Search

Sodium propionate is authorised containing at least 98.5% of sodium propionate. The applicants requested for the renewal of the authorisation of sodium propionate when used as a feed additive for all terrestrial animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive in the market complies with the conditions of the authorisation. The Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) confirms that the use of sodium propionate under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. Considering the user safety, the additive is corrosive to skin, eyes and respiratory tract, but is not a skin sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of indigo carmine as a colourant feed additive for cats, dogs and ornamental fish. In its previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that indigo carmine is safe for cats and dogs at levels up to 250 mg/kg complete feed and for ornamental fish up to 1000 mg/kg complete feed. These conclusions were limited to indigo carmine with a purity of at least 93% colouring matter. For the current assessment, the applicant submitted additional data on the characterisation and on the toxicological profile to support the safety of the additive with the purity of at least 85% colouring matter. Based on the new data submitted, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that indigo carmine (purity of at least 85% colouring matter) is safe for cats and dogs at levels up to 250 mg/kg complete feed and for ornamental fish up to 1000 mg/kg complete feed., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sepiolite as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In 2022, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) delivered an Opinion on the safety and efficacy of the same additive. The Panel concluded that sepiolite used as a feed additive is safe for the consumers and the environment, and efficacious as a thickener-suspending agent, binder and anticaking agent in feed for all animal species under the proposed conditions of use. The additive was not considered an eye or skin irritant. However, it was considered a respiratory irritant, a respiratory and dermal sensitiser; owing to the dusting potential and its silica content, the additive was considered a risk by inhalation. Regarding the target species, in the previous Opinion, the Panel concluded on the safety of the additive for dairy ruminants. However, no conclusion could be drawn for all other species/categories. Based on the tolerance studies in chickens for fattening, weaned piglets and trout evaluated in the current assessment, and the one in dairy cows previously assessed, the Panel concluded that the inclusion of sepiolite at the maximum recommended level of 20,000 mg/kg complete feed is safe for all animal species., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide as technological feed additives for all animal species. In its previous opinion on the safety and efficacy of the additives, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide is safe, when added to sodium chloride at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg for turkeys for fattening and laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species and categories, all ruminant species and categories, rabbits, horses, salmonids and other minor fin fish, dogs and cats. However, the Panel could not conclude on the safety of the additives for chickens for fattening and other poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding other than turkeys, and for all species/categories other than the above listed. In the current assessment, the applicant is proposing a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for chickens for fattening and other poultry species (except turkeys) for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and for all species/categories other than the listed above. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that sodium ferrocyanide and potassium ferrocyanide are safe at a maximum content of 80 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride for: turkeys for fattening and reared for breeding, laying hens and other laying/breeding birds, all porcine species, all ruminant species, rabbits, equines, salmonids and minor fin fish, dogs and cats. The Panel concluded also that a maximum content of 60 mg ferrocyanide anions (anhydrous)/kg sodium chloride is safe for chickens for fattening and minor poultry species for fattening or reared for laying/breeding and all other animal species., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 l-cystine as nutritional feed additive. The additive is authorised for use in all animal species (3c391). The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. The EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed concluded that the use of the feed additive in animal nutrition remains safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. As regards the safety for the user, l-cystine is not an irritant to skin or eyes and is not a skin sensitiser. Exposure by inhalation of persons handling the additive cannot be excluded. The present application for the renewal of the authorisation does not include any modification proposal that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive and therefore there is no need for reassessing the efficacy., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of Saccharomyces cerevisiae CNCM I-4407 (Actisaf® Sc47) as a zootechnical feed additive (functional group: gut flora stabiliser) in cattle for fattening. The additive is already authorised for use in feed for dairy cows, calves for rearing, lambs for fattening, dairy goats, dairy sheep and dairy buffaloes. In a previous opinion, the EFSA Scientific Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) concluded that Actisaf® Sc47 was safe for cattle for fattening, the consumers and the environment. Additionally, the Panel considered that Actisaf® Sc47 is not a skin irritant, and no conclusions could be drawn on the additive's eye irritancy and dermal sensitisation potential. Due to the lack of adequate data, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive in cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use. In the current application, the applicant submitted three trials to support the efficacy in cattle for fattening. However, two of them were not considered for the assessment. The other trial showed