Search

The specific concentrations of colistin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of colistin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of trimethoprim in non-target feed for food-producing animals below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for trimethoprim was estimated. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for trimethoprim. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline and doxycycline in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for these four tetracyclines was estimated. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tetracycline, chlortetracycline, oxytetracycline, whilst for doxycycline no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated with the levels reported were addressed. It was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of flumequine and oxolinic acid in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. No suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of amoxicillin and penicillin V in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for amoxicillin, whilst for penicillin V no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of tilmicosin, tylosin and tylvalosin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tilmicosin and tylosin, whilst for tylvalosin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these three antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of florfenicol and thiamphenicol in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. The FARSC for florfenicol was estimated. However, due to the lack of data, the calculation of the FARSC for thiamphenicol was not possible until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for florfenicol, whilst for thiamphenicol no suitable data for the assessment were available. Uncertainties and data gaps associated to the levels reported were addressed. For florfenicol, it was recommended to perform further studies to supply more diverse and complete data related to the requirements for calculation of the FARSC, whereas for thiamphenicol, the recommendation was to generate the data required to fill the gaps which prevented the FARSC calculation. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of tiamulin and valnemulin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for tiamulin, while for valnemulin no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these two antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of sulfonamides in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data are available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were identified for three sulfonamides: sulfamethazine, sulfathiazole and sulfamerazine. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of lincomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of lincomycin in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for lincomycin. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of apramycin, paromomycin, neomycin and spectinomycin in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield, were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for these antimicrobials, it was not possible to conclude the assessment until further experimental data become available. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported for apramycin and neomycin, whilst for paromomycin and spectinomycin, no suitable data for the assessment were available. It was recommended to carry out studies to generate the data that are required to fill the gaps which prevented the calculation of the FARSC for these four antimicrobials. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

The specific concentrations of amprolium in non-target feed for food-producing animals, below which there would not be an effect on the emergence of, and/or selection for, resistance in bacteria relevant for human and animal health, as well as the specific antimicrobial concentrations in feed which have an effect in terms of growth promotion/increased yield were assessed by EFSA in collaboration with EMA. Details of the methodology used for this assessment, associated data gaps and uncertainties, are presented in a separate document. To address antimicrobial resistance, the Feed Antimicrobial Resistance Selection Concentration (FARSC) model developed specifically for the assessment was applied. However, due to the lack of data on the parameters required to calculate the FARSC for amprolium, it was not possible to conclude the assessment. To address growth promotion, data from scientific publications obtained from an extensive literature review were used. Levels of amprolium in feed that showed to have an effect on growth promotion/increased yield were reported. The lack of antibacterial activity at clinically relevant concentrations for amprolium suggests that further studies relating to bacterial resistance are not a priority. info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion

Following a request from the European Commission, EFSA was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of Taminizer D (dimethylglycine sodium salt) as a feed additive for chickens for fattening, based on a dossier submitted for the modification of the terms of authorisation of the additive. The product is authorised in the European Union for chickens for fattening at the maximum content of 1,000mg/kg complete feedingstuffs. The applicant proposed the introduction of an additional manufacturing process, which introduces an impurity (dimethylamino-ethanol (DMAE)) in the additive at concentrations up to 0.09%. The EFSA Panelon Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considered that the proposed modification would not substantially affect the previous assessment as related to the safety of the environment and the efficacy of the product. Since the safety of the active substance was established, the current assessment has dealt with the impurity DMAE. Considering the toxicological profile of DMAE, the estimated intake by the target animal and consumers, and making use of the Threshold of Toxicological Concern (TTC) approach, the Panelconcluded that Taminizer D, manufactured by the DMAE route, is safe for both chickens for fattening and consumers, up to the maximum level of 1,000 mg/kg feed. The FEEDAP Panelextends its conclusions about Taminizer D produced by the original method to cover also Taminizer D produced by the new DMAE method. There is minimal risk to users from dust produced as a result of normal handling of the additive. Taminizer D is not irritant to skin but may be irritant to eyes; it is regarded as a potential skin sensitiser. The FEEDAP Panelrecommended to set a specification for the DMAE content in the additive.

