFSA for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of quinolizidine alkaloids (QAs) in feed and food. This risk assessment is limited to QAs occurring in Lupinus species/varieties relevant for animal and human consumption in Europe (i.e. Lupinus albus L., Lupinus angustifolius L., Lupinus luteus L. and Lupinus mutabilis Sweet). Information on the toxicity of QAs in animals and humans is limited. Following acute exposure to sparteine (reference compound), anticholinergic effects and changes in cardiac electric conductivity are considered to be critical for human hazard characterisation. The CONTAM Panel used a margin of exposure (MOE) approach identifying a lowest single oral effective dose of 0.16 mg sparteine/kg body weight as reference point to characterise the risk following acute exposure. No reference point could be identified to characterise the risk of chronic exposure. Because of similar modes of action for QAs, the CONTAM Panel used a group approach assuming dose additivity. For food, the highest mean concentration of Total QAs (TotQAs) (i.e. the 6 most abundant QAs) was found in lupin seed samples classified as ‘Lupins (dry) and similar‐’. Due to the limited data on occurrence and consumption, dietary exposure was calculated for some specific scenarios and no full human health risk characterisation was possible. The calculated margin of exposures (MOEs) may indicate a risk for some consumers. For example, when lupin seeds are consumed without a debittering step, or as debittered lupin seeds high in QA content and when ‘lupin‐based meat imitates’ are consumed. For horses, companion and farm animals, other than salmonids, the available database on adverse effects was too limited to identify no‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and/or lowest‐observed‐adverse‐effect levels and no risk characterisation was possible. For salmonids, the CONTAM Panel considers the risk for adverse effects to be low. This publication is linked to the following EFSA Supporting Publications articles: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1348/full, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.2903/sp.efsa.2019.EN-1717/full

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 olibanum extract from Boswellia serrata Roxb. ex Colebr., when used as a sensory additive (flavouring) in feed for all dogs and horses. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive under assessment is safe for horses at the maximum proposed use level of 100 mg/kg in complete feed. For dogs, the calculated safe concentration in feed is 330 mg/kg complete feed. The additive is considered safe for consumers when used at the proposed conditions of use in horses. The additive under assessment should be considered as non‐irritant to skin and eyes, but in the absence of data, no conclusion can be drawn on its potential to be a dermal and respiratory sensitiser. The use of the additive under the proposed conditions of use in feed for horses was not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Boswellia species and their preparations were recognised to flavour food. Since their function in feed would be essentially the same as that in food, no further demonstration of efficacy was considered necessary.

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 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.

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l‐cysteine and l‐cysteine hydrochloride (monohydrate and anhydrous) as flavouring feed additives for all animal species. The use in feed of l‐cysteine and l‐cysteine hydrochloride (monohydrate and anhydrous), produced by electrochemical reduction of l‐cystine, was considered safe for the target species when supplemented at concentrations up to 25 mg/kg complete feed. The FEEDAP Panel considered that the use of l‐cysteine and l‐cysteine hydrochloride (monohydrate and anhydrous) in animal nutrition is safe for the consumers of products from animals receiving the additives, and to the environment. Regarding user safety, l‐cysteine was not considered a skin and eye irritant nor a skin sensitiser. The additives l‐cysteine hydrochloride anhydrous and l‐cysteine hydrochloride monohydrate are corrosive to eyes and respiratory tract, but no conclusion can be reached on their skin irritation potential; therefore, any exposure is considered a risk. As l‐cysteine and l‐cysteine hydrochloride are used in food as flavouring compounds, it is expected that they can provide a similar function in feed, and no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary under the proposed conditions of use.