an improved zootechnical performance of the animals at the proposed use level of 4 × 10 9 CFU/kg complete feed. Considering the additive is authorised in dairy cows and calves for rearing and the requirements of the current Guidance on the assessment of the efficacy of feed additives, no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary to extrapolate the conclusions previously reached to all ruminants. The significant positive effect shown in one trial in cattle for fattening supports the above extrapolation. Therefore, the FEEDAP Panel concludes that Actisaf® Sc47 is efficacious as a zootechnical additive for cattle for fattening at the proposed conditions of use., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of the selenised yeast (inactivated) Saccharomyces cerevisiae CCTCC M 2022402 (Plexomin® Se 3000, available in two forms: 'granules' and 'micro') as a nutritional feed additive for all animal species. Based on a tolerance-efficacy trial, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive is safe for chickens for fattening at proposed conditions of use and this conclusion can be extrapolated to all animal species. In the absence of deposition data in all animal species and products, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety for the consumer. Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules) is dust-free; therefore, the exposure through inhalation is unlikely. Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) presents a risk by inhalation. Both forms of the additive (granules and micro) are considered as respiratory sensitisers. Due to the lack of data, no conclusions can be drawn on the dermal and eye irritation potential of Plexomin® Se 3000 (granules). Plexomin® Se 3000 (micro) is not irritant to the skin and the eyes. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of both forms of the additive to be dermal sensitisers. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The additive is an efficacious source of selenium in feedingstuffs for all animal species., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of l-isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 as a nutritional feed additive for use in feed and in water for drinking for all animal species. The production strain is non-genetically modified, qualifies for the QPS approach to safety assessment when used for production purposes, is susceptible to the relevant antibiotics and contains no antimicrobial resistance genes of concern. No viable cells of the production strain were detected in the final product. The additive does not give rise to any safety concern regarding the production strain. l-Isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 is considered safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. Regarding the use in water, the EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) reiterates its concerns over the safety for the target species of l-isoleucine administered simultaneously via water for drinking and feed owing to the risk of nutritional imbalances and hygienic reasons. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to conclude on the potential of l-isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 to be irritant to skin and/or eyes, or as a dermal sensitiser. Due to the high dusting potential, exposure by inhalation is likely. l-Isoleucine produced by fermentation with Corynebacterium glutamicum CGMCC 20437 is considered as an efficacious source of the essential amino acid l-isoleucine for non-ruminant animal species. For the supplemental l-isoleucine to be as efficacious in ruminants as in non-ruminant species, it would require protection against degradation in the rumen., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

EFSA was asked for a scientific opinion on the risks for animal and human health related to the presence of polychlorinated naphthalenes (PCNs) in feed and food. The assessment focused on hexaCNs due to very limited data on other PCN congeners. For hexaCNs in feed, 217 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures for food-producing and non-food-producing animals; however, a risk characterisation could not be performed because none of the toxicological studies allowed identification of reference points. The oral repeated dose toxicity studies performed in rats with a hexaCN mixture containing all 10 hexaCNs indicated that the critical target was the haematological system. A BMDL 20 of 0.05 mg/kg body weight (bw) per day was identified for a considerable decrease in the platelet count. For hexaCNs in food, 2317 analytical results were used to estimate dietary exposures across dietary surveys and age groups. The highest exposure ranged from 0.91 to 29.8 pg/kg bw per day in general population and from 220 to 559 pg/kg bw per day for breast-fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. Applying a margin of exposure (MOE) approach, the estimated MOEs for the high dietary exposures ranged from 1,700,000 to 55,000,000 for the general population and from 90,000 to 230,000 for breast-fed infants with the highest consumption of breast milk. These MOEs are far above the minimum MOE of 2000 that does not raise a health concern. Taking account of the uncertainties affecting the assessment, the Panel concluded with at least 99% certainty that dietary exposure to hexaCNs does not raise a health concern for any of the population groups considered. Due to major limitations in the available data, no assessment was possible for genotoxic effects or for health risks of PCNs other than hexaCNs., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 propyl gallate as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on a safe level of propyl gallate for cats and on the safety for the consumer. Based on the new data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that propyl gallate at a maximum concentration of 71 mg/kg complete feed is safe for cats. Propyl gallate is considered safe for the consumer when used in complete feed for all animal species at the concentrations considered safe for the target species., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 ethyl cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, 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 additive ethyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinions for ethyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the ethyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 cellulose as a technological feed additive for all animal species. In its previous opinions on the safety and efficacy of the product, 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 additive hydroxypropyl cellulose was properly identified and characterised and was shown to meet the specifications set for the food additive. Therefore, the conclusions of the safety assessment reached in the previous opinion for hydroxypropyl cellulose meeting the food additive specifications, apply to the hydroxypropyl cellulose under assessment as a feed additive. The feed additive is 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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2024 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 as a zootechnical additive (functional group: physiological condition stabilisers) for all insects. The active agent used in the additive is already authorised for use in all animal species as a technological additive, and as a zootechnical additive in all Suidae species for fattening and for breeding, other than sows, all avian species, all fish species and all crustaceans. The active agent has been identified as a strain of P. acidilactici and consequently meets the qualifications required by the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. The use of the additive is considered safe for all insect species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered non-irritant to skin and eyes but a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn regarding its skin sensitisation potential. In the absence of adequate data, the FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive as a physiological condition stabiliser for honeybees nor for all insect species., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., Competing Interests: If you wish to access the declaration of interests of any expert contributing to an EFSA scientific assessment, please contact interestmanagement@efsa.europa.eu., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 containing endo-1,4-β-xylanase produced by Trichoderma citrinoviride DSM 34663 (Hostazym® X). The product is authorised as a zootechnical additive (digestibility enhancers) for use in all poultry species for fattening, for laying and reared for laying, weaned piglets, pigs for fattening and carp. The current opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation for the use in those species/categories and the extension of use to all poultry species for breeding and reared for breeding, ornamental birds, suckling piglets and minor porcine species for fattening. The applicant provided evidence that the additive 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, the consumers and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. This conclusion also applies to the target species for which a request for extension of use is made. The additive is considered not a skin corrosive or skin sensitiser, but it is an eye irritant. The Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin irritant. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel considers that the additive has the potential to be efficacious in all poultry species, ornamental birds, all growing Suidae and carp at the proposed conditions of use., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 endo-β-1,4-xylanase (VTR-xylanase) as a zootechnical feed additive for all avian species, piglets (suckling and weaned) and minor growing porcine species. VTR-xylanase is available in a powder and a liquid form and is produced by a genetically modified strain of Komagataella phaffii (CGMCC 7.371). The genetic modification of the production strain does not give rise to safety concerns. Viable cells of the production strain and its DNA were not detected in the final products. The additive does not pose any safety concern regarding the production strain. VTR xylanase (powder/liquid) produced by Komagataella phaffii CGMCC 7.371 is safe for all avian species, piglets and minor growing porcine species at the proposed conditions of use. The use of both forms of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition under the proposed conditions of use raises no safety concerns for consumers or for the environment. The liquid and powder formulations of VTR-xylanase are non-irritant to eyes but should be considered skin sensitisers. No conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the final formulations of the additive to be irritant to skin. Due to the proteinaceous nature of the active substance, the additive is a respiratory sensitiser. The additive has the potential to be efficacious in all laying birds and piglets (suckling and weaned) from all Suidae at 2,000 U/kg and in all other avian species/categories at 1,000 U/kg feed., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of two technological additives consisting of Enterococcus faecium strains ATCC 53519 and ATCC 55593, respectively. The additives are intended for use with all types of fresh materials and for all animal species at a proposed minimum concentration of 1 × 10 7 colony forming units (CFU) of E. faecium ATCC 53519/kg forage or 5 × 10 6  CFU of E. faecium ATCC 55593/kg forage. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on their efficacy since the dry matter content of the ensiled materials at the end of the experiments was not corrected for volatiles, which led to an unreliable estimation of the dry matter loss, and the lack of positive effects on any of the other parameters. The supplementary information submitted by the applicant included updated data on the pH values and the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles. However, the estimation of the dry matter loss corrected for volatiles was wrongly calculated and thus, was not considered for the assessment of the efficacy of the additive. Considering the lack of effect on any other fermentation parameter, the Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive to improve the production of silage under the proposed conditions of use., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 authorisation of thaumatin as a sensory additive (flavouring compound) for all animal species. The applicant requested a change in the authorising regulation for the minimum content of nitrogen and protein 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 thaumatin under the