© 2020 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 STABILFLOR® (zinc ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (Zn-EDTA) and copper diammonium EDTA (Cu-EDTA) dried on chicory pulp and supplemented with zinc oxide and copper oxide), as a zootechnical additive for pigs. STABILFLOR® is intended to be used in feed for pigs for fattening at a minimum and maximum levels of 500 and 1,000 mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The Panel could not conclude on the safety of STABILFLOR® for pigs for fattening owing to the lack of adequate data. At the proposed used levels in feed the additive may exert antimicrobial activity in the gut microbiota. The use of the additive resulted neither in residues of Zn-EDTA, Cu-EDTA or EDTA nor on an increase in total zinc and copper deposition in edible tissues; Zn-EDTA and Cu-EDTA had not a genotoxic potential; the Panel concluded that STABILFLOR® at 1,000 mg/kg complete feed for pigs does not pose any concern to the safety of consumers. The handling of STABILFLOR® will lead to a copper exposure of the users that poses a risk by inhalation; the additive is not a skin irritant or a skin sensitiser but is a severe eye irritant. Regarding environmental safety, no concern was expected for the terrestrial compartment. A risk for groundwater was highlighted for Zn-EDTA. Due to the absence of data, the risk for the aquatic compartment could not be assessed. Only one efficacy study showed positive effects of STABILFLOR® in pigs for fattening at 1,000 mg/kg complete feed; a conclusion on the efficacy of STABILFLOR® could not be drawn. The minimum use level of 500 mg STABILFLOR®/kg complete feed was not tested.

© 2020 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 Nimicoat® (carvacrol), as a zootechnical additive for weaned piglets. The additive is composed by carvacrol (≥ 40 %) as an active substance encapsulated with high-melting lipids. Nimicoat® is intended to be used in feed for weaned piglets at a minimum recommended dose of 250 mg/kg complete feed and at a maximum recommended dose of 1,000 mg/kg complete feed corresponding to a minimum and maximum of 100 and 400 mg carvacrol/kg complete feed, respectively. Based on a tolerance study, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the use of Nimicoat® in feed for weaned piglet at the maximum recommended dose of 1,000 mg/kg feed is safe for the target animal; however, a precise figure for the margin of safety cannot be defined. Nimicoat® used in feed for weaned piglets at the maximum recommended concentration does not pose a safety concern for consumers. The additive is corrosive to eyes, skin and the respiratory mucosae. Concerning safety for the environment a Phase II was required; taking into consideration the data provided, the FEEDAP Panel concluded that the additive does not pose any risk to the terrestrial and aquatic compartments and that bioaccumulation potential for carvacrol is low and risk for secondary poisoning for worm/fish eating birds and mammals is not likely to occur. Only one study positively supporting efficacy of the additive was available therefore, the FEEDAP Panel is not in a position to conclude on the efficacy of Nimicoat®.

The additive (trade name Biomin®DC-P) is a blend of five individual compounds (carvacrol, thymol, d-carvone, methyl salicylate and l-menthol) encapsulated with a hydrogenated vegetable oil. The additive is intended for use in feed for various poultry species at a minimum concentration of 65mg/kg complete feed and a recommended maximum level of 105mg/kg complete feed. The results of a tolerance study show that Biomin® DC-P is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum recommended application rate of 105 mg/kg complete feed; this conclusion is extended to include chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to minor poultry species The active components of a previously evaluated additive (Biomin®DC-C) were shown to be not genotoxic; owing to the similarity on composition, this conclusion can be also applied to Biomin®DC-P. Notwithstanding the uncertainties identified in the residue study, after applying a worst-case scenario to calculate potential exposure of consumers to menthol and carvone, and since that the components of the additive are considered safe for their use as food and feed flavourings, the FEEDAP Panelconcludes that the use of the additive in animal nutrition is considered safe for consumers. The FEEDAP Panelconsidered that exposure of users by inhalation is unlikely, but cannot conclude on the effects of Biomin®DC-P on skin and eyes. The use of Biomin®DC-P is not expected to pose a risk for the environment. Biomin®DC-P has a potential to increase the growth performance of chickens for fattening when incorporated into feed at a minimum application rate of 65mg/kg complete feed; the conclusion can be extended to chickens reared for laying and extrapolated to minor poultry species reared up to the point of lay.

The Panelon Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of VevoVitall® (benzoic acid) as a zootechnical feed additive for pigs for fattening. The additive is currently authorised for pigs for fattening with the effect of ‘urinary pH decrease’ at the minimum and maximum use of 5,000 and 10,000mg/kg complete feed, respectively. The current application intends to support the use of the additive with the specific effect of ‘improvement of performance parameters’ at the minimum dose of 3,000mg additive/kg complete feed, and keeping the same other conditions as for the use already authorised. The FEEDAP Panelassessed already the safety of the product when used in pigs for fattening in 2007 and 2017. The Panelconfirms its former assessments that VevoVitall® used as a feed additive in pigs for fattening at the maximum level of 10,000mg/kg is considered as safe for pigs for fattening, consumers of food derived from pigs fed the additive and the environment. VevoVitall® does not pose a risk by inhalation to users and is not a skin sensitiser but is a skin irritant and a severe eye irritant. Based on the results of three efficacy studies, the FEEDAP Panelconcluded that VevoVitall® has the potential to increase the performance in pigs for fattening at the level of 3,000mg/kg complete feed.

The additive (trade name Biomin ® DC-C) is a blend of essential oils from oregano (Origanumvulgare L.) and from caraway seed (Carumcarvi L.) and three individual compounds (carvacrol, methyl salicylate and l-menthol) encapsulated with a hydrogenated vegetable oil. The additive is intended for use in feed for weaned piglets at a minimum concentration of 75mg/kg complete feed and a recommended maximum level of 125mg/kg complete feed. A tolerance test in which piglets were exposed to feed containing up to an intended 1,250mg additive/kg complete feed showed that additive is safe for piglets at the maximum recommended level with at least a sixfold margin of safety. The active components of the additive are not genotoxic and from the available residue study, based on the detection of five marker compounds, no measurable exposure of the consumers is foreseen; consequently, the use of the additive is considered safe for consumers of animal products. The FEEDAP Panelconsidered that exposure to users by inhalation is unlikely; in the absence of data, the Panelcannot conclude on the effects of Biomin ® DC-C on skin and eyes. The use of the additive in animal production is not expected to pose a risk for the terrestrial or aquatic environments. Based on the results of three efficacy studies in which positive benefits were seen, the additive has a potential to improve the growth performance of weaned piglets at a minimum application rate of 75mg/kg complete feed.

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 efficacy of a preparation of algae interspaced bentonite when used as aflatoxin B1 (AfB1) binder for all animal species; the additive is composed of bentonite feed grade and algae belonging to Ulva spp. The European Commission request follows an opinion of the FEEDAP Panel published in 2016; in that opinion, the FEEDAP Panel could not conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The applicant has submitted additional information to allow the FEEDAP Panel to complete its assessment; these additional data, related to the efficacy of the additive, are the subject of this opinion. In the efficacy study provided, the use of the additive reduced the AfM1 in milk, although this effect seemed to be not consistent over time; this study presented some weaknesses and limitations (incomplete data analysis, reporting and lack of determination of the active substance of the additive in feed) which do not allow the FEEDAP Panel to draw any conclusion on the efficacy of the additive. Due to insufficient evidence, the FEEDAP Panel cannot conclude on the efficacy of the algae interspaced bentonite as a technological feed additive for all animal species.