current authorised conditions of use is safe for the target species, the consumers and the environment. This conclusion can be extended to the newly proposed specification. Due to its proteinaceous nature, the additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser. Thaumatin is not irritant to the eyes and the skin. In the absence of data, no conclusion on skin sensitisation could be made. The proposed modification of the specification of the additive is not considered to have an impact on the efficacy of thaumatin., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Ronozyme® Multigrain G/L is the trade name of the feed additive under assessment containing endo-1,4-beta-xylanase, endo-1,4-beta-glucanase and endo-1,3(4)-beta-glucanase produced by a non-genetically modified strain of Trichoderma reesei (ATCC 74444). It is authorised for use as a zootechnical additive (functional group: digestibility enhancer) in poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets. This scientific opinion concerns the request for the renewal of the authorisation of the additive for the species/categories for which there is an authorisation. 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 EFSA Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) to reconsider previous conclusions that the additive is safe for the animal species/categories, the consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. Regarding the safety for the user, the additive should be considered a potential respiratory sensitiser. In absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to cause skin and eye irritation or dermal sensitisation. There was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation for poultry for fattening, poultry for laying and weaned piglets., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator) in feed for horses, dogs, cats and pet rabbits. The additive is intended to be incorporated into oat-derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root-derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh-derived products (≥ 90% moisture) at a minimum inclusion level of 8.0 × 10 10  CFU/kg of the feed material under scope. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to safety assessment. The identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of this strain in animal nutrition is safe for the target species, consumers of horse meat and the environment. Regarding the user safety, the additive Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 is not irritant to skin or eyes in the product tested containing maltodextrin and oat bran as carriers, but owing to its proteinaceous nature, it should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. No conclusions can be drawn on the skin sensitisation potential of the additive. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that incorporation of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum DSM 11520 at a minimum concentration of 8.0 × 10 10  CFU/kg into oat-derived products (ca. 55% moisture content), carrot root-derived products (≥ 90% moisture) and coconut flesh-derived products (≥ 90% moisture) has the potential to reduce the pH of these feedingstuffs., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

The vitamin B12 (in the form of cyanocobalamin) under assessment is produced by fermentation with Ensifer adhaerens CGMCC 19596 and it is intended to be used as a nutritional additive for all animal species. Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of cyanocobalamin, produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596. Cyanocobalamin produced by other strains of E. adhaerens is already authorised for use in animal species. ■■■■■ However no viable cells nor DNA of the production strain were detected in the additive. Therefore, cyanocobalamin produced by E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 does not raise safety concerns as regards to the production strain. The FEEDAP Panel concluded that cyanocobalamin produced by fermentation with E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 is considered safe for all animal species. The use of cyanocobalamin in animal nutrition is of no concern for consumer safety. Cyanocobalamin is non-irritant to skin and non-irritant to eyes. No conclusions could be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. The potential endotoxin activity of the additive is unlikely to represent a hazard for users. The use of the additive under assessment in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. Cyanocobalamin produced by E. adhaerens CGMCC 19596 is effective in meeting animal's nutritional requirements when administered via feed., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the efficacy of the preparation consisting of viable cells of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I-4606, B. subtilis CNCM I-5043, B. subtilis CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. In a previous opinion, the Panel on Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) concluded that the additive is safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The Panel also considered the additive to be non-irritant to skin and eyes, nor a dermal sensitiser, but a respiratory sensitiser. Moreover, the data provided were not sufficient to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed. In the current assessment, the applicant provided supplementary information to address these flaws and limited the claimed effect to 'prevent (re)contamination by Salmonella Typhimurium'. Based on the new studies, the Panel concluded that the additive at a minimum proposed inclusion level of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU) B. subtilis and 1 × 10 9  CFU  L. lactis per litre showed potential to reduce Salmonella Typhimurium growth in feeds with high moisture content (60-90% moisture)., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of a product consisting of four bacteriophages infecting Salmonella enterica ser. Gallinarum B/00111, intended to be used as a zootechnical additive (functional group: other zootechnical additives) for all avian species. The additive (tradename Bafasal®) is not currently authorised in the European Union. Bafasal® is intended to be used in water for drinking and liquid complementary feed to guarantee a minimum daily dose of 2 × 10 6 PFU/bird, to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination of poultry carcasses and load in the environment, and to improve the zootechnical performance of the treated animals. In a previous opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the additive's potential to be irritant or a dermal sensitiser, or on its efficacy for any avian species due to insufficient data. The applicant provided supplementary information to address these data gaps. The new data showed that Bafasal® is not a skin or eye irritant. No conclusions could be drawn on its skin sensitisation potential. The Panel was not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of Bafasal® to improve the zootechnical performance of the target species based on the available data. The additive showed the potential to decrease the counts of two strains of Salmonella Enteritidis in boots swabs and caecal digesta of chickens for fattening. No conclusions could be drawn on the capacity of Bafasal® to reduce the contamination of other Salmonella enterica strains, serovars or other species of Salmonella . The potential of Bafasal® to reduce the Salmonella spp. contamination poultry carcasses and/or the environment is limited. The FEEDAP Panel recommended a post-market monitoring plan to address the potential selection and spread of resistant variants of Salmonella to Bafasal®., (© 2023 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by Wiley‐VCH GmbH on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety of sodium saccharin as a sensory feed additive (flavouring compound) for suckling and weaned piglets, fattening pigs, calves for rearing and for fattening. In a previous assessment, the Panel on Additives and Products or substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP Panel) could not conclude on the safety of the additive for the environment because concentrations of the additive or its degradation product 4-hydroxysaccharin in groundwater above 0.1 μg/L were likely to occur. In addition, regarding user safety, sodium saccharin was considered to be potentially harmful by inhalation or by contact to skin and eyes. In the current opinion, the applicant restricted the use to suckling and weaned piglets and up to a use level of 5 mg/kg complete feed. In relation to the user safety, the additive was neither a skin or eye irritant, nor a dermal sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be toxic by inhalation. Regarding the safety of the additive for the environment, the new conditions of use describe a maximum use level of 5 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed. The applicant indicated that a restriction to a lower use level due to environmental safety would be accepted and submitted an environment risk assessment based on a use level of 1.13 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed. This use level cannot be considered safe. The estimated use level that would result in a concentration in groundwater below 0.1 μg/L is of 0.022 mg sodium saccharin/kg feed. The available data do not allow to conclude on the potential effect of the degradation product 4-hydroxysaccharin in ground water., (© 2023 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of glyceryl polyethyleneglycol ricinoleate (PEG castor oil) as technological feed additive for all animal species. PEG castor oil is safe at a maximum concentration in complete feed of 90 mg/kg for chickens for fattening and other minor growing poultry; 134 mg/kg for laying hens and other laying/breeding birds kept for egg production/reproduction; 121 mg/kg for turkeys for fattening; 162 mg/kg for piglets and other minor growing Suidae ; 194 mg/kg for pigs for fattening; 236 mg/kg for sows other minor reproductive Suidae ; 231 mg/kg for dairy cows and other dairy ruminants (other than sheep/goats); 142 mg/kg in rabbits and 377 mg/kg in veal calves; 356 mg/kg for cattle for fattening and other growing ruminants, sheep, goat, horses and cats; 427 mg/kg for dogs; 407 mg/kg for salmonids and other fin fish; and 1,584 mg/kg for ornamental fish. For other growing species and non-food producing animals, the additive is considered safe at 90 mg/kg complete feed. The use of PEG castor oil as feed additive for all animal species would be of no concern for the consumer. The FEEDAP Panel considered inhalation exposure of the user to the additive unlikely. PEG castor oil is not considered a skin sensitiser. The panel was not in the position to conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin or eye irritant. The additive is a readily biodegradable substance and is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. The lack of sufficient data does not allow the FEEDAP Panel to conclude on the efficacy of PEG castor oil as an emulsifier in feedingstuffs., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 assessment of the application for renewal of Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. plantarum ) DSM 8862 and Lactiplantibacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ssp. argentoratensis ) DSM 8866 as a technological additive to improve ensiling of forage for all animal species. 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 a skin irritant but no conclusions can be drawn on the eye irritancy potential of the additive nor to the skin sensitisation potential. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. There is no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 when used as a technological additive (acidity regulator and hygiene condition enhancers) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in mash compound feeds and/or solid feed materials used for the preparation of liquid feeds at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 10 9 CFU kg feed. The bacterial species is considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strain has been clearly established and it did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of this strain in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is considered to be a respiratory sensitiser but is not irritant to eyes/skin or a skin sensitiser. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 at 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg complete feed showed the potential to reduce the pH and the growth of coliforms in liquid feeds. Pediococcus acidilactici CNCM I-4622 is compatible with halofuginone, diclazuril, decoquinate and nicarbazin at the highest authorised levels for chickens for fattening., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive BHT is considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum proposed concentration of 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to pigs for fattening. In the absence of data, no conclusion on the safety for the other target species could be drawn. The exposure of the consumer to BHT from tissues and products of animals fed the additive ranged from 1% to 3% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of BHT as a feed additive at the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the consumers. Exposure of the user to BHT via inhalation is likely; however, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential inhalation toxicity of the additive. BHT is a skin and eye irritant, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of BHT for the environment. The additive BHT is considered an efficacious antioxidant in feedingstuffs for all animal species., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT) as a feed additive for all animal species. The additive BHT is considered safe for chickens for fattening and weaned piglets at the maximum proposed concentration of 150 mg/kg complete feed. This conclusion is extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to pigs for fattening. In the absence of data, no conclusion on the safety for the other target species could be drawn. The exposure of the consumer to BHT from tissues and products of animals fed the additive ranged from 1% to 3% of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). The FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of BHT as a feed additive at the proposed conditions of use is of no concern for the safety of the consumers. Exposure of the user to BHT via inhalation is likely; however, the Panel is not in the position to conclude on the potential inhalation toxicity of the additive. BHT is a skin and eye irritant, no conclusions can be drawn on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the safety of BHT for the environment. The additive BHT is considered an efficacious antioxidant in feedingstuffs for all animal species., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of acacia gum (gum Arabic) as a feed additive for all animal species. Acacia gum is safe up to approximately 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbit, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,250 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves and salmonids. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animal, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. No exposure of the consumer to the additive or its metabolites is expected. Therefore, the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumers. Acacia gum is a potential dermal and respiratory sensitiser. No conclusion can be reached on the irritating potential to the skin or eyes. The use of acacia gum in animal nutrition is considered safe for the environment. The FEEDAP Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of acacia gum., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of guar gum as a feed additive for all animal species. Owing the absence of information, the genotoxic potential of the additive could not be fully assessed. From the results of tolerance studies, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that guar gum is safe for salmonids at a maximum concentration of 3,000 mg/kg complete feed. Guar gum is safe up to ~ 280 mg/kg complete feed for chickens for fattening, 375 mg/kg complete feed for turkeys for fattening, 400 mg/kg complete feed for rabbits, 500 and 600 mg/kg complete feed for piglets and pigs for fattening, respectively, 1,100 mg/kg complete feed for cattle for fattening and 1,150 mg/kg complete feed for veal calves. No conclusions can be reached on the safety for long living and reproductive animals, until the genotoxic potential of the additive is fully assessed in the framework of its use as a feed additive. The use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, no conclusions could be drawn on the safety of the additive for the user. Guar gum is efficacious as a gelling agent, thickener, and contributes to stabilise canned pet feed. No conclusion can be drawn on the additive as an emulsifier., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

Ethoxyquin is synthetised from p-phenetidine, a possible mutagen, which remains in the additive as an impurity at concentrations of < 2.5 mg/kg additive. Ethoxyquin is considered safe for all animal species at the proposed inclusion level of 50 mg/kg complete feed. However, owing the presence of p-phenetidine, no safe level of the additive in feed for long-living and reproductive animals could be identified. The FEEDAP Panel derived a health-based guidance value of 0.006 mg ethoxyquin dimer (EQDM)/kg bw per day and applied it to the sum of ethoxyquin and its transformation products. A maximum total concentration of 50 mg ethoxyquin/kg complete feed for all animal species, except dairy ruminants, would not pose a risk for the consumer. However, in the absence of data on p-phenetidine residues in tissues and products of animal origin, no conclusion on the safety for the consumer could be drawn. The conclusions on consumer safety assume that the maximum total concentration of 50 mg EQ/kg feed is expressed as the sum of EQ, EQDM, EQI and DHEQ. Exposure of the unprotected user to p-phenetidine via inhalation should be minimised. No safety concerns for groundwater are expected. It is not possible to conclude on the safety of EQ for the terrestrial compartment. A risk for the aquatic compartment cannot be excluded when ethoxyquin is used in terrestrial animals. Unacceptable risk is not expected for freshwater sediment-dwelling organisms. A risk of secondary poisoning via the terrestrial food chain is not expected, whereas a risk via the aquatic food chain cannot be excluded. No concerns for aquatic organisms are expected for ethoxyquin used in fish farmed in land-based system, a risk cannot be excluded for marine sediment dwelling organisms when ethoxyquin is used in sea-cages. Ethoxyquin is considered efficacious in the range 25-50 mg/kg complete feed., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 an additive consisting of Propionibacterium freudenreichii DSM 33189 and Lentilactobacillus buchneri (formerly Lactobacillus buchneri ) DSM 12856 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 8 colony-forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species P. freudenreichii and L. buchneri are considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach to assessment. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strains as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. The additive is not irritant for eyes or skin but should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 8 CFU/kg fresh plant material showed the potential to improve the aerobic stability silage with dry matter content ranging from 30% to 70%., (© 2022 Wiley‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KgaA on behalf of the European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Allura Red AC for small non-food-producing mammals and ornamental birds when used as an additive that add or restore colour in feedingstuffs. The use of Allura Red AC up to the proposed conditions of use of 500 mg/kg complete feed is considered safe for guinea pig, chinchilla, degu, hamster, gerbil and chipmunk. The following maximum safe levels (mg/kg complete feed) apply to the following species: ferrets 99, rabbits 123, canaries, budgerigars, mynah and toucans 45, lovebirds 51, cockatiels 79, cockatoos 115, amazons 145, parrots 147, yellow breast macaw 150, blue-throated macaw 173 and hyacinth macaw 214. The maximum safe level of Allura Red AC for other small non-food-producing mammal is 99 mg/kg feed and for other ornamental birds is 45 mg/kg feed. Inhalation exposure of Allura Red is regarded as hazardous. In the absence of data, the Panel cannot conclude on the potential of Allura Red to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 preparation of Bacillus subtilis CNCM I-4606, B. subtilis CNCM I-5043, B. subtilis CNCM I-4607 and Lactococcus lactis CNCM I-4609 when used as a technological additive (hygiene condition enhancer) for all animal species. The product is intended for use in compound feeds and feed materials for all animal species at a minimum inclusion level of 1 × 10 9 CFU B. subtilis and 1 × 10 9 CFU L. lactis per kg or litre. The two bacterial species are considered by EFSA to be eligible for the qualified presumption of safety (QPS) approach. As the identity of the strains has been clearly established and they did not show acquired resistance to antibiotics of human and veterinary importance, the use of these strains in animal nutrition is considered safe for the target species, consumers and the environment. The additive is not irritant to skin and eyes or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agents, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The Panel is not in the position to conclude on the efficacy of the additive to significantly reduce the growth of either Salmonella Typhimurium or Escherichia coli in feed., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) IMI 507027 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lacticaseibacillus rhamnosus (formerly Lactobacillus rhamnosus ) IMI 507023 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony-forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. rhamnosus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no acquired antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507025 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by the European Food Safety Authority to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Pediococcus pentosaceus IMI 507024 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species P. pentosaceus is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) IMI 507028 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) IMI 507026 as a technological additive for all animal species. The additive is intended to improve the production of silage at a proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 colony forming units (CFU)/kg fresh material. The bacterial species L. plantarum is considered by EFSA to be suitable for the qualified presumption of safety approach. As the identity of the strain has been established and no antimicrobial resistance determinants of concern were detected, the use of the strain as a silage additive is considered safe for livestock species, for consumers and for the environment. In the absence of data, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin/eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. Given the proteinaceous nature of the active agent, the additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. The additive at the proposed application rate of 1 × 10 9 CFU/kg fresh material has the potential to improve the fermentation of the silages from easy to moderately difficult to ensile forages., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) DSM 12836, as a technological additive for all animal species. The applicant has provided evidence that the additive currently in the market complies with the existing conditions of authorisation. There was no new 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, consumer and the environment under the authorised conditions of use. The additive was not irritant to skin and eyes but is considered a skin and respiratory sensitiser. The present application for renewal of the authorisation did not include a proposal for amending or supplementing the conditions of the original authorisation that would have an impact on the efficacy of the additive. Therefore, there was no need for assessing the efficacy of the additive in the context of the renewal of the authorisation., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)

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 on Lactiplantibacillus plantarum (formerly Lactobacillus plantarum ) CECT 8350 and Limosilactobacillus reuteri (formerly Lactobacillus reuteri ) CECT 8700 (AQ02) for suckling piglets. The additive can be presumed safe for the target species, the consumer and the environment. In the absence of data, the Panel could not conclude on the potential of the additive to be a skin or eye irritant or a skin sensitiser. The additive should be considered a respiratory sensitiser. In the absence of adequate data, the Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of AQ02 as a zootechnical feed additive for suckling piglets., (© 2021 European Food Safety Authority. EFSA Journal published by John Wiley and Sons Ltd on behalf of European Food Safety Authority.)