Fumonisin esterase produced from a genetically modified strain of Komagataellaphaffi is intended to degrade fumonisin mycotoxins contaminants in feeds for pigs and poultry. The production strain and its recombinant genes are not present in the final product. The applicant selected 300U/kg feed to represent a likely upper limit. This concentration showed to be safe for piglets, chickens and turkeys for fattening and laying hens; the additive is thus safe for those categories. This conclusion is extended to all pigs, chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding and extrapolated to all other poultry species for growing and laying and to minor porcine species. No evidence of mutagenicity or genotoxicity was detected and no evidence of toxicity from a repeated-dose oral toxicity study; the residue assessment did not identify any concern. The use of the additive is, thus, considered safe for consumers. The additive is not toxic by inhalation and the respiratory exposure is likely to be low; however, a risk of sensitisation via the respiratory route cannot be excluded. The additive is non-irritant to skin and eyes and is not considered a dermal sensitiser. No risks for the environment are expected following the use of the additive in feeds under the proposed condition of use. The additive has the capacity to degrade fumonisin contaminants in feed of marketable quality when used at the minimum recommended dose of 10U/kg complete feed, as shown in studies with chickens for fattening, laying hens and weaned piglets. Since the mode of action of the additive can be reasonably assumed to be the same in animal species for which the application is made, the Panelon Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) considers the additive efficacious for all poultry and all pigs.

l-Glutamic acid, N,N-diacetic acid, tetrasodium salt (GLDA-Na 4 ) (Kelforce ® ) is sought to be used as a zootechnical feed additive in chickens for fattening to improve the absorption of zinc from feed, reducing zinc emissions through manure and thus, affecting favourably the environment. The product has not been authorised in the European Union as a feed additive. Kelforce ® is intended to be marketed as a liquid and solid formulation, containing ≥47% and ≥30% of GLDA-Na 4 , respectively. Kelforce ® is safe for chickens for fattening at the maximum level of 1,000mg GLDA-Na 4 /kg complete feed. Based on the toxicological profile of GLDA-Na 4 and the consumer exposure to GLDA-Na 4 and to nitrilotriacetic acid trisodium salt (NTA-Na 3 ; an impurity of the additive), the use of Kelforce ® at the maximum proposed level in feed of chickens for fattening is of no concern for consumer safety. Due to its low inhalation toxicity, the exposure to GLDA-Na 4 is unlikely to pose a risk by inhalation. However, owing to the high-dusting potential of the solid formulation, a risk from such high level of dust, even if toxicologically inert, cannot be excluded. Kelforce ® is not a skin/eye irritant or skin sensitiser. No risks for the terrestrial compartment were identified at the maximum use level of the additive. Risks for the aquatic compartment cannot be excluded based on the secondary effect of the additive on green algae. In the absence of data, the Panelcannot conclude on the safety for the sediment compartment or the possible ground water contamination. The risk of bioaccumulation and secondary poisoning caused by the additive is considered very low. Owing to the inconsistent and conflicting results from the studies assessed, the Panelon Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) cannot conclude on the efficacy of the additive. The Panelmade a recommendation regarding the levels of formaldehyde and cyanide in the active substance.

The Panelon Additives and Products or Substances used in Animal Feed (FEEDAP) was asked by the European Commission to deliver a scientific opinion on the safety and efficacy of benzoic acid as feed flavouring for piglets (suckling, weaned), pigs for fattening, sows (for reproduction, in order to have benefit in piglets), minor porcine species, chickens (for fattening, reared for laying), hens (laying, breeding), turkeys (for fattening, for breeding purposes, reared for breeding) and minor poultry species. Benzoic acid is safe for weaned piglets at 2,500mg/kg feed, and for laying hens, turkeys and chickens for fattening at 500mg/kg feed; no conclusions could be drawn for suckling piglets and sows. The conclusions on weaned piglets can be extended to pigs for fattening and extrapolated to growing minor porcine species. The conclusions on chickens/turkeys for fattening can be extended to chickens reared for laying and turkeys reared for breeding and extrapolated to minor poultry species up to the point of lay. In the absence of safety margin in laying hens, no conclusions can be reached for minor poultry species for laying/breeding. The use of the additive is not expected to pose a risk to consumer, considering that the additive is rapidly metabolised with very low deposition, if any, in edible tissues of pigs and poultry and that foods of animal origin provide a very minor contribution, if any, to the overall dietary intake of benzoic acid. Owing to the unlikelihood of exposure, no risk to users upon inhalation of the additive is expected; the additive is not a skin sensitiser, but is a skin/ eye irritant. The proposed use of the additive does not pose environmental risks. Benzoic acid is authorised as food flavouring and its function in feed is essentially the same; no further demonstration of efficacy is necessary.